UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN
Master Thesis
Human Resource
Management
Promotion-focused leadership in the effects of role
ambiguity
Marijke Bergsma (1903101) 5-6-2016
PROMOTION-FOCUSED LEADERSHIP IN THE EFFECTS OF ROLE AMBIGUITY
ABSTRACT
Turnover intention is often seen as a major problem for organizations. In this research, the role of promotion-focused leadership in the effect of role ambiguity on the variables job satisfaction and turnover intention, was investigated. It was predicted that
promotion-focused leadership will decrease the negative effects of role ambiguity on job satisfaction, which will subsequently lead to a decreasing turnover intention. The
hypotheses were tested among 221 employees in profit and non-profit companies with an online survey on Qualtrics. The results showed that role ambiguity was negatively
related with job satisfaction, and that role ambiguity was positively related with turnover intention, which was mediated by job satisfaction. Furthermore, a positive relationship between promotion-focused leadership and job satisfaction was found. The hypothesis that promotion-focused leadership would mitigate the effect of role
ambiguity on job satisfaction was not supported.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays the competition between companies is very high. Companies are not only competing on a national level but also on a global level. Therefore it is important to have suitable employees in the organization. According to Boxall and Purchell (2011), failure to recruit and retain suitable managers will hamstring company performance. This shows the importance of having and retaining capable personnel. Moreover Vidal, Valle and Aragón (2007) argue that competitive advantage of international firms depends on unique global knowledge and experience. When employees with these unique knowledge and experience leave the organization, the organization will be negatively affected. Turnover intention is consequently seen as one of the big challenges of an organization, because recruiting, hiring and training is expensive and therefore the turnover rate must not be very high (Lazear & Gibbs, 2009). Turnover intention can be described as the desire or willingness of a person to leave an organization (Bouckenooghe, Raja, Butt, 2013).
A major reason for leaving an organization is job dissatisfaction (Griffeth, Hom & Gaertner, 2000). To clarify what is meant with job satisfaction, the definition of Locke (1976) is used: a positive emotional state which follows from an individual’s subjective experience with his job. In this research, turnover intention will be investigated. According to Cho & Lewis (2012), turnover and turnover intention are highly positively correlated. Griffeth et al. (2000) argue that job dissatisfaction may lead to job search when there is a better alternative somewhere else. Several studies show that low job satisfaction increases employees’ intention to quit (Chen, Ployhart, Thomas, Anderson & Bliese 2011; Cho & Lewis 2012).
of the most important variables which decreases job satisfaction, namely role ambiguity. Role ambiguity has consistently been found to be negatively related to job satisfaction (Abramis, 1994).
According to Hang-yue et al. (2005) role ambiguity occurs when a person does not have clear information about the expectations of his or her role in the job or organization. This will lead to work stress. Role ambiguity can arise when work is not clearly defined and when the employees need to perform diverse tasks and duties. Role ambiguity will lead to a higher turnover, and is expected to be mediated by the variable job satisfaction. Because a high turnover rate is often seen as negative for an organization, this research is focused on reducing the negative effects of role ambiguity. It is expected that leaders can fulfill an important role in mitigating the effect of role stressors, because managers can reduce or increase the amount of felt stress (Lapidus, Roberts, Chonko, 1997). This stress may be reduced if managers are undertaking programs to formalize the organization, for example. Therefore this research strives to answer the following question: What can managers do about the negative effects of
role ambiguity on turnover intention, which is mediated by job satisfaction?
2015). With role ambiguity these duties, obligations and responsibilities will be unclear and therefore is for prevention-focused leadership not the same relationship expected.
No research has yet been done on how promotion-focused leadership effects the relationship between role ambiguity and turnover intention. With this research, there is
contributed to the few studies about promotion-focused leadership, and in particular the effect of this leadership on the negative effects of role ambiguity on job satisfaction and turnover intention. In this research, first the theory will be discussed and the hypotheses are
formulated. From this theory and hypotheses, a conceptual model is developed. Then, the methodology for this research will be described, which will be followed by the results. Finally, the results will be discussed in the discussion part.
THEORY Role Ambiguity and Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is seen as a positive emotional state, which results from a person’s subjective experience with his job. (Locke, 1976). According to Brown and Peterson (1993) job
satisfaction is linked to turnover, organizational commitment, propensity to leave and performance. These relationships show the importance of job satisfaction within a company.
