MASTER THESIS
Eliciting employee proactivity: a comparison of the effects of
empowering and directive leadership on personal initiative.
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Business and Economics
MSc in Business Administration – Leadership and Management Track
Author:
Suzanne de Wit
Student number:
10872469
Thesis supervisor:
Renske van Geffen
Date of submission: June 24, 2016
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Suzanne de Wit 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.
Abstract
In today’s competitive global market, merely reacting to the actions of global competitors is not enough to stay competitive. To stay ahead of the competition, it is critical to react swiftly when opportunities of innovation arise. Accordingly, organisations are increasingly depending on employees to take initiative when such opportunities emerge. Consequently, it has become ever more important to determine the specific organizational interventions that elicit employee proactivity. The aim of the current study was to respond to this call of action by examining the role of leadership in stimulating personal initiative. Through a study of two samples and over time, the current paper expected to find evidence of the positive effects of empowering leadership and directive leadership on two proposed predictors of personal initiative, namely role breadth self-efficacy and role clarity. Additionally, leader-member exchange was proposed to moderate these relationships. As only limited evidence was found to support the hypotheses, the current study suggests that specific leadership behaviours are not sufficient when eliciting proactivity. Instead, the author brings forward a set of organisational interventions likely to enhance employee proactivity.
Keywords: personal initiative; empowering leadership; role breadth self-efficacy, directive
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Theoretical background ... 9
2.1 Personal initiative ... 9
2.2 Empowering leadership ... 11
2.3 Role breadth self-efficacy ... 14
2.4 Directive leadership ... 14 2.5 Role clarity ... 16 2.6 Leader-Member Exchange ... 18 3. Research method ... 22 3.1 Procedure ... 22 3.2. Sample ... 23 3.2.1 Description of Sample 1 ... 23 3.2.2 Description of Sample 2 ... 24 3.3 Measures ... 25 3.4 Analyses ... 27 4. Results ... 29 4.1 Results Sample 1 ... 29 4.1.1 Descriptive statistics ... 29 4.1.2 Regression analysis ... 30
4.1.3 The moderating effect of LMX... 32
4.2 Results Sample 2 ... 33
4.2.1 Descriptive statistics ... 33
4.2.2 Regression analysis ... 35
4.2.3 The moderating effect of LMX... 37
5. Discussion ... 38
5.1. Theoretical implications and suggestions for future research ... 38
5.2 Managerial implications ... 42
5.3 Limitations ... 46
6. Conclusion ... 48
7. References ... 49
1. Introduction
In today’s competitive global market, organisations can no longer merely rely on fixed sets of tasks to remain competitive. Instead of being reactive towards worldwide competitors, organizations have to act proactively and continuously develop their knowledge and skills as a means to achieve innovation (Parker, 2000). In order to innovate, employees must use this enhanced set of knowledge and skills to develop novel ideas when opportunities of innovation arise. As such, organisations are increasingly depending on employees from virtually all levels of the organisation to take initiative when such opportunities emerge. Employee proactivity has been suggested to lead to an array of positive outcomes, ranging from enhanced performance to increased levels of employee satisfaction and organisational commitment (Thomas, Whitman & Viswesvaran, 2010). These positive effects have led organisations to search for ways to motivate self-initiated, anticipatory work behaviour.
As proactivity is more and more recognized as vital to organizational success, scholars have strived to determine the conditions that accommodate employee proactivity (f.e. Crant, 2000; Parker, Williams & Turner 2006). The current study will identify the influence of leadership on employee proactivity. Leadership has been identified as one of the most pivotal influencers of employee performance, and recent studies also suggest its influential role in eliciting employee proactivity (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). The current study compares the effects of empowering leadership and directive leadership, two styles of leadership that differ in the extent of autonomy or direction that is given to followers. Whereas empowering leaders give their followers the autonomy to make independent decisions, directive leaders provide detailed directions and expectations and leave limited follower input in relation to decision making (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). Historically, directive leadership has been identified as the appropriate style of leadership when improving task performance: the provision of clear goals, instructions and feedback contingent on performance should aid subordinates in effectively directing their efforts toward completion of their tasks (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). However, rapid technological developments, increased interdependence of roles and more abstract tasks have led jobs to become increasingly more complex to direct (Parker, 2014). This change has influenced more recent researchers to advocate more participative styles of leadership,
stating its positive effects on employee outcomes such as affective commitment (Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011), self-efficacy (Srivastava, Bartel & Locke, 2006), performance, and satisfaction (Vecchio, Justin, Pearce, 2010). Nevertheless, direct comparison of the two leadership styles has not been able to verify the superiority of empowering leadership over directive leadership in enhancing team performance (e.g. Yun, Faraj & Sims, 2005; Ensley, Hmieleski & Pearce, 2006).
Comparison of the effects of empowering and directive leadership on employee proactivity has however primarily provided support for the positive influence of empowering leadership. Whereas multiple studies suggest the positive direct or indirect effect of empowering leadership on employee proactivity (e.g. Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013), indirect research actually suggests a negative relationship between directive leadership and proactive behaviour (Peterson, 1997; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Only one empirical study has been able to support a positive relationship between directive leadership and proactivity, and solely under the boundary condition of employee satisfaction with the leader (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). Accordingly, empowering leadership is advocated as the more appropriate style when encouraging employee proactivity.
However, this author proposes that both styles of leadership can positively influence personal initiative, a specific form of proactivity which is characterized by its self-starting, proactive and persistent approach to work (Frese, Kring, Soose, and Zempel, 1996). Empowering leadership is expected to increase Role Breadth Self-Efficacy (RBSE). This important predictor of proactive behaviour refers to the extent to which people feel confident in their ability to carry out a broader and proactive role, which goes beyond the prescribed requirements (Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty, 2009; Parker, 1998). Empowering leaders increase RBSE through their active encouragement of subordinates to participate in decision making and through their delegation of autonomy regarding the fulfilment of their tasks. Both decision-making influence and subordinate task control are significant predictors of RBSE (Parker, 1998). Moreover, empowering leaders encourage team members to engage in-role exchanges and in a collective role examination, which helps subordinates to expand their roles while increasing collective efficacy (Lorinkova, Pearsall, & Sims, 2013). In turn, increased levels of RBSE are likely to increase personal initiative as individuals with high RBSE feel confident
about their ability to successfully carry out broader and proactive roles, which makes them more likely to assume such roles (Parker et al. 2006).
