Effects of leader behavior and follower characteristics in times of uncertainty

Thesis – Final version University of Amsterdam Executive Programme in Business Studies Leadership & Management Student: Annemieke Bulters Student ID: 11437472 Supervisor: Wendelien van Eerde

Effects of Leader

Behavior and Follower

Characteristics in Times

of Uncertainty

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Annemieke Bulters who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents. Signature: Utrecht, June 11 2018

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________________________________________ 6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ___________________________________________________________________________________ 9 2.1 CHANGE AS A STRESSFUL SITUATION ... 9 2.2 UNCERTAINTY ... 9 2.3 LEADER BEHAVIOR AND EMPLOYEE STRESS ... 10 2.3.1 Leadership Theories – Past and Present ________________________________________________________ 10 2.3.2 Transformational Leadership __________________________________________________________________ 11 2.3.3 Initiating Structure _____________________________________________________________________________ 12 2.3.4 People-oriented Leadership ____________________________________________________________________ 12 2.3.5 Leader Temporal Focus _________________________________________________________________________ 13 2.3.6 Conceptual Model _______________________________________________________________________________ 14 2.4 FOLLOWER CHARACTERISTICS AND STRESS ... 14 2.4.1 Intolerance of Uncertainty ______________________________________________________________________ 14 2.4.2 Follower Temporal Focus _______________________________________________________________________ 15 2.4.3 Conceptual Model _______________________________________________________________________________ 16 3. METHOD _________________________________________________________________________________________________17 3.1 PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE ... 17 3.2 MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES ... 17 3.3 STATISTICAL PROCEDURE ... 21 4. RESULTS _________________________________________________________________________________________________22 4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ... 22 4.2 CORRELATION ANALYSIS ... 23 4.3 UNCERTAINTY AND STRESS ... 25 4.4 LEADER BEHAVIOR, LEADER TEMPORAL FOCUS, UNCERTAINTY, AND STRESS ... 26 4.5 FOLLOWER CHARACTERISTICS, UNCERTAINTY, AND STRESS ... 31 5. DISCUSSION _____________________________________________________________________________________________36 5.1 LEADER BEHAVIOR, LEADER TEMPORAL FOCUS, UNCERTAINTY, AND STRESS ... 37 5.2 FOLLOWER CHARACTERISTICS, UNCERTAINTY, AND STRESS ... 39 5.3 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 40 5.4 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 41 5.5 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 42 6. CONCLUSIONS ___________________________________________________________________________________________44 7. REFERENCES ____________________________________________________________________________________________45 8. APPENDICES ____________________________________________________________________________________________52 A. E-MAIL INVITATION TO RESPONDENTS ... 52 B. INSTRUCTIONS... 53 C. QUESTIONNAIRE ... 54

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1 Psychometric properties of the major study variables 22 Table 2 Correlation matrix – Pearson correlation coefficients 24 Table 3 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting follower stress from uncertainty 25 Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting follower stress from leader

behavior 26

Table 5 Post-hoc moderated regression analysis for transformational leader behavior and follower educational level explaining follower stress 27 Table 6 Direct and indirect effects of leader behavior on follower perceived stress, mediated

by job insecurity and strategic uncertainty 29

Table 7 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting job insecurity and strategic

uncertainty from supervisor temporal focus 31

Table 8 Direct and indirect effects of intolerance of uncertainty on follower perceived stress, mediated by job insecurity and strategic uncertainty 32 Table 9 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting perceived stress from temporal

focus 33

Table 10 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting job insecurity and strategic

uncertainty from follower temporal focus 33 Table 11 Direct and indirect effects of temporal focus on follower perceived stress, mediated by job insecurity and strategic uncertainty 35

Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual model showing the hypothesized relations related to supervisor’s effects on followers tested in this study 14

Figure 2 Conceptual model showing the hypothesized relations related to individual

characteristics tested in this study 16

Figure 3 Perceived stress as a function of transformational leader behavior and follower

educational level 27

Figure 4 Unstandardized regression coefficients for the relation between transformational leadership and perceived stress, as mediated by quantitative job insecurity, qualitative job insecurity, and strategic uncertainty 28 Figure 5 Unstandardized regression coefficients for the relation between initiating structure

and perceived stress, as mediated by quantitative job insecurity, qualitative job

insecurity, and strategic uncertainty 28

Figure 6 Unstandardized regression coefficients for the relation between people-oriented leadership and perceived stress, as mediated by quantitative job insecurity, qualitative job insecurity, and strategic uncertainty 29 Figure 7 Unstandardized regression coefficients for the relation between intolerance of

uncertainty and perceived stress, as mediated by quantitative job insecurity, qualitative job insecurity, and strategic uncertainty 32 Figure 8 Unstandardized regression coefficients for the relation between temporal focus and

perceived stress, as mediated by quantitative job insecurity, qualitative job

Abstract

The technological revolution that is progressing at full speed, brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the workplace. More than ever, it is unknown what the future will look like and what the consequences will be for employees’ jobs. It is expected that nearly half of total US employment is at risk of losing their job due to computerization. There is evidence that facing uncertainty increases stress, which is related to adverse effects, such as reduced health, commitment, satisfaction, and productivity. In order to stay competitive and relevant in today’s dynamic context, organizations benefit from keeping their workforce healthy and productive by supporting their employees in navigating through these turbulent times. This research aims to provide insight into how leader behavior and follower stress are related and into the consequences of followers’ characteristics on perceptions of uncertainty and stress.

An online questionnaire was used to collect the data. Using a sample of 478 respondents of a Dutch utility company, I find that followers with a transformational leader experience less job insecurity and stress. The results also show that these relations are dependent on followers’ background. The negative relation between transformational leadership and follower stress was stronger for higher educated employees than for colleagues with a lower educational background. While the latter group is expected to be more vulnerable to lose their job in the foreseeable future due to the technology revolution, their supervisors have limited impact in protecting them from experiencing stress. Additionally, individual characteristics, such as one’s tolerance for uncertainty, play an important role in the extent to which people experience job insecurity and stress.

Apart from the leadership style, it appears that supervisors’ cognitive bias for the future (future temporal focus) is beneficial in reducing followers’ uncertainty regarding the company’s strategic direction. Contrary to expectations, employees’ own future focus seems unrelated to their perceptions of uncertainty and stress. However, the stronger employees focus on the past, the more stress they report, which underlines the notion that experiences from the past do not provide comfort and support in today’s context that is constantly changing.

The findings from this research call for supervisors to take on a follower-centric leadership style. Educational background, but also an individual’s tolerance for uncertainty play an important role in the extent to which one experiences uncertainty and stress. To add to the complexity, both supervisors’ and followers’ temporal focus should be taken into account because these cognitive perspectives of time are also linked to followers’ perceptions of uncertainty and stress.