Most research shows that role stressors have a negative relationship with job
therefore it was chosen to focus on this explicit role stressor. However, meta-analysis has shown that the strength of the relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction varies among studies, and therefore it is expected that other variables may moderate this relationship (Abramis, 1994).
Role ambiguity can be defined as follows: the existence of unclarity about the roles an employee is expected to fulfill (Slattery et al. 2008). According to Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970), role ambiguity is the lack of the necessary information available, which is needed for an organizational position. There are different explanations for the negative relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction.
First, if an employee does not know how much authority he has or what he is expected to achieve and how he will be judged, he will hesitate to make decisions and he will use a trial and error approach in meeting expectations from his superior (Rizzo et al.,1970). Role
ambiguity will lead to coping behaviour by the employee, because there is an absence of necessary information for the organizational position. Therefore the employee will become dissatisfied with his role. Besides, he will experience anxiety and reality distortion.
A second explanation is given by research of Walker, Churchill and Ford (1979). This research states that team members who experience ambiguity, become dissatisfied because it is difficult for team members to like their job when they are uncertain about what they have to do and how to do it. In line with this research, Grant et al. (2001) state that when salespeople experiencing role stressors, they have a lower job satisfaction, because of perceptions of confusion and uncertainty with respect to their job responsibilities. Research from Rizzo et al.(1970) shows that when role ambiguity occurs, there is a possibility of uncertainty about duties, authority, allocation of time and relationship with others.
related to increased tension, anxiety, fear and hostility, decreased job satisfaction and loss of self-confidence. Ambiguous role demands thus lead to role strain which causes employee dissatisfaction. From the above, the following hypothesis is stated:
H1: There is a negative relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction.
Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention.
Turnover intention can be defined as a person’s willingness or desire to leave an organization (Bouckenooghe et al. 2013). Huang and Su (2016) refer to the conscious and intentional willingness to leave the organization. Turnover intention has been acknowledged as one of the big challenges of an organization. Because recruiting, selecting, hiring and training is expensive, the turnover rate must not be very high. Furthermore a high turnover has effect on the employees who stay within the company; the productivity decreases when a function is not fulfilled, and furthermore performance decreases as a result (Cho & Lewis, 2012).
Turnover is not always seen as bad thing, it brings new blood into the organization (Lazear & Gibbs, 2009). For companies in rapidly changing industries a certain rate of turnover is necessary to get new insights, different perspectives and to understand new developments from new employees. Furthermore, in some jobs where talent is important, the employees will continuously be sifted to find the best ones. For these companies a certain extent of turnover is necessary. However it is most costly when key employees with complex, detailed knowledge are leaving the organization.
(Griffeth et al. 2000). This research investigates the turnover intentions of the employees and not actual turnover. But actual turnover and turnover intention are highly positively correlated (Cho & Lewis, 2012; Ertas, 2015). According to Griffeth et al. (2000) turnover intention is the most powerful predictor of turnover.
Much research shows the same findings with respect to the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions; there is a negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention. ( Chen et al. 2011; Cho & Lewis 2012; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Huang & Su, 2016; Jones, Chonko, Rangarajan & Roberts 2007). According to Ertas (2015)
employees with low job satisfaction often do not want to perform at their best and this lack of motivation can lead to increased turnover. Griffeth et al. (2000) states that job dissatisfaction can lead to job search (turnover intention). When the employee determines that there is a better alternative in another company, the employee may leave the current organization. Based on the discussions above, the following hypothesis follows:
H2: There is a negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention
Relationship between Role Ambiguity and Turnover Intention and the mediating effect of Job Satisfaction
unpleasant work situation. As a result, the person will try to escape the situation. One option for escaping the situation, is to leave the organization (turnover).
Moreover, Hang-yue et al. (2005) found a positive effect of role ambiguity on
turnover intentions which was mediated by job satisfaction. Employees who experience a high level of work stress, are less satisfied with their job, therefore they have a high propensity to leave the organization. Furthermore O’Driscoll and Beehr (1994) found a mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between role ambiguity and turnover intentions. They argue that when employees experiencing uncertainties and role stressors in an organization, the employees will become dissatisfied with their job. O’Driscoll and Beehr (1994) state that job dissatisfaction is subsequently related to other negative experiences, including turnover intention.