Conversely, directive leadership’s detailed direction and guidance has been suggested to increase role clarity, the degree to which individuals are clear about the expectations for and requirements of their roles (Clark, Hartline and Jones, 2009). Role clarity is identified as an antecedent of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB), an extra-role behaviour (Chahal, & Mehta, 2010; Ensley, Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic & Johnson, 2011). When roles are clear, employees are more disposable to engage in extra-role behaviours, while role ambiguity forces employees to focus their attentions and efforts on their in-role tasks and behaviours to collect additional role-related information and (Jex, Adams, Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003). While current research disproves proactivity to be an extra-role behaviour (Crant, 2000; Parker & Collins, 2010), OCB and personal initiative do share a set of distinctive qualities: both are discretionary, go beyond the explicit role requirements and are beneficial to the organisation (Lambert, 2006). Considering their similarities, role clarity is posited to facilitate personal initiative in the same manner as it facilitates OCB: when roles are clear, subordinates can focus their efforts on actions aimed at changing or improving the organization or oneself instead of collecting information to make sense of their roles. Accordingly, role clarity is likely to lead to higher levels of personal initiative.
Additionally, Leader Member Exchange (LMX) is proposed to moderate the relationship between RBSE and personal initiative, and between role clarity and personal initiative. LMX describes the quality of the exchange relationship between the leader and the extant literature recognizes LMX as a potent force in influencing employee outcomes. The quality of the exchange relationship between the leader and the subordinate is thus likely to influence the positive relationships between RBSE and personal initiative, and between role clarity and personal initiative in the current study. Please refer to Figure 1 for the theoretical model.
Figure 1. Theoretical Model
This research will contribute to the existing literature by explaining the influence of role clarity on proactivity. While role clarity has been identified as an outcome of employee proactivity (Wanberg, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), the author has not encountered a study that identifies it as an antecedent. Establishing role clarity as a predictor of proactivity can be valuable to organisations as it indicates what type of behaviours managers can engage in to stimulate employee proactivity. Moreover, this research will compare the effects of directive and empowering leadership on proactivity, adding fuel to the ongoing debate on which of these two leadership styles is superior. Additionally, by establishing empowering leadership as a predictor of RBSE, this study extends the seminal work of Parker (1998) on the organisational determinants of RBSE. Taking into account the positive aspects of RBSE, it is certainly beneficial to identify if the leadership behaviours particular to empowering leaders accommodate RBSE.
The reader is first given an overview of the existing literature, in which personal initiative, empowering leadership, RBSE, directive leadership, role clarity and LMX are explained, and the hypotheses are introduced. Subsequently, the research methodology is exhaustively explained, after which the results of the data analysis are reported and interpreted. The paper continues with the study’s theoretical and managerial implications, and the several limitations. The thesis comes to a
close when a conclusion is drawn with regard to the effects of empowering leadership and directive leadership on the predictors of proactivity.
2. Theoretical background
In the ensuing section, the reader is provided a summary of the extant literature in relation to the variables utilized in this study. This overview is comprised of relevant concepts and theories related to the research model, and serves as a basis for the formation of the hypotheses.
2.1 Personal initiative
Personal initiative is a form of proactive behaviour which Parker and Collins (2006, p. 4) define as “self-initiated anticipatory action that aims to change and improve the situation or oneself”. Other examples are taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), role innovation (Schein, 1971), and voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Personal initiative is a distinctive form of proactive behaviour as it can be defined as an approach to work that is self-starting, proactive and persistent in overcoming barriers. Personal initiative furthermore exceeds the formal requirements of a job, is focused on long-term outcomes, alignment with the organisation’s mission, and goal-directed and action-oriented approach (Frese, Kring, Soose, and Zempel, 1996). These distinctive characteristics can be beneficial to organizations.
Personal initiative is characterized by its self-starting, proactive and persistent approach to work. Self-starting implies that an individual’s goals are designed by the individual, opposed to externally assigned to the individual. Frese and Fay (2001) argue that subordinates do not simply replicate an externally set task or goal, but that they transform these tasks into internal tasks through a redefinition process. This enables subordinates to develop goals that go beyond the assigned task. Personal initiative is furthermore proactive, implying that an individual is focused on long-term outcomes and in such, anticipates future demands (Fay and Frese, 2001). It is also persistent in the face of difficulties and setbacks (Frese et al. 1996). As personal initiative usually involves adding a new or altering an existing task, process or procedure, difficulties and uncertainty are probable to arise (Fay and Frese, 2001). The subordinate can, for example, fail to correctly implement the procedure on
the first try, or receive disapproval from leaders and colleagues who are resistant to change. The subordinate must then persevere to overcome these difficulties. When he or she quits, there is no initiative, as initiative concerns handling problems actively and persistently (Fey and Frese, 2001). This persistent approach, together with its self-starting and proactive nature, characterizes personal initiative.
Frese, Garst & Fay (2007) add that personal initiative is also consistent with the organisation’s mission. However in theory personal initiative can oppose the company’s long term interests –the individual could set goals that are beneficial to his or herself instead of the company- it must be aligned with the organisational goals. Actions that are not aimed at producing long term positive or at least non-harmful outcomes for the organisation and the employee are not considered personal initiative (Frese, Garst & Fay, 2007). Empirical research has supported the positive effect of personal initiative, stating the positive relationship between personal initiative and organisational and individual outcomes such as increased employability (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997), entrepreneurial success in small business owners (Fay & Frese, 2001), and job performance (Thompson, 2005). As such, personal initiative is beneficial to the organization or the individual.
The beneficial effect of personal initiative on several organisational and individual outcomes motivated Frese and Fray (2001) to identify an array of its antecedents. Regarding environmental supports -the job and organisational conditions that facilitate personal initiative-, the authors found that support from the direct supervisor was surprisingly not related to personal initiative (Frese, Teng & Wijnen, 1999), while top-management’s openness to initiative did show a positive effect on the development of personal initiative (Baer & Frese, 2001). Concerning personality traits, selfefficacy -an individual’s judgement of his or her capabilities regarding a task (B-andura, 1977), is seen as vital to personal initiative as an individual will not undertake action when he or she believes that one will not be successful (Fay and Frese, 2001). Moreover, personal initiative implies setting difficult goals. Self-efficacy positively relates to the difficulty of self-set goals (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984; Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984). As such, support was found for the positive relationship between
efficacy and personal initiative (Garst, 2000). The extant literature thus suggests that both self-efficacy as well as leader behaviour influence the development of personal initiative.