Key words: Uncertainty; Job Insecurity; Leadership; Temporal Focus; Follower

Characteristics; Intolerance to Uncertainty; Stress.

1. Introduction

A number of years ago, grocery stores introduced self-scan applications to allow customers to scan their articles and to pay at a register without cashier. More recently, Amazon took a leap forward with “Amazon Go”, where customers get their groceries and just walk out the door with no cashiers or registers in sight (Hook & Nicolaou, 2018, January 21). These are only just two small examples of the technological revolution that is currently underway. It has been predicted that 47 percent of total US employment is at risk of losing their job due to impact of computerization, such as machine learning and robotics. Jobs that do not involve creativity, social intelligence, perception, or manipulation to a certain extent are all at risk (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Considering that technological developments are still at their early stages, it is hard to predict what the full effect of the revolution will be. But it is certain that there will be significant changes to the world and work environment we now know. The flipside of this revolution is that more energy is needed to keep all this technology running. Traditionally, oil, gas, and coal are used as fuel to produce electricity and heat. These fossil fuels are becoming less accessible and affordable, and together with the call for protecting our climate by reducing carbon emission, governments are putting regulations in place to increase usage of renewable energy resources. Thus, on top of the technological revolution, the utility industry has to deal with another revolution simultaneously, namely the energy transition. The energy transition is a game-changing “structural change in the energy sector including a rapid increase of renewable and locally produced energy supplies, and fundamental changes in energy demand combined with phasing out fossil energies” (Hauff, Bode, Neumann, & Haslauer, 2014, p. 3). Computerization in combination with the energy transition is predicted to have an amplifying impact on the number and types of jobs at utility companies. The increasing share of decentralized energy production requires grid operators to rapidly make technological adjustments in the grid to be able to monitor, measure, and balance energy demand and supply (Verbong & Geels, 2007). If they fail to do so, a reliable flow of electricity and gas is at risk, which is inconceivable considering that, next to food, clothing and housing, heat and electricity are necessities of life. Furthermore, the Dutch energy system is one of the most reliable systems in Western-Europe (Baarsma & Hop, 2009) and it would be unthinkable if this would be put at stake. In the dynamics of both the technological revolution and energy transition, it is expected that the need for administrative jobs requiring low to medium complex skills will diminish sharply in the utilities industry in the near future. What the exact horizon is of “the near future” is yet unknown. In order to stay competitive, relevant, and aligned with society, organizations, including utility companies, must be prepared to anticipate on what the technological revolution is bringing. This applies to employees as well. Since it is hard to predict the exact direction and speed of technological changes, organizations and its employees are facing uncertain times. Despite this uncertainty, it is important for organizations to ensure that employees stay motivated, healthy, and committed throughout the process, because organizational performance rests, at least to a certain extent, on the shoulders of the employees. The

more satisfied and committed employees are, the more profitable the organization is (Patterson, West, Lawthom, & Nickell, 1997). On top of that, work-related absenteeism equals an estimated annual expense of five billion euro for the Netherlands alone of which more than forty percent has been attributed to stress at work (Van der Ploeg, Van der Pal, De Vroome, & Van den Bossche, 2014). Apart from the economic damage, organizations have a moral obligation to look after their employees. Thus, no matter how dynamic the environment and unpredictable the future is, it is important to ensure that organizations guide their employees through these times of turmoil. This raises the question of how organizations can best lead their employees through the mazes of the unpredictable labyrinth that is called the future. Leaders of an organization play a very important role in the process. Leadership can be defined as the influencing process whereby a leader guides a group of followers towards a goal (Bryman, 1992). Especially in times of change, the role of the leader is seen as critical. Various leadership styles and behaviors have been associated with successful change initiatives (e.g., Kotter, 1995), employee well-being (e.g., Bono & Ilies, 2006; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009), higher organizational commitment, and job satisfaction (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). The mechanisms of how leadership styles or behavior lead to these positive outcomes and how it relates to follower characteristics is not yet well understood. This research will contribute to this knowledge.

Leadership research tends to focus on the characteristics of the leader, but it is maybe even more interesting to note who is on the receiving end of the stick. In his definition, Bryman (1992) talks about a group of followers. In an organizational context, the group of followers is more likely a number of individuals with a wide variety of personal differences that happen to work in the same team or department. Of course, there are some similarities that followers share, but first and foremost, they are all unique individuals, with a specific personality, one’s own mental framework to make sense of the world around them, and with one’s own ability to deal with uncertain situations. The effect that leaders have on individuals is dependent on an individual’s disposition. For example, charismatic leadership is negatively associated with follower’s burnout levels, especially for those individuals low on internal locus of control. And the negative effect of autocratic leadership tends to weaken when employees are more emotionally stable (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009).

A personal characteristic that is especially interesting in relation to coping with an unpredictable future, is an individual’s perspective of time. The concept of time perspective has been adopted by Kurt Lewin many decades ago. Lewin defined it as “the totality of the individual’s views of one’s psychological future and one’s psychological past at a given time” (Lewin, 1951, p. 75). One’s behavior, cognition, and emotions in the present time are influenced by experiences in the past and anticipated future events (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Temporal focus is one aspect of time perspective and is defined as the extent to which people characteristically devote their attention to cognitive perceptions of the past, present, and future (Shipp, Edwards, & Schurer Lambert, 2009). Decisions to take certain actions are influenced by temporal focus; the ‘bias’ one has to a particular time frame. This is, mostly, an unconscious process that impacts many important and less important life decisions, and sense-making. Likewise, it can be argued

that an individual’s perspective on time also has an effect on one’s susceptibility and perception of uncertainty. For example, employees who put a focus on the past might struggle more to let go of the past and embrace the unknown future (Shipp et al., 2009). Thus, individual variations in temporal focus are hypothesized to matter in experiencing uncertainties and stress. This thesis aims to provide insight into the important role that leaders have in preventing their followers from getting lost in the turmoil of the technology revolution and energy transition by reducing employees’ perceived uncertainty and thereby reducing employees’ stress levels. Additionally, the research explores whether temporal focus and tolerance of uncertainty can guard employees from negative effects of facing uncertainty. The research question is: How does leadership behavior influence perceived uncertainty and, ultimately, employee stress, and how is the relation between uncertainty and stress impacted by employees’ intolerance of uncertainty and temporal focus? This research has been conducted at Enexis Holding, one of the largest grid operators in the Netherlands. Grid operators have been at the heart of society for nearly two centuries providing reliable gas and electricity flows. Employment in the public sector, which grid operators belong to, tends to be more stable compared to the private sector. For example, in the United States, the average tenure in public sector workers is more than double compared to private sector workers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). But this stability is waning with the technological revolution and energy transition looming around the corner, which makes Enexis-employees an ideal population to answer the research question.

