How to increase employee performance?
Assessing the influence of leadership on feelings of pride and
hubris in employees
Britt van Ballekom
5876079
Amsterdam, July 28, 2013
Thesis seminar Business studies Supervisor: D.N. den Hartog Academic year: 2012-2013 Semester 2, Block 3
Abstract
Employee performance is an important requirement for organizational performance. Nowadays, leaders can have a great influence on employee performance by leading their employees in a particular way. Therefore, this study examines the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on pride and hubris in employees. Furthermore, the effects of pride and hubris on employee performance are tested and discussed. Finally, the mediating effect of pride on the relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance is discussed. In order to examine this topic, a questionnaire-based survey is distributed among 102 dyads of Dutch employers and their employees. The results show a positive influence of transactional leadership on hubris as well as a positive effect of transformational leadership on pride. Also, a direct positive influence of transformational leadership on employee performance was found. No significant effects of pride and hubris on employee performance could be drawn from the data. This is a good starting point for future research, since the existing literature did find support for this relationship.
Contents
Abstract ...2 1. Introduction ...5 2. Literature review ...8 2.1 Transactional Leadership ...8 2.2 Transformational Leadership ...102.3 Pride & Hubris ...11
3. Conceptual Framework ...14
3.1 Relationship between Transactional Leadership and Pride ...14
3.2 Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Hubris ...15
3.3 Relationship between Transactional Leadership and Pride ...17
3.4 Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Hubris ...19
3.5 Relationship between Pride and Performance ...20
3.6 Relationship between Hubris and Performance ...21
4. Methodology...23 4.1 Research design ...23 4.2 Sample ...24 4.3 Data collection ...25 4.4 Measurements ...27 4.4.1 Transactional Leadership ...27 4.4.2 Transformational Leadership ...27 4.4.3 Pride ...28 4.4.4 Hubris ...28 4.4.5 Performance ...28 4.5 Analyses ...29 5. Results ...30 5.1 Descriptive statistics ...30 5.2 Reliability ...31 5.3 Correlations ...32 5.4 Regression analyses ...32
5.4.1 Main effects of Transactional and Transformational Leadership on Pride ...33
5.4.2 Main effects of Transactional and Transformational Leadership on Hubris ...33
5.4.3 Main effects of Pride and Hubris on Employee Performance ...34
5.4.4 Mediating effect of Pride ...35 3
6. Discussion ...37
6.1 Relationships between Leadership, Pride & Hubris, and Employee Performance ...37
6.1.1 Relationship between Transactional Leadership and Pride ...37
6.1.2 Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Pride ...38
6.1.3 Relationship between Transactional Leadership and Hubris ...39
6.1.4 Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Hubris ...39
6.1.5 Relationship between Pride and Hubris, and Employee Performance ...40
6.1.6 Mediating effect of Pride ...41
6.2 Managerial implications ...41
6.3 Theoretical implications ...42
6.4 Limitations and suggestions for future research ...43
7. Conclusion ...45
References ...46
1. Introduction
Highly motivated and committed employees are an important asset for companies. To
encourage personnel to perform beyond expectations, organizations attempt to instill pride in their employees, because pride functions as a resource, motivating employees and enhancing their goal attainment (Verbeke, Belschak, & Bagozzi, 2004). Hubris in employees, on the other hand, is generally considered to be undesirable (Petit & Bollaert, 2011). Hubris, or hubristic pride as Wubben et al. (2012) call it, can be described as a form of arrogance and overconfidence and is related to narcissism rather than to genuine self-esteem. Academic research has noted that feelings of pride in employees lead to positive, for the company desirable consequences whereas feelings of hubris often lead to negative, undesirable outcomes for the organization. Therefore, organizations have the important task to manage pride and hubris in their employees (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997).
To enhance pride, organizations need a form of leadership that interacts with their employees and motivates them to perform beyond expectations, without having the negative effects of hubris. Leadership has been an important topic in the social sciences for many decades (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). Two forms of leadership and their relationship with the experience of pride and hubris are examined in this thesis, namely transformational leadership and transactional leadership. It is important to see the differences between these two leadership styles.
Leaders using the transactional approach are not looking to change the future, they are looking to merely keep things the same. Transactional leaders pay attention to followers' work in order to find faults and deviations. They set goals and articulate explicit agreements
regarding what the leader expects from organizational members (Vera & Crossan, 2004). Transactional leadership theories are all founded on the idea that leader-follower relations are based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains between leaders and followers (Den
Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). Transactional leaders influence followers by controlling their behaviors, rewarding agreed-upon behaviors, and eliminating performance problems by using corrective transactions between leader and followers. Transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the project and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them and makes them interested; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that enhance their performance (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Transformational leaders encourage employees to be team players and encourage them to think of existing problems in new ways. They influence their followers by developing and communicating a collective vision and inspiring them to look beyond self-interests for the good of the team and organization (Groves & LaRocca, 2011). While the transactional leader motivates employees to perform as expected, the transformational leader typically inspires followers to do more than originally expected (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997).
The aim of this thesis is to examine how a transformational and a transactional leadership style are related to the experience of pride and hubris in employees. Previous research has focused on pride and hubris in relationship with different kinds of leadership, but not explicit enough on the influence of transformational and transactional leadership in this context. To examine this topic, a clear understanding of similarities and differences between the two leadership styles is needed. Also, it is important to look at the different aspects of transformational leadership and transactional leadership, and to examine which aspects trigger some form of pride or hubris in employees. Next to the research on the influence of these two leadership styles on pride and hubris, it is very interesting to examine what the consequences of pride and hubris are with regard to employee performance. If feelings of pride and hubris in
employees influence employee performance, it is important for leaders to take this into account with managing their employees. Managers could influence employee performance if they know which type of leadership motivates employees. Thus, finally, there will be
examined if pride mediates the effect between transformational leadership and improved performance.
2. Literature Review
In this section, the existing literature related to the research problem will be addressed in order to define the research topic more precisely. First the literature concerning
transformational leadership and transactional leadership will be discussed, including the similarities and differences between these two leadership styles. Then the definitions of pride and hubris will be provided and the consequences of pride and hubris will be explored. Also, there will be examined which aspects of the leadership styles trigger a form of pride or hubris, using the existing literature. Finally, a short conclusion is provided which emphasizes the need for this research.