To summarize, personal initiative’s self-starting, proactive and persistent nature can bring positive individual and organisational outcomes and is thus becoming increasingly important to organisations. Both leader behaviour as well as self-efficacy are suggested to influence the development of personal initiative, these constructs will be explored further on in this research.
2.2 Empowering leadership
Vecchio, Justin & Pearce define empowering leadership as “behaviours that share power with subordinates” (2010, p. 531). It implies delegating responsibility and authority to the lowest organisational level where a competent decision can be made, as a means to increasing individual motivation (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Leaders are motivated to increase subordinate autonomy as it has been supported to positively affect organisational outcomes such as job satisfaction (Wall, Kemp, Jackson & Clegg, 1986), psychological adjustment (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004) and turnover intentions (Kim & Stoner, 2008).
Empowering leaders aspire to develop a team's capability to effectively function without the presence of a formal leader (Manz & Sims, 1987). To do so, they actively encourage and support the development of follower self-management by boosting participative decision making, sharing information, leading by example, coaching, and showing concern for employees (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000). These behaviours are expected to increase follower’s sense of empowerment and to heighten their sense of contribution, control, competence, connectedness and meaningfulness (Albrecht & Andretta, 2011). Empowering leadership has also been suggested to induce outcomes such as increased knowledge sharing (Srivastava, Bartel & Locke, 2006), employee performance and satisfaction, and reduced dysfunctional resistance (Vecchio, Justin, Pearce, 2010). Partly due to these confirmed positive effects, the current literature predominantly advocates this participative style of leadership over directive leadership.
Particularly in relation to eliciting proactive behaviour, empowering leadership tends to be regarded as superior to directive leadership (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). Whereas indirect research on the effects of directive leadership on proactivity suggests a negative relationship (Peterson, 1997; Tierney & Farmer, 2002), three theoretical views support the positive relationship between empowering leadership and employee proactivity. First, self-determination theory (Gagne & Deci, 2005) proposes that intrinsic motivation elicits challenging, creative, proactive, and self-directed behaviour, as these behaviours are intrinsically satisfying. Empowering leaders facilitate the development of intrinsic motivation by engaging in a set of behaviours that increase employees’ sense of competence and autonomy, two aspects that are vital in the creation of intrinsic motivation. By delegating responsibility and authority, fostering participation in decision making and expressing confidence in high performance, empowering leaders increase employees’ sense of competence and autonomy, thereby nurturing their intrinsic motivation (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). By facilitating the increase of intrinsic motivation, empowering leaders should motivate employees to engage in more proactive behaviour.
Second, empowerment theory states that enhanced perceptions of psychological empowerment increase intrinsic motivation. Spreitzer (1995) frames psychological empowerment as a motivational construct which includes an individual’s sense of competence, impact, self-determination, meaning and autonomy. Empowering leaders are suggested to engage in a range of behaviours that enhance employees’ sense of psychological empowerment. To illustrate, by expressing confidence in high performance, empowering leaders communicate their assurance in employees’ capabilities which can help employees foster a sense of competence. Moreover, it signals that employees are capable of ‘making a difference’, which would enhance a sense of meaning (Grant, 2007). Likewise, sharing information, leading by example, and coaching provides employees with information in relation to desired behaviour and their performance which can also help increase employees’ confidence in their abilities (Raub & Robert, 2010). Besides, empowering leaders enhance a sense of impact and self-determination by delegating autonomy and authority and fostering participation in decision making (Raub & Robert, 2010). Taken together, empowering leaders’ distinctive behaviours enhance
perceptions of psychological empowerment, which in turn enhance intrinsic motivation and proactivity.
The third theoretical view is in line with the current study and suggests that empowering leaders increase proactive behaviour by fostering employee RBSE. RBSE refers to the extent to which an individual is assured of his or her ability to engage in a variety of proactive, integrative, and interpersonal tasks that expand the subordinate’s role (Axtell & Parker, 2003). Empowering leaders increase employee RBSE by engaging in a range of distinct behaviours. To illustrate, they foster participative decision making, which refers to a leader's use of subordinate information and input when making decisions, and includes behaviours such as actively encouraging subordinates to share their thoughts and ideas (Arnold et al. 2000). Moreover, empowering leaders delegate responsibility and authority to the lowest organisational level where a competent decision can be made (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Research by Parker (1998) confirmed that task control and decision-making influence are significant predictors of RBSE. As empowering leaders actively encourage subordinates to participate in decision making and delegate autonomy towards subordinates regarding the fulfilments of their tasks, it is probable that empowering leaders will increase RBSE. In addition, Lorinkova, Pearsall, & Sims (2013) found that empowering leaders encourage team members to engage in role exchanges and in a collective role examination in which they learn about their task environment as well as each other’s areas of expertise. This does not only help them expand their roles, but is also suggested to increase collective efficacy. In addition, when empowering leaders delegate responsibility and authority and express their confidence in high performance, it may cause employees to feel more responsible for expanding their in-role work behaviours, and also more confident in their abilities to execute these behaviours (Hiller, Day, & Vance, 2006). Moreover, the delegated power and provided autonomy from bureaucratic constraints is likely to enhance perceptions of work flexibility, which is a predictor of RBSE (Parker, 1998). In line with these arguments and empirical research by Li, He, Yam and Long (2015), empowering leadership is expected to lead to higher levels of RBSE.
2.3 Role breadth self-efficacy
RBSE refers to ‘the extent to which people feel confident and feel that they are able to carry out a broader and proactive role, beyond traditional prescribed technical requirements” (Parker, 1998, p. 835). RBSE is distinct from general self-efficacy, as the latter focusses on an individual’s feeling of capability regarding a specific task, whereas the former focuses on a variety of proactive, integrative, and interpersonal tasks that expand the subordinate’s role (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Axtell & Parker, 2003). Examples of such tasks are conflict resolution, solving long-term problems and designing improved procedures (Axtell & Parker, 2003). As self-efficacy heightens an individuals’ perceived probability of achievement, is it seen as critical to motivation (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Research further suggests that an increased sense of capability relates to increased task efficiency and persistence (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987), and that high self-efficacy individuals set more challenging goals (Locke & Latham, 1990) and implement more effective task strategies (Wood, George-Falvy, & Debowksi, 2001).