An indirect positive effect of role stressors on turnover intentions is also found in the study of Kemery, Mossholder and Bedeian (1987), where a direct relationship between role stressors and job satisfaction and a direct effect of job satisfaction on turnover intentions has been found. From the different theories, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Role ambiguity is positively related to turnover intention, and this relation is mediated by job satisfaction.
The moderation effect of Promotion-Focused Leadership on the relationship between Role Ambiguity and Job Satisfaction
In this research, it is investigated whether promotion-focused leadership weakens the negative relationship between role ambiguity on the one hand, and job satisfaction and intentions to leave on the other.
According to Higgins’ regulatory focus theory there are two ways to accomplish goals; with a promotion focus or with a prevention focus. With a prevention focus, people try to obtain minimal goals (Said, 2015). Individuals are avoiding actions which could lead to failure to obtain normative expectations, duties and responsibilities (Sue-Chan, Wood, Latham, 2012 ). Negative changes are being avoided and safety matters (Higgins, 1997; Said, 2015). In contrary, promotion focus has the aim to attain maximal goals and opportunities for progress will be grabbed (Said, 2015). The promotion focus will guide individuals to progress to a better state, while prevention focus is focused on preserving the current state. With promotion focus, individuals want to move forward and want to pursue new directions in their work.
Leaders may also adopt a promotion or prevention focus in their leadership behaviour (Said, 2015). The leadership resulting from this is called leader regulatory focus. Leadership can be defined as “the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives “(Yukl, 2013: 23). With prevention-focused leadership, the focus lies on preserving minimal goals which guide employees by achieving their duties, obligations and responsibilities. Promotion-focused leadership motivates employees to obtain maximal goals and this focus is concerned with achieving novel ideas and practises which guide employees to a better state than the current situation.
Furthermore Grant et al. (2001) state that an lower job satisfaction will result from role ambiguity. Confusion and uncertainty will be experienced because of unclear duties and obligations. Promotion focused leadership draws attention to an employee’s own aspirations, hopes and wishes, and is not focusing on fulfilling duties and obligations as with prevention-focused leadership(Kark & van Dijk, 2007; Said, 2015). Rather than being anxious about lack of role clarity, employees see the opportunities to grow and advance with promotion-focused leadership. Employees are motivated to act differently, they dare to take risks and have willingness to make a change (Kark & van Dijk, 2007; Said, 2015). With role ambiguity employees will experience increased tension, fear and hostility and lower job satisfaction (Kahn et al. 1964). Because with promotion-focused leadership the focus lies on improving the current state and attaining positive outcomes, the effects of role ambiguity will probably may be less. Therefore promotion-focused leadership subsequently mitigates the negative effects of role ambiguity. The following hypotheses are expected:
H4: Promotion-focused leadership is positively related to job satisfaction
H5: Promotion-focused leadership weakens the relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction.
From the expected relationships the following conceptual model is developed (see figure 1).
Figure 1. The moderating effect of Promotion-Focused Leadership on the relationship between role ambiguity and Turnover Intention, which is mediated by Job Satisfaction.
-
- -
Job satisfaction
Role ambiguity Turnover
intention Promotion-
METHODOLOGY Sample and procedure
The data for the present study was collected among 221 employees in 59 organizational teams. These employees were employed in a variety of Dutch companies in both non-profit and profit-sectors. The data was collected by 3 HRM master students, by using an online survey in Qualtrics. The employees and the team leader were informed about the subject of the questionnaire and the goal of the research, before they received the link for the survey. Participation was voluntary and confidentially was assured. When the employees decided to participate they received a link in their personal mail, or were asked to fill in the questionnaire on a computer during their work. One team did the questionnaire hard copy.
