Transformational leadership : how to lead employees in order to instil pride

Transformational leadership: how to lead employees in

order to instil pride.

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business

Words: 17.705

Amsterdam, July 25, 2013

Student name: Joëlle Zander

Student number: 10074880

Supervisor: F.D. Belschak

Academic year: 2012-2013

Abstract

Pride can function as a motivator for employees and therefore beneficial for organizations to

instil. However, to instil pride, knowledge on the antecedents is needed. Transformational

leadership is characterized as instilling pride in employees and being capable of influencing

positive emotions. As pride is a positive emotion, the focus in this research is on the role of

transformational leadership on the occurrence of pride of employees (i.e., organizational

pride, task pride and hubris. Attributing successful attainments to internal causes is necessary

to experience task pride and hubris. Self-efficacy is the belief that one has the capabilities to

attain something and therefore internal attribution can take place. Self-efficacy seems

necessary to experience task pride and hubris. Hypotheses 1 and 2 investigate if

transformational leadership positively affects organizational pride and task pride. Hypothesis

3 investigates if transformational leadership positively affects hubris. Hypothesis 4

investigates if transformational leadership positively affects self-efficacy of employees.

Lastly, hypotheses 5 and 6 investigate if self-efficacy positively affects task pride and hubris.

The model hypotheses (1 and 2) investigate if self-efficacy mediates the relationship between

transformational leadership and task pride and between transformational leadership and

hubris. The hypotheses are tested using a sample of Dutch employees from different sectors

(N =114). Except for hypothesis 3, all hypotheses and model hypotheses are confirmed,

suggesting that transformational leadership positively affects pride of employees (i.e.,

organizational pride, task pride and hubris) and self-efficacy mediates the relationship

between transformational leadership and task pride and between transformational leadership

and hubris.

Keywords: hubris, mediation model, organizational pride, self-efficacy, task pride,

transformational leadership

Contents

3.1 Organizational pride and task pride ... 29

3.2 Hubris ... 35 3.3 Self-efficacy ... 36 4. Methodology... 45 4.1 Research design ... 45 4.2 Data collection ... 46 4.3 Sample ... 47 4.4 Measurements ... 48 4.5 Analyses ... 49 5. Results ... 50 5.1 Participants ... 50 5.2 Reliability ... 50 5.3 Regression ... 50 6. Discussion ... 58

6.1 Summary and interpretation ... 58

6.2 Theoretical contributions ... 61

6.3 Managerial implications ... 63

6.4 Limitations and future research ... 64

6.5 Conclusion ... 67

References ... 69

Appendix: surveys ... 81 3

1. Introduction

Pride is “an experience of joy over an action, thought, or feeling well done” (Lewis, 2008, p.

749). It emerges when an individual reaches or exceeds (social) standards or expectations

(Verbeke, Belschak & Bagozzi, 2004). These standards or expectations can be their own or

expectations from others who are important to them (e.g., their manager). Different types of

pride exist, namely organizational, task and exaggerated pride (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011;

Tracy & Robins, 2007b). Organizational pride is triggered by events such as successful

achievements of the organization that are not necessarily due to own contributions (Gouthier

& Rhein, 2011). Task and exaggerated pride are triggered by successful achievements of an

individual due to their own contributions (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). Pride can have positive

organizational outcomes, for example creativity and organizational citizenship behaviour of

employees (Verbeke et al., 2004). As a result of the positive outcomes, it is beneficial for

organizations to instil and/or increase pride. Moreover, employees are motivated to search for

opportunities to experience the positive feeling of pride again (Williams & DeSteno, 2008).

Although pride is described as being a motivator and having positive organizational

outcomes, it seems that having too much feelings of pride can have a backfire effect. This

backfire effect takes the form of feelings of hubris, which is “exaggerated pride or

self-confidence, often resulting in retribution” (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997, p. 106). The backfire

effect of hubris and its consequences can be illustrated with the example of the American

energy, commodities and services company Enron. Enron wanted to transform the whole

natural gas industry (Madsen & Vance, 2009). Enron had great successes in the past.

However, these successes seemed to blur the perception of the top management and led to

enhanced egos, a sole focus on money and an increased lack of morals. The enhanced egos

indicate feelings of exaggerated self-confidence and pride on their earlier accomplishment. As

a result, Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and was accused of operating unethically (Brown

& Treviño, 2006). Another example of a negative outcome of hubris is diminished

shareholder value of acquiring organizations. This was caused by hubristic CEOs paying too

high premiums for large acquisitions (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). They overestimated their

ability to manage the firm being acquired.

Leaders have the capability of influencing negative and positive emotions of

employees (Bono, Foldes, Vinson & Muros, 2007). In particular, transformational leaders are

known for invoking positive emotions in employees (Bono et al., 2007). To communicate

their inspirational and optimistic vision, transformational leaders use emotions to excite and

motivate their employees to work towards long-term ideals (Lewis, 2000; Berson, Shamir,

Avolio & Popper, 2001). They use emotions to evoke similar feelings in their employees

(Lewis, 2000). As pride is categorized as a positive emotion, transformational leaders should

be capable of influencing it (Tracy & Robins, 2004). With respect to the positive aspect of

pride, this is confirmed by descriptions of transformational leaders about instilling pride in

and among a group of their employees (Den Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman, 1997).

However, with regard to the negative aspect of pride (i.e., hubris), transformational leaders

inspire and challenge employees to go beyond their self-interest to achieve a higher collective

purpose which would indicate on avoiding hubris, because paying too high premiums

diminishes stakeholder value (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). Even

though, looking at the theory, transformational leadership instils pride, no research has been

conducted to confirm this. Prior research on the relationship between pride and leadership

only focused on leaders with task pride or hubristic CEOs and their influence on employees

and organizations (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997; Michie, 2009). Given the positive

organizational outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviour) and the potential

influence of transformational leadership as an antecedent on the experience of pride, it is

unfortunate that no empirical research can be found on transformational leaders and

(instilling) pride in employees.

Having insight in the facet of transformational leaders influencing feelings of pride in

employees is both theoretically and practically relevant. Theoretically, there is no clarity yet

on what mechanisms can stimulate organizational and task pride but avoid hubris in

employees. Practically, organizations can greatly benefit if it appears that transformational

leadership can decrease of even avoid hubris and its negative outcomes, but can still instil the

positive pride (e.g., organizational and task pride) and its positive outcomes. This finding can

be used to train leaders to become more transformational and improve the functioning and

performance of the organization (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater & Spangler, 2004).