2.1 Transactional leadership
Transactional leadership theories are all founded on the idea that leader-follower relations are based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains between leaders and followers (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). Burns (1978) defines two types of leadership in his book Leadership: transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership, also known as managerial leadership, occurs when one person takes the initiative in making
contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of something valued; that is, "leaders approach followers with an eye toward exchanging" (p. 4). By this he means that transactional leadership represents those exchanges in which both the superior and the subordinate
influence one another reciprocally, so that they both receive something of value. More simple; transactional leaders give followers something that they want, in exchange for something that the leaders want (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). In this way, transactional leadership can be described as the exchange of valued outcomes.
However, earlier research argues that not all exchanges are equivalent, and that two ‘levels’ of transactions can be distinguished. Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) describe the first
level as transactions that are based on the leaders’ knowledge of the actions subordinates must take to achieve desired personal outcomes. In these exchanges, transactional leaders clarify the roles followers must play and the task requirements followers must complete in order to reach their personal goals while fulfilling the mission of the organization. These exchanges are most common in an organization and are referred to as lower-order transactions.
A less common form of transactions are commitments or promises that are based on exchangeable values such as respect or trust. Burns (1978) refers to these values as modal values. Modal values connect the leader and the follower in an attempt to fulfil the needs of both parties. These higher-order transactions rely on the exchange of nonconcrete rewards to maintain followers’ performance.
Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982) also distinguish between two levels of transactions. They define Burns’ (1978) and Bass’ (1985) lower- and higher-order transactions respectively as low-quality and high-quality exchanges. Employees who engage in relationships that involve support and the exchange of emotional resources (high-quality) are less likely to leave an organisation than employees who engage in relationships that involve contractually agreed upon elements such as eight hours of work for eight hours of pay (low-quality) (Graen et al., 1982).
Bono and Judge (2004) state that transactional leadership behaviors are aimed at monitoring and controlling employees through rational or economic means. They describe three dimensions of transactional leadership. The first one is contingent reward: leadership behaviors that are focused on the exchange of resources. That is, leaders provide tangible or intangible support and resources to followers in exchange for their efforts and performance. The second transactional leadership behavior is management by exception-active. This behavior refers to monitoring performance and taking corrective action as necessary. With this transactional behavior, the emphasis is on setting standards and monitoring deviations
from this standards. Finally, Bono and Judge (2004) include laissez-faire under the
transactional leadership label. This kind of behavior can be described as nonleadership or the avoidance of leadership responsibilities.
2.2 Transformational Leadership
Both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) state that transformational leadership originates in the personal values and beliefs of leaders, not in an exchange of commodities between leaders and followers. Transformational leaders influence their followers by developing and communicating a collective vision and inspiring them to look beyond self-interests for the good of the team and organization (Groves & LaRocca, 2011). While the transactional leader motivates subordinates to perform as expected, the transformational leader typically inspires followers to do more than originally expected. Transformational leadership theories predict followers’ emotional attachment to the leader and emotional and motivational arousal of followers as a consequence of the leader’s behavior (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997).
Nederveen Pieterse et al. (2010) describe transformational leadership as a positive addition to transactional leadership. Transformational leaders are more innovative, have more novel ideas, and can bring about major changes. Transformational leaders are proposed to stimulate follower innovative behavior through expressing an inspiring vision, stimulating followers to question the status quo, and allowing individual development and growth.
Bass (1998) developed a model of transformational leadership, which includes five leadership dimensions: idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Leaders who demonstrate idealized attributes and idealized behaviors earn credit and respect from their followers by carefully considering their followers’ needs above their own needs, talking about their most important
values and beliefs, and emphasizing the importance of the moral and ethical consequences of key decisions. Groves and LaRocca (2011) describe the first two dimensions as idealized influence. They state that this dimension refers to leaders who have high moral and ethical standards, who are held in high personal regard, and who engender loyalty from followers. The third transformational leadership behavior, inspirational motivation, refers to leaders with a strong vision for the future based on values and ideals. Leader behaviors falling into
this dimension include stimulating enthusiasm, building confidence, and inspiring followers using symbolic actions and persuasive language. The idealized influence and inspirational motivation dimensions are highly correlated and are sometimes combined to form a measure of charisma (Bass, 1998, p. 5). The fourth dimension is intellectual stimulation. Groves and LaRocca (2011) define this dimension as behaviors that encourage followers to develop innovative strategies and to be creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old problems in new ways. Followers are encouraged to think divergent, and to challenge the status quo. Finally, individualized consideration involves leader behaviors that emphasize paying close attention to followers’ individual needs for achievement and growth. This also includes teaching, coaching and consulting with the followers.
2.3 Pride and Hubris
Few emotions have been discussed so extensively as pride and it can be described in many different ways. Earlier research shows that this emotion often carries two common meanings: a positive meaning and a negative meaning. Philosophers have described pride as ‘pleasure arising from a man’s thinking too highly of himself’ (Spinoza, 1677/2006, p. 130), but also as ‘crown of the virtues’ (Aristotle, trans. 2008, p. 116). The positive side of pride refers to a satisfied sense of attachment toward one's own or another's choices and actions, or toward a whole group of people, and is a product of praise, independent self-reflection, or a fulfilled
feeling of belonging. The negative side of pride is often called hubris, and refersto an inflated sense of one's personal status or accomplishments. At times, pride induces overconfidence and leads to displays of conceit, and egoistic behaviors. It becomes clear that pride-related words form two distinct clusters, one containing words such as ‘confident’ and ‘successful’, the other ‘conceited’ and ‘arrogant’. Wubben et al. (2012) label the positive, more social type of pride authentic pride, and the latter, more antisocial type hubristic pride. In this research these two types of pride will be referred to as pride and hubris.
Pride and hubris are both considered to be self-conscious emotions, meaning that their elicitation requires an evaluation of oneself in relation to a specific event. This event must be perceived as reflecting positively upon the self and as being caused at least partly by oneself (Lewis, 2008). Wubben et al (2012) studied whether pride and hubris can be considered prosocial emotions, by examining if proud targets themselves behave prosocially
(intrapersonal effects), and if others perceive targets as prosocial and treat them likewise. Self-conscious emotions, like shame, pride, or guilt, emerge when a person as an active agent becomes conscious of his or her categorical or social self. This means that a person engages in a process of self-reflection and self-evaluation (Verbeke et al., 2004). Pride especially emerges when a person reaches or exceeds social standards or expectations. A person may adopt such standards from people surrounding them, like friends or family, and makes those standards his or her own. Simultaneously, people significant to the person will also be able to instill pride by providing feedback when a specific action has met their
standards or expectations. These social cues have an effect on people’s reputation concerning how well they accomplish their goals within their social setting. This means that a person self-evaluates his or her social self, which results in a new self-categorization and brings pride into consideration. Verbeke et al. (2004) argue that such self-categorization is an ever-continuing dynamic process that only ends as one leaves the organization. Pride is a consequence of
emotional appraisal processes where particular positive self-evaluations of performance result in the typical appraisal pattern for pride.
