MASTER THESIS
Is the Use of Problem-focused and Emotional- focused Coping
Styles Effective?
The Mediating Roles of Problem-focused and Emotional-focused Coping in the
Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Job Satisfaction,
Uncertainty and Turnover Intentions
Name: Aniek Voet Student Number: 11362898 Supervisor: M. Venus University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam Business School Executive Program of Management Studies – Track Leadership and Management 29-06-2018Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 2 STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY This document is written by Student Aniek Voet, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 3 TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION ... 6 1.1 PRESENTATION OF DISCIPLINARY LAW ... 6 1.2 COPING STYLE AND LEADERSHIP ... 6 1.3 RESEARCH GAP AND CONTRIBUTIONS ... 8 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION ... 9 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS ... 10 2.1 COPING STYLE ... 10 2.1.1 PROBLEM-FOCUSED COPING ... 11 2.1.2 EMOTIONAL- FOCUSED COPING ... 12 2.2 COPING AND JOB SATISFACTION ... 14 2.2.1 JOB SATISFACTION ... 14 2.2.2 COPING RELATED TO JOB SATISFACTION ... 14 HYPOTHESIS ... 15 2.3 COPING AND UNCERTAINTY ... 16 2.3.1 UNCERTAINTY ... 16 2.3.2 COPING RELATED TO UNCERTAINTY ... 16 HYPOTHESIS ... 17 2.4 COPING AND TURNOVER INTENTION ... 18 2.4.1 TURNOVER INTENTION ... 18 2.4.2 COPING RELATED TO TURNOVER INTENTIONS ... 19 HYPOTHESIS ... 19 2.5 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND COPING ... 20 2.5.1 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ... 20 2.5.2 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP RELATED TO COPING ... 22 HYPOTHESIS ... 26 3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 27 4. RESEARCH METHOD ... 28 PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE ... 28 MEASURES ... 29 5. RESULTS ... 32 5.1 CORRELATION ... 32 5.2 RELATIONS AND MEDIATING EFFECTS ... 35 5.2.1 RELATIONS COPING STYLES AND OUTCOMES ... 35 5.2.2 RELATIONS TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND COPING STYLES ... 41 5.2.3 MEDATING EFFECTS ... 44 6. DISCUSSION ... 49 6.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 49
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 4 6.1.1 JOB SATISFACTION ... 49 6.1.2 UNCERTAINTY AND TURNOVER INTENTIONS ... 51 6.1.3 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MEDIATING EFFECTS ... 54 6.2 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 57 6.3 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ... 59 7. CONCLUSION ... 63 REFERENCES ... 64 APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE IN DUTCH ... 71
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 5 ABSTRACT This study examined the mediating roles of problem-focused and emotional-focused coping in the relationship between transformational leadership and, job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions. Data was collected from 104 employees who are working in the primary process of a non-profit organization dealing with child protection in the Netherlands. The results of this study show that the use of problem-focused coping strategies is related to an increase in uncertainty and turnover intentions, which means that employees who show active coping or plan to manage, change or remove the problem, will experience more uncertainty and turnover intentions. Moreover, emotional-focused coping is related to a decrease in job satisfaction and transformational leadership is related to a decrease in emotional-focused coping. This means that transformational leaders can reduce employees’ avoidance and denial behavior toward organizational changes, which leads to a smaller reduction in job satisfaction. However, as the parallel multiple mediation analyses showed, problem-focused and emotional-focused coping did not have a mediating effect. Keywords: Transformational leadership, problem-focused coping, emotional-focused coping, job satisfaction, uncertainty, turnover intentions, organizational change
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 6 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PRESENTATION OF DISCIPLINARY LAW “My colleague received a complaint from a client. As a result, she resigned her job, because she could not deal with the fear of another complaint in the future. This situation was unfortunate, because she was an excellent employee with a lot of experience and knowledge.” (Lenglet & Sondorp, 2017). Since 2015, a transition has occurred in youth care in the Netherlands. The municipality of the province, instead of the government, became responsible for the youth care. Also, together with this transition of responsibilities on governmental level, the so called disciplinary law was introduced for professionals working in youth care (Lenglet & Sondorp, 2017). This law may have serious consequences for organizations dealing with all kinds of youth care. The biggest change, however, is that youth care workers can now be held responsible for their own mistakes, as is the way with medical doctors. They can no longer ‘hide’ behind their organization. A potential effect of this, for example, is that when a client complains about an employee, the employee can actually be held accountable in front of a judge (Lenglet & Sondorp, 2017). Some consequences of this are that employees are more careful, less decisive and have more feelings of anxiety and stress during their workday, which can result in a reduced feeling of job satisfaction, increased feelings of uncertainty and/or more turnover intentions (Lenglet & Sondorp, 2017). 1.2 COPING STYLE AND LEADERSHIP It may be clear that with the introduction of the disciplinary law, the situation of the youth care has changed and this manifests in different reactions among the employees. The
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 7 different reactions are the result of different factors and one of these factors is the coping strategy of an employee (Callan, 1993; Healy & McKay, 2000). Coping styles “prevent, avoid or control emotional distress” of an employee (Callan, 1993, p. 67) and it can help the employee in dealing with changes (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007), because coping will increase employees’ capability to manage the effects of psychological stress or stressful situations such as organizational change (Fugate, Kinicki, & Prussia, 2008). In the context of organizational changes, coping styles of employees are associated with and have influence on different consequences, including job satisfaction (Vinothkumar et al., 2016), uncertainty (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007), and withdrawal behavior which leads to turnover intentions (Fugate, Prussia, & Kinicki, 2012). According to Callan (1993), some factors can help employees to cope with change, one of which is leadership. This is confirmed by Grol and Wensing (2011) who discussed that employees who are dealing with the implementation of organizational change processes are strongly influenced by leadership. Leadership theories contain statements like “working on a process of influencing” (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003, p. 363). According to Yukl (1989) leadership is about influencing organizational goals and strategy by gaining commitment and influencing employees’ behavior to achieve these goals. Therefore, leadership will help employees to manage and deal with organizational change (Riolli & Savicki, 2006), because leadership can influence different coping styles, as it modifies the stressors which are related to the change (Alarcon, Lyons, Schlessman, & Barelka, 2012). Leadership can be distinguished in different styles and this study focuses on transformational leadership, because transformational leadership style is positively associated with organizational changes (Crant & Bateman, 2000) and also with employees’ use of coping strategies (Alarcon et al., 2012). Moreover,