This thesis starts with a literature review regarding the research question and accompanying hypotheses, including the conceptual model. This is followed by chapters describing the data collection method and the results of the statistical analyses. The significance of the results is accounted for in the discussion, together with the study’s limitations and some suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Change as a Stressful Situation

From the introduction it becomes clear that we live in an era of (technological) change, in which the future state is unknown and unpredictable. One thing that is certain is that the changing world will not only have an impact on the organizational level but will lead to reactions on an individual level as well. There are different kinds of reactions, such as cognitive (change beliefs), behavioral (e.g., involvement, commitment) or affective (positive or negative) reactions (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). An affective reaction to change that has been researched extensively is stress, or psychological strain (e.g., Bordia, Jones, Gallois, Callan, & DiFonzo, 2006; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). There is a wide variety of definitions and operationalizations of ‘stress’. In this thesis, stress is defined as the perceived feeling that work demands exceed the individual’s resources for coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Experiencing stress for a prolonged period of time has negative effects for the employee and, ultimately, also for the organization. Perceiving high levels of stress has been associated with burnout and absenteeism (e.g., Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Also, productivity of organizations can be negatively impacted (e.g., Kompier & Cooper, 1999). Hence, it is important to ensure that employees are enabled to cope with the demands of their job. To be able to influence (reduce) the stress levels employees perceive, it is important to understand the mechanisms through which stress levels are impacted, which will be further explored in the next paragraphs.

2.2 Uncertainty

One angle to look at why change increases stress, is that change transforms a known, familiar, and, usually, predictive situation into a new and uncertain situation. It has been proven difficult to get employees out of their comfort zones to move into the unpredictable unknown (Kotter, 1995). Employees know what they have and can only guess what they will get. The kind of reaction and the intensity of the reaction to changes depend, among other things, on the way the change is perceived by the individual (Oreg et al., 2011). When change goes hand in hand with uncertainty, which can be defined as “an individual’s perceived inability to predict something accurately” (Milliken, 1987, p. 136), a negative affective response can be expected. Uncertainty about future changes as perceived by employees has been associated with higher levels of stress and absenteeism, lower levels of job satisfaction, and reduced commitment. In a merger, when perceived uncertainty increases, the level of stress was found to rise and the level of satisfaction, commitment, and intentions to stay with the organization decreased (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, and DiFonzo (2004) found a positive effect of uncertainty on psychological strain, which had negative consequences for job satisfaction and intention to remain with the company. Thus, when changes lead to increased perception of uncertainty by an employee, a negative affective reaction to change (increased stress levels) is likely to occur.

Hypothesis 1: Uncertainty perceived by employees is positively related to

2.3 Leader Behavior and Employee Stress

If not knowing what the future will bring raises stress levels, one might think that an easy-fix would be to eliminate uncertainty during change initiatives. If the future is no longer uncertain, it is communicated in such a way that employees can look forward to the future state, and they are no longer frightened of it, employees might feel better able to cope with the situation and perceive less stress. This line of thought relates to the uncertainty reduction theory, which infers that high levels of uncertainty elicit information seeking behavior aimed at reducing that uncertainty (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Facing uncertainty makes people feel uncomfortable and strained, because they cannot predict what is going to happen. A mechanism to reduce this discomfort and unease is to look for information, so one feels more in control. Supervisors are a source of information that employees can turn to. Being higher in the chain of command, supervisors tend to be better in seeing the bigger picture and have more information than their followers. Therefore, the supervisor’s response to followers, their behavior, and state of mind in general are hypothesized to have an effect on their followers’ feelings of uncertainty and on their followers’ stress level. No matter how interesting, it would be sheer impossible to include each and every aspect, positive and negative, of the wide palette that leader behavior is. Therefore, this research is limited to behaviors that address the ability to identifying and creating a future vision (transformational leadership), structuring the work (initiating structure) and caring for followers (people-orientation).

2.3.1 Leadership Theories – Past and Present

There is a large body of literature and research that focuses on leadership and, over time, a number of leadership theories came and went. Relatively stable is the notion that consideration for the individual and initiating structure form the basis of effective leadership behavior as introduced by Ohio State leadership studies (e.g., Fleishman & Harris, 1962). While initiating structure focuses on task-oriented leadership behavior, consideration concerns behaviors related to social interactions with followers (Fleishman, 1953). Even though throughout the years, concerns have been raised about the validity of the constructs and the measurement methods, quantitative research revealed that consideration and initiating structure “have important main effects on numerous criteria that most would argue are fundamental indicators of effective leadership” (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004, p. 44).

Another popular, more recent, leadership theory is that of transformational leadership (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership focuses on leadership behavior that motivates and inspires followers (Burns, 1978), and on what supervisors can do to develop their followers to their fullest potential (Northouse, 1997). Looking at the subdimensions of transformational leadership, there seems to be overlap with the concepts of the Ohio State leadership studies. For example, Bass (1985) argues that the extent to which a leader pays attention to individuals and their needs is one of the dimensions of transformational leadership. This concept of ‘individualized consideration’ seems to be quite similar to ‘consideration’ from the Ohio State leadership studies. There have been a

few attempts to empirically assess the overlap or differences between the transformational-transactional model and Ohio State, and whether or not the dimensions are recognizably different in nature, as theorized (e.g., Piccolo, Bono, Heinitz, Rowold, Duehr, & Judge, 2012). The review shows that there are similarities, but it also shows that you cannot just substitute one model for the other. In other words, regardless of the high correlations between the models, each model does explain some unique variance of leadership behavior. The parallel can be drawn with the distinction Kotter (1990) made between leadership and management. Here, there are also similarities, but still, both concepts are distinct. Where leadership is more focused on visioning, strategizing, motivating, and inspiring others to change, management is more concerned with planning, organizing, controlling, and problem solving. It can be argued that transformational leadership is inclined to facilitate movement and change, while initiating structure concerns what Kotter calls management. Thus, ‘leaders’, in Kotter’s definition, are supervisors who display behavior that is associated with transformational leaders, as defined by Bass and others. Kotter describes ‘managers’ as supervisors who focus more on initiating structure and planning. In this research, these two aspects are included in the model to see assess their effect on employee uncertainty and stress levels. The third leadership element that is included is people management, since genuinely caring for others and providing support seems to be important for people’s well-being and their ability to cope with demanding situations (e.g., Cohen & Wills, 1985). Conceptually there seems to be overlap between aspects of transformational leadership and people-oriented leadership, yet they are not the same (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011). People-oriented leadership is rooted in the belief that behavior is driven from within. People-oriented leaders are intrinsically motivated to serve other people’s interests and needs (Resick, Hanges, Dickson, & Mitchelson, 2006). Transformational leaders inspire and involve followers to achieve more than initially expected (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). However, their intentions may vary. Transformational leader behavior could be authentic, but it could also be driven by selfish motivations (Bass, 1985). In other words, transformational leaders do not have to be driven by the value to be considerate, whereas a people-oriented leader is always genuinely interested in and caring for others.

