Employees' Core Self-evaluations, the Quality of Leader-Member Exchange and Different Levels of Autonomy
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 29, 2012 Gerlof W. Visser Student number: s1467883 Helper Kerkstraat 33 9722 ES Groningen 06-13033013 s14677883@student.rug.nl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract page 2
Introduction page 3
Theory and hypotheses page 5
Core self-evaluations page 5
Self-determination theory page 6
Core self-evaluations and motivation page 7
Leader-member exchange as a mediator between
core self-evaluations and motivation page 9
Methods page 13
Sample and procedures page 13
Measures page 13
Results page 15
Descriptive statistics and correlations page 15
Tests of the hypotheses page 15
Discussion page 18
Theoretical implications page 18
Practical implications page 19
Limitations and directions for future research page 21
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Personality traits that influence employee behavior in the workplace have been studied in organizational science by a number of scholars (Funder, 2001; Schneider, 1987; Staw & Cohen-Carash, 2005). Some combined these traits to form high level constructs. For example, Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) developed the concept of core self-evaluations referring to fundamental subconscious conclusions individuals reach about themselves. Positive self-evaluations are the feelings that one is competent, worthy and capable. Judge et al. proposed that people who think that they are good and competent will react quite differently to increased responsibilities compared to people who think that they are not good or fundamentally incompetent. The research field surrounding core self-evaluations (CSE) has become more well-defined in the last decade. Since the development of CSE, organizational research has connected CSE to different organizational concepts. Studies have reported positive links between CSE and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1997; Srivastava, Locke, Judge, & Adams, 2010), job performance (Kacmar, Collins, Harris, & Judge, 2009), goal setting motivation (Erez & Judge, 2001) and intrinsic motivation (Joo, Jeung, & Yoon, 2010; Bipp, 2010). Findings suggest that high CSE implies that people have basic psychological sources that give them the opportunity to define their own live and work (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005).
regulation, which is the drive where external rewards or punishments are most important, and
amotivation where there is no drive because of the lack of connection between behaviors and outcomes. How CSE is related to these four concepts can explain the relation between the level of CSE and the level of autonomy people have in their workplace.
An employee does not work in a vacuum. A large part of the autonomy an employee has in an organization is determined by the relationship with their superior (Chen, Lam, & Zhong, 2007). To conceptualize the relationship with a superior, the construct of leader member exchange will be used. This construct provides a very complete notion of the contact an employee has with its superior, dealing with different parts of the relationship between them (Chen, Lam, & Zhong, 2007). According to LMX theory each individual builds a unique relationship with his or her leader and the quality of this relationship leads to different effects. High quality LMX has been positively related to empowerment (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000), self-efficacy (Murphy & Ensher, 1999), and creativity (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Since the inception of the theory of LMX, the focus of the research has been on the consequences of the relationship with the leader rather than on the determinants (Grean & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As such, very little attention has been given to the possible effect CSE might have on the development and establishment of LMX. It seems likely that a person, who feels good and competent about themself, has a good opportunity to build a good relationship with its leader. However, if CSE has a large influence on LMX, it is possible that LMX might explain part of the relationship between CSE and autonomy. It is likely that a good relationship with a leader will have an influence on the level of autonomy people have in their job. Hence, we will examine whether LMX mediates the relationship between CSE and autonomy.
In the present study we aim to contribute to the existing literature on CSE, LMX and SDT by uncovering the relationship between core-self evaluations and autonomy. More specifically we argue and test that CSE relates differently to motivations with different levels of autonomy. In addition, we examine how LMX mediates these differential relationships of CSE with different motivations. To reach these two research goals, a model that connects CSE with four different motivations - intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, and
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Core self-evaluations
CSE is a concept that deals with fundamental evaluations of the self. The model distinguishes between four core self-evaluations. These are fundamental traits that underlie all more specific evaluations of the self. The four traits that build up CSE are: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1998).
At its core, self-esteem is the most fundamental core evaluation of the self, because it is the overall value that one places on oneself as a person (Judge et al., 1998). It refers to self-liking, self-respect, and self-acceptance. According to Brockner (1988), low self-esteem individuals are more prone to be influenced by others, whereas high self-esteem people are more stable and not as easy to persuade.
Generalized self-efficacy has been described as the following: "One’s estimates of one's capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise general control over events in one's life" (Judge et al., 1997). Generalized self-efficacy can have a huge influence on motivation and work outcomes. If an employee thinks he/she is able to do something, the motivation to do something will also be higher.
Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, for example anger or anxiety, more easily. It is the opposite of emotional stability, and these terms are used interchangeably in literature (Judge et al., 1998).
Locus of control is a core self-evaluation that determines if an individual feels that he has control over situations (these individuals are called internals), or that the individual feels that forces beyond their control are influencing their life events (these individuals are called externals; Judge et al., 1998).
Self-determination theory
In 1985, self-determination theory was developed by Deci and Ryan. This theory postulated that autonomy is one of the most important things in motivational research. Autonomy and freedom from constraints encourages looking for optimal challenges. According to SDT, the health of human beings is regulated by three needs, being autonomy, competence and relatedness. In earlier research it was found that autonomy is the need that is most relevant for motivation (Pinder, 2008). In this research, the focus will therefore be on the autonomy need. Autonomy is about a true sense of choice, a sense of feeling free to do what one has chosen to do. Autonomy can range from the feeling of complete control/choice, to the feeling that there is completely no control in a situation (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000).
Connections of autonomy to different motivations have been described by Deci and Ryan in their research (1985). Guay, Vallerand, and Blanchard (2000) combined the knowledge of the connections between autonomy and different kinds of motivations made earlier into a very well-ordered multi-dimensional motivation model. In this model four motivations and their relation to autonomy are described very clearly. Ranging from high to low autonomy, the different kinds of motivation distinguished are: intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, and amotivation.
Intrinsic motivation reflects the motivational state when behavior is engaged in for its own sake and for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from performing this behavior. An example of this is when people enjoy cooking. While they are cooking they feel enjoyment derived from the activity of cooking itself. Thus the behavior is internally motivated. This behavior is the most autonomous behavior (Guay et al., 2000).
Identified regulation occurs when the behavior is valued and perceived as chosen by oneself but is done as a means to an end. An example of this is exercising behavior; going to the gym can be perceived as chosen by one self and valued. But this behavior is done as a means to an end, namely getting in shape. Identified regulation is related to a moderate level of autonomy (Guay et al., 2000).
whereas not paying attention may lead to a punishment by the teacher. External regulation is related to a low level of autonomy (Guay et al., 2000).
Amotivation takes place when the individual sees no connection between his behavior and the outcome. Amotivation is the least autonomous because there is no sense of purpose. An example of this is a student who thinks that it does not matter how hard he studies for a certain exam. This is the motivation with the least amount of autonomy, no sense of autonomy at all (Guay et al., 2000).
The level of autonomy inherent in these four motivations decreases across these four motivations with intrinsic motivation being the highest and amotivation being the lowest. However, the level of autonomy is not continuously decreasing, but actually takes a significant dip between identified regulation and external regulation. The difference in autonomy between these motivations boils down to the following: intrinsic motivation and identified regulation both have relatively high autonomy; however external regulation and amotivation both have relatively low autonomy. This makes it possible to divide these motivations in two groups: one with high autonomy and one with low autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The difference in autonomy will most likely explain just how CSE connects to these motivations.
Core self-evaluations and motivation
The connection between CSE and autonomy has not received much attention. In recent research it was found that people high in CSE behave differently from people low in CSE (Judge et al., 2005). These studies focus more on possibilities and growth that high levels of CSE represent compared to low levels of CSE. When people high in CSE are in a work-related environment they seek out complexity and growth possibilities (Judge et al., 2005). Because their focus on growth they look for opportunities to excel in their job and advance in the ranks. In order to advance or show capabilities that other employees do not have, a certain level of autonomy is needed. The employee can use this autonomy to go beyond and above the call of duty, and do things differently or more effective. These people are motivated to achieve their goals. Are people that are low in CSE less motivated or is their motivation different in nature? Is this related to the level of autonomy that is connected to CSE?
that low CSE will be connected to low autonomy. The level of locus of control is believed to reflect how a person would behave at work. Internals (high in LOC) are able to create their work experiences that are favorable to them (Phares, 1976). Internals are more proactive when searching for work tasks that have desirable outcomes (like more autonomy) than externals. It is therefore more likely for internals to experience autonomy compared to externals. In a recent paper by Huang and Liaw (2007) a positive relationship between self-efficacy and autonomy was found. People high in self efficacy feel that they are capable to do things and feel that they have the influence to change situations. Therefore creating more autonomy in a work situation is more likely for people high in self efficacy compared to people low in self efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Empirical research has also linked the CSE-dimensions of neuroticism and self-esteem to autonomy. Neuroticism has been negatively correlated to perceived autonomy (Elliot & Sheldon, 1998), whereas self-esteem has been positively associated with autonomy at work (Staples, Schwalbe, & Gecas, 1984).