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 8 transformational leadership is associated with the earlier mentioned outcomes: job satisfaction (Griffith, 2004), feelings of uncertainty (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012), and turnover intentions (Green, Miller, & Aarons, 2013). Consequently, it seems that a transformational leadership style is a factor that will possibly strengthen an organization dealing with changes, on the level of individual employees. 1.3 RESEARCH GAP AND CONTRIBUTIONS As mentioned above, coping strategies help employees to deal with and manage change. Also, transformational leaders are positively associated with change and job satisfaction and negatively related to uncertainty and turnover intentions. Numerous existing literature confirms this relationship. However, previous research has not clarified if problem-focused and emotional- focused coping styles have a mediating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions. Consequently, this study will measure the relation of transformational leadership to job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intention, mediated by the two different coping styles. By clarifying those relationships, this study will be able to fill the gap left by previous research. Based on the research so far, the expectation is that problem-focused coping will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, uncertainty, turnover intention, such that transformational leadership will increase problem-focused coping, which will be related to an increase in job satisfaction and decrease in uncertainty and turnover intentions. Additionally, the expectation is that emotional-focused coping will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intention, such that transformational leadership will decrease emotional-focused coping, which will be related to a decrease in job satisfaction
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 9 and an increase in uncertainty and turnover intentions. It is important and essential to explore how employees deal with and react towards organizational changes and what consequences this has (Fugate et al., 2008). This knowledge will require an insight into employee behavior during organizational changes, which has an essential impact on the success or failure of the implementation of organizational change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999) and the performance of the organization (Sagie, Birati, & Tziner, 2002; Schappe, 1998). Therefore, this research will contribute to the existing literature on organizational changes because introducing the experiences of the employees during organizational changes has been relatively neglected (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Moreover, it will help researchers and practitioners to deal with employees’ reactions towards the organizational change (Fugate et al., 2008). 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION In sum, the above resulted in the following research question: How does coping style mediate the relationship between transformational leadership style and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intention? Defining what is meant by the different concepts and their relation to each other needs to be done by answering this research question. In the following sections, the different coping styles and their relation to job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions are described. Moreover, the relationship with transformational leadership and different coping styles are clarified.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 10 Organizations have to be connected and adapt to their continuously changing environment. However, the success of such organizational changes is dependent on different factors. One of these factors is the way that the employees deal with organizational changes. This way of dealing differs per employee which can be explained by the distinctive coping style of employees (Callan, 1993). For example, if an employee has a positive coping style, this will likely lead to a successful way of dealing with change (Fugate et al., 2008). 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS 2.1 COPING STYLE Coping is a cognitive and behavioral process between the employee and environment. It opens and hides activities to manage the effects of psychological stress or stressful situations as a change processes. It can be used to deal with stressful events or problems over which employees want to increase feelings of control (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Callan, 1993; Fugate et al., 2008). Moreover, coping is seen as a transactional process between a person and his or her situation and coping starts with a cognitive appraisal of this person. An appraisal makes it possible for a person to make an observation of the situation or stressors and evaluate them (Fugate et al., 2008). Depending on their level of appraisal, employees are able to cope with stressors (Fugate et al., 2008; Healy & McKay, 2000). Scheck & Kinicki (2000) state that employees frequently have a negative appraisal towards organizational changes, because they interpret changes as damaging or as a threat. Nevertheless, positive coping with change is likely important during organizational changes, because employees with adequate coping styles are associated with an improved performance and are more successful in their job (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). A lot of studies on this
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 11 subject can be found in literature. Overall, coping styles can be divided into two broad concepts: problem-focused and emotional-focused coping styles (Callan, 1993) whereby problem-focused coping strategies are associated with positive cognitive appraisals and emotional coping strategies with negative cognitive appraisals (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Scheck & Kinicki, 2000). The selection of the different coping strategies is caused by internal (values and experiences) and external (financial or social encouragement in the work environment) factors (Vinothkumar et al., 2016). Hereafter, the different coping strategies will be explained further. 2.1.1 PROBLEM-FOCUSED COPING The first coping style is problem-focused coping (so-called adaptive strategies). It is associated with problem solving which includes managing, changing or removing the cause of the stressor or problem caused by organizational change. Employees with a problem-focused coping style judge the situation as changeable (Callan, 1993; Vinothkumar et al., 2016). Problem-focused coping strategies include features such as finding options to solve the problem, developing advantages and disadvantages for diverse options and realizing the appropriate options to solve the problem (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Moreover, other components are getting information, developing strategies or taking action to develop solutions and managing future threats (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007). Problem-focused coping is positively associated with employees’ well-being (Callan, 1993), positive emotions (Fugate et al., 2008) and social change (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007). Furthermore, it is negatively associated with employees’ feelings of anxiety (Zeidner & Ben-Zur, 1993). The problem-focused coping style is valued as a successful way of managing stressful situations, like
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 12 organizational changes (Keller, 1990; Vinothkumar et al., 2016). This is in contrast to the second coping style: emotional-focused. 2.1.2 EMOTIONAL- FOCUSED COPING Emotional-focused coping style is related to how employees manage emotions and emotional response towards the change (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Callan, 1993; Vinothkumar et al., 2016). It involves strategies (so-called maladaptive strategies) such as rejection, avoidance (Baker & Berenbaum, 2007) and denial of information to deform reality (Healy & McKay, 2000), which is related to lower levels of psychological adjustment (Callan, 1993) and psychological distress in various stressful situations (Baker & Berenbaum, 2007; Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Zeidner & Ben-Zur, 1993). Moreover, avoidance is positively associated with negative emotions, such as tension and anxiety (Fugate et al., 2008). This seems to suggest that emotional- focused strategies are unsuccessful and not effective, but some studies do not support this conclusion (Baker & Berenbaum, 2007). An explanation is that employees show both problem-focused coping, such as approaching, and emotional-focused coping strategies, such as avoiding, to manage problems and deal with changes. When those problem-focused and emotional-focused strategies are combined, it is difficult to measure the effect and success of only emotional- focused coping strategies (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Stanton, Kirk, Cameron, & Danoff - Burg, 2000). Moreover, not all emotional-focused strategies are judged as maladaptive, because emotional-focused coping strategies also help employees to regulate, control and manage their emotions and emotional and psychological response about the change (Baker & Berenbaum, 2007; Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Callan, 1993; Vinothkumar et al., 2016), such as feeling helpless, having stress or less control (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Furthermore, in the study of Healy and McKay (2000) and