2.3.2 Transformational Leadership

Being able to lead a team or employees in a turbulent and changing circumstances, is probably one of the most difficult things to do for a leader. Transformational leadership is the most change-oriented leadership style (Yukl, 2010) and has been associated with higher levels of employees’ commitment to change (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008). Identifying a vision, inspiring followers with plans for the future, and clearly communicating the vision and future are the main characteristics of a transformational leader (Bass, 1985; Den Hartog et al., 1997). Transformational leadership has been associated with positive follower outcomes, such as job satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) and reduced job-related stress in followers (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Hence, a negative, direct relation between transformational leadership and lower follower stress is expected.

Hypothesis 2a: There is a negative relationship between transformational

leadership and follower stress.

Nonetheless, previous research indicates the existence of mediating or moderating factors (e.g., Harms, Credé, Tynan, Leon, & Jeung, 2017) and perceived uncertainty is a likely candidate. When a supervisor is very good in envisioning the future, providing a positive outlook, stressing ambitious goals, and building self-confidence in followers, the followers may feel more able to paint a picture of the future state themselves. It creates a common purpose and this inspirational motivation helps to guide follower’s actions, especially when the leader can make the vision and goals attainable (Yukl, 2010). Especially in times of uncertainty, followers may benefit from having a transformational leader, who can subdue the unpredictability of the future by sharing plans and dreams with enthusiasm, and charisma. Thus, followers will perceive less uncertainty when they are working with a transformational leader. Less uncertainty goes hand in hand with experiencing less stress, which leads to next hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2b: The negative relationship between transformational leadership

and follower stress is mediated by perceived uncertainty in followers.

2.3.3 Initiating Structure

One of the elements of the Ohio State leadership studies focuses on task-oriented leadership. It relates to leader behaviors which reflect the extent to which the leader facilitates goal attainment by, for example planning and scheduling (Fleishman, 1953). By exhibiting these kind of behaviors, a supervisor helps followers to deal with the job demands followers face. The supervisor provides structure, assigns tasks, and monitors progress, so followers can solely focus on executing whatever is expected of them. By providing structure and assigning tasks, the supervisor helps followers to manage their work, which may enable followers to cope with demanding situations. Hence, initiating structure may buffer stress in followers.

Hypothesis 3a: Followers experience less stress when they have a supervisor

who provides structure and planning.

Apart from a coping mechanism to deal with demanding circumstances, a supervisor could also be a source of information by providing structure and guidance. The supervisor steers followers in a certain direction, which allow followers to let go of their uneasiness of not knowing what the future brings. They just follow the supervisor’s direction. Thus, initiating structure may have an uncertainty reducing effect on followers, which is associated with reduced feelings of stress.

Hypothesis 3b: The negative relationship between initiating structure from

supervisors and follower stress is mediated by perceived uncertainty in followers.

2.3.4 People-oriented Leadership

Being friendly, attentive, and having a considerate nature is the other element of the Ohio State leadership studies, which has been related to leader effectiveness on numerous

occasions (Judge et al., 2004). While transformational leadership focuses on change and initiating structure on managing tasks, consideration is people-oriented leadership. It is about caring for others and being attentive to their needs. Considerate, people-oriented leaders respect their followers and provide support when needed (Kalshoven et al., 2011). Hence, people-oriented leadership is expected to be associated with lower stress levels in followers, because the supervisor helps the follower to cope with whatever demands the follower is struggling with.

Hypothesis 4a: There is a negative relationship between people-oriented

leadership and follower stress.

Contrary to transformational leaders, people-oriented leaders are less inclined to draw an inspiring picture of the future and motivate followers with charismatic dreams, but what they can do is listen to follower’s concerns and offer the proverbial shoulder to cry on. Therefore, the people-oriented leader may not be able to reduce uncertainty in followers by painting a picture of the future which may provide some sense of security. Nonetheless, the supervisor can show consideration for the situation the employee is in and, by doing that, provide emotional support to the employee. By showing consideration the leader can influence the interpretation of external events by the follower (Yukl, 2010). Thus, people-oriented supervisors might not reduce the actual uncertainty, but it can have a buffering effect on perceived uncertainty when a supervisor listens to the employee’s needs, fears, and doubts, and provides reassurance to the employee (Harms et al., 2017).

Hypothesis 4b: People-oriented leadership behavior from supervisors will be

related to lower perceived uncertainty which will relate to lower follower stress.

2.3.5 Leader Temporal Focus

Apart from the behavior, the supervisor’s state of mind might have an impact on followers as well. In dynamic environments, management focus on the future has shown to be beneficial for launching new products to the market (Nadkarni & Chen, 2014). In other words, in a changing environment, having a focus on the future is associated with being able to detect opportunities and convert these ideas into products or services that help become the organization more successful (Yadav, Prabhu, & Chandy, 2007). However, having a stronger focus on the past can lead to success as well. It seems that in stable, predictable environments the chances for success are higher when management has a focus on the past. In these situations, managers are able to use their experiences and lessons learned from the past. Successes from the past are still applicable and will probably generate success again, since the environment is more or less remaining the same (Nadkarni & Chen, 2014).

Thus, in dynamic and changing environments, a future focus is likely to lead to more success because leaders think about what the future brings and envision the future state more than counterparts who have a focus on the past, which enables them to anticipate and adapt when required. Leaders with a future focus may be better able to buffer uncertainty in their followers, since they can relate to trends, detect opportunities for

success, and envision the future. The expression of this more positive outlook on the future is hypothesized to influence employees in the sense that their feelings of uncertainty are reduced. The opposite may be true as well: leaders with a past or current focus, will have trouble identifying what the future holds. Therefore, they are less able to reduce uncertainty that their followers may have.

Hypothesis 5a: Future focus in leaders is negatively associated with perceived

uncertainty in employees.

Hypothesis 5b: Past or current focus in leaders is positively associated with

perceived uncertainty in employees.

2.3.6 Conceptual Model

The research question is two-fold. Figure 1 reflects the hypotheses regarding the influence of the supervisors on employee’s perception of uncertainty and stress. Hypotheses regarding the second part of the research questions (the influence of follower characteristics on uncertainty and stress) are described in paragraph 2.4.