Individuals experiencing task pride and hubris attribute success to internal causes

(Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). They have to believe one has the power to influence the outcomes

of their actions. Otherwise, no attribution to internal causes can take place and task pride and

hubris will likely not be experienced. The theory of self-efficacy of Bandura (1997)

corresponds with this belief. Bandura (1997, p. 3) defines self-efficacy as “the belief in one’s

capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given

attainments”. Although the positive relationship between self-efficacy and task pride has been

supported, this is not the case for hubris (Stajkovic & Sommer, 2010; Verbeke et al., 2004).

With regard to transformational leadership and self-efficacy, research supported the positive

relationship (Nielsen & Munir, 2009; Pillai & Williams, 2004).

To conclude, no existing literature until now has investigated the influence of

transformational leadership on different types of pride of employees (i.e., organizational

pride, task pride and hubris). Secondly, self-efficacy seems to influence if employees

experience task pride and hubris. Therefore, to get insight into pride and the antecedents

influencing pride, the research question is: “Does transformational leadership positively affect

organizational pride and task pride and negatively affect hubris of employees?” Furthermore,

the mediating role of self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership and

task pride of employees and between transformational leadership and hubris of employees is

researched.

Chapter 2 reviews the existing literature on emotions in general, organizational pride,

task pride, hubris and transformational leadership. In chapter 3, the conceptual model and

hypotheses are presented. The research method, including design, data collection, sample,

measurements and analyses, is described in chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents the results of the

data analysis. Finally, in chapter 6, the research is discussed and limitations,

recommendations for future research and the conclusion are given.

2. Literature review

In this chapter, the existing literature related to the research problem is addressed in order to

define the research question(s) more precisely. First, the general literature on emotions and

pride is discussed. Secondly, organizational pride, task pride, hubris and transformational

leadership are discussed. Finally, a conclusion is provided, emphasizing the need for this

research.

2.1 Emotions

Emotions are “intense short-lived feelings that are linked to a specific cause or antecedent”

(George & Jones, 2005, p. 77). The function of emotions is that by expressing them, the

chance of an individual’s survival is increased (Fischer & Manstead, 2008). For example, fear

makes an individual more likely to be cautious and avoidant leading to an individual to escape

the threat of attack (Fischer & Manstead, 2008). The survival does not necessarily have to be

physical survival, it can also refer to social survival. Humans are social organisms who need

social bonds in order to thrive (Fischer & Manstead, 2008). Emotions help an individual in

social survival by addressing and/or overcoming problems, forming and maintaining social

relationships and to establish or maintain a social position and identity relative to others

(Fischer & Manstead, 2008). Emotions can be shared. Sharing information on emotions

promotes closeness and harmony, which in the literature is called the affiliation function of

emotion (Fischer & Manstead, 2008). Another function of emotions is the social distancing

function. The expressing of emotions establishes a social position. For example, when

individuals display anger and pride, they are thought of as being high in status (Fischer &

Manstead, 2008).

Individuals can experience a variety of different emotions, each having its own

distinctive content experience and associated goals (Michie, 2009). First of all, there is the

existence of positive and negative emotions. Negative emotions (e.g., anger, fear, sadness,

guilt) are experienced when a highly salient identity or general self-conception is not

confirmed (Stets & Turner, 2008). In contrast, positive emotions (e.g., joy, pride) are

experienced when a highly salient identity or general self-conception is confirmed (Stets &

Turner, 2008).

Another way in which emotions can be categorized is the separation of basic/primary

emotions and self-conscious evaluative emotions. Basic emotions include emotions such as

joy, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger, fear and children under six months of age already show

these emotions (Lewis, 2008). When children are in their second half of the second year, new

cognitive capacity emerges which comes with a consciousness as in self-referential behaviour

(Lewis, 2008). This leads to showing feelings of embarrassment, envy and empathy. Then,

between the second to third year, the capacity to evaluate their behaviour against a standard

emerges (Lewis, 2008). These are called self-conscious evaluative emotions and contain

embarrassment, pride, shame and guilt. To experience self-conscious evaluative emotions an

individual needs to have a sense of self and be capable of comparing their own behaviour

against standards (Lewis, 2008).

The importance of emotion in the workplace is demonstrated by various studies on

emotions in relation to for instance, employee motivation (Erez & Isen, 2002), job

performance (Law, Wong & Song, 2004) and job attitudes (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).

Emotions are an integral and inseparable part of the organizational life (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1995). If it is not frustration towards a colleague not meeting a deadline, it may be

fear of being fired, feelings of joy or pride to work for the organization. When it comes to

motivating behaviour, pride may be the most important human emotion (Tracy & Robins,

2007a). Therefore, this research focuses on the emotion of pride.

2.2 Pride

Pride is “an experience of joy over an action, thought, or feeling well done” (Lewis, 2008, p.

749). More specifically, pride is a positive self-conscious emotion (Tracy & Robins, 2007a).

A prerequisite for experiencing positive self-conscious emotions is an evaluation of oneself in

relation to a specific event/standard (Wubben, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2012). The event must

be perceived as reflecting positively upon the self and as being caused at least partly by

oneself (Tracy & Robins, 2004). There has to be self-awareness and self-representation

(Tracy & Robins, 2004).

Companies assign a large degree of their sustained success to high levels of employee

pride (Katzenbach & Santamaria, 1999). Pride can have a lasting motivational impact on

employees, as the employees remember the pleasurable feeling of being proud and want to

experience it again (Tracy & Robins, 2007b). There are many emotions that make individuals

feel good (e.g., happiness, joy), but only pride makes individuals feel good about themselves

as a result of reaching expectations that are valued (Tracy, Shariff & Cheng, 2010).

Individuals often base their opinions of important actions or abilities on the views of

others (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). With this, a valued domain is created in which the

individual, after success, wants to pursue further action to become proud again or to become

even prouder. To build social status and abilities, it is beneficial for that individual that his/her

actions or abilities are positively viewed by others (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Thus,

individuals who feel proud of their completed tasks will persist in their behaviour and pursue

success, despite short-term losses, to eventually be positively valued by themselves and

others. This is called the motivational hypothesis of pride (Williams & DeSteno, 2008).

Although pride seems an important construct because of these positive outcomes, in

the literature the construct of pride has been neglected (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). Therefore,

the overarching aim of this research is to further develop the understanding of pride.