Of the participating employees, 53.6 % were male and the age of the participating employees ranged from 16 to 65 with a mean of 36.97 (SD = 14.6). All respondents were Dutch with the exception of one respondent who has the Romanian nationality. Of the respondents 1.8% had only primary education, 10.8% had secondary education, 26.5% respondents had finished intermediate vocational education, 36.8% had finished higher vocational education, 23.8% had a university degree and 0.4% had a Doctor’s title. Of the participants, 47.5 % worked part-time and 52.5% worked fulltime with hours ranging from 0 to 60 per week with a mean of 29.7 (SD = 11.3). The participating employees had worked between 0 and 47 years within the organization, with a mean of 11.46 (SD =13.25)
Measurement Role ambiguity
Role ambiguity was measured by the questionnaire of Rizzo et al. (1970). The answers were given on a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The scale consisted of 14 items, and example items were:” I feel certain about how much authority I
do”. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.82). The items were translated into
Dutch and one item (“I am corrected or rewarded when I really don’t expect it”) was left out because it correlated negatively with the other items. The intra-class correlation (ICC) was .16, which indicates that some of the variance in role ambiguity could be attributed to membership of a specific team. To form one composite item, the 13 items were averaged.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured by the questionnaire of Brayfield, Arthur, Rothe and Harold (1951). The items of the questionnaire were translated into Dutch. The variable was measured with 5 items, for example: “ I definitely dislike my work”, I find real enjoyment in my work”
and “Each day of work seems like it will never end”. All items were measured on a 7 points
Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.71). The ICC was .10, indicating that some variance in job satisfaction can be attributed to membership of a specific team. One composite item was formed by averaging the five items.
Turnover intention
The variable turnover intention was measured by the questionnaire of Colarelli (1984)
translated into Dutch. The following statements were used to measure this variable: “If I have
my own way, I will be working for this organization one year from now”, “ I am planning to search for a new job during the next 12 month” and “ I frequently think of quitting my job”.
Promotion-focused leadership
Promotion-focused leadership was measured by an adapted version of the regulatory focus scale of Wallace, Johnson, and Frazier (2009). The following statements were used to measure promotion-focused leadership: “My supervisor motivates me to primarily focus on
achieving positive outcomes at work”, “My supervisor motivates me to primarily focus on achieving success at work”, “My supervisor motivates me to primarily focus on my
aspirations and ideals when working”, and “My supervisor motivates me to primarily focus on fulfilling my work as successful as possible”. A Cronbach’s α of 0.83 was found and items
were translated into Dutch. The ICC was .26.
Prevention-focused leadership was measured as well, with four items from the questionnaire of Wallace et al. (2009), all starting with “My supervisor motivates me to
primarily focus on…”. The four items were: “avoiding negative outcomes at work”,
“avoiding failure at work”, “my duties and responsibilities when working”, and “fulfilling
my work as correct as possible”. The internal consistency for prevention-focused leadership
was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.78) and items were translated into Dutch. The ICC was .29. To form one composite item, the four items were averaged for the variables prevention-focused leadership and promotion-focused leadership. Both variables were measured on a 7 points Likert scale, where 1 is completely disagree and 7 is completely agree.
Control variables
The control variable autonomy was measured with Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) of Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). The variable was measured with 9 items, for example: “The job allows me to make my own decisions, about how to schedule my work”, “The job
given on a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). This control variable is used because a direct positive relationship is found between job satisfaction and autonomy (Weaver,1977). The internal consistency of autonomy was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.93) and the ICC was .29.
The second control variable is time pressure. Time pressure is a role stressor (Prem, Kubicek, Diestel, Korunka, 2016; Silla, Gamero, 2014). and most research shows that role stressors have a negative relationship with job satisfaction (Babakus et al., 1999; Escudero et al., 2010; Grant et al., 2001; Hang-yue et al. 2005; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Slattery et al., 2008). Time pressure was measured with a questionnaire of Maruping, Venkatesh, Thatcher & Patel (2015). Four items were used to measure this item: “We are often under a lot of
pressure to complete our tasks on time”, “ We are not afforded much time to complete our tasks”, “The amount of time provided to complete our tasks is short”, “ Task durations are often short”. Answers were given on a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7
(completely agree).The internal consistency is good (Cronbach’s α = 0.81) and the ICC was .23.
Also the variables working hours, tenure, gender and education are used as control variables. Working hours, education and tenure were expected to be correlated to variables of the model as job satisfaction or role ambiguity. Gender was added as an extra control variable.