Role breadth self-efficacy has been identified as an important predictor of proactive behaviour (Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty, 2009). Parker, Williams and Turner (2006) reference expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) to explain that individuals will engage in a rational decision making process before engaging in proactive behaviours. The individual will only engage in proactive behaviour when he or she believes that this behaviour will be successful. As individuals with high RBSE feel confident about their ability to successfully carry out broader and proactive roles, they are more likely to assume such roles (Parker et al. 2006). Equally, employees who lack such confidence will be less likely to engage in-role-expanding, proactive behaviour. In line with this reasoning, RBSE is posited to positively relate to personal initiative.
H2: RBSE is positively related to personal initiative.
2.4 Directive leadership
Empowering leadership and directive leadership differ in the amount of autonomy or direction that is given to the followers. Whereas empowering leadership focuses on providing followers with the
autonomy to make independent decisions, directive leadership centres on providing subordinates with detailed directions and expectations, leaving limited follower input in relation to decision making (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). Even though more participative styles of leadership are argued to be superior in relation to team performance, researchers have failed to provide unanimous empirical evidence to support this thinking (Ensley, Hmieleski & Pearce, 2006).
Directive leadership is drawn from Path-Goal theory, which posits that leadership is motivating or satisfying to the extent that it enhances subordinate goal attainment by setting out the paths to these goals (House & Mitchell, 1975). Leaders engage in two types of behaviours to satisfy employees: initiating structure (e.g. outline the behaviours that leads to the obtainment of goals and rewards) and showing consideration (e.g. showing concern for employees’ status, welfare and comfort) (House & Mitchell, 1975). Directive leadership is based upon behaviours regarding initiating structure, as they utilize direction, control, assigned goals, and rewards and punishments to affect subordinate behaviour (Pearce, Sims, Cox, Ball, Schnell, Smith & Trevino, 2003). They structure subordinate’s tasks by providing followers with clear and detailed directions regarding the expected objectives, ways of achieving these objectives, and performance standards, and by monitoring and providing feedback on subordinates’ performance (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). These behaviours have been suggested to enhance task-proficiency (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013), increase efficiency of decision making (Lorinkova, Pearsall & Sims; 2013), facilitate follower task accomplishment and focus follower efforts towards these tasks (Kahai, Sosik & Avolio, 2004), 2013). As such, directive leadership influences subordinate behaviour by providing structure and feedback.
Research suggests that directive leadership is likely to weaken employees’ self-directed actions, which are vital in eliciting proactive behaviour (Locke & Latham, 1990). Directive leaders instruct followers on the specific behaviours that lead to the obtainment of goals, and these explicit instructions should make employees less likely to try out alternative manners of accomplishing their objectives. Additionally, directive leaders monitor employee performance in relation to these explicit instructions, making employees even less likely to utilize distinct paths (Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013). However empirical research involving the effects of directive leadership on employee
proactivity is scarce, there is indirect evidence that suggests a negative relationship. To illustrate, directive leaders are suggested to have a detrimental effect on member confidence in work groups (Peterson, 1997), while Parker, Bindl, and Strauss (2010) highlight the importance of high-quality intragroup relations as a predictor of proactive behaviour. Additionally, directive leadership has been suggested to inhibit employee creativity (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), a behaviour that has been identified as a dimension of proactive behaviour (Parker & Collins, 2010). Taken together, the existing literature suggests that directive leadership has a detrimental effect on employee proactivity.
Conversely, directive leadership has been suggested to increase role clarity when tasks or organisational policies, procedures, and rules are unclear. According to Path-Goal theory, directive leaders enhance subordinate satisfaction when subordinates are engaged in ambiguous tasks by providing the needed guidance and structure (House & Mitchell, 1975). Clark, Hartline and Jones (2009) affirm that directive leaders’ guidance and structure enhances role clarity, the degree to which followers are given and understand the information that is needed to appropriately perform their tasks (Clark, Hartline and Jones, 2009). When tasks or organisational policies, procedures, and rules are unclear, directive leaders enhance role clarity by specifically outlining follower’s responsibilities and roles, and by providing feedback contingent on their performance (Clark, Hartline and Jones, 2009). Mukherjee and Malhotra (2006) add that role clarity increases when employees are provided direct and clear information about the effectiveness of their performance. In line with this reasoning, directive leadership is posited to increase role clarity.
H3: Directive leadership is positively related to role clarity.
2.5 Role clarity
As contemporary organisations are increasingly raising subordinate autonomy, but also emphasise teamwork and interdependency, ambiguity about what subordinates’ roles specifically are can easily take place (Wong, DeSanctis & Staudenmayer, 2007). However, low levels or role clarity can hurt organisational performance, as it inhibits subordinates’ ability to adapt their behaviour in light of the
organisational strategy (Kauppila, 2014). As such, managers should actively search for ways to clarify subordinate roles.
In an organisational environment can a role be defined as the pattern of behaviours and activities that the organisation expects of an individual holding a certain position in that organisation (Hassan, 2013). Roles are distinct from job tasks as they are the set of expected behaviours engaged in while performing the job tasks (Tubre & Collins, 2000). As such, role behaviours can include expectations that are not necessarily reflected in the terms of specific job tasks. Role requirements are set up to provide guidance and direction to subordinates in relation to the execution of their tasks, and to inform them of the expected levels of performance (Hassan, 2013). When an individual clearly understands its tasks, duties, objectives and expectations, it can be said that there is role clarity (Kauppila, 2014). In contrast, role ambiguity arises when the set of behaviours is not clear.
Whereas most jobs are likely characterized by some level of role ambiguity, low levels of role clarity are suggested to induce harmful organisational outcomes (Hassan, 2013). Low levels of role clarity are negatively related to performance as it implies that employees lack sufficient information regarding appropriate job behaviours and goals, which can result in a misdirection of employee effort as well as a decrease in their motivation to put in sufficient effort (Tubre & Collins, 2000). Moreover, employees are unlikely to identify with their organization and its objectives when they lack clear roles (He, Lai, & Lu, 2011). Conversely, high levels of role clarity have a positive effect on performance (e.g. Bray & Brawley, 2002; Hartenian, Hadaway & Badovick, 2011). Support has also been found for the positive influence of role clarity on a range of other organisational and individual level outcomes such as job satisfaction (Hartenian et al. 2011), organisational commitment and satisfaction with co-workers (Fisher and Gitelson, 1983), product quality (Rodríguez-Escudero, Carbonell & Munuera-Aleman, 2010) and creativity (Tang & Chang, 2010). Taken together, the studies show the benefits of role clarity.