Figure 1. Conceptual model showing the hypothesized relations related to supervisor’s effects on followers tested in this study.

2.4 Follower Characteristics and Stress

2.4.1 Intolerance of Uncertainty

Employees’ response to change (or more specifically uncertainty) is not only determined by the way employees perceive the change or their leader behavior. The way the employees perceive their surroundings is also affected by personal dispositions, such as intolerance of ambiguity (Oreg et al., 2011). Individuals with a high threshold for ambiguity are better able to cope with change and new, unknown situations (Judge, Thorensen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). They are not easily affected by situations that are unsure and in which they receive mixed signals. Intolerance of ambiguity can be defined as “the tendency to perceive (i.e. interpret) ambiguous situations as sources of threat” (Budner, 1962, p. 29). A related concept, but with a stronger focus on the future, is intolerance of uncertainty, which can be defined as “the excessive tendency of an

Le a d e r B e ha vi o r Transformational leadership Initiating structure People-oriented leadership Follower Stress Follower Perceived Uncertainty Le a d e r T e mp o ra l Focu s Future focused Past focused Current focused

individual to consider it unacceptable that a negative event may occur, however small the probability of its occurrence” (Dugas, Gosselin, & Ladouceur, 2001, p. 552). Both concepts have sometimes been used interchangeably in research. Both refer to an interpretation of the environment. The main difference is what the focus is; present or future. Ambiguity tends to refer to equivocal stimuli in the present and uncertainty refers more to the unpredictability of the future (Grenier, Barrette, & Ladouceur, 2005). For example, a current situation can be ambiguous in the way that an employee receives mixed signals whether to focus on quality or quantity, while uncertainty stems from not knowing what the future will bring. Employees with a low uncertainty threshold cannot withstand uncertain situations and have a tendency to wanting to control future events. Wanting to be in control and not being able to, because the future cannot be predicted giving the dynamic environment we live in, can lead to strong reactions, such as feelings of insecurity and stress (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989). Not knowing what the future will bring, makes people who are intolerant for uncertainty feel strained and uneasy. On the other hand, employees with a high uncertainty threshold tend to like surprises and are unfazed when not knowing what the future brings. It can be argued that they experience less uncertainty and also stress, because they do not focus on controlling what the future will bring. It is not something they think or worry about. It does not make them feel insecure or strained to take the future how and when it comes. Thus, employees who have a high tolerance of uncertainty are hypothesized to experience less uncertainty and stress. It is hypothesized that employees with a low threshold of uncertainty report more uncertainty and also perceive more stress.

Hypothesis 6a: Intolerance of uncertainty is positively associated with higher

levels of stress.

Hypothesis 6b: Intolerance of uncertainty is positively associated with higher

levels of uncertainty.

2.4.2 Follower Temporal Focus

Other than the tolerance level for uncertainty, an individual’s cognitive perspective on time could also influence the stress level. As described before, time perspective is an overarching construct of various time-related concepts, such as time attitude and temporal orientation. Temporal orientation relates to the predominant cognitive involvement in the past, present or future of an individual (Holman & Silver, 1998). Temporal focus is a related concept with the main difference that an individual only has one main temporal orientation and could have multiple temporal foci. Furthermore, temporal focus is directed to thinking about a certain time (past, present or future). It focuses on cognition rather than affect (Shipp et al., 2009).

Temporal orientation on the future has been associated with lower psychological distress, while a predominant focus on the past has been associated with a higher level of psychological distress. Individuals with a future or present focus have, in general, better coping mechanisms to deal with negative events (Holman & Silver, 1998), which prevents them from experiencing strain. Additionally, it appears that individuals with a focus on

the present or future have, in general, a more positive affect and outlook on life (Shipp et al., 2009). Thus, it can be hypothesized that individuals with a present or future focus are better able to deal with demanding situations compared to past-focused individuals and, as a consequence, experience less stress.

Hypothesis 7a: Current and future focus is negatively associated with stress

levels, while a focus on the past is positively associated with stress. Temporal focus can also affect feelings of uncertainty that individuals may perceive. In their uncertainty reduction theory, Berger and Calabrese (1975) explained that people look for information to reduce feelings of uncertainty. This information seeking behavior can either be proactive, predicting, and anticipating on what lies ahead, or reactive, using experiences from the past (Solomon, 2015). While a more reactive approach might be more successful in a stable environment where changes are scarce and slow, focusing and anticipating on opportunities that arise at the horizon is a more successful strategy in the dynamic world we live in (Nadkarni & Chen, 2014). Individuals who focus their mind on the future think about what lies ahead and, therefore, can anticipate on what the future brings. This sense of control will reduce the feelings of uncertainty and it provides opportunities to act proactively. On the other hand, individuals who do not think about what tomorrow will bring, cannot prepare themselves on what is coming. In a stable environment, the future might not hold many surprises, but considering the dynamics of the world we currently live in, relying on past experiences is not sufficient anymore. Thus, people who look ahead can see more opportunities arise at the horizon, and, in combination with a more positive outlook on life in general, this reduces perceptions of insecurity or uncertainty compared to individuals with a past or current focus.

Hypothesis 7b: A strong future focus is associated with perceiving less

uncertainty, while individuals with a past or current focus perceive more uncertainty. 2.4.3 Conceptual Model Figure 2 shows the second part of the conceptual model, focusing on the role of follower characteristics on the perception of uncertainty and stress. Figure 2. Conceptual model showing the hypothesized relations related to individual characteristics tested in this study. Follower Stress Follower Perceived Uncertainty Fol low er Tem p ora l Focu s Future focused Past focused Current focused Follower Intolerance of Uncertainty

3. Method

3.1 Participants and Procedure

This study was conducted at Enexis Holding. Enexis Holding has approximately 4.350 employees (Enexis Holding, 2018). Data collection took place over a four-week period. Managers of departments within Customer & Market were asked for approval to invite their whole department to participate in the research. Additionally, a number of departments within Asset Management, Finance, and Procurement were invited to participate as well. There were a few teams who were transitioning to a new team manager at the time of the research. Since evaluating leader behavior is essential for this study, these teams were excluded from the list of participants. The next step was to inform the team managers about the research and that they, and their employees, would receive a link to the questionnaire by e-mail the week after (see Appendix A). Every employee within the team and every team manager within the department was sent an invitation to participate. All e-mails contained a personalized link to the questionnaire to make it possible to link employee data to team manager data and to link team manager data to manager data. One week after sending out the link, a reminder was sent. The research design is cross-sectional. Participants were sent a questionnaire once and there was no intervention prior or during the data collection period. In total, 711 invitations to participate were sent out, of which 664 to employees and 47 to (team)managers. In total, 478 questionnaires were returned, of which 43 were filled out by (team)managers. The overall response rate was 67.5%. The average age of the respondents was 47.7 years; ages ranging from 22 years old to 67 years old. Compared to the whole organization, women were overrepresented in the sample. At Enexis, 22.8% of the workforce is female (Enexis Holding, 2018), while 41% of the respondents was female. This overrepresentation is due to the fact that the majority of the respondents are working in the department Customer & Market, which has a different male-female distribution (higher percentage female employees) than the more technical departments. On average, the employees worked for 18.7 years at Enexis; ranging from less than a year to 46 years. The duration of the supervisor-employee relation varied from less than six months to more than ten years. The distribution is as follows: less than six months (17%), six months to one year (25%), one to three years (32%), three to five years (17%), five to ten years (6%), more than ten years (3%).