RESULTS Descriptive statistics
leadership correlated, negatively with role ambiguity ( r = - .46, p < .05), positively with job satisfaction ( r = .30, p < .05), and negatively with turnover intention ( r= -.26, p < .05). Of the control variables autonomy exhibited a significant relation with three variables of the research model (e.g., job satisfaction; r = .21, p < .05) and prevention focused leadership had a significant relation with two of the variables of the model; role ambiguity ( r = -.30, p < .05) and promotion-focused leadership ( r = -.60, p < .05). Time pressure only correlated with role ambiguity (r = .16, p < .05). Working hours were significantly correlated with role
Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Role ambiguity 2.89 .73 2. Job satisfaction 5.78 .8 -.48*** 3. Turnover intention 2.39 1.33 .41*** -.63*** 4. Promotion-focused leadership 4.99 .98 -.46*** .30*** -.26*** 5. Autonomy 5.28 .98 -.27*** .21** -.24*** .10 6. Prevention-focused leadership 4.56 .98 -.30*** .07 -.10 .60*** -.06 7. Time pressure 3.4 1.2 .16* -.10 .07 .01 -.08 .04 8. Working hours 29.7 11.3 -.15* .14* -.22** .02 .31*** -.12 .22** 9. Tenure 11.46 13.25 -0.09 .00 -0,02 -.22** .08 -.07 .14* .29*** 10. Gender .46 .5 -.09 .06 -.03 -.08 -.17** .09 .04 -.27*** -.23** 11. Education .61 .49 -.18** -.06 .18** .04 .05 -.16* .12 -.06 -.34*** -.02 Note. N = 221, *p < .05, **p < .01,
***p < .001(two tailed significance)
Hypothesis testing
Given that ICC values for the central study variables indicate that substantial variance can be attributed to team membership, hypotheses were tested with multilevel regression in which employees were treated as nested within teams. To examine the moderated-mediation model depicted in Figure 1, three multilevel regressions were performed, and in these regressions, prevention-focused leadership, autonomy, time pressure, working hours, tenure, gender and education were included as control variables. In all regressions, predictors were standardized (Z-scores) and gender and education were converted into dummy’s.
In a first regression, in which we examined Hypotheses 1, 4 and 5, job satisfaction was the dependent variable, and (besides the control variables) role ambiguity, promotion focused leadership, and the interaction between role ambiguity and promotion focused leadership were entered as predictors. The first hypothesis predicted that role ambiguity would be negatively related to job satisfaction. As shown in table 2, there was a negative relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction (B = - .33, SE = .06, p < 0.05) which supports the first
hypothesis. Hypothesis 4 predicted a positive relationship between promotion-focused
leadership and job satisfaction. Table 2 shows a positive relationship between these variables, thus our hypothesis is supported (B= .14, SE = .07, p < 0.05). Hypothesis 5 predicted that promotion-focused leadership would weaken the relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction. However, this hypothesis is not supported. As can be seen in Table 2, a non-significant interaction was found, which is in contrary to our expectations. (B = .01, SE= .04,
p > 0.05).
satisfaction and turnover intention. As can be seen in table 2 (model 3), the expected negative relationship is supported (B = -.64, SE = .07, p < 0.05). Hypothesis 3, finally, predicted that the relation between role ambiguity is mediated by job satisfaction. The third hypothesis is supported as well. Role ambiguity was positively related to turnover intention; B = .31, SE =
.09 , p < 0,05 (table 2). When job satisfaction was added to the multilevel regression analysis, the effect of role ambiguity is substantially reduced; B =.06 , SE = .08, p > 0,05. This pattern of results indicates that the relation between role ambiguity and turnover intention is fully mediated by job satisfaction.