Pride emerges when an individual reaches or exceeds (social) standards or

expectations (Verbeke et al., 2004). When analyzing this definition, the diverse and the

multifaceted characteristics of pride become evident. Pride emerges when the individual

himself reaches or exceeds own standards or expectations (Verbeke et al., 2004). In addition,

pride emerges when the individual reaches or exceeds standards or expectations from

significant others (e.g., manager) (Verbeke et al., 2004). Furthermore, pride can emerge when

others, who are significant to that individual, reach or exceed the individual’s standards or

expectations. For example, parents can be proud of their child, because the child reaches or

exceeds the parents’ expectations. Ekman (2003) acknowledges that pride seems to be too

complex to be considered a single concept. The complexity of this emotion is due to the fact

that it requires both cognitive advances and a certain socialization experience, which differs

per type of pride (Kornilaki & Chlouverakis, 2004). Research confirms the complexity of

pride as many researches describe pride differently (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011; Hodson, 1998).

Apart from the positive aspect or impact of pride (e.g., motivating employees), it has

also gotten negative remarks. Pride is sometimes referred to as one of the deadly sins, next to

jealousy, greed and lust (Webster, Duvall, Gaines & Smith, 2003). Again, this

misunderstanding seems to arise, because pride is complex and not always well understood.

The negative remarks in studies can also stem from the fact that although pride is highly

valued and sought emotion in many western individualistic cultures, such as the Netherlands,

it is viewed as a negative/undesirable emotion in more collectivistic cultures (Tracy et al.,

2010). The negative impact of pride seems to be related to the concept of hubris or hubristic

pride. Pride is about being confident and with this overconfidence can be induced (Verbeke et

al., 2004). Overconfidence is another periphrasis of excessive pride named hubris (Judge,

Piccolo & Kosalka, 2009).

As is evident, different types of pride are often united under the term pride. In the

literature, three types of pride can be found: 1) organizational pride, a positive type of pride,

2) task pride, another positive type of pride and 3) hubris, the negative type of pride (Gouthier

& Rhein, 2011; Tracy & Robins, 2007b). The distinction between these types of pride is

made, mostly because the attribution (i.e., internal versus external and stable versus unstable

causes) of success is different (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011; Tracy & Robins, 2007b). To ensure

that this research investigates pride as broad as possible, all three types of pride are

researched.

2.3 Organizational pride

The following paragraphs describe the three different types of pride and their consequences

for organizations. Organizational pride is triggered by events such as successful achievements

of the organization that are not necessarily due to the individual’s own contributions

(Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). It is about the organization being positively valued by the

employee (Tyler & Blader, 2002). As the individual does not necessarily have to contribute to

the success, organizational pride might not seem a self-conscious emotion. However, it can be

considered a self-conscious emotion, because increasing closeness to others results in merging

of self-concepts by including the other in the representation of the self (William & DeSteno,

2008). Closeness to others can be the case for organizations as well, as individuals that

experience organizational pride have a strong need for affiliation towards the organization

(Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). They might, as the pride for close others, include the resources and

abilities of the organization in the initial individual’s self-concept (William & DeSteno,

2008). Attribution theory refers to how an individual explains the cause of his/her own or

other’s behaviour (Stajkovic & Sommer, 2000). Then, being proud of the achievement of the

organization is referred to as external attribution, as the individual is proud of something that

is not caused by himself (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011).

Employees can emotionally identify themselves with the organization and link their

organizational membership to their self-concept (Riketta, 2005). Organizational identification

can be about being proud of being a member of the organization but about being proud of

achievements as well (Riketta, 2005). The organization’s successes are seen as the

employee’s successes (Riketta, 2005). Via identification with the organization, organizational

pride is embedded in the construct of organizational commitment as well. This becomes

evident by looking at the concept of (affective) organizational commitment. Affective

organizational commitment is the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and

involvement in an organization (Riketta, 2005). A question to measure affective

organizational commitment: ‘‘I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization”

(Riketta, 2005).

With regard to organizational outcomes of organizational pride, limited research

exists. However, established organizational outcomes of organizational pride are positive.

Organizational pride relates to creativity and turnover intention (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011).

Firstly, the broaden-and-built theory (Fredrickson, 2001) states that positive emotions, such as

pride, stimulate the expanding of an individual’s cognitive repertoire. The range of thought

and actions the individual comes up with is widened (Verbeke et al., 2004). This openness to

new information leads to consolidation of knowledge (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). Positive

emotions make individuals assimilate information easier and lead to a large set of evaluated

and creative alternatives and with this creativity (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). This creativity

will produce ideas, that are new but appropriate as well, which the organization can use to

compete with other organizations (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011).

Secondly, with regard to turnover, leaving an organization often results in uncertainty

about the future for an employee (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). An employee that experiences

organizational pride is proud of being associated with the organization and has a positive

work attitude, which makes leaving the organization unlikely (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011).

Therefore, organizational pride relates to lower turnover. This prevents the expenses for the

organization of recruiting and training new employees (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011).

Finally, when looking at the embedding of organizational pride in organizational

identification and subsequently organizational commitment, another positive organizational

outcome can be found, namely organizational citizenship behaviour. Organizational

citizenship behaviour is “behaviour of a discretionary nature that is not part of employees’

formal role requirements, but nevertheless promotes the effective functioning of the

organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). An example is considering the impact of one’s actions on

others (MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991). For employees who strongly identify with the

organization, their identity is defined in terms of the organization’s identity. Therefore, other

members of the organization play a significant role in the employee’s identity (Van Dick,

Grojean, Christ & Wieseke, 2006). Then, helping others in the form of organizational

citizenship seems logical as it also contributes to helping oneself (Van Dick et al., 2006).

Furthermore, organizational commitment gives behavioural direction even if there is little

organization reward for performance (Schappe, 1998). The committed employee is involved

with the organization and is willing to “go the extra mile” for the organization to reciprocate

the effort of the organization (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2008). This conforms to the definition

of organizational citizenship behaviour as not being part of employees’ formal role

requirements. Prosocial behaviour, such as organizational citizenship behaviour, indicating a

personal bond with or sacrifice for the betterment of the organization is presumed to be

affected by organizational commitment (Schappe, 1998). Thus, organizational pride via

organizational identification, as part of organizational commitment, positively relates to

organizational citizenship behaviour (Riketta, 2005; Schappe, 1998; Van Dick et al., 2006).

Organizational citizenship behaviour is important for the organization, as employees who

exhibit organizational citizenship behaviour, for example helping, can enhance the

productivity of less experienced colleagues by showing and learning them the best practises

(Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting & Podsakoff, 2009).