Kerfoot (2010) describes hubris as arrogance and excessive pride. She states that confidence is essential for good leadership, but confidence is not hubris. Unfortunately, pride can easily change in overconfidence, and finally result in hubris. Kerfoot (2010) argues that hubris can sometimes start to develop once people become successful. They get into the rush of activity, thrive on the challenges, and their confidence rises to the level of arrogance. As success happens, leaders often become more isolated and their network changes. This is a result of the increasing workload and the stress that comes with it. A consequence of the isolation of leaders, is that they become more indifferent towards feedback. When it appears leaders are listening, they are often filtering the information through past experience and are not truly able to absorb new thoughts, models, and solutions that are proposed by employees. Also, the leader’s perception of his or her abilities can become different than reality. This can easily lead to overconfidence and may end up in hubris.
3. Conceptual framework
After having explored current research in the previous section, this section will define the conceptual framework on which the research is based. First, the expectations about the relationship between transactional leadership and pride and hubris will be stated. Then the hypotheses regarding transformational leadership and pride and hubris will be discussed. Finally, the hypotheses regarding the consequences of pride and hubris in employees will be stated.
3.1 Relationship between Transactional Leadership and Pride
In earlier research little attention has been paid to the direct relationship between transactional leadership and pride and hubris. In order to state hypotheses about this relationship, emotions or behaviors related to pride and hubris that earlier research examined in combination with transactional leadership, are elaborated in this section. Attention will be paid to constructs that are potentially related to pride and hubris, such as job satisfaction, creativity, and innovative behaviors.
Nederveen Pieterse et al. (2010) argue that transactional leadership is negatively related to innovative behavior because it is focused more on in-role performance and less on the stimulation of novel activities. As stated earlier, all transactional leadership theories are founded on the idea that leader-follower relations are based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains between leaders and followers (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). Nederveen Pieterse et al. (2010) explain that transactional leadership clarifies expectations and gives feedback about meeting these expectations, which will give an indication of the leader’s preferences. The perception of these leader preferences is likely to have some influence on the followers, diverting them from their own innovative undertakings. Moreover, transactional leadership may be perceived as controlling and
demotivating, causing less innovative behavior. This innovative behavior can be argued to result in improved employee performance. Followers become confident about their
achievements and get positive feedback about their performance in the organization. The self-confidence and positive feedback may lead to a feeling of pride in employees. Therefore, it can be argued that transactional leadership has a negative influence on pride in employees.
Ryan and Tipu (2013) also examine transactional leadership in relation to innovative behavior. They explain that transactional leaders prefer to monitor actively the performance of followers due to the performance basis of contingent rewards. This results in a high degree of structure and regulation that is not necessarily supportive of innovative behavior in the organization. Next to that, Ryan and Tipu (2013) argue that the transactional leadership style impedes creativity and can negatively influence employee job satisfaction. We therefore also expect such leadership to diminish other positive affective variables such as pride.
More research supporting this expectation comes from Groves and LaRocca (2011). They define transactional leadership as leadership that supports the status quo through mutual leader and follower self-interests. Transactional leaders rely on the power, rewards, and sanctions of their official position to influence followers to demonstrate the required performance. Such leaders serve their own personal interests by getting their followers to exhibit requested behaviors. There is little room for employees to innovate, and to perform beyond expectations. Consequently, followers have less pride in doing their jobs, because they simply do what is asked of them. Thus, we expect:
Hypothesis 1: Transactional leadership decreases the feeling of pride in employees.
3.2 Relationship between Transactional Leadership and Hubris
Kanungo (2009) explains that transactional leadership is based on utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a theory, holding that the proper course of action is the one that
maximizes utility. Leaders develop these utilitarian motives as a result of their past experience, training, and other forms of socialization. Kanungo (2009) states that
transactional leaders use the power of their position, and rewards and sanctions under their control, to get followers to perform the required behaviour and demonstrate the desired commitment and loyalty. Transactional leaders attain their personal goals by making
followers carry out the same behaviors and attitudes as themselves. Followers make sure that they satisfy the expectations of the leader, so that possible sanctions are avoided and that they gain valued rewards.
Kanungo (2009) describes two ethic norms of which one is related to transactional leadership; the norm of reciprocity. The norm of reciprocity forms the basis of a utilitarian motive and reflects the resource exchange strategy of the transactional leader. The
reciprocity norm dictates that we do good to others who do good to us. Kanungo (2009) also explains the difference between an allocentric self-concept and an idiocentric self-concept. The transactional leadership style tends to be more idiocentric. Idiocentric transactional leaders are mainly concerned with protectingtheir personal interests as individuals (self-centric), whereas the allocentric orientation of the transformational leader is primarily concerned with protecting the interests of the group.
Transactional leaders put high value on the independence of their followers, rather than on the interaction and interdependence within a team of followers. This form of leadership is expected to result in feelings of egoism and arrogance in employees. This is because leaders focus on the independent performance of their employees. Arrogance and egoism are constructs that have been frequently examined and are related to hubris (Kerfoot, 2010; Wubben et al., 2012; Petit & Bollaert, 2011). We thus expect transactional leadership to be positively related to hubris.
More research supporting this comes from Bono and Judge (2004). From their meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership it becomes clear that a transactional leader is primarily focused on the effort and performance of individual employees. Employees try to achieve the goals that are set by their leader, knowing that sanctions will be the
consequence if they do not meet the leader’s expectations. Therefore, it is likely that
employees will do everything to satisfy their leaders and receive rewards for attaining the set goals. The individualistic view of the leader can result in feelings of arrogance and egoism in employees. We thus expect:
Hypothesis 2: Transactional leadership increases the feeling of hubris in employees
3.3 Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Pride
Transformational leaders influence their followers by developing and communicating a collective vision and inspiring them to look beyond self-interests for the good of the team and organization (Groves & LaRocca, 2011). In contrast to the monitoring and controlling
characteristics of transactional leadership, transformational leadership is aimed at inspiring and motivating employees in order to let them rise above original expectations. Groves and LaRocca (2011) argue that the transformational influence process is predicated on the norm of social responsibility, which is ‘‘an internalized belief of a moral obligation to help others without any consideration of an expected personal benefit’’ (Kanungo, 2009).