As the individual dimensions of CSE are positively related to autonomy (neuroticism is reversed scored in CSE) we expect that the overall concept is also positively related to autonomy. Accordingly, we also assume that CSE is related differently to the four motivations. Because intrinsic motivation and identified regulation reflect relatively high autonomy levels, we expect that CSE is positively related to these motivations. Given the relatively low autonomy that is reflected in both external motivation and amotivation, we expect that CSE is negatively related to these motivations.
This theorizing on the differential relationships between CSE and the four motivations leads to the following hypotheses:
Leader-member exchange as a mediator between Core self-evaluations and motivation
LMX theory stated that each relationship between an employee and leader is unique, and that the quality of the leader-member exchange relationship is very important for a lot of different outcomes including autonomy (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brourer, & Ferris 2011). We assume that individuals with high levels of CSE have more potential to build a high-quality relationship with their supervisor than low-CSE individuals. Furthermore, we argue and test whether the quality of LMX mediates the relationship between CSE and autonomy. Thus, we expect that CSE will strongly influence the relationship an employee established with his or her leader and in turn this relationship will lead to different levels of autonomy. Specifically, we examine how CSE influences LMX, and how LMX is connected to each of the four motivations.
LMX theory states that the quality of exchanges that develop between employees and leader has an influence on attitudes and work-related outcomes, especially on those of the employee. LMX is unique in its focus on the dyadic exchange relationship between the leader and each of his employees. The quality of a working relationship is relatively stable once it has been developed. Sometimes referred to as a cadre, a high quality partnership is defined by a high level of mutual positive affect, loyalty, respect and contribution (Laschinger, Purdy & Almost, 2007). Low quality relationships are based on previously defined role patterns and formal interactions.
The dimensions of LMX will lead to different contributions to the relationship between the leader and the employee. When these dimensions are high they will strengthen the bond between the leader and the employee trough often and meaningful contact. In contrast, in a low quality relationship the contact between leader and an employee is more superficial, formal, and infrequent.
Loyalty is instrumental in determining the types of tasks the leader trusts to give to employees. "Leaders are more likely to ask loyal members to take on tasks that require independent judgment and/or responsibility" (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
Affect is mutual liking between the leader and employee based on personality. It has been found that this is a very critical LMX dimension and it may lead to more interaction between the leader and the member and even friendship (Bridge & Baxter, 1992).
Professional respect is the dimension that deals with the professional standing each member of the LMX has. This dimension deals with the degree to which the leader or the employee has built the reputation that he or she is excelling in his or her line of work (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). These dimensions combine to form LMX. When an employee scores high on all these dimensions a high quality relationship will develop between the employee and a leader.
The reason that CSE is linked to LMX is that the individual parts of CSE may contribute to developing a higher-quality relationship with a leader. The individual parts of CSE are self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and neuroticism.
Self-esteem refers to self-liking, self-respect, and self-acceptance. With high self-esteem these are all high creating a positive image of oneself. Positive feelings about oneself lead to positive interactions with others, thus creating more opportunities to build good relationships. Self-esteem may lead to high LMX trough positive self-image and relationship building potential (Eaton, Wardstruthers, & Santelli, 2006).
High self-efficacy has been connected to high LMX in previous research (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Self-efficacy plays an important role in task-related performance by influencing choice, effort, and persistence of individuals. By setting goals for themselves, people high in self efficacy are more likely to be successful performers. This kind of behavior can be an important reason why self-efficacy might be related to LMX. Positive actions like persistence or effort put forth by employees can be a strong reason for a leader to relate to an employee (Schyns & von Collani, 2002). Thus self-efficacy is most likely connected to LMX trough persistence and effort and the positive reaction a leader most likely has to those qualities.
1993; Philips & Bedeian, 1994). Initiative-based behavior includes actions such as feedback seeking, negation and increased communication. These kinds of behaviors are very useful during role-making, which is the process that leads to higher quality LMX. Role-making involves actively negotiating work related responsibilities with a leader (Grean & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Thus locus of control is connected to LMX trough initiative-based behaviors.