Table 2
Regression analysis
Mediator model 1 Dependent variable model: turnover intention
Job satisfaction model 2 model 3
b t P b t P b t P Intercept 5.65 56.26 .00 2.11 12.89 .00 2.07 14.66 .00 Control variables Prevention-focused leadership -.13 -1.99 .05 .10 .81 .42 -.01 -.11 .91 Autonomy .04 .85 .39 -.10 -1.10 .28 -.06 -.87 .39 Time pressure -.05 -.98 .33 .00 .00 1.0 -.00 -.03 .97 Education (dummy) .00 .04 .97 .42 2.46 .02 .42 2.83 .01 Gender (dummy) .22 2.12 .04 -.18 -1.12 .26 -.04 -.28 .78 Tenure .01 .24 .81 -.01 -.05 .96 .06 .62 .54 Working hours .06 1.12 .26 -.21 -2.32 .03 -.18 -2.24 .03 Variables Role ambiguity -.33 -5.63 .00 .31 3.48 .00 .06 .72 .47 Promotion-focused leadership .14 2.11 .04 -.15 -1.24 .22 -.08 -.80 .43 RA * Prom-focus .01 .15 .90 Job satisfaction -.64 -8.67 .00 DISCUSSION
The first hypothesis was supported by our results, a negative relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction was found. These results are in line with many other studies, which show that role ambiguity has a negative relationship with job satisfaction (Abramis, 1994; Kahn et al. 1964; Rizzo et al. 1970; Walker et al. 1979;). This relation can be explained by the uncertainty and confusion which derives from role ambiguity, which result in
dissatisfied employees (Grant et al., 2001; Walker et al., 1979). Next to this, many studies have shown a negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention (Chen et al. 2011; Cho & Lewis 2012; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Huang & Su, 2016; Jones et al., 2007), which was also supported by our results. Low job satisfaction can lead to job search (Griffeth et al.,2000) and lack of motivation and this may lead to increased turnover (Ertas, 2015). Furthermore, the results of the third hypothesis are in line with our expectations. Several studies show that role ambiguity is positively related to turnover intention, which is mediated by job satisfaction (Hang-yue et al., 2005; Jackson & Schuler 1985; O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994). This can be explained by the discomforting feeling and an unpleasant work situation deriving from high stress, which is caused by role ambiguity. In turn, this discomfort feeling and unpleasant work situation can lead to a search to less discomforting situations, which in turn can lead to turnover intention (Gupta & Beehr, 1979).
However, the expected moderation effect of promotion-focused leadership was not supported by this research, it was expected that the focus of improving the current state and attaining positive outcomes would mitigate the negative effects of role ambiguity. In hindsight, the following possible explanation can be given for why this hypothesis was not supported. Promotion-focused leadership supports employees to see the opportunities to grow and advance with the aim to improve the current state and support subordinates to pursue their own aspirations, hopes and wishes. However, this variable seems not to be enough to mitigate the negative effects of role ambiguity (Said, 2015). With role ambiguity, people will lack a clear idea of the scope and responsibilities of the job (Kahn et al.,1964). This will lead to uncertainty about duties, authority, allocation of time and relationship with others (Rizzo et al., 1970), and results in an increased tension, anxiety, hostility, loss of self-confidence and a lower job satisfaction (Kahn et al., 1964). Employees do not like this ambiguity which lead to all the negative effects, even not when promotion-focused leadership is used and leaders are focused on guiding subordinates to improve the current state. This is in line with research of Walker et al. (1979), which states that employees are becoming dissatisfied because it is difficult to like their job when they are uncertain about what they have to do and how to do it. People want to have role clearness, and role ambiguity will lead to negative effects and these effects are difficult to avoid.
want to feel the anxiety, increased tension and hostility as a result of role ambiguity. With prevention-focused leadership the focus lies on achieving minimal goals, which supports employees to achieve their duties, obligations and responsibilities (Said, 2015). This prevention-focused leadership gives employees some certainty, which decreases role
ambiguity. To achieve these minimal goals, some role clearness is necessary in order to fulfill the duties, obligations and responsibilities, which can explain the negative relationship
between role ambiguity and prevention-focused leadership.
Theoretical Implications
The first three hypotheses were based on existing research and did not bring new perspectives. Our results contribute to the existing research, and the results confirm previous studies. The innovative aspect of this research is the addition of promotion-focused leadership to
investigate whether there is a positive relationship between promotion-focused leadership and job satisfaction and whether promotion-focused leadership can mitigate the relation between role ambiguity and job satisfaction.
Striking is that a positive relationship is found between promotion-focused leadership and job satisfaction. These results may have important implications for future research, because this research shows that promotion-focused leadership can contribute to more
satisfied subordinate employees, which is a new finding in this field. It has already been found that promotion-focused leadership supports employees to achieve personal hopes, wishes and challenging aspirations, and that these are closely related to stimulating intrinsic motivation (Said, 2015). The expectation was that this stimulating intrinsic motivation would increase job satisfaction and this expectation was confirmed by our results. Because promotion-focused leadership was not earlier investigated in relationship with job satisfaction, this research can contribute to the existing research about leadership and job satisfaction, in order to increase job satisfaction for subordinates. As job satisfaction is negatively related to turnover intention (Chen et al., 2011; Cho & Lewis 2012; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Huang & Su, 2016; Jones et al., 2007), this research will have implications for theory about turnover intention.