Nederveen Pieterse et al. (2010) describe Bass’ (1998) five earlier stated dimensions of transformational leadership in relationship with innovative behavior. Transformational leadership is a higher-order construct comprising several components. The component
idealized influence entails serving as a role model and sacrificing self-gain for collective gain, thereby stimulating followers to do the same. This is in contrast to transactional leadership, where individual gain of both the leader and the follower are priority. Inspirational motivation
involves the leader’s expression of an energizing vision, including the motivation of
followers. The fourth dimension is intellectual stimulation and is expressed by encouraging followers to question the status quo. The final component, individualized consideration, entails providing support for the individual development needs of followers.
As discussed in the previous section, Kanungo (2009) describes two different kinds of concept: the allocentric concept and the idiocentric concept. The allocentric self-concept relates to the transformational leader because he or she defines the self in terms of relating to others, and considers group goals, group achievement, cooperation, endurance, and self-control to be more important than individual achievements. The self is viewed more as an extended or embedded self by identifying it as linked to a collectivity such as a family, a community, or an organization (Kanungo, 2009). This is in contrast to the idiocentric self-concept of transactional leaders, who are mainly concerned with protectingtheir personal interests as individuals. The achievement of group goals, and being a part of a team that is inspired by their leader is expected to have a positive influence on pride in employees.
Innovation is central to the transformational leadership style. Bass (1985) theorized that transformational leaders, in contrast to transactional leaders, are more innovative, have more novel ideas, and can bring about major changes. Followers that are motivated to perform beyond expectations, and are inspired to come up with novel and innovative ideas, will
consequently have more pride in doing their jobs. There is room for followers to express their thoughts and ideas, and they are even stimulated to execute those ideas. This results in a feeling of self-confidence and mutual respect, that enhances individual development and growth (Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2010). As stated earlier, this self-confidence and positive feedback of transformational leaders may lead to a feeling of accomplishment and pride in employees. We expect:
Hypothesis 3: Transformational leadership increases the feeling of pride in employees.
3.4 Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Hubris
Transformational leaders influence their followers by developing and communicating a collective vision and inspiring them to look beyond self-interests for the good of the team and organization (Groves and LaRocca, 2011). It is about challenging the status quo and
motivating employees to do more than is originally expected of them. Transformational leadership is concerned with team achievements and group goals, instead of individual performance.
As discussed, Kanungo (2009) describes the allocentric and the idiocentric self-concept. The allocentric self-concept relates to transformational leaders because they
emphasize the importance of the self in terms of relating to others, and consider group goals, group achievement, cooperation, endurance, and self-control to be more important than individual performance. The self is seen as a part of a bigger group, such as a family, an organization, or a nation. Transformational leaders encourage employees to be team players and motivate them to work together for the same goal.
It can be argued that this focus on group performance and team achievements results in a reduced feeling of egoism and arrogance, and thus in a reduced feeling of hubris in employees. Transformational leaders act as a role model and sacrifice self-gain for collective gain, which inspires followers to do the same. Because transformational leadership is
concerned with the bigger picture of the whole organization instead of individual
performance, employees will therefore be less focused on themselves and so be less egoistic and arrogant. We thus expect a negative relationship between transformational leadership and hubris:
Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership decreases the feeling of hubris in employees.
3.5 Relationship between Pride and Performance
Pride and hubris are powerful motivators of human behavior (Lewis, 2008). In this section, the relationship between pride and performance will be discussed.
Wubben et al. (2012) examine in their research whether pride is a prosocial emotion or not. They make a distinction between authentic pride and hubristic pride. Authentic pride is discussed in this research as ‘pride’, and hubristic pride as ‘hubris’. Wubben et al. (2012) and Verbeke et al. (2004) describe pride as a prosocial emotion because it fosters acquirement of skills, genuine self-esteem and perseverance at difficult tasks. Pride correlates positively with the generally prosocial personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness. This positive influence of pride on prosocial personality traits is expected to result in improved teamwork and group performance.
Verbeke et al. (2004) also conclude that pride has a positive influence on performance. They argue that leaders attempt to instill pride in their employees, because pride functions as a resource, motivating employees and enhancing their goal attainment. Pride is a positive and prosocial emotion and works as a positive reinforcement for behaviors, thus stimulating continued action.
Furthermore, Fredrickson and Branigan (2005) introduce their broaden-and-build theory which states that negative emotions narrow individuals’ momentary thought-action repertoires, and that positive emotions broaden individuals’ momentary thought-action repertoires, motivating them to pursue a wider range of thoughts and actions than is typical. They also conclude that positive emotions, such as pride, joy, and contentment, increase optimism. Such motivational constructs are the foundation for self-efficacy of employees, and stimulate employees to work hard and sustain effort.
We thus expect a positive relationship between pride and performance:
Hypothesis 5a: Employee pride results in improved employee performance.
As discussed in the previous sections it becomes clear from the existing literature that a positive influence of transformational leadership on pride, and a positive relationship of pride on performance can be expected. Furthermore, earlier research also found a positive direct effect of transformational leadership on employee performance (Groves & LaRocca, 2011; Kanungo, 2009; Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2010) It is interesting to examine whether this positive effect can be explained, or partly explained, by the effect that transformational leaders have on feelings of pride in employees. Therefore, we will examine the potentially mediating effect of pride on the relationship between transformational leadership and
improved employee performance. By considering a potentially mediating role of pride, there will be examined if transformational leadership can positively influence employee
performance by increasing the feelings of pride in employees. We expect:
Hypothesis 5b: Pride has a mediating effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and improved employee performance.
3.6 Relationship between Hubris and Performance
Wubben et al. (2012) argue that hubris, compared to pride, is more loosely connected to specific actual achievements. More importantly, they state that people with feelings of hubris are tied more strongly to attributions of personal excellence than to one’s actual
accomplishments. Hubris motivates narcissists’ ongoing, self-enhancing quest for status, dominance and admiration, which often results in uncaring, exploitative behaviors toward others. Wubben et al. (2012) associate hubris with antisocial behaviors such as narcissistic aggression, greed, hostility, abuse, and manipulation of others. This will lead to deteriorated performance and unmet team goals.