Role clarity has also been identified as an antecedent of OCB, an extra-role behaviour (Chahal, & Mehta, 2010; Ensley et al., 2011). Low levels of role clarity force employees to focus their attentions and efforts on their in-role tasks and behaviours to collect additional role-related
information to resolve ambiguity (Jex, Adams, Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003). Conversely, when roles are clear, employees are more disposable to engage in extra-role behaviours (Jex, Adams, Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003). Examination of the existing literature reveals that previously, proactivity was considered an extra-role behaviour (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). However, more recent studies disconfirm this thinking: Parker and Collins (2010), in line with Crant (2000), explain that all forms of performance – whether they are in-role or extra-role, can be executed proactively. As such, proactivity in itself is not necessary an extra-role behaviour. Nonetheless, OCB and personal initiative share a set of distinguishing qualities: both are discretionary, go beyond the explicit role requirements and are beneficial to the organisation (Lambert, 2006). Considering their similarities, it is probable that role clarity would facilitate personal initiative in the same way as it facilitates OCB: when roles are clear, subordinates can focus their efforts on actions aimed at changing or improving the organization or oneself instead of collecting information to make sense of their roles. Accordingly, it is posited that role clarity will positively influence personal initiative.
H4: Role clarity is positively related to personal initiative.
2.6 Leader-Member Exchange
Leadership theories build on the general notion that leaders affect organisational outcomes through their effect on subordinate attitudes and behaviours (Illies, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007). LMX is suggested to affect behavioural, attitudinal and perceptual follower outcomes through the quality of the exchange relationship between the leader and the follower (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Derived from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), LMX suggests that subordinates feel obliged to reciprocate favourable treatment of the leader by putting in extra effort and by engaging in attitudes and behaviours that benefit the leader. As such, LMX theory suggests that follower attitudes and behaviours depend on the quality of relationship with the leader (Illies et al., 2007).
LMX theory suggests that leaders engage in different types of relationships with individual followers. Constraints in time and resources leave the leader unable to engage in high-quality exchanges with all subordinates, which forces the leader to develop a close relationship with just a
select number of subordinates (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). Subordinates engaged in low-quality exchanges form a relationship with the leader that is characterized by formal rules and procedures, where subordinates are provided with the specified contractual resources (Joo & Ready, 2012). In contrast, subordinates in high-quality exchanges will engage in relationships that are defined by mutual trust, respect, and commitment, and are rewarded with incentives that go beyond the formal requirements (f.e. increased levels of autonomy, interaction and support) (Eisenberger, Karagonlar, Stinglhamber, Neves, Becker, Gonzalez-Morales, & Steiger-Mueller, 2010; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang & Chen, 2005). Accordingly, subordinates engaged in such high-quality LMX relationships, will partake in behaviours and attitudes that benefit the organisation, as a way to reciprocate the favourable treatment by the leader (Wang et al., 2005).
To benefit their organization, subordinates engaged in high-quality LMX relationships are also likely to take on activities that stretch beyond the perceived job description. Indeed, Chiaburu, Smith, Wang and Zimmerman (2014) confirm the positive relationship between LMX and proactive behaviour, noting the leader’s ability in creating a favourable risk-taking environment. A favourable risk-taking environment is characterized by feelings of psychological safety and high-quality relationships and is vital in eliciting proactive behaviour. This can be explained as engaging in proactive behaviour implies taking a risk: adding a new or altering an existing task, process or procedure can lead to resistance from the leader or peers (Fay and Frese, 2001). High-quality LMX relationships are characterized by high levels of mutual trust, loyalty and support, which create an environment in which employees feel safe to undertake such a risk. Besides, leaders engaged in such relationships are perceived to be more open to change, which also diminishes the risks that come with challenging the status-quo (Basu & Green, 1997). Taken together, high-quality LMX facilitates a favourable risk-taking climate which results in higher levels of proactive behaviours.
Moreover, LMX has been suggested to motivate employees to define their jobs more broadly. Theoretically, subordinates are viewed to define their jobs more narrow than their leader, while the latter is more concerned with the effectiveness of the work unit than the former (Lam, Hui & Law, 1999). However, high-quality exchange relationships that are characterized by higher levels of
autonomy and responsibilities can lead to increased feelings of empowerment (Aryee & Chen, 2006), which in turn makes employees more inclined to redefine their jobs (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). Moreover, subordinates engaged in high-quality relationships are likely to care more about the concerns of their leader, which implies that they pay more attention to the effectiveness of the work unit (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang & Chen, 2005). In addition, they are likely to feel more attached to the organization as a whole (Gersner & Day, 1997). As subordinates are thus driven to increase collective performance, they are likely to define their jobs equally broad, or even more broad, than their supervisors. Hsiung and Tsai’s (2011) study affirmed this notion, suggesting that subordinates engaged in high-quality exchanges define job breadth on par or more broadly than their supervisors.
High-quality LMX relationships are also likely to induce higher levels of employee self-efficacy. Murphy and Ensher (1999) explain how LMX enhances employees’ belief about their capabilities through vicarious learning, and through persuasion (Bandura, 1977). Whereas the leader enhances self-efficacy by providing a model of appropriate work behaviour in the former, the leader convinces the subordinate of his or her capabilities by expressing confidence in his or her capacities in the latter. As high-quality LMX is characterized by high levels of interaction and support, it provides leaders with ample occasion to be a role model as well as to communicate their trust in subordinates’ abilities (Murphy and Ensher, 1999). High-quality LMX is thus likely to lead to enhanced employee self-efficacy.
While empirical evidence concerning the positive relationship between LMX and RBSE is lacking, the positive effects of high-quality exchanges on both self-efficacy as well as on subordinate motivation to broaden jobs do suggest that this relationship is plausible. Future research could examine this possible relationship. Moreover, high-quality LMX provides subordinates with an environment in which they feel safe to engage in proactive behaviour. Taken together, it is likely that high levels of LMX will have a strengthening effect on the relationship between RBSE and personal initiative.