3.2 Measurement of Variables

An online questionnaire was used, constructed in Qualtrics. Employees and (team)managers rated themselves and when thinking of the ‘leader’ they were asked to rate their immediate supervisor. (Team)Managers were not asked to rate their employees or their own leader behavior. I made separate survey forms to tailor instructions and framing questions adequate to the role of employee or (team)manager. All items used in the questionnaires are based on existing scales, which have been translated into Dutch in previous studies, with the exception of items related to perceived

uncertainty. These items have been created or translated by me (see Appendix C for the questionnaires).

3.2.1 Stress

The level of stress was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (Cohen, 1994; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983; Cohen & Williamson, 1988). The PSS is a self-reported questionnaire “designed to measure the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful” (Cohen et al., 1983, p. 385). The original scale consisted of fourteen items, but the 10-item version has become more popular. More importantly, the psychometric properties of the PSS-10 exceed those of the PSS-14 (Cohen & Williamson, 1988; Lee, 2012). The Dutch translation of the PSS-10 originates from a master’s thesis and has a Cronbach’s a for internal reliability of .87 (Albers, 2011). Respondents were asked to rate the frequency of their feelings and thoughts in the past month on a five-point scale (1 = Never, 5 = A lot). Example item: “In the past month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”. Cronbach’s a was .83. 3.2.2 Perceived Uncertainty Strategic Uncertainty

The extent to which employee’s experience uncertainty was assessed by asking respondents to indicate how often they feel uncertain about the strategic direction (three items; e.g., “about the direction in which the organization is heading?”) and the structure of their company (three items; e.g., “about how your work unit contributes to the overall mission of the organization?”). These items are based on research by Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, and Callan (2004), who distinguished three levels of uncertainty, namely strategic, structural, and job-related uncertainty (cf. Milliken, 1987). For the purpose of this research, the items for strategic and structural uncertainty were adjusted for the context and translated into Dutch. Respondents were asked to record their answers on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Never; 7 = Always). Before transforming items into scales, a principal component factor analysis was conducted to examine the underlying factor structure. There appeared to be one factor with an eigenvalue > 1, which explained 62.2% of the variance. The factor loadings of all items were > .70. Therefore, it was decided to combine the six items into one scale (strategic uncertainty) with an internal reliability, Cronbach’s a, of .88. Job Insecurity The third element of perceived uncertainty Milliken (1987) and Bordia, Hobman et al. (2004) identified is job-related uncertainty or insecurity. Job insecurity can have severe effects on people’s well-being and it has been argued that it is one of the most stressful aspects of the work environment (De Witte, 1999). In this research, it was operationalized more specifically as uncertainty about the continuance of one’s job (quantitative job insecurity) and loss of valued characteristics of one’s job (qualitative job insecurity). To assess the quantitative insecurity about one’s job, the Job Insecurity

Scale was used (De Witte, 2000). This scale consists of four items (e.g., “Chances are I will soon lose my job” and the psychometric evaluation implies that this scale can be used to assess quantitative job insecurity in a valid, reliable way (Vander Elst, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2014). The qualitative aspect of job insecurity was measured using four items (e.g., “My future career opportunities in [the organization] are favorable”) (Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999). A Dutch translation was used previously for a master’s thesis (Van den Eshof, 2014). In total, five items are positively phrased and therefore reverse coded. All items are scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). A principal component analysis resulted in a two-factor solution, as expected, with the items belonging to quantitative job insecurity loading high on factor 1 and the items belonging to qualitative job insecurity loading high on factor 2. Cronbach’s a for quantitative job insecurity was .85 and for qualitative job insecurity .71.

3.2.3 Leader Behavior

Three scales were included to assess leader behavior; transformational leadership, initiating structure, and people-orientated leadership. All items are presented in a random order and are rated on a seven-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree).

Transformational Leadership

There are several measures to measure transformational leadership, of which the MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) is very well-known (Avolio & Bass, 2004). This measure, like others, has some difficulty to distinguish the theorized underlying dimensions. To address this issue, the transformational leadership scale from CLIO (Charismatic Leadership in Organizations) was used in this study (De Hoogh, Koopman, & Den Hartog, 2004). CLIO was originally developed in Dutch, which rules out translation errors as an added benefit, and measures transformational, autocratic, passive, and transactional leadership. The transformational leadership scale consists of eleven items. Respondents are asked to indicate to what extent they agree that the supervisor displays the specific behavior (e.g., [My supervisor] “Is always seeking new opportunities for the organization”). Cronbach’s a was .95. Initiating Structure There are several measures of the two constructs of the Ohio State leadership behavior, initiating structure and consideration. Judge et al. (2004) reviewed the validity of the most widely used scales and concluded that the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Halpin, 1957) and the renewed LBDQ form XII (Stogdill, 1963) have the highest validities. In this research, a Dutch translation of the LBDQ-XII was included (Kampen, 2011; Van den Bergen, 2008), which appeared to have similar Cronbach’s alpha scores as the original English scale (Stogdill, 1963). Initiating structure is measured by ten items such as “My supervisor lets group members know what is expected of them”. Cronbach’s a was .89.

People-oriented Leadership

LBDQ also covers items to assess leader consideration. However, this also includes aspects of empowering employees, which is already part of the operationalization of transformational leadership. Research shows that there are high correlations between the consideration-scale of LBDQ and transformational leadership (e.g., Heinitz, 2006; Piccolo et al., 2012). To focus on the respect and support leader give their employees, which can serve as a coping mechanism for stressful situations, the scale people-orientation from the Ethical Leadership at Work (EWL) was used. People-people-orientation means “having a true concern for people, …, respecting, and supporting subordinates and where possible ensuring that their needs are met” (Kalshoven et al., 2011, p. 53). The psychometric properties of the scale are good. Empirical evidence shows that people-orientation positively correlates with transformational leadership, but not so high that it is suspected that both scales measure the same underlying construct (Kalshoven et al., 2011). The extent to which supervisors are people-oriented is measured with seven phrases like “Takes time for personal contact”. Cronbach’s a was .95.