Verbeke et al. (2004) argue that hubris leads to displays of conceit and egoistic
behaviors, which in turn threaten one’s social capital and one’s performance. Fredrickson and
Branigan (2005) add that negative emotions, such as hubris, narrow the scopes of attention, cognition, and action. With their broaden-and-build theory they explain that negative emotions result in specific action tendencies, such as attack and flee. These behaviors will have a negative influence on performance as well. We thus expect:
Hypothesis 6: Hubris in employees results in deteriorated employee performance.
4. Methodology
The sections before discussed existing literature related to the research problem and the conceptual framework, which shows the hypotheses of this research. The research design and method through which these hypotheses will be tested are discussed in this section. First the research design, a survey, will be discussed. This is followed by the sample used and last the measures used in the survey are discussed.
4.1 Research design
For this research a survey, more specifically a questionnaire-based survey, is used in order to collect the data needed to test the hypotheses that are discussed in the previous section. The survey strategy is considered best for this research, because it makes it easy to gather data from a large amount of people (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 144). In addition, the data collected using a survey strategy can be used to suggest possible reasons for particular relationships between variables. That is exactly what is needed for this research because the goal of this thesis is to examine how a transformational and a transactional leadership style are related to the experience of pride and hubris in employees. Also, the influence of pride and hubris on employee performance will be examined. In order to test this, quite a large sample of people with different characteristics is needed to provide reliable results. A survey makes it easier to reach a lot of people in a quick and affordable way (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 144). Besides that, the questions and statements must be standardised and consistent, so that every person gets the same questions, in order to compare the answers of different people and to make sure this comparison is reliable (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 373). This is also something a survey is very useful for (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 144)
Besides the advantages, the survey method also has some limitations. For example, there is a limit to the number of questions that any questionnaire can contain (Saunders et al.,
2009, pp. 144-145). If a questionnaire contains too much questions, there is a bigger chance that participants do not want to complete it. However, this limitation was taken into account during the design of the questionnaire and the amount of questions was set at a minimum. As a result, it was possible for the participants to complete the questionnaire within fifteen
minutes. Therefore, this limitation of the survey method will not be of great importance in this research. Another drawback is that with a questionnaire, there is only one chance to collect the data, therefore it must be done properly from the beginning (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 366). The questions cannot be adapted, as is the case with qualitative research. This is something that was well thought of during the design of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire is self-administered because the questions can be most quickly completed when people fill them in themselves, since most of them are items with ranking and scaling types of answering. Also, self-administration saves a lot of time in collecting the data.
Because the aim of the research is to examine the relationship between leaders and employee performance, two different questionnaires were designed. One questionnaire for the leader and one for the employee. To test the hypotheses, the two questionnaires are linked to each other in a way that employees answer questions about their employer and vice versa. Every set of a leader and his or her employee is given a code that links the questionnaires, so that a reliable analysis can be made about the stated hypotheses.
4.2 Sample
The focus of this study is on the relationship between leaders and their employees. Therefore, it was necessary to find sets of participants that consisted of a leader and his or her employee. The sample size was strived to be as large as possible, because the larger the sample size, the better the results can be generalized (Saunders et al., 2009, pp. 217-218). Time and money
constraints often form a limitation on the sample size. However, compared to previous studies in this field, the sample size of this research was somewhere in between (Verbeke et al., 2004; Wubben et al., 2012; Groves & LaRocca, 2011).
In order to make sure the sample is normally distributed a sample of at least 100 respondents is needed. Because the hypotheses are based on the combination of a leader and his or her employee, it was necessary to gather data from 100 leader-employee dyads. This means that at least 200 participants were needed. We strived however to reach a larger sample in order to generalize the research better. The final sample consisted of 115 dyads, of which 102 were fully completed by both the leader and the employee. Thus, the total of the
completed questionnaires was 204, and so the goal of reaching a larger sample than 200 participants was achieved.
4.3 Data collection
The data was gathered by six students of the University of Amsterdam, including myself. Each student is writing his or her bachelor thesis, and the research questions cover the same topics. We made sure that all variables that need to be examined in order to test the
hypotheses were included in the questionnaire. In this way, the chance of reaching many participants was increased and the process became less time consuming. In order to gather enough data and to reach a lot of potential participants, two methods were used to administer the questionnaire.
The first method is the internet-mediated method. The website www.qualtrics.com was used to develop the questionnaire, because it provides many options for different types of questions and it is easy to use for respondents. This method saved a lot of time, since the data did not have to be entered manually (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 365). Besides time, it saved money as well, because no printing costs were involved in the process (Wright, 2005).
Furthermore, the internet-mediated method makes it easy to reach people in different
geographical locations and it can reach a lot of respondents in a relatively short time. To ask for respondent’s participation, emails were sent with information about the research.
However, collecting data through the internet also had its disadvantages. This method can lead to a systematic bias because people engage in self-selection. In other words, they choose whether they want to participate or ignore the invitation (Wright, 2005). There were also participants that do not use the internet often or from whom the email address was unknown. Therefore, the second method used to gather data, is the paper and pencil
questionnaire. The same surveys that were used on the internet were printed out and handed over to the participants.
The questionnaire is written in the Dutch language, because potential participants in the personal networks of the students were assumed to be Dutch as well. Furthermore, because of a time constraint, the questionnaire needed to be distributed as soon as possible. Translating the questionnaire would result in lost time, and was expected not to be of great value to the study.
The layout was made attractive to make the questionnaire easy to process for the respondents. This is important to increase the response rate (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 387). Furthermore, a process element was included, which showed what part of the survey the participant had already completed. Wright (2005) argues that this is an important element for participants and that it motivates them to complete the survey. The questionnaire includes an introduction letter which explains the purpose of the survey and why the respondents opinion is important. The survey is closed with a short text in which the respondent is thanked for their contribution and provided an opportunity to contact me with any questions or comments on the survey. Also, participants have the opportunity to fill in their email address if they are interested in the outcome of the study.
4.4 Measurements
Here we measured transformational and transactional leadership, feelings of pride and hubris, and employee performance. As discussed earlier, the data is collected by six students that are writing their thesis about the same topic. Because the hypotheses of the six studies differ from each other, more variables than needed for this research had to be included in the
questionnaire. Only the variables that need to be tested for this study will be discussed in this section. First, transactional leadership will be discussed, followed by transformational
leadership. After that, the measurement of pride and hubris will be described. Finally, the performance measure will be discussed.
4.4.1 Transactional leadership
In order to test the hypotheses concerning transactional leadership, eight items of this leadership style are included in the survey for the employee. Responses for these items were given on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’ to 7 = ‘completely agree’). The development of the eight transactional leadership items is based on the measures used by Bass and Avolio (1989). An example item is: ‘My executive tells me what to do, in order to receive a reward for my efforts’.