H5: LMX will moderate the relationship between RBSE and personal initiative in such a way that the relationship will be stronger for high levels of LMX, and weaker for low levels of LMX.
Additionally, two theoretical views support the facilitating role of LMX in increasing role clarity. The first view pertains to role-making theory (Gerstner & Day, 1997), which suggests that work roles are discussed and established over time through an ongoing social exchange between the leader and the subordinate. Subordinates engaged in high-quality exchange relationships are likely to perceive their roles more clear as their relationships are characterized by higher levels of communication, interaction and mutual sharing. In such high-quality LMX, employees are more likely to receive valuable information with regard to their tasks and responsibilities, which helps them to better understand their roles (Eisenberger et al., 2010). By engaging in social exchanges that provide subordinates with abundant role-related information, leaders help employees define their roles correctly.
The second view highlights the importance of the leader as a vital source of role-related information and feedback. As high-quality exchange relationships are characterized by ongoing communication and social exchanges, subordinates engaged in such relationships are likely to obtain more information and support than their peers engaged in low-quality LMX (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997).When this additional information includes clear descriptions of their responsibilities, feedback on their performance, or detailed indications of organizational objectives, it can aid employees in clarifying their roles (Kauppila, 2014). Taken together, LMX is likely to facilitate role clarity due to the ongoing, high-quality communication.
The current literature suggests that LMX has the potential to lead to higher levels of role clarity. Moreover, high-quality LMX is likely to predict proactivity as it helps create an environment in which subordinates feel safe to engage in proactive behaviour. Taken together, a positive LMX exchange is posited to strengthen the relationship between role clarity and personal initiative.
H6: LMX will moderate the relationship between role clarity and personal initiative in such a way that the relationship will be stronger for high levels of LMX, and weaker for low levels of LMX.
3. Research method
The following section highlights the method of research utilized in this study. The section commences with a brief description of the procedure used to collect the data. Then, it is explained how the data of the collected sample is utilized in the testing of the model, after which its most distinguishing characteristics are outlined. Subsequently, the scales used to measure the variables of the study are expounded. This section concludes with a summary of the statistical approach used in testing of the proposed relationships.
3.1 Procedure
This thesis is part of a Master study in Business Administration at the University of Amsterdam. The research is part of an ongoing research project and was conducted by three students, under the supervision of one PhD student. Data was collected through two separate, online self-administered questionnaires, of which one was directed towards the leader and one towards his or her team (consisting of a minimum of two subordinates). Variables were measured on two separate occasions to be able to identify changes over time: after completion of the first part of the survey, the leaders were send a link to an article that contained information with regard to the behaviours and benefits of empowering leadership. The second part of the survey occurred three weeks after completion of the first part of the survey, and it was expected to see an increase in empowering leadership behaviours.
Invitations to enter the first part of the survey were send out via e-mail on February 11, 2016, and invitations to enter the second part of the survey were send out via e-mail on March 2, 2016. Reminders were send out after both these dates, and the data collection was closed in the second week of March, 2016. Respondents were collected in two ways: first, through the personal contacts of the researchers. Second, through the professional network of the supervisor. All respondents were assured of the confidentiality of the research. The responses were returned anonymously, but matching codes were assigned to be able to associate the leader and subordinate questionnaires.
The questionnaires were distributed in Dutch and English, depending on the language of the respondent. Since existing, established scales were used in measuring of all constructs, the measures
were translated from English to Dutch. To ensure accuracy, the translation was done by the supervisor together with an editor. Together, they discussed the scales’ meanings and intentions, to decide on the most accurate translation. When consensus was reached, the translation was finalized.
The questionnaire began with a short introduction to familiarize the respondent with the intent, duration, and other ethical and practical aspects of the survey. Subsequently, the respondent was asked to indicate his or her level of agreement in relation to a number of statements. The questionnaire proceeded with a series of questions regarding the respondent’s demographics, including variables such as tenure, gender, and highest level of education completed. Upon completion of these questions, the respondents were thanked for their participation.
3.2. Sample
The questionnaire was administered on two separate occasions to be able to identify changes over time. The data collection was successful with regard to the first moment of measure: after checking for missing data, the usable sample consisted of 249 respondents (corresponding to a response rate of 82.27%). Unfortunately, the response rate for the second moment of measure was much lower, which reduced the usable sample size to 69 respondents (a response rate of 22.92%). To counter this loss of information, it was decided to approach the data set as two distinct samples and test the hypotheses twice. First, the model was tested with Sample 1: the large sample (n=249) of respondents who participated in the first moment of measure (T1). In this analysis, the factor of time was not taken into account. Subsequently, the hypotheses were tested again with Sample 2: the smaller sample (n=69) of respondents who completed the survey on both moments of measure (T1 and T2). In this analysis, it was possible to identify changes over time. Finally, the two samples were compared with regard to their findings.
3.2.1 Description of Sample 1
The survey was sent to 81 managers and 301 subordinates, indicating a ratio of 3.72 subordinates per manager. On the first moment of measure, the questionnaire was returned by 51 managers and 289 subordinates, resulting in a response rate of 62.96% and 96.01%, respectively. Only the responses of
the subordinates were used for this particular study, and after their responses were checked for completeness, 40 respondents were removed from the dataset, leaving a usable sample of 249 respondents.
On the second moment of measure, respondents were asked to indicate their age (by providing their birth year), tenure (in years), gender, highest level of education completed, and current industry. Due to the low response rate, a majority of this information is not available for this particular sample group. Of this group, 30 of the subordinates were male (12.05%), 37 were female (14.86%), and 182 respondents (73.09%) did not supply this information. The subordinates' age varied greatly, as the youngest participant was 21 years old, and the oldest participant was 61 years old. From the respondents who indicated their year of birth, the average age was 39.3 years, 182 respondents (73.09%) did not provide this information. The majority of the subordinates who provided information regarding their tenure indicated to have worked in their current position for a relatively short time: 28 of the respondents (11.24%) had a tenure of less than five years, of which 2 respondents (0.80%) indicated to have worked at the current position for less than a year. 14 of the respondents (5.62%) had worked in their current position for a minimum of five, but less than 10 years, and 10 respondents (4.02%) indicated to have worked in their current position for 10 or more years, with a maximum tenure of 33 years. The average tenure of the subordinates was 5.75 years, 197 respondents (79.12%) did not provide this information. The subordinates varied in their highest level of education, ranging from completion of secondary school (1.20%) to higher academic education (6.83%). The majority of the subordinates who provided this information had attended at least a higher vocational education (20.48%). 68.27% of the respondents did not provide their highest level of education.