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 13 Berenbaum and Baker (2007), the participants showed successful strategies of dealing with organizational change that were in line with emotional-focused coping strategies, like seeking social support and positive relabeling. Nevertheless, emotional-focused coping strategies are in general associated with maladaptive strategies towards dealing with changes, because they include avoiding and rejection instead of approaching the problem that is the result of the organizational change (Callan, 1993; Stanton et al., 2000). To summarize, employees can use different coping strategies to deal with organizational changes. Problem-focused coping strategies are seen as positive and emotional-focused coping strategies are seen as negative strategies to deal with problems and stressful situations. However, it is also important to explore to what extent the different coping styles are related to employees’ feelings of job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions, because those will affect the success of an organizational change and therefore performance of the organization (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Sagie et al., 2002). When the relationship between coping styles and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions is discovered, it could be clear which coping strategies are positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to uncertainty and turnover intentions and therefore, which strategies should be stimulated or discouraged. The relationship between coping styles and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions will be described in the following sections.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 14 2.2 COPING AND JOB SATISFACTION 2.2.1 JOB SATISFACTION Spector (1997, p. 2-3) defined job satisfaction as “a global feeling about the job or as a related constellation of attitudes about various aspects of facets of the job.” Another definition is “a pleasurable affective condition resulting from one's appraisal of the way in which the experienced job situation meets one's needs, values and expectations.” (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984, p. 72). Organizational changes will usually lead to employees’ feelings of stress. Increased feelings of stress, depressed mood and psychological strain leads to reduced job satisfaction (Decker & Borgen, 1993; Healy & McKay, 2000) and vice versa: job satisfaction is related to reduced levels of stress and mood disturbance (Healy & McKay, 2000). 2.2.2 COPING RELATED TO JOB SATISFACTION Coping during organizational change is related to factors such as job satisfaction, which are important for both employees and organizations (Judge et al., 1999). Decker and Borgen (1993) found that positive coping abilities, such as problem-focused coping, are associated with lower psychological strain and thus a higher job satisfaction, although the strength of this relationship was weak. Vinothkumar et al (2016) confirmed this by arguing that adaptive strategies, such as problem-focused coping strategies, are associated with reduced levels of stress and a higher level of job satisfaction. However, O'Brien and DeLongis's (1996) found no significant relations between the use of problem-focused coping and job satisfaction. Nevertheless, Boumans and Landeweerd (1992) argued that the use of problem-focused coping has a positive association with job satisfaction. According to Healy & McKay (2000)
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 15 the different results of the various studies were caused by the use of different methods. However, generally successful coping behaviors during organizational changes, such as having positive views, acceptance and approaching, which can be seen as elements of problem-focused coping, lead to more satisfied and committed employees, because that positive behavior is positively related to job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1999). Moreover, emotional-focused coping is usually related to negative emotions and feelings of stress which have a negative influence on job satisfaction (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Fugate et al., 2008; Fugate et al., 2012; Vinothkumar et al., 2016). Furthermore, Smith and Sulsky (1995) found a relationship between the use of employees’ avoidance, which is an element of emotional-focused coping, and a decrease in job satisfaction and more feelings of depression. Moreover, negative behavior toward change, such as behavioral disengagement or denial, is related with a decrease in job satisfaction and commitment (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Furthermore, employees with an emotional-focused coping style experience more anxiety towards the organizational change, which likely leads to a decrease in their effectiveness and therefore, satisfaction in their jobs (Callan, Terry, & Schweitzer, 1994). HYPOTHESIS In sum, the above description has resulted in the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1a: Problem-focused coping is positively related to feelings of job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1b: Emotional-focused coping is negatively related to feelings of job satisfaction.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 16 2.3 COPING AND UNCERTAINTY 2.3.1 UNCERTAINTY Uncertainty is defined as “the period of anticipation prior to the confrontation with a potentially harmful event'' (Monat, Averill & Lazarus, 1972, p. 237). Also, it is described as a feature of a psychological state, based on an employee’s perception (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004), for example, towards the organizational change. Generally, organizational changes will influence organizational structure and culture and this will lead to unpredictability, because employees don’t exactly know how the future of their job will look. This unpredictability leads to feelings of uncertainty (Bordia et al., 2004). Uncertainty is associated with employees’ feelings of anxiety, sadness and stress which could lead to psychological strain (Bordia et al., 2004; Greco & Roger, 2001). Reduced feelings of uncertainty are linked with positive employee perceptions and behaviors (Fugate et al., 2012), and increased feelings of control which lead to reduced feelings of uncertainty are associated with satisfaction and lower turnover intentions (Jensen, Patel, & Messersmith, 2013; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, 2000). 2.3.2 COPING RELATED TO UNCERTAINTY Feelings of control leads to reduced feelings of uncertainty related to organizational changes, because control over change processes increases employees’ beliefs that they can influence the processes and consequences related to the change (Fugate et al., 2012), which helps the employee to positively deal with it (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002). As mentioned above, appraisals have an influence on coping styles (Fugate et al.,
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 17 2008). In this case, positive appraisals of control, which lead to an increased feeling of control and a decreased level of uncertainty, are positively associated with problem-focused coping (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Fugate et al., 2008). Furthermore, problem-focused coping is associated with a proactive attitude, which includes removing, changing and influencing the stressor (Callan, 1993). This proactive behavior can be explained by taking control of the situation. Feelings of control will reduce uncertainty related to organizational change (Fugate et al., 2012). Thus, employees with problem focused coping strategies will have more feelings of control and therefore have less feelings of uncertainty. However, negative appraisals of control, which lead to a reduced feeling of control and an increased level of uncertainty, are negatively associated with emotional-coping (Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Fugate et al., 2008). Moreover, emotional-focused coping is associated with avoidance and denial (Berenbaum & Baker, 2007; Healy & McKay, 2000), which is the opposite of taking control to change the situation. Therefore, employees with emotional-focused coping strategies will have less feelings of control and consequently more feelings of uncertainty. HYPOTHESIS In sum, the above described resulted in the following in the hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a: Problem-focused coping is negatively related to feelings of uncertainty. Hypothesis 2b: Emotional-focused coping is positively related to feelings of uncertainty.