4.4.2 Transformational leadership
The second leadership style examined in this study is the transformational leadership style. This variable is measured with eleven items in the employee survey, and responses were also given on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’ to 7 = ‘completely agree’). The transformational leadership items are based on the items used by De Hoogh, Den Hartog, and Koopman (2004). An example item from the questionnaire is: ‘My executive stimulates employees to think about problems in a new way’.
4.4.3 Pride
The third variable is pride, and is included in the questionnaire of the employee in two different ways. First, respondents are given seven key words related to pride and are asked if they ever feel this way. Again, respondents answered the questions on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘never’ to 7 = ‘always’). The development of these seven pride items is based on the measures used by Tracy and Robins (2007). An example item: ‘Do you ever feel talented?’.
The questionnaire also includes pride in organizations, a measure based on the research of Tyler and Blader (2002). This measure consists of four items and responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘completely disagree’ to 7 = ‘completely agree’). An example item of this measure is: ‘I am proud to work for this organisation’. These two measures in the questionnaire are combined to one measure of pride for this research.
4.4.4 Hubris
Hubris in employees is also measured by presenting related key words to the respondents of the employee questionnaire. Respondents are asked if they ever feel this way and answer the question on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘never’ to 7 = ‘always’). The development of these nine hubris items is based on the measures used by Tracy and Robins (2007). An example item is: ‘Do you ever feel like you are better than others?’.
4.4.5 Performance
Performance of employees is measured by including four performance evaluation items in the questionnaire of the leader. The leader compares the performance of his or her employee with the performance of other co-workers, and answers on a 10-point scale (1 = ‘bottom 10%’ to 10 = ‘top 10%’). This measure is based on the research of Nadler, Ellis, and Bar (2003). An
example item of the performance measure is: ‘Think back to the last evaluation moment of your employee and indicate how your employee is evaluated compared to others, with regard to the quality of his or her work’.
4.5 Analyses
The data is analysed by using a regression analysis in the program SPSS. Four models will be presented:
1. Main effects Independent influence of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on employee performance.
2. Main effects Independent influence of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on feelings of pride and hubris in employees.
3. Main effects Independent influence of feelings of pride and hubris in employees on employee performance.
4. Mediating effect Mediating effect of pride on the relationship between transformational leadership and improved employee performance.
5. Results
The previous section discussed the design, measurements, and analyses of the research. The results of that research will be provided in this section. First, some descriptive statistics will be discussed. After that, the reliability of scales is shown by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha. Finally, the hypotheses will be tested using linear regressions.
5.1 Descriptive statistics
In order to get an idea and overview of the sample, this section presents the characteristics of the sample used and provides a description of the data collected.
Sample characteristics
As discussed earlier, the questionnaire needed to be completed by leaders as well as their employees. The questionnaire was completed by 114 employees, and by 103 leaders. This resulted in 102 completed dyads. The survey has been completed by 109 (53.4%) male and 95 (46.6%) female respondents. Of the employees, 45 participants are male (44.1%), and 57 are female (55.9%). The leader sample consisted of 64 males (62,7%) and 38 females (37.3%). The average age of the employees is 37.2 (SD = 13.01), and the average age of the leaders is 43.9 (SD = 11.42). The average age of the total 204 participants is 40.6 (SD = 10.38). The minimum age of the employees is 20, and the maximum age is 64. The minimum age of the leaders is 21, and the maximum age is 64 as well.
There are five educational level options in the questionnaire which resulted in the following information about the employees: 7.8% = College; 22.5% = MBO; 34.3% = HBO; 32.4% = University; 2.9% = Other. The leaders are divided in the educational levels as follows: 1.0% = College; 11.8% = MBO; 49.4% = HBO; 35.3% = University; 2.9% = Other.
The participants were approached by the students. There was a time limit for gathering
the data, which resulted in the fact that most students found participants in their circle of acquaintances or family.
5.2 Reliability
To be able to analyse the data, variables were created that are based on the items derived from the questionnaire. In order to make sure that these new variables are reliable, Cronbach’s Alpha test was used. This is the most common measure of scale reliability (Field, 2009, p. 674). The new items are accepted as reliable when Cronbach’s Alpha is above 0.7 (Field, 2009, p. 675). This means that the items from the questionnaire that are used to create a variable, indeed do measure the same thing.
By calculating the Cronbach’s Alpha’s, the reliability of the five variables measured in this paper was found. For the pride measure reasonable reliability of .79 was found (0.6 ≤ α < 0.8). For transactional leadership and hubris good reliability was found (α ≥ 0.8). The
transformational leadership variable and the performance variable are even highly reliable (α ≥ 0.9). As can be seen in table 1, all five measures have a Cronbach’s Alpha higher than 0.7, which means that they are reliable and can be used in this research.
Table 1: Descriptives and Correlations between the variables (Cronbach's Alphas on diagonal).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1 Transactional leadership 36.52 8.378 (0.853) 2 Transformational leadership 59.94 9.813 0.560** (0.911) 3 Pride 55.90 7.373 0.287** 0.412** (0.791) 4 Hubris 26.67 7.618 0.260** 0.176 0.400** (0.806) 5 Performance 38.76 7.326 0.083 0.299** 0.110 0.106 (0.912) Note. N = 204. * p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01. 31
5.3 Correlations
Next to the Cronbach’s Alpha’s shown in table 1, also the correlations between the variables are presented. A correlation measures the relationship between variables (Field, 2009, p. 167). As can be seen, transactional leadership correlates positively and highly significantly
(p < 0.01) with transformational leadership (r = 0.560). Transactional leadership correlates positively and highly significantly (p < 0.01) with pride (r = 0.287) and with hubris (r = 0.260). Transformational leadership has a positive and highly significant (p < 0.01) correlation with pride (r = 0.412). There is no significant correlation between transformational leadership and hubris. Also, the relationship between pride and hubris was tested, resulting in a positive (r = 0.400) and highly significant correlation (p < 0.01). Finally, transformational leadership correlates positively and highly significantly (p < 0.01) with performance (r = 0.299). There were no significant correlations found between performance and pride, hubris, and transactional leadership.
5.4 Regression analyses
In this section, first the main effects between the variables are tested using a linear regression. The results of the main effects of transformational leadership and transactional leadership on pride are shown in model 1. Then, the main effects of the two leadership styles on hubris are presented in model 2. Model 3 reflects the main effects of pride and hubris on performance. Finally, the mediating effect of pride is tested, also by applying a regression analysis. In order to test the mediating effect of pride, the main effect of transformational leadership on
employee performance also needs to be tested. These results are shown in Model 4. Finally, the mediating role of pride is discussed.