3.2.2 Description of Sample 2
On the second moment of measure (T2), the questionnaire was returned by 25 managers and 85 subordinates, indicating a response rate of 30.86% and 28.24%, respectively. After checking for completeness, the responses of 16 respondents were discarded, which resulted in an usable sample of 69 respondents. Of this smaller sample, 30 of the subordinates were male (43.47%), 37 were female (53.62%), and two respondents (2.90%) did not provide this information. Regarding age and tenure,
the smaller sample is comparable to the larger one: the subordinates' age ranged between 21 and 61 years old, and the average age was 39.3 years. Two respondents (2.90%) did not provide this information. In accordance with the larger sample, the average tenure of the subordinates was 5.75 years, and the tenure ranged from less than one year to a maximum of 33 years. Again, 28 of the respondents (40.58%) indicated having a tenure of less than five years, 14 of the respondents (20.29%) had worked in their current position for a minimum of five, but less than 10 years, and 10 respondents (14.49%) indicated having worked in their current position for 10 or more years. 17 respondents (24.64%) did not provide this information. With regard to their highest level of education, all subordinates indicated their educational history. The data set revealed that the majority of the subordinates had attended at least a higher vocational education (73.91%), whereas only a small minority (4.35%) of the subordinates indicted to solely having completed secondary school.
3.3 Measures
As the questionnaire was used to collect data for multiple theses, the survey included a collection of variables that are not incorporated in this research. However, only the measurements applicable to this study will be explained. Existing, established scales were used in measuring of all variables to ensure validity. All items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Overall scale scores were computed by averaging item means.
Personal initiative is measured with seven items developed by Frese, Hilburger, Leng and Tag (1997) for their study on personal initiative in East- and West Germany. For Sample 1, the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.88, whereas for Sample 2 the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.88 for the first moment of measure and 0.92 for the second moment of measure. All items are indicative, and the scale includes items such as “I actively attack problems” and “Whenever something goes wrong, I search for a solution immediately”.
Empowering leadership is measured with a 12-item scale adopted from Zhang and Bartol (2010). This measure captures four dimensions of the leadership style: (1) enhancing the meaningfulness of work, (2) fostering participation in decision making, (3) expressing confidence in
high performance, and (4) providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints. The reliability of this scale is high in both samples, with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.94 for Sample 1, and 0.93 on the first moment of measure, and 0.93 on the second for Sample 2. All items are indicative and can be illustrated with examples such as “My manager often consults me on strategic decisions” and “My manager helps me understand how my objectives and goals relate to that of the company”.
RBSE is measured with seven items adopted from Parker (1998). The Cronbach’s Alpha of this scale for Sample 1 is 0.86, and for Sample 2, 0.86 and 0.86, on the first and second moment of measure, respectively. This scale provides the respondent with tasks that involve proactive, interpersonal, and integrative competencies that are exemplary of the components of an expanded role and apply across jobs and hierarchical levels. Respondents are then asked to indicate their level of confidence in relation to the execution of these tasks. Examples are “How confident would you feel helping to set targets/goals in your work area?” and “How confident would you feel representing your work-area in meetings with your senior management?”.
Directive leadership is measured with a scale adopted from Zhang, Higgins and Chen (2011). For Sample 1, the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.75, and for Sample 2, the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.73 on the first moment of measure, and 0.76 on the second. The measurement consists of four items, which are all indicative. Example items are “My superior let me know what was expected of me” and “My manager asked me to follow standard rules and regulations”.
Role clarity is measured with five items (α=0.76 and α=0.70 for Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively) adopted from Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). All items are indicative and reflect dimensions such as certainty about responsibilities, allocation of time, and the clarity or existence of directions. Examples are “I know exactly what is expected of me” and ”Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my job”. Role clarity was measured only once, as this measure was unlikely to change within the short time-span.
LMX is measured with a scale designed by Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995). The scale consists of six items that capture different aspects of the relationship between the leader and the subordinate;
namely effectiveness of the relationship, recognition of potential, willingness to support the other, and understanding of job problems and needs. For Sample 1, this scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.91 and for Sample 2, the Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.89. Examples include “I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his/her decision if he/she were not present to do so” and “The working relationship with my leader is very effective”. Again, LMX was measured only once, as it was unlikely that the exchange relationship with the leader would considerably change within the short time span.
3.4 Analyses
To be able to measure changes over time, the data was collected on two separate occasions. However, the second moment of measure had a very low response rate which implied that in order to make valid comparisons over time, the sample had to be reduced from 249 respondents (those who filled in the survey completely on T1) to 69 respondents (those who completed the survey on both T1 and T2). To counter this substantive loss of information, it was decided to approach the data set as two separate samples and test the model twice. First, the hypotheses were tested with Sample 1: the sample of respondents that completed the survey on T1. With this analysis, the factor of time was not taken into account. Then, the model was tested again with Sample 2: the smaller data set of 69 respondents who completed the survey on both T1 and T2, to see if the results would change over time. Testing the hypotheses twice, allowed the author to measure changes over time, but also test the model on a substantive data set.
Then, the data was analysed with IBM’s Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 23. The scales were first checked for any non-indicative items, and a non-indicative item from the directive leadership scale was reverse coded. All scales were then tested for reliability. Almost all scales reported a Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.70, indicating that the measures are reliable (Field, 2013). Moreover, the reliability of personal initiative, empowering leadership, RBSE, and LMX could not have been improved by deleting items. However, the Cronbach’s alpha of the directive leadership scale was not sufficient, and for both samples, one item was removed to increase the Cronbach’s Alpha of Sample 1 from 0.62 for five items to an acceptable 0.75 for four items. For Sample 2, this
increased the Cronbach’s Alpha of T1 from 0.62 to 0.73, and for T2 from 0.63 to 0.76. An item was also removed from the role clarity scale to increase the corrected item total correlation of the variables and the Cronbach’s Alpha from 0.75 to 0.76 for Sample 1. No other variables could have been removed to increase the reliability of the scale.