Practical implications
contribute to a higher job satisfaction. Leaders with this leadership style will motivate the employees to pursue their own aspirations, hopes and wishes.
Another way to increase job satisfaction is to decrease role ambiguity. After all, a negative relationship is found between role ambiguity and job satisfaction. Although the effects of role ambiguity cannot be mitigated by promotion-focused leadership, role
ambiguity was negatively related to promotion-focused leadership and to prevention-focused leadership. Therefore it can be concluded that promotion-focused leadership and prevention-focused leadership both lead to a lower role ambiguity. When regulatory-prevention-focused leadership is used by managers, this will subsequently lead to more satisfied employees and a lower
turnover intention.
Limitations and future directions
The present research has several limitations. First, all data was collected at one point in time. Due to this cross-sectional research, it is impossible to draw causal conclusions. It is not clear in which direction the relationships are working. For example, it is unclear if promotion-focused leadership leads to a higher job satisfaction, or that job satisfaction leads to promotion-focused leadership. Therefore, in future research longitudinal or experimental research is needed before causal conclusions can be drawn.
example, first an questionnaire can be filled in by the employees. After one year the real turnover can be measured, instead of using an questionnaire. Furthermore the length of the questionnaire can be reduced to avoid the HALO-effect.
For this research, the data is gathered from subordinates in very diverse teams in different organizations and sectors. Therefore, the results are suitable for a broad range of organizations. It must be mentioned, that the results of the different employees in the different companies can differ a lot from each other. This is due to very different environments in which the employees are working. As a result, the employees can differ a lot in for example their job satisfaction, due to different factors within the different companies which are not all measured. This may result in an higher unexplained variance. In further research, researchers can focus on one sector to avoid a high error variance. This research is conducted in the Netherlands, but research in other countries can generate different findings. Therefore, further research should include other countries.
Although the translation of the statements is been checked by two other researchers, an invalid translation can occur. However, by double checking the translations, the probability to an invalid translation is made as small as possible.
Conclusion
The present research replicated earlier research, in the effects of role ambiguity on job satisfaction and turnover intention, with job satisfaction as a mediator. From this research, there can be concluded that promotion-focused leadership is positively related to job
promotion-focused leadership, and that companies, leaders and subordinates will benefit from this positive effect of promotion-focused leadership.
REFERENCES
Abramis, D.J. 1994. Work role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and job performance: meta-analyses and review. Psychological Reports, 75(3): 1411-1433.
Babakus, E., Cravens, D. W., Johnston, M., Moncrief, W. C. 1999. The role of Emotional Exhaustion in Sales Force Attitude and Behavior Relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1): 58-70.
Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., Butt, A. N. 2013. Effects of Positive and Negative
Affectivity and Job Satisfaction on Job Performance and Turnover Intentions. The Journal of Psychology, 147(2): 105–123.
Boxall, P., Purcell, J. 2011. Strategy and Human Resource Management (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Brayfield, Arthur, H. Rothe, Harold, F. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5): 307-311.
Brown, S. P.,Peterson, R.A. 1993. Antecedents and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: Metaanalysis and Assessment of Causal Effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (1): 63–77.
Cascio, W. F. 2006. The Economic Impact of Employee Behaviors on Organizational Performance. California Management Review, 48(4), 41-59.
Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., Bliese, P. D. 2011. The Power of Momentum: A New Model of Dynamic Relationships between Job Satisfaction Change and Turnover Intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1): 159-181.
Colarelli, S. M. 1984. Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 633-642.
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. 1986. Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11(1) 55-70.
Cho, Y. J., Lewis, G. B. 2012. Turnover intention and turnover behavior implications for retaining federal employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(1): 4-23.
Grant, K., Cravens, D.W., Low, G.S., and Moncrief, W.C. 2001. The Role of Satisfaction with Territory Design on the Motivation, Attitudes, and Work Outcomes of Salespeople. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2):165–178.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., Gaertner, S. 2000. A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Milennium. Journal of Management, 26(3): 463-488.
Gupta, N., Beehr, T. A. 1979. Job Stress and Employee Behaviors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23: 373-387.