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 18 2.4 COPING AND TURNOVER INTENTION 2.4.1 TURNOVER INTENTION Turnover intention is the probability that an employee will leave their function or organization in a short time. Employee’s turnover intentions are often associated with factors that are related to the organization or job. Turnover intentions will usually begin with withdrawal behavior, such as lateness and nonattendance or a decreased effort at work, which means that employees are present, but their work ethic is declining and also their physical presence decreases (Sagie et al., 2002). This behavior can lead to actual turnover (Green et al., 2013; Sagie et al., 2002). Moreover, negative employee reactions concerning organizational change are associated with negative emotions, and those are associated with employee withdrawal behavior, such as absence and intentions to quit (Begley, 1998). Hanisch and Hulin (1991) made a distinction between job and work withdrawal behavior. Work withdrawal behavior is the avoidance or decrease of actual presence of the employee at work. Job withdrawal behavior constitutes the absence of the employee (Fugate et al., 2008). Turnover is a costly problem. It has a negative effect on team functioning, productivity and effectivity of the organization (Green et al., 2013; Fugate et al., 2008), because it can lead to interruptions of processes. Moreover, it can lead to a decrease in feelings of commitment of professional partners by losing employees’ skills, knowledge and abilities (Fugate et al., 2008; Sagie et al., 2002). From an employee’s perspective, emotions of aversion, a decrease of work ethic and social contacts are negative consequences.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 19 2.4.2 COPING RELATED TO TURNOVER INTENTIONS As mentioned before, coping styles are seen as important influencers for different consequences on both individual employee level and organizational level during an organizational change (Fugate et al., 2008, Fugate et al., 2012). One of the consequences on employee level is turnover intentions. Positive appraisals, which are related to problem-focused coping, have a negative relationship with withdrawal behavior and turnover intentions (Fugate et al., 2012). Thus, problem-focused coping is negatively related to turnover intentions and therefore, an employee with a problem-focused coping style will have a reduced intention to turnover. Fugate and colleagues (2012) and Spreitzer and Mishra (2002) showed in their research a positive relationship between negative appraisals, which are related to an emotional-focused coping style, and employee’s withdrawal behavior and turnover intentions. So, emotional-focused coping is positively related to turnover intentions. Consequently, an employee with an emotional-focused coping style will have an increased intention to turnover. Fugate et al (2008) argued that the managing of employees’ negative appraisals and thus emotional-focused coping strategies during the organizational change, will decrease employees’ withdrawal behavior and thus, turnover intentions. HYPOTHESIS In sum, the above results in the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 3a: Problem-focused coping is negatively related to turnover intention. Hypothesis 3b: Emotional-focused coping is positively related to turnover intention.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 20 In sum, employees can manage or deal with organizational changes differently. This variety in behavior can be explained by different coping styles of employees, whereby the distinction can be made between problem-focused and emotional-focused coping style (Healy & McKay, 2000). Coping styles are immensely important because they will have an effect on employees’ job satisfaction, feelings of uncertainty and turnover intentions and therefore the success or fail of the organizational change (Fugate et al., 2008). Thus, for an organization it is important to influence the coping style of employees, so they become more able to deal positively with the organizational change. According to Alarcon et al (2012) and Callan (1993), coping strategies can be influenced by leadership, whereby the expectation is that transformational leadership will have a relation to problem- and emotional-focused coping strategies (Alarcon et al., 2012; Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005). 2.5 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND COPING 2.5.1 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP In order to stimulate employees to positively cope with organizational change, transformational leadership qualities are exceptionally suitable for situations of organizational change (Eisenbach, Watson, & Pillai, 1999; Calllan, 1993). This can be explained by the statement that transformational leaders develop strategic and motivational focuses, which lead to a clear purpose of the organization and is at the same time a foundation for employees’ inspiration and commitment (Eisenbach et al., 1999; Crant & Bateman, 2000). Overall, transformational leaders will motivate and get employees ready for the organizational change by influencing their basic values and attitudes (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Therefore, the expectation is that transformational
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 21 leadership is related to the coping style of an employee. Before the relation between transformational leadership and coping styles will be further clarified, the definition of transformational leadership will be explained. Transformational leadership is described as a charismatic, inspirational or visionary leadership style and employees with a transformational leader feel trust, respect and satisfaction towards this leader (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Transformational leaders actively intervene and try to prevent problems. During organizational change, they define the need for change, raising awareness for the importance of values, creating a new vision, commitment and acceptance to this vision (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Moreover, transformational leaders influence the basic beliefs, attitudes and values of the employees and empower them, whereby employees become more responsive, approachable and capable of dealing with the organizational change (Bommer et al., 2005; Callan, 1993). Recent research suggests that the relationship between transformational leadership and employee outcomes is often stronger in more dynamic, uncertain or challenging situations (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Possible outcomes are employees’ job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions. Existing research states that transformational leaders are positively related to employee job satisfaction (Green et al., 2013; Griffith, 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2014; Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, & Munir, 2009; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Moreover, transformational leaders can motivate employees resulting in proactive behavior such as taking control which leads to a decreased feeling of uncertainty (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Furthermore, transformational leadership is negatively associated with the turnover intention of an employee (Green et al., 2013; Griffith, 2004). So, the literature shows that
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 22 transformational leadership is related to job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions. However, the mediating roles of coping styles in the relationship between those constructs has not been explored yet. Before the hypotheses about the mediating roles will described, the relation between transformational leadership and coping will be explained in the following section. 2.5.2 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP RELATED TO COPING Here, the relation between transformational leadership and coping styles will be described by explaining the four dimensions of transformational leadership: charisma, inspiration, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Judge, & Piccolo, 2004; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Van Engen & Vinkenburg, 2005). The first dimension is charisma, which can be explained as providing vision and a sense of mission. A charismatic leader wants to gain a sense of loyalty and commitment, respect, trust and increase optimism (Bass, 1985, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Griffith, 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Charisma is related to the leader’s prior success in reaching goals and will raise the level of morality to “more principled levels of judgment,” (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993, pp. 579). Influencing, which is an element of charisma, is not significantly related with actively stimulating employees to deal with stressors during organizational change. Active stimulation is a feature of problem- focused coping, so influencing doesn’t have a significant relation with problem-focused coping (Alarcon et al., 2012). However, this is not in line with the study of Howell and Avolio (1993), because they cite that charisma is positively related to gaining resources, which is an element of problem-focused coping, to help employees to deal with the change. Moreover, they also found that charisma is positively related with contributing to the accomplishment