Neuroticism deals with the tendency to experience negative emotions more easily. Neuroticism needs to be low to have a high CSE. It has been found that people that are high on neuroticism are limited in social competence and are less likely to build lasting relationships based on commitment and trust (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, & Walker, 2007). Low neuroticism is connected to high LMX through a higher competence in social situations and relationship building compared to high neuroticism.
The four traits of CSE inter-correlate to be a high level construct, meaning that high scores on one dimension are going together with high scores (neuroticism is reverse scored) on the other three (Pinder, 2008). Because the individual parts of CSE are positively related to high LMX, it is expected that CSE is also positively related to LMX.
We expect that the variation in the quality of LMX will lead to different levels of autonomy. Thus, LMX will be connected differently to the four motivations. We will explain why high quality relationships with a leader will lead to motivations that are highly autonomous i.e. intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. It will also be explained why low quality relationships will lead to motivations that are less autonomous and are based more on obligations i.e. external regulation an amotivation.
In a high-quality relationship, more time will be spent on each other and more communication will take place compared to low quality LMX. When a strong relationship has been developed a leader will start to trust the employee more, which will result in the leader giving more freedom and autonomy to the employee (Laschinger et al., 2007). Autonomy and freedom are important parts of intrinsic motivation. When the relationship is strong, intrinsic motivation will be high.
productive and doing one’s job well. Being productive and having opportunities to excel in work related behavior can be an end goal. Building a good relationship with the leader can serve as a means to this end. When it is seen as means to an end it is likely that the positive interaction with a leader leads to identified regulation.
When the relationship between an employee and a leader is of low quality, contribution, loyalty, affect and professional respect will not be prominent. There will be less communication between the leader and the employee compared to high quality LMX. Because there is low loyalty and little professional respect, the employees will not feel obligated to do their work well. In order to make sure that the work gets done well the leader will want to control the actions of the employee. Because of low level of the liking dimension this will most likely be enforced trough rewards and punishments instead through communication. External regulation is the drive where external rewards or punishments are most important. Therefore it is expected that low LMX will lead to external regulation.
When there is very low quality LMX the amount of communication between the leader and the employee will diminish. It is possible that the relationship between a leader and an employee is of such a low quality that no feedback is given on the work done by the employee. When the employee will no longer see a relationship between the work that is done and work-related results it is likely that amotivation will occur.
In sum, we argued that CSE is positively connected to LMX, which, in its turn, is positively related to intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. In addition we argued that LMX is negatively related to external regulation and amotivation. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were formulated:
METHODS
Sample and procedures
The relationship between CSE and motivation and the mediation of LMX were examined in a large Dutch telecommunication company. The employees taking part in the survey were phone communication officers. These employees worked either at the front office or the back office. All 800 employees received an email asking them to participate in the research by filling in a questionnaire. A link to an online questionnaire was provided in the email. 127 Employees responded by providing self reports of their core-self evaluations, leader-member exchange and their motivations, resulting in a response rate of 16 percent. Of this sample of 127 respondents, 70 percent were female. Their ages ranged from 18 to 56 years, the average age was 28 years.
Measures
All subsequent questionnaires were translated to Dutch and retranslated to English to test if the questionnaires were translated correctly.
CSE. The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2003) was used to determine the core self-evaluations of the worker. An example of an item for self-esteem is "I am capable of coping with most of my problems". An example of an item for self-efficacy is "I complete tasks successfully". An example of an item for neuroticism is "Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless" (r). An example of an item for locus of control is "I determine what will happen in my life". All these items are rated on a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α for this scale is .85.
Motivation. The different forms of motivation were measured by one measuring scale; the Situational Motivation Scale (Guay et al., 2000). An example of an item for intrinsic motivation is "I do this work because I think that this work is interesting". An example of an item for identified regulation is "I do this work because I believe that this work is important for me". An example of an item for external regulation is "I do this work because I am supposed to do it". An example of an item for Amotivation is "There may be good reasons to do this work, but personally I don’t see any". All these items are rated on a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha for each individual motivation was calculated: intrinsic motivation (α = .93), identified regulation (α = .77) external regulation (α= .79) and amotivation (α = .79)
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Means, standard deviations and correlations among the variables in this study are presented in table 1. As expected CSE is positively related to the mediating variable of leader-member exchange, and to the high autonomy motivations i.e. intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. CSE is negatively related to the low autonomy motivations of external regulation and amotivation. LMX is positively correlated to intrinsic motivation and identified regulation.