2.4 Task pride

Task pride is often referred to as authentic or achievement-oriented pride (Tracy & Robins,

2004). It emerges when an employee experiences personal worth, because of reaching or even

exceeding performance expectations (Verbeke et al., 2004). It requires an attribution of

achievements to a controllable, unstable, specific cause such as effort, hard work and specific

accomplishments (Tracy & Robins, 2007b; Tracy et al., 2010). In the literature of attribution

theory, this type of pride can be referred to as internal attribution (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011).

The individual is proud of something that is performed and caused by itself (Gouthier &

Rhein, 2011). A prerequisite to feel pride in completing a task is a form of appraisal that

he/she is responsible for the outcome valued by himself of a significant other (Williams &

DeSteno, 2008). It involves a public evaluation of the self in comparison to others and is most

strongly evoked in situations where the individual is publicly given praise for his/her

accomplishment (Webster et al., 2003). This publicity gives a clear and sure evaluation of

his/her successful performance (Webster et al., 2003). Individuals experiencing task pride are

agreeable, conscientious and emotionally stable (Tracy et al., 2010). They earn status in the

form of prestige by being respected for their knowledge, skills and value for the group (Tracy

et al., 2010; Wubben et al, 2012). They do not succumb to feelings of power and superiority,

to preserve their prestigious reputation (Tracy et al, 2010).

For organizational outcomes as a result of task pride, as for organizational pride,

creativity comes forward (Verbeke et al., 2004). Just as organizational pride, task pride is a

positive emotion, stimulating the expansion of an individual’s cognitive repertoire

(Fredrickson, 2001). The range of thought and actions you come up with is widened, more

flexible and creative and the actions are ongoing (Verbeke et al., 2004).

In addition, individuals experiencing positive feelings engage in altruistic behaviour,

because of the broadening of thought and actions, social inhibitions can be overstepped

(Verbeke et al., 2004). Altruism is embodied in organizational citizenship behaviour (Verbeke

et al., 2004). Task pride motivates prosocial behaviour, because task pride motivates

individuals to act in ways that improve the image of the self in the eyes of others to attain

status (Michie, 2009). Furthermore, doing good to others makes the individual feel better

about himself (Michie, 2009). Therefore, just as organizational pride, task pride is positively

related to prosocial behaviour such as organizational citizenship behaviour and (Hodson,

1998; Verbeke et al., 2004).

With regard to the motivational role of task pride, employees experiencing task pride

persevere in tasks (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). To build social status and abilities, it is

beneficial for the individual that his/her behaviour is positively viewed by others (Williams &

DeSteno, 2008). Therefore, individuals who feel proud of their completed tasks will persevere

in their behaviour and pursue success, despite short-term losses to eventually be valued by

themselves and others and feel proud again.

The importance of task pride becomes evident when low levels of task pride are

observed. Low levels of task pride give rise to behaviour that is anti-ethical to OCB, such as

playing dumb, limited co-operation and social sabotage, because individuals low on task pride

are not motivated to act prosocially or engage in organizational citizenship behaviour

anymore, as the joy in working and achieving has eroded (Hodson, 1998).

2.5 Hubris

The third and most excessive type of pride is hubris. The definition of hubris dates back to the

Greek mythology. The myth of Icarus is about a father (Deadelus) and his son (Icarus), who

were both exiled to an island. To escape, the father built artificial wings. The father instructed

Icarus not to fly too low nor too high. As they flew, Icarus and Deadelus were being watched

by all the people below them. Consequently, Icarus began to believe he was god-like. By

sweeping his wings even harder, he flew higher and higher and eventually too close to the

sun. The wax on his wings melted and he fell down to a deadly crash in the sea (Petit &

Bollaert, 2012). This myth demonstrates the feelings of overconfidence when individuals see

themselves as being superior to others and capable of everything. In addition, it demonstrates

the negative consequences of excessive pride (i.e., hubris) can have, in this myth illustrated by

death.

Hubris is a form of exaggerated/excessive pride or self-confidence, often resulting in

retribution (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997, p. 106). Research on hubris evolved, because of

negative organizational outcomes that resulted because of it. Roll (1986) developed the hubris

hypothesis, based on his research amongst pride of decision makers. Hubris of decision

makers results in firms bidding above the current market price even if it represents a positive

valuation error. Demonstrated by Hayward and Hambrick (1997), hubristic CEOs pay to high

premiums for firms to be acquired, because they overestimate their ability to manage the firm

being acquired. A premium is paid when the acquiring organization is convicted that the

target firm’s existing price does not reflect the (higher) value that, in the hands of the

acquiring firm, can be created (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). However, the hubristic CEOs in

reality overpay, because of their overestimation to manage the acquired firm. As a result, they

are unable to cover the debt it incurred for the deal and the shareholder value and

organizational performance decreases (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). The overconfidence of

the CEO results in an organizational performance decrease.

Similar to task pride, hubris requires an internal attribution to positive events

(Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). However, hubris is about achievement attributions to an

uncontrollable, stable and global cause such as personality, talent, abilities and is not strictly

connected to specific actual achievements (Tracy & Robins, 2007b; Tracy et al., 2010).

Hubristic individuals attribute achievements to their total selves instead of to their actions

(Verbeke et al., 2004). They seem to be overconfident and unconditionally evaluate

themselves much more positive and better than others without any justification than when

objectively assessed (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997; Judge et al., 2009; Tracy et al., 2010;

Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Hubris is negatively related to prosocial personality traits, such

as agreeableness and conscientiousness (Tracy et al., 2010). As a result of these anti-social

traits and being prepared to assert their power, hubristic individuals gain status through

dominance (Tracy et al., 2010). They are being followed by individuals out of fear for threats,

intimidation and coercion (Tracy et al., 2010; Wubben et al., 2012)

With regard to organizational outcomes of hubris, which has already been touched

upon, the results are negative. Firstly, demonstrated by Hayward and Hambrick (1997),

hubristic CEOs pay premiums for firms to be acquired, because they overestimate their ability

to manage the firm being acquired. As a result, the overconfidence of the CEO results in an

organizational performance decrease.

Secondly, a negative organizational outcome resulting from hubris is their anti-social

behaviour. Hubristic individuals assign success to their total selves, resulting in egoism and

arrogance (Verbeke et al., 2004). They are inclined to invent situations to enhance the self at

the expense of others (Tracy & Robins, 2007b). Hubristic individuals engage in anti-social

misbehaviours (e.g., drug use, petty crimes) and are evaluated low in social support and do

not easily adjust in relationships (Tracy et al., 2010). This stems from their need for

dominance and low level of agreeableness and conscientiousness (Tracy et al., 2010). As a

result of all this, hubristic individuals are envied and avoided which will most likely not be

productive for teamwork.