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 23 of an employee’s goal (Howell & Avolio, 1993). This is also confirmed by the study of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) who argued that transformational leadership is related to fostering the commitment and achievement of goals. Problem-focused strategies include elements such as finding options to achieve the goal of solving problems (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). As mentioned above, charisma is associated with influencing, creating commitment and gaining resources to support the employee to approach and achieve goals. Therefore, the expectation is that charisma is related to problem-focused coping strategies. While emotional-focused coping is related to strategies such as avoidance and rejecting (Stanton et al., 2000) instead of approaching goals to solve problems, the expectation is that charisma is negatively associated with emotional-focused coping. The second dimension is the inspiration, which indicates the capability of leaders to act as a role model for employees. Inspiration is the communication of a vision and the use of symbols to focus efforts (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Leaders who show inspiration stimulate and give courage to employees to develop proactive and positive coping strategies (Alarcon et al., 2012), such as changing or removing the cause of a stressor or problem or to stimulate positive emotions towards organizational change (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Those are elements of problem-focused coping, and therefore, inspiration is likely to be associated positively with problem-focused coping. Moreover, role modelling and therefore, inspiration, is important to learning new behavior and transforming attitudes of employees (Bommer et al., 2005). Transformational leaders usually show proactive behavior, so they functioning as a role model for employees to stimulate their proactive behavior (Bommer et al., 2015; Crant & Bateman, 2000). Proactive behavior is related to problem-focused coping
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 24 (Callan, 1993), thus it is expected that transformational leaders, and therefore, inspiration, is associated with problem-focused coping strategies. Although, transformational leaders don’t show emotional focused strategies, such as avoiding, rejecting and denial (Alarcon et al., 2012), they will not inspire or be a model for employees in encouraging learning behavior that is in line with emotional-focused strategies. Therefore, the expectation is that inspiration is not associated with emotional-focused coping. The third dimension is the individual consideration: the behavior of the leader that focuses on the development of employees’ skills and the mentoring of employees while attending to their individual needs and respecting them. The transformational leader uses individualized consideration to achieve the fullest potential of an employee (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Griffith, 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Individual consideration is about being concerned about individual feelings and needs (Bommer et al., 2005). Thus, when an employee exhibits emotional-focused coping strategies, such as avoiding and rejecting, a transformational leader should follow this, because those are apparently the needs of the employee at that moment. This suggests that individual consideration is positively associated with emotional-focused coping. However, individual consideration stimulates employees to manage struggles in a positive way, which results in employees feeling more capable in approaching the problem of stressor. When an employee feels more capable, this will increase the probability that an employee will look for support to cope with the problem or stressor, which is an element of problem-focused coping (Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter – Palmon, 2005). So, they state that individual consideration is positively related to problem-focused coping. Moreover, employees are more inclined to join the initiatives of the leader when they feel that the leader cares about
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 25 them, especially in a stressful situation, such as an organizational change (House & Mitchell, 1974). Therefore, when a transformational leader shows individual consideration, employees are more likely to show problem-focused coping strategies when a leader initiates those strategies. This would be also the case if a leader initiated an emotional- focused coping strategy, but a transformational leader is more likely to stimulate problem-focused strategies. Based on the studies that are mentioned above, it is expected that individual consideration is positively related to problem-focused coping strategies and negatively to emotional-focused coping. The last dimension is the intellectual stimulation, whereby the transformational leader is challenging employees to develop new ideas that are supposed to stimulate the rethinking of old ways of doing things (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avoilio, 1990; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Intellectual stimulation encourages employees to use new approaches, instead of old approaches which did not work out, which is an element of problem-focused coping (Alarcon et al., 2012; Harland et al., 2005). Moreover, intellectual stimulation is specifically successful during organizational changes (Bass, 1985), because it motivates employees to find creative possibilities to increase their performance and stimulate them to consider their own ideas to solve the problem (Bommer et al., 2005), which are features of problem-focused coping. Furthermore, intellectual stimulation includes leader behavior that supports effective problem-solving strategies such as seeking various perspectives and approaches (Harland et al., 2005). Thus, following those studies, it is expected that intellectual stimulation is positively related to problem-focused coping. It also brings the expectation that it is negatively related to emotional-focused coping, because intellectual stimulation encourages “thoughtful, creative, adaptive” strategies to resolve
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 26 stressful situations, rather than “defensive and maladaptive ones” (Bass, 1990, p. 652). Emotional-focused coping strategies are seen as maladaptive solutions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), which suggests that intellectual stimulation will not encourage them. Moreover, intellectual stimulation motivates employees to be more involved in the process of change (Bommer et al., 2005), which is the opposite of emotional-focused coping strategies, like avoiding, rejecting and denial. HYPOTHESIS In sum, the dimensions of transformational leadership are positively associated with problem-focused coping. So, this will result in the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4a: Transformational leadership style is positively related to problem-focused coping. Moreover, several studies show that the various dimensions of transformational leadership are negatively associated with emotional- focused coping. Thus, the hypothesis will be as follow: Hypothesis 4b: Transformational leadership style is negatively related to emotional- focused coping. As mentioned before, this study will examine the relation of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions mediated by problem-focused coping and emotional- focused coping. To measure this, it is necessary to combine the hypotheses as described above. In sum, this resulted in the following hypotheses:
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 27 Hypothesis 5a: Problem-focused coping will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intention. Hypothesis 5b: Emotional-focused coping will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intention. 3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL The above-described hypotheses will result in the conceptual model of the mediating roles of coping styles in the relationship between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intention. Figure 1. The conceptual model of this study. Transformational leadership Problem-focused coping Job satisfaction Uncertainty Turnover intention Emotional-focused coping
H 1a H 2a H 3a
H 1b H 2b H 3b
H 4b
H 4a H 5a