5.4.1 Main effects of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on pride
The first hypothesis states that transactional leadership decreases the feeling of pride in employees. The third hypothesis states that transformational leadership increases the feeling of pride in employees. Model 1 in Table 2 shows the results for these hypotheses. No effect is found (β = .082, ns) regarding transactional leadership and pride. So, against expectations, no negative association between transactional leadership and pride (hypothesis 1) is found.
Table 2: Regression Results of Main Effects of Transformational and Transactional Leadership on Pride (Model 1).
Pride (DV) Model 1 Coefficient SE Beta Constant 3.340 0.385 Transactional Leadership 0.053 0.071 0.082 Transformational Leadership 0.276** 0.083 0.376 R² 0.175 Note. N = 204. * p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01.
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive association between transformational leadership and pride. The results show a positive (β = .376) and highly significant (p < 0.01) effect. This indicates that transformational leadership indeed relates positively to pride in employees. This outcome is in line with predictions.
5.4.2 Main effects of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on hubris
This section examines the main effects of the two leadership styles on hubris. Hypothesis 2 states that transactional leadership increases the feelings of hubris in employees. Hypothesis 4 predicts that transformational leadership decreases feelings of hubris in employees. The main effects of transactional and transformational leadership on hubris are presented in table 3.
Table 3: Regression Results of Main Effects of Transactional and Transformational Leadership on Hubris (Model 2).
Hubris (DV) Model 2 Coefficient SE Beta Constant 1.859 0.517 Transactional Leadership 0.191* 0.095 0.235 Transformational Leadership 0.043 0.111 0.045 R² 0.069 Note. N = 204. * p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01
Hypothesis 2, which predicts the positive association between transactional leadership and hubris, is supported by the results shown in Table 2. A positive (β = .235) and significant (p < 0.05) effect was found, in line with the predictions.
The results are not in line with hypothesis 4, which predicts a negative association between transformational leadership and hubris. There was found no significant relationship (β = .045, ns) between these two variables. Furthermore, R2 reflects the explained variance and is higher in Model 1 (R2 = .175) than in Model 2 (R2 = .069).
5.4.3 Main effects of pride and hubris on employee performance
Next, hypotheses 5a and 6 concerning the main effects of pride and hubris on employee performance will be examined. Hypothesis 5a states that the feeling of pride in employees has a positive association with employee performance. Hypothesis 6 predicts that a feeling of hubris in employees is negatively associated with employee performance. The main effects of pride and hubris in employees on employee performance are presented in table 4.
Table 4: Regression Results of Main Effects of Pride and Hubris on Employee Performance (Model 3).
Employee Performance Model 3
Coefficient SE Beta Constant 6.482 1.119 Pride 0.176 0.238 0.081 Hubris 0.127 0.188 0.073 R² 0.017 Note. N = 204. * p < 0,05. ** p < 0,01.
In contrast to the predicted effects of pride and hubris on employee performance, no
relationships were found between these variables. No relationship was found between either pride and employee performance (β = .081, ns) or between hubris and employee performance (β = .073, ns). Unfortunately, this is not in line with the expectations. Furthermore, the
explained variance in Model 3 is lower (R2 = 0.017) than in Model 1 (R2 = .175) and Model 2 (R2 = .069).
5.4.4 Mediating effect of pride
In this last section, the mediating effect of pride on the relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance will be discussed. In order to examine if pride acts as a mediator, a positive association between transformational leadership and pride, between transformational leadership and employee performance, and between pride and employee performance is required. Table 5 shows the main effects of transformational leadership on employee performance.
Table 5: Regression Results of Main Effects of Transformational Leadership on Employee Performance (Model 4).
Employee Performance Model 4
Coefficient SE Beta
Constant 5.080 0.865
Transformational Leadership 0.491** 0.157 0.299
R² 0.089
Note. N = 204. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
From the results in Model 4 can be concluded that there is a positive (β = 0.299) and highly significant (p < 0.01) association between transformational leadership and employee
performance.
In order for pride to act as a mediator, all the main effects between the variables need to be positive and significant. In the previous sections, results supporting the positive
association between transformational leadership en pride were found (β = .376; p < 0.01). In addition, a positive association between transformational leadership and employee
performance was found (β = 0.299; p < 0.01).
Unfortunately, no effect was found between pride and employee performance. Since this is one of the requirements for a mediating effect of pride, it can be concluded that pride does not act as a mediator on the relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance.
6. Discussion
This section will discuss the findings of the research including supported hypotheses, hypotheses that were not supported, and additional findings. All findings are linked to the existing literature by comparing them with the findings of previous research. After that, the theoretical contributions and practical implications of the research are mentioned. Finally, the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are discussed.
6.1 Relationships between Leadership, Pride & Hubris, and Employee Performance
First, we pay attention to the hypotheses and discuss the outcomes of the research starting with the relationship between the transactional and transformational leadership style and pride. After that, the influence of the leadership styles on hubris is discussed. This is followed by a discussion about the effect of pride and hubris on employee performance. Finally, we discuss the mediating effect of pride on the relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance.
6.1.1 Relationship between transactional leadership and pride
This study started with paying attention to the influence of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on pride. The two types of leadership were expected to have a different effect on pride. The first hypothesis stated that transactional leadership results in a decreased feeling of pride in employees. Little research was found on the influence of transactional leadership on actual pride. Therefore, the relationship between this leadership style and related constructs of pride, such as satisfaction and innovative behavior, were taken into account for developing the hypothesis.
Transactional leaders rely on their power of their official position to influence
followers to demonstrate the required performance. They serve their own personal interests by
getting their followers to exhibit requested behaviors (Groves & LaRocca, 2011). This diverts employees from their own goals and interests, which was expected to result in a reduced feeling of pride in employees. Also, earlier research describes a negative influence of
transformational leadership on innovative behaviour (Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2010; Ryan & Tipu, 2013). Because innovative behaviour is seen as a positive characteristic of employees, it was expected to be related to feelings of pride in employees. Therefore, the same negative influence of transactional leaders on pride in employees was hypothesized.