Thirdly, hubris is positively related to workplace bullying (Braithwaite, Ahmed &

Braithwaite, 2008). The display of hubris as being superior to others can make other

employees feel inadequate and humiliated (Braithwaite et al., 2008). As hubris is associated

with social dominance through threats and intimidation this makes the relationship with

workplace bullying even more apparent as bullying involves persistent, offensive, abusive or

intimidating behaviour that makes the target feel threatened, humiliated, stressed or unsafe at

work (Braithwaite et al., 2008). Workplace bullying can result in absence of work and high

turnover of employees, because the bullied employees do not want to work with the hubristic

individual any longer (Braithwaite et al., 2008).

Lastly, hubristic individuals are characterized as being arrogant (Tracy & Robins,

2007b; Verbeke et al., 2004). Arrogant individuals attribute success to internal, stable,

uncontrollable and desirable causes just as hubris (Johnson et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins,

2007b). Arrogance (i.e., a stable belief of superiority and exaggerated self-importance) is

negatively related to task performance (Johnson et al., 2010). Feelings of superiority make

arrogant employees reduce seeking feedback and make them discount important information,

which could otherwise improve their performance (Silverman, Johnson, McConnell & Carr,

2012). Arrogant individuals are associated with not being open to other individual’s ideas and

overreacting to criticism, as they belief they are superior and do not need others (Johnson et

al., 2010). They do not see what is wrong with the way they operate and therefore make

communication more difficult (Johnson et al., 2010). In the literature, it appears that

arrogance is negatively related to organizational citizenship behaviour as well (Johnson et al.,

2010). The reason for this would be that they think they are too important to waste their

valuable time to help colleagues and listen to their problems (Johnson et al., 2010). This

arrogant behaviour will likely cultivate poisonous social climates of difficult interpersonal

interaction (Silverman et al., 2012).

2.6 Antecedents of pride

Until now, the focus in this literature overview is on describing the three different types of

pride and their consequences. However, the focus of the research is on what can influence the

occurrence of pride in employees. Moreover, what organizational environment characteristics

influence the three types of pride (i.e., organizational pride, task pride and hubris)?

First of all, an organization should have a climate of promoting and praising the

successes of an individual or whole group (Tyler & Blader, 2000). This, because there has to

be the establishment of expectations being reached and recognition of successes to evoke

feelings of pride (Verbeke et al., 2004; Webster et al., 2003). Organizational climate

influences the behaviour of employees (Gunter & Furnham, 1996).

Gunter and Furnham (1996) researched organizational climate predictors of

organizational pride. Although no theoretical embedding was conducted, they found a variety

of significant predictors, namely: job definition, job clarity, job importance, job challenge,

knowing what is going on in the organization, people getting along well, organization

performance, work enjoyment, rewards and recognition. However, organizational pride is

more an opinion at the corporate level based on corporate wide climate perceptions (Gunter &

Furnham, 1996). Then, based on the mentioned predictors, it seems important that employees

in the organization get along well with each other, as individuals experiencing organizational

pride have a need for affiliation with the organization (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). Which does 20

not seem likely to occur if there is a lot of tension on the work floor or even conflict.

Furthermore, knowing what is going on in the organization, the way in which the organization

rewards and recognizes successes and how the organization performs seem important

predictors, as the employees have to know what and how the organization is doing to discover

if the organization does not reach, reaches or exceeds their expectations (Verbeke et al.,

2004). Finally, individuals like to associate themselves with successful groups to build their

self-esteem (Arnett, Laverie & McLane, 2002). Thus, organizational pride is influenced by

organizational climate.

Being a member of an organization can be a useful way to define yourself. The status

of the organization can be a source of confidence of employee’s own identity through their

association with the group (Tyler & Blader, 2003). However, apart from the positive aspect of

merging of self-concepts by including the organization in the representation of the self, it

contains risks as well. Organizational pride is about the organization being positively valued

by the employee (Tyler & Blader, 2002). When the organization, with which the employee

identifies, receives negative feedback, this feedback damages the identity of the employee as

well and the value of the organization decreases (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Therefore, to assure

that the identity of the employees can be safely merged with the organization’s identity,

procedural justice is needed for employees to experience organizational pride (Tyler &

Blader, 2003). More specifically, procedural justice as the formal and informal quality of

decision-making processes. The decisions have to be made consistently and based on facts,

not on subjective opinions. If this is not facilitated, members of the group become afraid that

negative stereotypes will be applied to all group members, which damages their sense of self

(Tyler & Blader, 2003). Thus, next to organization climate, organizational pride is influenced

by procedural justice as well.

When looking at task pride, it seems that jobs that are more enriched are positively

related to task pride (Fisher, 2002). This stems from the fact that the employees get

recognition. With enrichment, employees receive feedback on how they performed which

conforms with the need for recognition to experience task pride (Fisher, 2002; Webster et al.,

2003). Furthermore, this recognition can take the form of an employee who is given

autonomy (Fisher, 2002). Apparently, the manager is confident that the employee will

succeed with the assignment of more responsibility, possibly making the employee even

prouder for living up to the manager’s expectations. Moreover, with high task identity, variety

of skills and task significance, the job and the achievements resulting from this become

meaningful (Fisher, 2002). Meaningful achievements evoke feelings of task pride, as the

achievement is a socially valued outcome (Tracy & Robins, 2007a; Williams & DeSteno,

2008). Thus, task pride is positively influenced by job enrichment.

In addition to job enrichment, a job in which perceived control over outcomes and the

value of the outcomes are high, more task pride is experienced (Goetz, Frenzel, Stoeger &

Hall, 2010). Perceived control is the extent to which one can predict and personally influence

life events. This corresponds with the internal attribution such as effort leading employees to

successfully perform and subsequently experience task pride (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). With

regard to the value of the outcomes, an individual will experience more pride following a

positive event, when this event has high rather than low personal relevance (Goetz et al.,

2010). Task pride is described as being evoked when an individual is responsible for a

socially valued outcome as well (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). This corresponds with the

antecedent of having a meaningful job. Perceived control can be enhanced by giving explicit

training in problem-oriented coping strategies and value can be enhanced by emphasizing the

personal relevance of outcomes (Goetz et al., 2010).

Besides job enrichment, perceived control over outcomes and the value of the

outcomes, high goals setting contributes to the feeling of task pride as well. Higher goals

mean more difficult goals with a greater achievement and feeling of pride when attained

(Locke, 1996). Through high goal setting, employees may eventually achieve more than they

originally thought they were capable of and therefore exceed even their own expectations

(McDaniel & Wolf, 1992).