3.2.4 Intolerance of Uncertainty

Employees’ threshold to cope with uncertainty is measured with Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. The original French questionnaire was designed to assess “emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions to ambiguous situations, implications of being uncertain, and attempts to control the future” (Freeston, Rhéaume, Letarte, Dugas, & Ladouceur, 1994, p. 791). A shortened 12-item version seems to have similarly good psychometric properties as the full version, which is also true for the Dutch translation (Helsen, Van den Bussche, Vlaeyen, & Goubert, 2013). Since longer questionnaires tend to have higher non-response rates, the use of the shortened version is preferred (e.g., Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000; Galesic & Bosnjak, 2009). Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale to which extent they agree with various propositions (e.g., “I always want to know what the future has in store for me”; 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). Cronbach’s a was .85. 3.2.5 Temporal Focus To be able to assess whether the respondents focus on the past, present or future, twelve items were added to the questionnaire, rated on a seven-point scale (1 = Never; 7 = Always). These items correspond to the scales used by Shipp et al. (2009), which have been translated to Dutch for another master’s thesis (Damen, 2011). However, the Dutch items were not a true copy of the original English ones. In his questionnaire, Damen explicitly referred to temporal focus in one’s professional life, while the original items are context-free and generic. Example items of the original scales are “I replay memories of the past in my mind” (past focus), “My mind is on the here and now” (current focus), and “I think about times to come” (future focus). The results showed that the internal reliability and factor analysis of the Dutch items (framed in a professional context) were not as good as the original scales (Damen, 2011). For this research, the Dutch translation

was used and aligned with the original version to make the items context-free, as originally intended. A principal component analysis resulted in a three-factor solution confirming the distinction between past, current, and future focus. Combined the three factors explained 66.2% of the total variance. Cronbach’s a for past, current, and future focus were .86, .77, and .79, respectively. 3.2.6 Control Variables Gender, age, tenure, and educational level are included as control variables. Even though the empirical evidence is inconclusive, previous research indicates that these factors can influence the scores of perceived stress (Lee, 2012) and job insecurity (Cheng & Chan, 2008; De Witte, 1999), which could also be the case for strategic uncertainty.

3.3 Statistical Procedure

The data were downloaded from Qualtrics and imported in Microsoft Excel. Employees who clicked on the link but did not answer any questions were deleted from the data set (n = 40). The next step was to match employee variables with variables of the relevant supervisor, during which the supervisor variables were marked with an “S” (e.g., Uncert_1 = employee answer to the first item of uncertainty and SUncert_1 = answer of the supervisor to the same item). The data set was then imported in IBM SPSS Statistics version 25, followed by factor and reliability analyses as well as recoding the counter-indicative items and computing scales.

For all main variables, the mean and standard deviation were computed. Correlation analysis was used to assess the relation between the (main) variables in this research. Multiple regression analyses were used to test Hypotheses 1, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5, and 7. Before testing Hypothesis 5, the data was aggregated at supervisor level. The hypotheses 2b, 3b, and 4b included mediating effects, which were tested for significance using PROCESS, a macro for SPSS designed to aid conducting mediation or moderation analysis as well as conditional process analysis (Hayes, 2018).

4. Results

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of the scales used in this study. The results show that the internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) for most scales were good (³ .8 < .9) or excellent (³ .9). The internal consistency of qualitative job insecurity, temporal focus – current and temporal focus – future were acceptable (³ .7 < .8). Table 1 Psychometric Properties of the Major Study Variables Range

Variable n M SD a Potential Actual Skew

Perceived uncertainty Quantitative job insecurity 478 2.85 0.96 .85 1 – 5 1.0 – 5.0 0.20 Qualitative job insecurity 478 2.78 0.72 .71 1 – 5 1.0 – 5.0 0.61 Strategic uncertainty 478 3.28 1.15 .88 1 – 7 1.0 – 6.3 0.22 Leader behavior Transformational 457 5.39 1.12 .95 1 – 7 1.0 – 7.0 -1.27 Initiating structure 457 5.08 1.04 .89 1 – 7 1.0 – 7.0 -0.72 People-oriented 457 5.54 1.31 .95 1 – 7 1.0 – 7.0 -1.40 Temporal focus Past 461 3.53 1.10 .86 1 – 7 1.0 – 7.0 0.67 Current 461 5.10 0.96 .77 1 – 7 2.0 – 7.0 -0.05 Future 461 4.98 1.01 .79 1 – 7 2.0 – 7.0 -0.18 Intolerance of uncertainty 463 29.85 7.35 .85 12 – 60 13.0 – 60.0 0.49 Perceived stress 458 12.57 5.06 .83 0 – 40 0.0 – 33.0 0.44 Note. The variation in sample size is due to missing values. Scale scores are only calculated when all underlying items contain valid scores. As a rule of thumb, skewness of ± 1 is considered to be acceptable. The skewness scores of transformational and people-oriented leadership are (slightly) higher than acceptable. However, skewness does not influence analysis substantially with relatively large samples (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). This was confirmed to be applicable for this data set after running a number of additional analyses to explore the effects of transforming the scores to adjust for skewness. Therefore, transformational and people-oriented leadership scores did not have to be transformed to adjust for skewness.

4.2 Correlation Analysis

The bivariate correlations between the main variables are displayed in Table 2. Even though significant at the .01 level, most correlations are relatively small (r < .3) to moderate (.3 ≥ r < .5) (Cohen, 1988). Stronger connections are found between the various leader behavior scales. For example, transformational leadership shows a strong positive relation with people-oriented leadership (r = .80, p < .001). Another strong connection has been found between perceived stress and intolerance of uncertainty (IOU) (r = .52, p < .001). The more employees were intolerant to deal with uncertainty, the more stress they reported. All correlation coefficients above the significance level were in the hypothesized direction. Interestingly, age and gender did not correlate with perceived stress or intolerance of uncertainty. However, the longer employees worked for the organization, the more job insecurity they experienced (quantitative job insecurity r = .12, p = .014; qualitative job insecurity r = .22, p < .001) and the more uncertainty about the strategic direction of the organization (r = .14, p = .004). Level of education showed the opposite: higher educated employees reported less job insecurity (quantitative r = -.25, p < .001; qualitative r = -.17, p < .001). At the same time, employees with a higher educational background reported

slightly less stress (r = -.11, p = .023), were more tolerant for uncertainty (r = -.20, p < .001), had a stronger focus on the future (r = .14, p = .002), and reported less initiating structure (r = 23, p < .001). These results are interesting considering that Enexis expects that, due to automation and computerization, administrative jobs requiring medium to low level of education will reduce in number in the next few years.