However, in the study no significant positive or negative effect between transactional leadership and pride was found. As discussed, this is not in line with earlier research that examined transactional leadership in combination with constructs related to pride. An explanation for this could be that the results for constructs related to pride found in earlier research, and on which the hypothesis is based, are not as much in line with pride as expected. Furthermore, because on forehand it was unknown if the leaders in the sample have a high or low score on transactional leadership, there could be too little transactional leaders in the sample to attain a significant effect. Also, because most participants were found in the students’ circle of acquaintances or family, the data sample might be somewhat biased.
6.1.2 Relationship between transformational leadership and pride
Second, the relationship between transformational leadership and pride was examined. By examining present research, transformational leaders were expected to positively influence pride in employees. In line with earlier research, there was found a significant positive effect of transformational leadership on pride (Bass, 1985; Kanungo, 2009; Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2010). This means that transformational leaders can motivate and inspire their employees in a way that they do not only have feelings of pride about themselves, but they are also proud to work for the organization in question. By means of transformational leadership, employees
are encouraged to work as a team and achieve group goals, which results in increased feelings of pride (Kanungo, 2009).
6.1.3 Relationship between transactional leadership and hubris
After examining the effects on pride within employees, there was paid attention to the
influence of transactional leadership on hubris. Again, little research was found that examined the direct effects of leadership on hubris in employees, so related constructs were used for forming the hypotheses. Transactional leaders place high value on the independence of their followers, rather than on the interaction and interdependence within a team of followers. Earlier research argues that this type of leadership is expected to result in feelings of egoism and arrogance in employees (Kanungo, 2009). Arrogance and egoism are constructs that have been frequently examined in research prior to this study, and are related to hubris (Kerfoot, 2010; Wubben et al., 2012; Petit & Bollaert, 2011). Therefore, a positive association between these variables was expected in the second hypothesis. In contribution to earlier research, the results indeed show a significant positive association between transactional leadership and hubris. This means that transactional leaders increase the feeling of hubris in employees.
6.1.4 Relationship between transformational leadership and hubris
As discussed earlier, transformational leadership focuses on group achievements and goals, motivating individuals to look beyond self-interest (Groves & LaRocca, 2011; Kanungo, 2009). Because transformational leaders put an emphasis on team performance, it was
expected that employees have less feelings of individualism, egoism, or arrogance. Therefore, a negative association between transformational leadership and hubris in employees was hypothesized. In contrast, no significant relationship between transformational leadership and hubris was found. As with the tested relationship between transactional leadership and pride,
constructs related to hubris were used to form a hypothesis about the two variables. This was necessary, because research about actual hubris in combination with this leadership style could not be found. The non-significant relationship found in this research could be a result from comparing actual hubris with other related constructs that are not as much in line with hubris as expected. Furthermore, because on forehand it was unknown if the leaders score high or low on transformational leadership leadership, there could be too little
transformational leaders in the sample to attain a significant effect. Also, most participants were found in the students’ circle of acquaintances or family, so the data sample was not drawn randomly and might therefore be somewhat biased.
6.1.5 Relationship between pride and hubris, and employee performance
Next, the influence of pride and hubris on employee performance will be discussed, starting with pride. Wubben et al. (2012) and Verbeke et al. (2004) describe pride as a prosocial emotion because it fosters acquirement of skills, genuine self-esteem and perseverance at difficult tasks. Furthermore, Fredrickson and Branigan (2005) conclude that positive emotions, such as pride, increase optimism. Motivational constructs like optimism are the foundation for self-efficacy of employees, and stimulate employees to work hard and sustain effort. Therefore, a positive influence of pride on employee performance was expected.
After pride, hubris was examined. Wubben et al. (2012) associate hubris with
antisocial behaviors such as narcissistic aggression, greed, hostility, abuse, and manipulation of others. This will lead to deteriorated performance and unmet team goals. Verbeke et al. (2004) argue that hubris leads to displays of conceit and egoistic behaviors, which in turn threaten one’s social capital and one’s performance. In line with this current research, it was expected that hubris has a negative influence on employee performance.
However, the results show no significant effect of both pride and hubris on employee performance. This could be due to the pride and hubris measures, which have a great
emphasis on pride and hubris in general and less on pride and hubris in a working environment. If people have a general feeling of pride and hubris, that is not specifically linked to work performance, this could lead to non-significant results concerning pride and hubris in relation to employee performance.
6.1.6 Mediating effect of pride
In the previous chapter, the potentially mediating effect of pride on the relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance was discussed. In order for pride to act as a mediator, there are requirements concerning the relationships between
transformational leadership and pride, between pride and employee performance, and between transformational leadership and employee performance. If these three relationships are
positive and significant, pride could act as a mediator. This means that transformational leaders could increase employee performance, by increasing feelings of pride in employees. However, because there is no significant association between pride and employee
performance, pride cannot act as a mediator.
6.2 Theoretical implications
This study strengthens some lines in current research and adds significant new ideas to the field of leadership in relation to pride and hubris. It strengthens existing literature that suggests that transformational leadership has a positive influence on pride in employees (Bass, 1985; Kanungo, 2009; Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2010). Furthermore, this research is in line with previous studies that found a positive association between transactional leadership and hubris (Kanungo, 2009; Kerfoot, 2010; Petit and Bollaert, 2011; Wubben et al., 2012).
There were found no contradictions to results of existing literature. However, some expectations were not supported because no significant results could be found. No support was found for a significant influence of pride and hubris on employee performance. This is not in line with earlier research.
Besides strengthening the existing literature, this study also makes some contributions and adds new ideas. As discussed earlier, there has been paid little attention in the past to the direct effects of leadership styles on pride and hubris, and more on constructs that are
expected to be related to these emotions. Therefore this study is, as far as known, the first to
examine pride and hubris in combination with transactional and transformational leadership. The results of this study show that there is a difference in the effects of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on pride and hubris in employees. This might be the starting point for future research. Elaborated suggestions for future research can be found in the last section of this chapter.
6.3 Managerial implications
This study has come up with important new insights for leaders and employers. There was found support that leaders can influence the feelings of pride and hubris in their employees by leading them in a particular way. Transformational leaders can instill pride in their employees, which encourages them to perform beyond expectations (Verbeke, Belschak, & Bagozzi, 2004). Hubris in employees is considered to be undesirable (Petit & Bollaert, 2011; Verbeke et al., 2004) and results show it is triggered by transactional leadership. Because it can be expected that organizations see the importance of employees that are instilled with positive emotions, the results of this paper can be of great use to leaders.
Also, the direct effect of transformational leadership on employee performance was discussed, in order to examine the mediating role of pride. Despite the fact that results did not