The last discussed antecedent of task pride is communication behaviour of the leader.

Results of research on the influence of teachers on university students indicates that teacher’s

communication behaviour, through emotional processes, is positively related to task pride

(Titsworth, McKenna, Mazer & Quinlan, 2013). The emotional processes in this research

were emotion work (i.e., the active management of emotional displays) and emotional support

(i.e., messages of others that promote desirable outcomes such as decreased emotional stress

and supportive interpersonal relationships). The teacher’s communication behaviour is build

up of the teacher’s immediacy (i.e., nonverbal behaviours including use of direct eye contact,

facial expressions, vocal variety and movement), clarity (i.e., the use of examples,

descriptions and explanations to help students understand information) and communication

competence (i.e., impressions of individuals’ communication effectiveness and

appropriateness, including a perceived ability to encode and decode messages effectively).

Firstly, they found that teacher’s immediacy, clarity and communication competence are

negatively related to emotion work. When teachers are generally competent communicators

and are perceived as both immediate and clear, students may perceive the teacher as more

predictable and sincere. Individuals tend to behave in a way that reciprocates the perceived

behaviour of others. As teachers enact these positive communication behaviours, the range of

possible student responses is narrowed. Additionally, immediacy results in feelings of

closeness between individuals. Therefore, when a teacher is immediate, students might feel

more open in communication with him/her, requiring less emotion work (Titsworth, Mazer &

Quinlan, 2010). Secondly, communication competence is positively related to emotion

support. When teachers engage in competent encoding (i.e., responding) and decoding (i.e.,

listening) behaviours, it is likely that students perceive the relationship with their teacher as

more personal and with this more supportive. Finally, emotion support is positively and

emotion work is negatively related to task pride. Task pride is activated when an individual

feels in control of outcomes that are important (Titsworth et al., 2013). As a result of high

levels of perceived emotional support and less need to manage their emotions through various

forms of emotion work, their sense of control is likely to be higher, thus making the activation

of positive emotions, such as pride, more likely (Titsworth et al., 2013).

Research on organizational antecedents of hubris is almost absent (Petit & Bollaert,

2012). The only antecedents to be found in the literature are respect and self-awareness. Not

showing respect for each other or each other’s capabilities and successes is positively related

to hubris (Braithwaite et al., 2008). In an organization where respect for others is not or little

shown, employees are unlikely to feel safe enough to face their failures and be generous in

sharing their successes (Braithwaite et al., 2008). They will develop the tendency to express

their accomplishments as better than others instead of valuing their personal accomplishments

alongside accomplishments of colleagues (Braithwaite et al., 2008). They express dominance

and assign themselves superior status to others, which conforms to the expression of hubris

(Braithwaite et al., 2008; Tracy et al., 2010). In addition to disrespect, self-awareness is found

to negatively influence hubris. An environment where self-awareness is fostered the egoism

of hubristic individuals are regulated (Petit & Bollaert, 2012). Thus, an environment where

self-awareness is not fostered, hubris is not regulated. The hubristic individuals do not stay

connected to their true self and develop a grandiose sense of self (Petit & Bollaert, 2012).

Katzenbach (2003) developed pride building rules for managers (e.g., clarify exactly

what matters and why it matters again and again, stimulate memories of earlier pride and

celebrate the little steps and not only the large accomplishments). These rules support

employees in understanding the importance of their job and why it matters to excel in both the

little things as well as the big things (Katzenbach, 2003). When looking at all antecedents

discussed above, as well as the pride building rules from Katzenbach (2003), the notion on the

influence that leaders have on pride seems relevant (e.g., influence of the teacher, as a leader,

on the students) (Titsworth et al., 2013). Research on the relationship between pride and

leadership, found that leaders with a tendency to experience task pride themselves are

positively related to prosocial behaviour, namely social justice (e.g., following ethical

standards and the degree to which the needs of employees are taken into consideration)

(Michie, 2009). The relationship between task pride and social justice is mediated by feelings

of gratitude of the leader. Thus, task pride, via feelings of gratitude, leads to social justice of

the leader. These feelings of gratitude are likely to occur as leader’s achievements are

dependent on the effort of the group they are leading (Michie, 2009). When the leader’s

feelings of task pride are followed by feelings of gratitude towards the employees, who

contribute to a leader’s success, the leader may be more likely to show concern for the rights

of others and treat individuals with respect, as he/she needs them (Michie, 2009). Further,

hubristic CEOs pay premiums for large acquisitions, because they overestimate their ability to

manage the firm being acquired as mentioned before (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). With

this, they damage the organization’s performance.

Unfortunately, the explicit influence of leadership on the occurrence of different types

of pride experienced by employees is not researched, despite the fact that pride is a positive

emotion and leaders, especially transformational leaders, have the ability to influence positive

emotions of their employees (Bono et al., 2007; Tracy & Robins, 2004). To communicate

their inspirational and optimistic vision, transformational leaders use emotions to excite and

motivate their employees to work towards long-term ideals (Lewis, 2000; Berson et al., 2001).

They use emotions to evoke similar feelings in their employees and to indicate what is

appropriate to feel in a given situation (Lewis, 2000). This adheres with the notion of

emotional contagion, the process through which an individual influences the emotions of

another individual and/or group through the conscious or unconscious induction of emotion

states and behavioural attitudes (Barsade, 2002). Due to the likely influence of leadership, the

literature on leadership is examined.

2.7 Transformational leadership

Burns (1978) can be seen as the founder of the concept of transformational leadership. He

defined transformational leadership as the process of pursuing collective goals through the

mutual tapping of leaders' and followers' motive bases toward the achievement of the intended

change. After this, numerous of other definitions arose such as transformational leaders

‘‘broaden and elevate the interests of their followers, generate awareness and commitment of

individuals to the purpose and mission of the group, and they enable employees to transcend

their own self-interests for the betterment of the group’’ (Seltzer, Numerof & Bass, 1989, p.