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 28 4. RESEARCH METHOD In this chapter, the research method is described. The research design is a quantitative study with a cross-sectional survey, which measures the relation between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions, mediated by the problem-focused and emotional-focused coping style of the employees in a specific moment of time. PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE The total population (N=315) of this study are employees, working in the primary process of a non-profit organization dealing with child protection. The organization has the mandate to intervene in families when the safety of children is lacking or deemed insufficient. The main goal of the organization is to restore safety for children and stop child abuse and domestic violence. The organization is operating in two provinces of the Netherlands. The organization has one headquarter and five locations scattered through the provinces in different cities. The five locations are divided into eight different departments. Data was collected among the employees of three departments (n=183), which was based on the preference of the director of the organization. Thus, a cluster sampling method was used, because the population was divided into clusters (departments) prior sampling (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). This study was introduced to the participants and managers by email. Before distributing, a test group of three employees delivered feedback about the questionnaire. After that, the questionnaires were distributed to the employees through an online survey that was sent by email. This email also contained information about the importance, purpose, anonymity and confidentially of the study. Additionally, the researcher joined team meetings and explained
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 29 the purpose of the study to increase the response rate. The respondents had one week to fill in the questionnaire. After seven and ten days, the respondents got a reminder by email. The period of data collection took 31 days and the response rate was 57%, which means 104 employees completed the questionnaires. An example of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix 1. 21% of the respondents are male, 78% are female and 1% of the respondents wanted to keep their gender anonymous. 78.8 % of the respondents have a higher degree of education (HBO) and 21.2% have a university degree. The average age of the respondents is 40.63 years (SD = 11.56), 5.8% of the respondents was younger than 26 years old. 50.9% of the respondents was between 26 and 40 years old and 43.3% was between 40 and 65 years of age. MEASURES In this section, the measures used in this study are described. Overall, the scales involved a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”. If an exception is made, this is mentioned in the description of the scale. Moreover, the original scales were written in English and must be translated into Dutch. To translate the questionnaire, the parallel translation technique was used. Three independent translators translated the questionnaire from English to Dutch and those versions were compared to find the best translation. Transformational leadership was measured by using the Transformational leadership scale (Griffith, 2004). The scale consists of 18 items which measure the four elements of transformational leadership behavior (Cronbach’s α = .89). The first and second combined elements are charisma and inspiration (four items) and one example item is, “The
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 30 organizations goals and how to achieve are well understood”. The third element is intellectual stimulation. It includes four items (e.g., “Manager encourages me to come with new ideas”). The last element is individualized consideration (ten items) and one example item is, “I can talk openly with my manager”. Three items were reversed coded, meaning that a low score indicates a high score on perceived transformational leader behavior. Coping was measured by using the COPE scale which involved a five-point Likert scale ranging from, “I usually don't do this” to, “I usually do this” (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). The COPE includes scales, with four items each, to measure problem-focused strategies: active coping (e.g., “I take additional action to try get rid of the problem”) and planning (e.g., “I think hard about what steps to take”) (Cronbach’s α = .77). Alarcon and colleagues (2012) found that active coping and planning can be seen as one factor, so the items of active coping and planning were merged. One item is reversed coded, meaning that a low score indicates a high score on problem-focused coping style. Furthermore, the COPE scale includes two traits (with four items each) to measure emotion-focused coping strategies: denial (e.g., “I refuse to believe that it has happened”) and behavioral disengagement (e.g., “I just give up trying to reach my goal”). Moreover, avoiding is a feature of emotional-focused coping style, so the six-item cognitive avoiding scale (e.g. “I try to forget the whole thing”) is added (Blalock & Joiner, 2000). This scale to measure emotional-focused coping has a Cronbach’s α of .75. Two items are reversed coded, meaning that a low score indicates a high score on emotional- focused-coping style. Job satisfaction was measured by using a scale that is used in the study of Schleicher, Smith, Casper, Watt, and Greguras (2015) (Cronbach’s α = .82). This five-item scale measures employees level of satisfaction with their job (e.g., “I find real enjoyment in my work”). Two
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 31 items are reversed coded, meaning that a low score indicates a high score on job satisfaction. Uncertainty was measured by using a four-item scale, which is developed to estimate employees’ uncertainty concerning their job (Cronbach’s α = .84). An example item is, “There is a lot of uncertainty at work right now” (Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012). Turnover intention is measured by a scale that was used in the study of Bordia and colleagues (2004) (Cronbach’s α = .80). They adapted and combined other scales developed by Fried, Tiegs, Naughton, and Ashworth (1996) and Meyer, Allan and Smith (1993). It includes four items and one example item is, “I often seriously think about asking for a transfer to another job”. One item is reversed coded, meaning that a low score indicates a high score on turnover intention. CONTROL VARIABLES As research showed, leaders develop a different type of relationship with each employee. The different types of relationships are characterized by differences in employees’ feelings of liking toward their leader (Boyd & Taylor, 1998). This will influence the relationship between a leader and an employee and therefore has an influence on outcomes, such as job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). To test for this relative impact on those relationships, liking is included in the analysis as control variable. Liking is measured by the scale that is used in the study of Kacmar, Harris, Carlson, and Zivunska (2009). It consists a three-item scale and, “I like my supervisor very much as a person” is an example item (Cronbach’s α = .78). Moreover, gender, age and level of education are also included as additional factors by purposefully controlling, because those
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 32 additional factors may affect the relationships between transformational leadership, coping styles, job satisfaction, uncertainty, and turnover intentions (Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016). Age and gender are included, because they may account for variation in both job satisfaction (Siders, George, & Dharwadkar, 2001) and coping styles (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Also, the relationship between the demographic variables age, level of education and turnover intentions can often be related (Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016). 5. RESULTS In this chapter, the results of the data analysis are presented. 5.1 CORRELATION After the reliability check, the correlation analysis was done. To analyze the correlations, the Person correlation coefficients were used. Table 1 presents the scale means, standard deviations, reliability and correlations of the variables. The correlation analysis showed that problem-focused coping had no significant correlation with job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions. Nevertheless, emotional-focused coping correlated significantly and negatively with job satisfaction (r = -.34, p < 0.01), but it had no significant correlation with uncertainty and turnover intention. Based on these results, it seems that emotional focused coping is related to job satisfaction and is a better predictor for job satisfaction than problem-focused coping. Moreover, it appears that problem- or emotional-focused coping strategy is not related to feelings of uncertainty or turnover intentions of employees. Transformational leadership correlated significantly and positively with problem-focused coping (r = .27, p < .01) and significantly and negatively with emotional focused coping