Hang-Yue, N., Foley, S., Loi, R. 2005. Work role stressors and turnover intentions: a study of professional clergy in Hong Kong. The international Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(11): 2133-2146
Heavey, A L., Holwerda, J.A., Hausknecht, J.P., 2013. Causes and Consequences of Collective Turnover: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3): 412-453.
Higgins, E. T. 1998. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivation principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30: 1–46.
Huang, W. , Su, C. 2016,"The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between job training satisfaction and turnover intentions", Industrial and Commercial Training, 48 (1): 42 –52.
Ilies, R., Johnson, M. D., Judge, T. A., Keeney, J. 2001. A within-individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: Dispositional and situational moderators. Journal of Organization Behavior, 32: 44-64.
Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S. 1985. A Meta-analysis and Conceptual Critique of Research on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict in Work Settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36: 16-78.
Jones, E., Chonko, L., Rangarajan, D., Roberts, J. 2007. The role of overload on job attitudes, turnover, intentions, and salesperson performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(7): 663-671.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J. D., Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Karatepe, O. M., Karatepe, T. 2010. Role Stress, Emotional Exhaustion, and Turnover Intentions: Does Organizational Tenure in Hotels Matter? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 9: 1-16.
Kemery, E. R., Mossholder, K.W., Bedeian, A. G. 1987. Role stress, physical
sympatomalogy, and turnover intentions: A causal analysis of three alternative specifications. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8: 11-23.
Krayer, K. 1986. Using training to reduce role conflict and ambiguity. Training and Development Journal, 40(11): 49-53.
Lapidus, R. S., Roberts, J. A., Chonko, L. B. 1997. Stressors, Leadership, Substitutes, and Relations with Supervision among Industrial Salespeople. Industrial Marketing
Management, 26: 255-269.
Lazear, P., Gibbs, M. 2009. Personnel Economics in Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Locke, E. A. 1976. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.
Maruping, L.M., Venkatesh, V. Thatcher, S. M. B. & Patel, P.C. 2015. Folding under pressure or rising to the occasion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1313-1333.
Morgeson, F.P., Humphrey, S.E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and Validating a Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1321-1339.
Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., Burton, S. 1990. Analysis of Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity in a Structural Equations Framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2):148-157.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Beehr, T. A. 1994. Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational behaviour, 15: 141-155.
Prem, R., Kubicek, B., Diestel, S., Korunka, C. 2015. Regulatory job stressor and their within-person relationships with ego depletion: The roles of state anxiety, self-control effort, and job autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(2016): 22-32.
Rizzo, J., House, R.J., Lirtzman, S.I. 1970. Role conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quaterly, 15(2): 150-163.
Rodríguez-Escudero, A. I. Carbonell, P., Munuera-Aleman, J. L. 2010. Positive and Negative Effects of Team Stressors on Job Satisfaction and New Product Performance. Product Development & Management Association, 27: 856-868.
Said, R. 2015. Rethinking The Leadership-Employee Creativity Relationship: A Regulatory Focus Approach. University of Groningen.
Silla, I., Gamero, N. 2014. Shared time pressure at work and its health-related outcomes: Job satisfaction as a mediator. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3): 405-418.
Slattery, J.P., Selvarajan, T. T., Anderson, J. E. 2008. The influences of new employee development practices upon role stressors and work-related attitudes of temporary employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12): 2268–2293.
Sue-Chan, C. Wood, R. E., Latham, G. P. 2012. Effect of a Coach’s Regulatory Focus and an Individual’s Implicit Person Theory on Individual Performance. Journal of Management, 38 (3):809-835.
Vidal, M. E. S., Valle, R. S., Aragón, M. I. B. 2007. Antecedents of repatriates' job satisfaction and its influence on turnover intentions: Evidence from Spanish repatriated managers. Journal of Business Research, 60(12): 1272-1281.
Walker, O. C., Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M. 1979. Where do we go from here: Selected Conceptual and Empirical Issues concerning the motivation and performance of the Industrial Salesforce. In: Critical Issues in Sales Management: State of the Art and Future Research, ed. G.Albaum and G.A.Churchill. Eugene: University of Oregon: 10–75.
Wallace, J. C., Chen, G. 2006. A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59: 529-557.
Weaver, C.N. 1977. Relationships among pay, race, sex, occupational prestige, supervision, work, autonomy, and job satisfaction in a national sample. Personnel Psychology, 30(3): 437-445.