174). Composed by Bass, transformational leaders exhibit four behaviours; namely, 1)

idealized influence, 2) individualized consideration, 3) inspirational motivation and 4)

intellectual stimulation (Yukl, 2010). Idealized influence (or charisma) entails acting as a role

model, promoting desirable behaviour and making personal sacrifices, which instils pride in

employees and ensures respect and trust of employees in the leader (Arnold & Randall, 2010;

Den Hartog et al., 1997; Nielsen & Munir, 2009). The second behaviour, individualized

consideration, is about understanding the needs of each employee and continuously trying to

develop employees to their full potential (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999). This can be in the form

of delegation of projects and coaching (Arnold & Randall, 2010). The third behaviour,

inspirational motivation, entails providing employees with a clear energizing, attainable

vision of the future and high expectations of employees to reach this vision (Avolio et al.,

1999; Nielsen & Munir, 2009). Lastly, intellectual stimulation entails motivating employees

to question the ways of doing things at the current moment and view problems from new

perspectives (Avolio et al., 1999; Yukl, 2010).

As transformational leaders are effective in any situation or culture (Yukl, 2010),

extensive research has been conducted on transformational leadership and their effect on

employees and organizational outcomes such as performance. It seems that through difficult

objectives, stimulating employees to solve problems from new and different angles and

develop them to higher levels of capabilities, transformational leaders and their employees

can collectively maximize performance (i.e., percentage of goals achieved in the leader’s unit

over a one year period) (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Although transformational leaders are

characterized for instilling pride, no quantitative nor qualitative research can be found that

empirically confirms this.

To conclude, pride is an important positive self-conscious emotion that can motivate

employees to work (Tracy & Robins, 2007a; Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Although research

has been conducted on the different types of pride (i.e., organizational pride, task pride and

hubris) and consequences of pride, little research is conducted on the antecedents of pride.

When the antecedents are discovered, organizations may focus on these factors to eventually

benefit from the positive organizational outcomes (e.g., perseverance in tasks and

organizational citizenship behaviour) (Riketta, 2005; Verbeke et al., 2004). Above discussed

antecedents of organizational pride (e.g., organizational climate and procedural justice), task

pride (e.g., job enrichment, high perceived control over and value of outcomes, high goal

setting and leader’s communication behaviour) and hubris (e.g., respectful environment and

self-awareness) are highly relevant. However, an interesting potential antecedent which is

until now not researched is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders are already

known for instilling pride in their employees and being capable of influencing positive

emotions (Bono et al., 2007; Den Hartog et al., 1997). As no empirical research exists on

which types of pride this entails, this research will quantitatively research the influence of

transformational leaders on the different types of pride of employees. Therefore, the research

question is; “Does transformational leadership positively affect organizational pride and task

pride and negatively affect hubris of employees?”

3. Conceptual model

After exploring the literature in the previous chapter, this chapter defines the conceptual

framework on which this research is based. The hypotheses with regard to the relationship

between transformational leadership and pride of employees (i.e., organizational pride, task

pride and hubris) are stated.

As stated in the literature review, pride is a positive self-conscious emotion and it

emerges when an individual reaches or exceeds social standards or expectations (Tracy &

Robins, 2007a; Verbeke et al., 2004). As mentioned earlier, transformational leaders influence

positive emotions of employees and formulate high expectations for employees to help them

attain the proposed vision (Avolio et al., 1999; Bono et al., 2007). The performance is

evaluated against these expectations and the employees are given continuous feedback and

coaching to indicate if they reached the leaders expectations (Den Hartog et al., 1997).

Transformational leaders are characterized as instilling pride in employees (Den Hartog et al.,

1997). Therefore, it can be stated that transformational leaders should be able to affect all

three types of pride of employees.

3.1 Organizational pride and task pride

The reaching or exceeding of (social) standards or expectations by an individual can be

applicable to both organizational and task pride (Verbeke et al., 2004). For task pride, the

individual reaching or exceeding standards or expectation is the individual himself. For

organizational pride, the individual is the employee’s organization which, because of the

organizational identification, can be seen as part of the self-concept (Epitropaki & Martin,

2005). Organizational pride and task pride have positive organizational outcomes (e.g.,

organizational citizenship behaviour) (Riketta, 2005; Verbeke et al., 2004). Transformational

leaders are capable of positively influencing organizational citizenship behaviour of

employees through stimulating them to perform beyond their self-interest and level of

expectations (Purvanova, Bono & Dzieweczynski, 2006). This may indicate that

organizational pride, task pride and transformational leadership are related to each other.

The first reasoning for expecting the relationship between transformational leadership

and organizational pride of employees is through idealized influence. Transformational

leadership is known as instilling pride as a result of idealized influence (Bass, 1999).

Transformational leaders promote desirable behaviour and make personal sacrifices, which

make employees proud to be associated with the leader and the organization (i.e.,

organizational pride) (Bass, 1999).

The second reasoning for expecting the relationship between transformational

leadership and organizational pride of employees is through organizational identification (as

part of organizational commitment). Organizational identification can be classified as a

specific form of social identification, because employees identify with the organization and

internalize the characteristic of the organization with their self-concept (Epitropaki & Martin,

2005). Organizational pride is strongly related to or even part of organizational identification

(Riketta, 2005). As organizational identification is embedded in the construct of

organizational commitment and transformational leaders positively affect organizational

identification and commitment, a positive relationship between transformational leadership

and organizational pride of employees is expected (Avolio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia, 2004;

Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Riketta, 2005). To further elaborate, transformational leaders

encourage employees to seek new ways to approach problems and challenges, they identify

with employees’ needs and are able to motivate them to get more involved in their work and

therefore reach higher organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004). Thus,

transformational leadership positively influences organizational commitment.

Transformational leadership raises (social) identification as well, through idealized influence

by “emphasizing ideology, shared values and collective identity, and thereby the collective

level of values becomes activated” (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin & Popper, 1998, p. 388). The

collective values will be merged with the values of the individual. Furthermore, through

inspirational inspiration, transformational leaders create a challenging work environment and

overcome obstacles with employees (Dionne et al., 2004). As a result, the perceived

attractiveness of the leader, and with this the organization, increases and the need in

employees to be and stay associated with the organization and with this identifying with the

organization is evoked (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Gouthier & Rhein, 2011).

Transformational leaders build team spirit, create the idea that the group works together as a

collective and the employees internalize the organization and the organization’s values with

the self-concept (Den Hartog, Shippers & Koopman, 2002; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005).

Therefore, achievements of the organization will likely be seen as achievements of the

employees themselves (Den Hartog et al., 2002; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005).

Besides organizational commitment and organizational identification, transformational

leaders are expected to relate to organizational pride via the effect of creating loyalty as well.

Transformational leaders positively affect loyalty of employees to the organization. Loyalty

can be defined as active behaviours that demonstrate pride in and support for the organization

(Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely & Fuller, 2001). Even though this research was conducted in

companies that were downsizing, it clearly indicates factors that influence loyalty and with

this organizational pride. Examples of factors that influenced employee loyalty were

empowerment and autonomy, which are all supplied by transformational leaders (Bass, 1999;

Niehoff et al., 2001; Yukl, 2010). With empowerment and autonomy, employees become

self-directing and self-regulating and take ownership in what they produce (Niehoff et al., 2001).