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 33 (r = -.27, p < .05). Based on this, it seems that transformational leadership is related both to problem- and emotional-focused coping styles of an employee. Moreover, transformational leadership positively correlates with job satisfaction (r = .44, p < .01) and negatively with uncertainty (r = -.56, p < 0.01), and turnover intentions (r = -.39, p < .01). Furthermore, Table 1 also presents the correlations of the control variables. Liking had a significant and positive correlation with problem-focused coping (r = .38, p < .01) and did not have a significant correlation with emotional-focused coping. Liking correlated strongly, significantly and positively with transformational leadership (r = -.67, p < .01). Moreover, it correlated negatively with uncertainty (r = -.48, p < .01) and turnover intentions (r = -.21, p < .05) and positively with job satisfaction (r = .26, p < .01). These results indicate that employee liking is associated with transformational leadership, problem-focused coping style and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions. The control variables age, gender and level of education has no significant correlations with all the variables of the study.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliability and correlations Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Age 40.63 11.56 - 2. Gender 1.80 .43 -.20* - 3. Level of education 2.20 .40 -.10 .014 - 4. Liking 3.75 .64 -.02 -.06 .05 (.78) 5. Transformational leadership 3.88 .51 .06 -.01 .04 .67** (.89) 6. Problem focused coping 3.98 .45 -.11 .10 .07 .38** .27** (.77) 7. Emotional focused coping 2.16 .39 .02 -.10 -.07 -12 -.27* -.24* (.75) 8. Job satisfaction 3.79 .68 -.03 -.02 -.05 .26** .44** .16 -.34** (.82) 9. Uncertainty 2.74 .88 -.13 -.04 .03 -.48** -.56** .02 .04 -.18 (.84) 10. Turnover intentions 2.35 .95 -.18 .06 -.04 -.21* -.39** .10 .16 -.55** .43** (.80) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Coding of categorical variables: gender: 1= ‘men’, 2= ‘woman’. Level of education: 1 = 'HBO', 2 = ‘University’
5.2 RELATIONS AND MEDIATING EFFECTS As Table 1 indicates that gender, age and level of education were not significantly correlated with any of the focal variables in the current study (coping style, transformational leadership and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions), this research follows the recommendations of Bernerth and Aguinis (2016) and do not control for gender, age and level of education to increase the statistical power of the analyses and offer better interpretable results. However, liking is significantly correlated with almost all the variables, therefore liking was included in the analyses. 5.2.1 RELATIONS COPING STYLES AND OUTCOMES To test the first three hypotheses, three hierarchical regression analyses were performed to assess whether emotional-focused coping and problem-focused coping could predict the levels of job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intention, while controlling for employee liking of the manager and transformational leadership. JOB SATISFACTION H1a predicted that problem-focused coping is related to job satisfaction positively and H1b predicted that emotional focused coping is related to job satisfaction negatively. The first step of the regression analysis with job satisfaction as a dependent variable and control variable liking and transformational leadership as predictors, showed that transformational leadership and liking explained 20% of the variance in job satisfaction F (2,
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 36 101) = 12,39; p < 001. At step two, problem-focused coping and emotional-focused coping were entered in the analysis. All the variables explained 26% of the variance in job satisfaction F (4, 99) = 8.47; p < .001. The insertion of problem-focused and emotional-focused coping explained 6% variance on job satisfaction additionally, after controlling for transformational leadership and liking (R² Change = .06; F (2, 99) = 3.9; p < .05). Furthermore, problem-focused coping did not have a significant coefficient (β = .01, ns), but two of the variables were statistically significant: transformational leadership (β = .42, p < .001) and emotional-focused coping (β = -.25, p < .01). Therefore, if the employee perceived that the transformational leadership of their leader increased, their job satisfaction will increase by 0.42. Moreover, if emotional-focused coping will increase by one, their job satisfaction will decrease by 0.25. H1a is rejected, which means that problem-focused coping isn’t significantly related to job satisfaction. Nevertheless, H1b is supported, which shows that emotional-focused coping is significantly and negatively related to job satisfaction. Table 2 presents the results of the regression analysis for job satisfaction. UNCERTAINTY H2a predicted that problem-focused coping is related to uncertainty negatively and H2b predicted that emotional-focused coping is related to uncertainty positively. The first step of the regression analysis with uncertainty as the dependent variable and transformational leadership and control variable liking as predictor, presented that transformational leadership and liking explained 33% of the variance in uncertainty F (2, 101) = 25,39; p < 001. At step two, problem-focused coping and emotional-focused coping were added in the
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 37 analysis. The total variance of uncertainty explained by all the variables was 39% F (4, 99) = 15.61; p < .001. The insertion of problem-focused and emotional-focused coping explained 5% variance on uncertainty additionally, after controlling for transformational leadership and liking (R² Change = .05; F (2, 99) = 4.23; p < .05). Furthermore, transformational leadership, (β = -.45, p < .001), liking (β = -.28, p < .05) and problem-focused coping (β = .24, p < .01) were significant and emotional-coping was not statistically significant (β = -.04, ns). Therefore, if the problem-focused coping increased for one, their uncertainty will increase for 0.24. Moreover, if employee perceived transformational leadership will increase for one, their uncertainty will decrease for 0.45. Also, if employees’ feelings of liking toward the manager will increase for one, their uncertainty will decrease for 0.28. H2a is rejected, because problem-focused coping is significantly related to uncertainty positively instead of negatively. Furthermore, H2b is also rejected, because emotional-focused coping was not significantly related to uncertainty. Table 3 presents the results of the regression analysis for uncertainty. TURNOVER INTENTIONS H3a predicted that problem-focused coping is related to turnover intention negatively and H3b predicted that emotional-focused coping is related to turnover intention positively. In the first step of the regression analysis with turnover intention as the dependent variable and transformational leadership and liking as predictor, the results shows that those variables explained 16% of the variance in turnover intentions F (2, 101) = 9.42, p < .001. In the next step, problem-focused coping and emotional-focused coping were introduced in the analysis. The total variance of turnover intention explained by all the variables was 21%
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 38 F (4, 99) = 6.66; p < .001. The insertion of problem-focused and emotional-focused coping explained 6% variance of turnover intentions additionally, after controlling for transformational leadership and liking (R² Change = .06; F (2, 99) = 3.44; p < .05). Furthermore, emotional-focused coping did not have a statistically significant effect on turnover intentions (β = .12, ns). Nevertheless, two of the variables were statistically significant: problem-focused coping (β = .25, p < .05) and transformational leadership (β = -.43, p < .001). Therefore, if the problem-focused coping for one employee increases, their turnover intention will increase for 0.25. Also, if employees perceived transformational leadership will increase for one, their turnover intention will decrease for 0.43. Therefore, despite the significance, H3a is rejected because the results showed that problem-focused coping is related to turnover intentions positively instead of negatively. Moreover, H3b is also rejected, because the variable emotional-focused coping was not significantly related to turnover intentions. The results of the regression analysis for turnover intention is presented in Table 4.