When the reliability of the scales was ensured, scale means were computed by averaging the items belonging to each scale. These variables were checked for normality, by analysing the normal probability plots and checking for skewness and kurtosis. In both samples, several variables appeared not to be normally distributed. For Sample 1, both empowering leadership as well as LMX was negatively skewed (scores of -1.30 and -1.29, respectively). For Sample 2, empowering leadership (both T1 and T2), directive leadership (T1), and LMX were negatively skewed (scores of -1.46, -1.13, -1.15, -1.16, respectively). However, according to the central limit theorem, the samples are large enough to assume normality regardless of the shape of the data (Field, 2013). Moreover, bootstrapping was used in the testing of the hypotheses, which does not hold the assumption of normality (Field, 2013). The data also showed several outliers, which were not removed.
Next, both samples were analysed by using bivariate correlations. The results of this preliminary analysis allows measurement of the intensity of the relationships between the different variables, and provides a first indication if the hypotheses are supported or not. Additionally, it suggests if multicollinearity could take place in the regression analysis. As the relationship between empowering leadership and LMX had a correlation coefficient greater than 0.70 in both samples, multicollinearity tests were used to indicate if any problems would occur in further analyses. These tests revealed that for all variables, the tolerance level is greater than 0.10 and the value of the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) coefficient is smaller than 10. It can thus be assumed that perfect multicollinearity will not occur in the testing of the hypotheses.
Before engaging in linear regression analysis, it was checked if the data set violated any assumptions of linear regression. Whereas Sample 1 appeared to be adequate for linear regression analysis, Sample 2 showed little sign of linearity and was thus transformed before adequate testing could be done. When both data sets no longer violated assumptions, the linear relations between
empowering leadership and RBSE, RBSE and personal initiative, directive leadership and role clarity, and role clarity and personal initiative were tested. Through examination of these results, it was decided if the first four hypotheses were supported or rejected. Due to the fact that the majority of the respondents did not provide information with regard to the control variables, control variables were not used for this analysis.
Finally, the moderating effect of LMX on the relationships between RBSE and personal initiative and role clarity and personal initiative was analysed with the PROCESS software developed by Hayes (2013), to better understand under which conditions these relationships operate. The moderation analysis provided information in relation to the final two hypotheses. After conducting the analysis, it was possible to support or reject the final two hypotheses.
4. Results
This section provides an overview of the empirical part of this study, as it explains both the analytical procedure as well as the results of the performed analyses. First, the results of the analysis of Sample 1 will be expounded. Second, the results of the analysis of Sample 2 are explained. Through examination of the bivariate correlations, the linear regressions and the moderating effect of LMX, it is decided if the proposed hypotheses are supported or not.
4.1 Results Sample 1
4.1.1 Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of T1 are reported in Table 1. Surprisingly, Table 1 shows that employees perceive their managers to portray behaviour that is both highly empowering (M = 5.39), as well as directive (M = 5.19). Moreover, they report high levels of role clarity (M = 5.59), and high-quality exchange relationships with their manager (M = 5.36). Another notable observation is that employees report being highly proactive (M=5.74), while having lower levels of RBSE (M= 3.81).
The table provides further information with regard to the correlations between the different variables: several significant correlations imply direct relationships. First, the results show that there is no significant correlation between empowering leadership and RBSE (r = 0.11, p= 0.09). However, the correlation between RBSE and personal initiative is significant, as the table indicates a moderate, positive relationship (r = 0.39, p < 0.01). Furthermore, the table provides information on two other moderate, positive correlations: the correlation between directive leadership and role clarity (r = 0.35, p < 0.01), and between role clarity and personal initiative (r = 0.41, p < 0.01).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics Sample 1
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Personal initiative 5.74 0.69 (0.88) 2. Empowering leadership 5.39 0.97 0.35** (0.94) 3. RBSE 3.81 0.58 0.39** 0.11 (0.86) 4. Directive Leadership 5.19 0.97 0.19** 0.49** 0.04 (0.75) 5. Role clarity 5.59 0.73 0.41** 0.40** 0.28** 0.35** (0.76) 6. LMX 5.36 1.06 0.26** 0.85** 0.03 0.53** 0.34** (0.91)
**. Significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed). *. Significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed).
4.1.2 Regression analysis
As the second part of analysis, regression analysis was used to test the linear relationships between empowering leadership and RBSE, RBSE and personal initiative, directive leadership and role clarity, and role clarity and personal initiative. Beforehand, it was checked if the variables violated any assumptions with regard to linear regression. As a first step, a scatterplot was created to check for linear relationships between the independent variable and the dependent variables, and for homoscedasticity. While the data did not show a curve nor funnel out, it appears to meet the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity (Field, 2103). As the second step, the histogram and P-Plot were examined to check for normality. The histogram showed a small skew to the right, while the
P-Plot revealed a small S-shape, indicating that the data is somewhat negatively skewed. However, according to the central limit theorem, the sample (N=249) is large enough for this not to be a problem in further testing. Moreover, bootstrapping will be used in further analysis, which does not hold the assumption of normality. As a third step, the variables were tested for multicollinearity. For all variables, the tolerance level is greater than 0.10 and the value of the VIF coefficient is smaller than 10, suggesting that perfect multicollinearity does not exist. As the fourth step, the Durban-Watson test was employed to see if the residuals are auto correlated. With a score of 2.07, it can be concluded that the residuals are not auto correlated. When all the assumptions were met, the hypotheses were tested. Results are reported in Table 2, 3 and 4.
Table 2. Regressions Sample 1.
Dependent Variable Variable RBSE R2 Coeff. SE p t Empowering Leadership 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.09 1.69 Personal initiative R2 Coeff. SE p t RBSE 0.51 0.38 0.18 1.34 Role Clarity R2 Coeff. SE p t Directive Leadership 0.12 0.26 0.04 <0.00 5.83 Personal initiative R2 Coeff. SE p t Role Clarity 0.12 0.23 0.62 0.50
Table 2 shows the outcomes of the linear regressions. First, it appears that no significant relationship (p=0.09) is found between empowering leadership and RBSE. The data provides no evidence for the positive influence of empowering leadership on RBSE and in such, no support for Hypothesis 1. Next, the effects of RBSE on personal initiative are examined. Once more, the table does not provide support for a significant relationship (p=0.18) between the two variables. Accordingly, Hypotheses 2 is not supported and RBSE is not identified as a predictor of personal initiative. Subsequently, the third hypothesis is tested as the linear relationship between directive