Table 2 Correlation Matrix – Pearson Correlation Coefficients Variable 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1. Age -.12** -.36** .72** .13** .19** .10* .02 .20** -.02 -.05 .02 -.07 -.03 .08 2. Gender – -.15** -.05 .08 .04 -.02 .01 .06 -.02 -.08 .06 .00 .06 -.08 3. Education level – -.44** -.25** -.17** -.06 .00 -.23** .03 .05 -.03 .14** -.11* -.20** 4. Tenure – .12* .22** .14** -.02 .18** -.03 .04 -.05 -.09 .05 .18** 5. Quantitative job insecurity – .49** .13** –.13** .05 –.13** .12** .03 .02 .26** .33** 6. Qualitative job insecurity – .05 –.34** –.12** –.31** .08 –.08 –.10* .26** .22** 7. Strategic uncertainty – –.02 .02 .01 .13** .06 .12* .18** .16** 8. Transformational leadership – .72** .80** –.07 .16** .17** –.23** –.10* 9. Initiating structure – .56** –.05 .17** .10* –.14** .01 10. People-oriented leadership – –.04 .08 .12* –.18** –.08 11. Past focus – .02 .26** .30** .35** 12. Current focus – .45** –.18** –.09* 13. Future focus – .00 .15** 14. Perceived stress – .52** 15. Intolerance of uncertainty (IOU) – Note. N = 441. Missing values have been excluded listwise. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

4.3 Uncertainty and Stress

All three measures of perceived uncertainty were positively related to perceived stress. Employees who felt insecure that they might lose their job (quantitative job insecurity) reported higher stress levels (r = .26, p < .001). The same was true for employees who were worried that more qualitative aspects of their job are at stake (qualitative job insecurity; r = .26, p < .001) and for employees who were uncertain whether the organization is heading in the right direction (strategic uncertainty; r = .18, p < .001). The results of the regression analysis in Table 3 show also that all aspects of uncertainty had a significant relation with stress. In total, 11% of the variance in respondents’ stress levels could be explained by various aspects of uncertainty they experienced. Hence, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Follower Stress from Uncertainty Perceived stress Model 1 Model 2 Variable b SE b SE Model 1 – Control variables Age -.14* .03 -.17* .03 Gender .04 .49 .02 .47 Education -.10 .23 -.05 .23 Tenure .11 .03 .07 .03 Model 2 – Main effects Quantitative job insecurity .15** .27 Qualitative job insecurity .18** .36 Strategic uncertainty .16** .20 R2 _{.02 .13} F 2.59** 9.43** DR2 .11 DF 18.16** Note. N = 452. Missing values have been excluded listwise. Standardized coefficients are shown. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

The results from the correlation matrix regarding educational level are interesting considering that Enexis expects that, due to automation and computerization, the number of administrative jobs requiring low to medium level of education will reduce in the next few years. A post-hoc regression analysis was executed to assess the extent to which education is related to specifically quantitative job insecurity. The results revealed a significant effect (b = -.24, t (447) = -4.52, p < .001), indicating that employees with a higher education are less afraid to lose their job compared to colleagues with a lower level of education.

4.4 Leader Behavior, Leader Temporal Focus, Uncertainty, and

Stress

4.4.1 Leader Behavior The correlation matrix (Table 2) shows that the various leader behavior aspects were negatively associated with stress. Transformational leadership, observed by employees, showed the strongest relationship with perceived stress in employees (r = -.23, p < .001). The relation between initiating structure and stress was the weakest of the three leader behavior aspects (r = -.14, p = .003), but it was still significantly different from zero. These results provide support for Hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 4a. The more a leader showed transformational leadership, initiated structure, or was people-oriented, the less stress employees reported.

To explore the unique relation between each leader behavioral aspect and perceived stress, a regression analysis was conducted (Table 4). Interestingly, when all leader behavior aspects were included in the analysis, only transformational leadership (b = -.26, p = .006) explained a significant amount of variance in follower stress. Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Follower Stress from Leader Behavior Table 4 shows also that education had a significant effect on perceived stress. To understand this relation in more detail, I analyzed the interaction effect of education1 _on the relation between transformational leadership and follower stress. Both independent variables were mean-centered, before multiplying to create the interaction term (cf.

1 _{Since “small to moderate inequalities in interval size produce little if any distortion in the validity of the}

conclusions” (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003, p. 23), the variable education can be used in linear regression even though it is not a true interval scale. Perceived stress Model 1 Model 2 Variable b SE b SE Model 1 – Control variables Age -.14* .03 -.12 .03 Gender .03 .50 .03 .49 Education -.11* .24 -.11* .24 Tenure .10 .03 .09 .03 Model 2 – Main effects Transformational -.26** .45 Initiating structure .02 .36 People-oriented .03 .31 R2 _{.03 .08} F 2.50* 5.06** DR2 _.05 DF 8.31** Note. N = 441. Missing values have been excluded listwise. Standardized coefficients are shown. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Aiken & West, 1991). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5. The control variables were entered in step 1, educational level and transformational leader behavior in step 2, and the interaction term in step 3. The results show a significant interaction effect (b = -.09, p = .047). The shape of the interaction is shown in Figure 3, which reveals that significantly less stress was reported by followers with a higher educational background and a transformational supervisor compared to colleagues with a transformational supervisor but with a lower educational level. Simple slopes analysis revealed that the relation between transformational leader behavior and follower stress is only significant for employees who obtained a grade in intermediate vocational education (in Dutch: MBO) or higher.

Table 5

Post-Hoc Moderated Regression Analysis for Transformational Leader Behavior and Follower Educational Level Explaining Follower Stress Figure 3. Perceived stress as a function of transformational leader behavior and follower educational level. N = 441. Perceived stress

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Variable b SE b SE b SE

Step 1 Age -.13 .03 -.12 .03 -.13 .03 Gender .05 .49 .03 .49 .04 .49 Tenure .14 .03 .09 .03 .10 .03 Step 2 Education -.11* .23 -.10* .23 Transformational Behavior -.23** .22 -.25** .22 Step 3 Education ´ Transformational -.09* .19 R2 _{.01 .08 .08} F 2.03 7.09** 6.61** DR2 _{.06 .01} DF 14.49** 3.96* Note. N = 441. Missing values have been excluded listwise. Standardized coefficients are shown. * p < .05. ** p < .01. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Low Transformational High Transformational

Per c eiv ed St res s