It is a form of support of and trust in employees that is build by the organization as they are

given power to make their own decisions (Niehoff et al., 2001). The employee reciprocates

this by higher levels of attachment to the organization and with this loyalty (Niehoff et al.,

2001). Thus, transformational leaders influence loyalty of employees to the organization,

through the positive impact on empowerment and autonomy, which subsequently positively

influences organizational pride of employees.

To combine the above reasoning, transformational leaders influence organizational

pride of employees via three ways. Transformational leaders positively influence

organizational pride through idealized influence, organizational commitment and

organizational identification and lastly, transformational leaders positively influence

organizational pride through loyalty. Due to the idealized influence of transformational

leaders, they promote desirable behaviour and make personal sacrifices, which make

employees proud to be associated with the organization (i.e., organizational pride) (Bass,

1999). Secondly, transformational leaders are able to encourage their employees to reach

higher organizational commitment by identifying with employees’ needs and motivating them

to get more involved in their work (Avolio et al., 2004). Via idealized influence,

transformational leadership raises social and thus organizational identification (Shamir et al.,

1998). Organizational commitment as well as organizational identification are (positively)

related to organizational pride (Riketta, 2005). Thirdly, transformational leaders positively

affect loyalty of employees to the organization (Niehoff et al., 2001). This loyalty positively

influences the demonstration of pride in and support for the organization (Niehoff et al.,

2001). Therefore, transformational leadership should be capable of positively influencing

organizational pride of employees.

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership will positively affect organizational pride of employees.

It was stated that organizational pride, task pride and transformational leadership could be

related because of (similar) positive outcomes. The first reasoning for expecting the

relationship between transformational leadership and task pride of employees is through

individualized consideration. Apart from instilling pride because of employees associating

with the organization and transformational leader, transformational leaders are capable of

instilling pride by building confidence in employees as well (Den Hartog et al., 2002). The

construct of task pride is a combination of several features, one of which is feelings of

confidence (Tracy & Robins, 2007b). Task pride is strongly evoked when there is some form

of evaluation, preferably public (Webster et al., 2003). With the leadership behaviour of

individualized consideration, transformational leaders provide this evaluation by indicating if

an employee executed the job well, advising them what to do and giving developmental

feedback (Den Hartog et al., 2002). Additionally, the transformational leader’s individualized

consideration builds employee confidence in achievements and reacting to their own and the

organization’s problems, by putting effort in understanding the needs of each employee and

continuously trying to develop employees to their full potential by giving coaching and

delegating tasks (Arnold & Randall, 2010; Avolio et al., 1999; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003).

This delegation of tasks makes the employees confident, because the leader trusts them to

make their own decisions (Niehoff et al., 2001).

The second reasoning for expecting this positive relationship between transformational

leadership and task pride of employees is through inspirational motivation. Transformational

leaders provide a clear sense of mission (Avolio et al., 1999; Nielsen & Munir, 2009). This

mission will ensure that the expectations, to which the employees should live up to, are clear.

When expectations are clear, employees have greater chances in successfully accomplishing a

task and also to be acknowledged and praised by the leader. Reaching or exceeding

expectations is key in feelings of pride (Verbeke et al., 2004). Moreover, when there is high

performance it seems likely that more tasks will be successfully completed and with this more

possibilities for attribution of the success to internal, unstable causes, resulting in task pride

(Howell & Avolio, 1993; Tracy & Robins, 2007b). The transformational leadership style is

known for giving rise to effective leaders and is characterized as resulting in high

performance of individuals as mentioned earlier (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Yukl, 2010).

Lastly, through inspirational motivation, transformational leaders hold employees to high

standards of performance, provide challenging tasks and ensure the overcoming of obstacles,

which instils a sense of self-esteem that is vital to successfully accomplishing tasks (Allen,

2008; Dionne et al., 2004). Through these high standards, the employees may eventually

achieve more than they originally thought they were capable of and therefore exceed even

their own expectations (McDaniel & Wolf, 1992).

To combine the above reasoning, transformational leaders influence task pride of

employees in two ways. Through the transformational leadership behaviour of individualized

consideration, (public) evaluation of performance is provided by feedback, employee’s needs

are understood and developed and trust is build that employees can function on their own

(Arnold & Randall, 2010; Avolio et al., 1999; Den Hartog et al., 2002; Niehoff et al., 2001;

Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). This all positively influences the experience of confidence,

which subsequently positively influences the experience of task pride of employees (Niehoff

et al., 2001; Tracy & Robins, 2007b). Secondly, through inspirational motivation

transformational leadership hold employees to high standards of performance and provide

challenging tasks (Dionne et al., 2004). When employees reach these standards they may even

exceed their own expectations (McDaniel & Wolf, 1992). The high performance that results

from transformational leaders provides more possibilities for attribution of the success to

internal, unstable causes resulting in task pride (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Tracy & Robins,

2007b). Therefore, transformational leadership should be capable of positively influencing

task pride of employees;

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership will positively affect task pride of employees.

3.2 Hubris

Transformational leaders are characterized as being leaders that make their employees

transcend their own self-interest for the betterment of the group (Seltzer et al., 1989). As

discussed, hubris has negative organizational outcomes. It gives rise to problematic

relationships, which seems negative for teamwork (Tracy et al., 2010; Verbeke et al., 2004).

Therefore, hubris is not for the betterment of the group. Which makes is unlikely that

transformational leader will directly stimulate employees to give rise to hubris.

In the research of Petit and Bollaert (2012) comes forward that authentic leaders will

be less prone to give rise to hubris or even prevent hubris. Authentic leadership is defined as

‘‘a pattern of leader behaviour that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological

capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized

moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part

of the leaders working with employees, fostering positive self-development’’ (Walumbwa,

Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing & Peterson, 2008, p. 94). Authentic leaders will give little or no

rise to hubris of employees because self-awareness is fostered and will therefore regulate the

egoism of hubristic individuals by staying connected to his/her true self (Petit & Bollaert,

2012). Furthermore, hubris leads to problematic relationships, which is addressed by building

authentic relationships with others (Petit & Bollaert, 2012). When comparing authentic

leadership with transformational leadership, there is overlap. The ethical role model that

transformational leaders exert by the idealized influence dimension and the presence of leader