Table 2. Regression analysis for coping styles and job satisfaction R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .44 .20*** Liking -.06 .13 -.06 -0.47 Transformational leadership .63 .16 .48*** 5.01 Step 2 .51 .26*** .06* Liking -.05 .13 -.05 -0.38 Transformational leadership .55 .16 .42*** 3.50 Problem-focused coping .01 .15 .01 0.05 Emotional-focused coping -.43 .15 -.25** -2.70 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
Table 3. Regression analysis for coping styles and uncertainty R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .58 .33*** Liking -.26 .15 -.19 -1.76 Transformational leadership -.74 .19 -.43*** -3.97 Step 2 .62 .39*** .05* Liking -.38 .15 -28* -2.49 Transformational leadership -.77 .19 -.45*** -4.16 Problem focused coping .46 .17 .24** 2.72 Emotional focused coping -,08 .19 -.04 -0.45 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Table 4. Regression analysis for coping styles and turnover intentions R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .40 .16*** . Liking .14 .18 .10 0.78 Transformational leadership -.84 .23 -.45*** -3.70 Step 2 .46 .21*** .06* Liking .00 .19 .00 0.00 Transformational leadership -.79 .23 -.43*** -3.51 Problem-focused coping .52 .21 .25* 2.50 Emotional-focused coping .30 .23 .12 1.31 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
5.2.2 RELATIONS TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND COPING STYLES To test hypothesis 4a and 4b, hierarchical regression analyses were performed to examine if transformational leadership is able to predict the level of emotional-focused coping and problem-focused coping, by controlling for liking of the manager. PROBLEM–FOCUSED COPING H4a expected that transformational leadership style is positively related to problem-focused coping. The first step of the regression analyses with problem-focused coping as dependent variable and the control variable liking as predictor, implied that liking explained 14% of the variance in problem-focused coping F (2, 102) = 17.21, p <.001. At the next step, transformational leadership was introduced in the analysis. The total variance of problem-focused coping explained by all the variables was 15% F (2, 101) = 8.54; p < .001. The insertion of transformational leadership explained 0.0% variance of problem-focused coping additionally, after controlling for liking (R² Change = .00; F (1, 101) = 0.04; ns. Furthermore, the predictor variable, liking, was the only statistically significant variable (β = .37, p < .01). Therefore, if employees’ feelings of liking would increase for one employee, their problem-focused coping will increase for 0.37. However, transformational leadership wasn’t statistically significant (β = .02, ns). Therefore, H4a is rejected, because transformational leadership was not statistically significant related to problem-focused coping. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 5.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 42 EMOTIONAL-FOCUSED COPING H4b predicted that transformational leadership style is negatively related to emotional-focused coping. In the first step of the regression analyses, with emotional-focused coping as independent variable and liking as predictor, the results showed that liking explained 2% of the variance in emotional-focused coping F (1, 102) = 1.60, ns. At step two, transformational leadership was introduced in the analysis. The total variance of emotional-focused coping explained by all the variables was 5% F (2, 101) = 2.79; ns. The insertion transformational leadership explained 4% variance of emotional-focused coping additionally, after controlling for liking (R² Change = .04; F (1, 101) = 3.93; p < .05. Furthermore, transformational leadership had a significant effect on emotional-focused coping (β = -.26, p < .05). So, if employees’ perceived transformational leadership would increase for one, their emotional-focused coping will decrease for 0.26. Hence, H4b is supported, because transformational leadership was negatively and significantly related to emotional-focused coping. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 6.
Table 5. Regression analysis for transformational leadership and problem-focused coping. R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .38 .14*** Liking .27 .07 .38*** 4.17 Step 2 .38 .15*** .00 Liking .26 .08 .37** 2.95 Transformational leadership .02 .11 .02 0.19 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Table 6. Regression analysis for transformational leadership and emotional-focused coping. R R² R² Change B SE β t Step 1 .12 .02 . Liking -.08 .06 -.13 -1.27 Step 2 .23 .05 .04* Liking .03 .08 .05 0.37 Transformational leadership -.20 .10 -.26* -1.98 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
5.2.3 MEDATING EFFECTS In this section, the mediating effects will be presented. A parallel multiple mediation analysis was used to measure the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intentions, mediated by problem- or emotional-focused coping style of an employee (Field, 2013). JOB SATISFACTION H5a predicted that problem-focused coping will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, uncertainty and turnover intention. However, the direct effect of transformational leadership on problem-focused coping and the direct effect of problem-focused coping on job satisfaction are not significant. Hence, the indirect effect of transformational leadership, problem-focused coping and job satisfaction will be not significant either. Consequently, the results of the mediation analysis aren’t described in this chapter, but are presented in Figure 2 and Table 7. H5b predicted that emotional-focused coping will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. The indirect effect of transformational leadership, emotional-focused coping and job satisfaction and controlling for liking was done by a mediation analyses, but isn’t significant either; β = .08, ns. However, this hypothesis is rejected, because the results didn’t show a significantly indirect effect. The results are presented in Figure 2 and Table 7.
Transformational leadership, Coping, Job satisfaction, Uncertainty and Turnover intentions 45 Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001, ns = not significant Standardized beta-weights are presented Figure 2. The conceptual model of job satisfaction UNCERTAINTY H5a predicted that problem-focused coping will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and uncertainty. The indirect effect of transformational leadership, problem-focused coping and uncertainty, controlled for liking, is not significant: β = .01, ns. Therefore, H5a hypothesis is rejected. H5b predicted that emotional-focused coping will mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and uncertainty. The indirect effect of transformational leadership, emotional-focused coping and uncertainty, controlling for liking isn’t significant Transformational leadership Problem-focused coping Job satisfaction Emotional-focused coping .01, ns -.02, ns -.26* .00, ns .08, ns -.25**