Table 1
Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. CSE 5,10 0,77 -- 2. LMX 4,91 1,11 .34** -- 3. Intrinsic 4,57 1,27 .37** .48** -- 4. Identified 4,47 1,14 .19* .43** .76** -- 5. External 3,19 1,36 -.40** -.16 -.22* .09 -- 6. Amotivation 2,98 1,29 -.46** -.25** -.36** -.13 .67** -- Note. N =127. * p < .05 ** p < .01
Tests of the hypotheses
Hierarchal regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. We first tested hypotheses 1-4 to identify the relationship between CSE and each of the four motivations, thereby taking the socio-demographic variables into account.
As shown in Table 2, CSE is positively related to intrinsic motivation (r = .57, p < .01) and identified regulation (r = .29, p < .05). These findings are in line with Hypotheses 1 and 2 respectively. It is also shown in Table 2 that CSE is negatively related to external regulation (r = -.71, p < .01) and amotivation (r= -.75, p < .01). These findings are in line with hypotheses 3 and 4 respectively.
decreases when the mediator is added to the model, mediation is indicated (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We added a second step to test for this mediation, containing LMX, to the regression analyses of the outcome variables. As is shown in Table 2, when LMX was added, the regression coefficients of the relationship between CSE and intrinsic motivation, and between CSE and identified regulation, decreased significantly, from (β = .57, p < 0.1) to (β = .35 p < 0.5) and from (β = .29, p < 0.5) to (β = .09, n.s), respectively. In addition LMX had a significant unique effect on intrinsic motivation (β = .46, p < .01) and identified regulation (β = .42, p < .01). As can be seen in Table 2, LMX had no significant unique effect on external regulation and amotivation. And LMX did not significantly change the regression coefficients between CSE and external regulation, and between CSE and amotivation.
To test if the mediation effect of LMX was indeed significant for intrinsic motivation and identified regulation and not significant for external motivation and amotivation we performed the Sobel test (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982). The tests revealed that the leader-member exchange mediated the positive effects of CSE on intrinsic motivation (Z = 3.13, p < .01) and identified regulation (Z = 3.05, p < 0.1). The test also revealed that leader-member exchange did not mediate the negative effects on external regulation (Z = -0.25, p = 0.80) and amotivation (Z = -1.17, p = 0.24). These findings are in line with Hypotheses 5 and 6 and are not in line with Hypothesis 7 and 8.
Table 2
Results of Regression Analyses
Intrinsic Identified External Amotivation
Step 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Age .01 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.01 -.01
Gender -.22 -.17 .01 .04 -.22 -.23 -.13 -.15
CSE .57** .35* .29* .09 -.71** -.70** -.75** -.69**
LMX .46** .42** -.032 -.12
Standard regression coefficients are reported for the respective regression steps, including socio-demographics and CSE (model 1) and socio-demographics, CSE, and LMX (model 2). Note. N =127.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we developed and tested the idea that high core self-evaluations help an employee to establish a high-quality exchange with his or her leader; while low core self-evaluations lead to a leader-member exchange of low quality. In turn, the quality of leader member exchange was assumed to clarify why employees with high core self evaluations have more autonomy in their job compared to those with low core self evaluations. In our research, the levels of autonomy are connected to different motivations. We expect that high CSE is connected to high autonomy motivations (intrinsic motivation & identified regulation) and that low CSE is connected to low autonomy motivations (external regulation & amotivation) and that LMX mediates the above mentioned connections.
As expected the present survey results revealed that CSE was positively related to intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, and that CSE was negatively related to external regulation and amotivation. However LMX was found to be only a mediator in the positive relation between CSE and the high autonomy motivations. Our data provided no evidence that low quality LMX was the interpersonal mechanism that could clarify the relationship between CSE and low autonomy motivations.
Theoretical implications
These results provide new insights about CSE. This study provides theoretical logic and empirical evidence that CSE is related to the quality of LMX. In turn, high LMX leads to high autonomous motivations. Leaders are very important to employees with high CSE, since these leaders can give opportunities that lead to high autonomy motivations.
only has CSE been linked to these motivations and intrinsic motivation in this study, the level of autonomy is an important factor that gives a new insight in how people become motivated at their work.
Aside from some recent research (Barbuto & Gifford, 2012), LMX and relationships at work have not been linked to motivation. These findings can add to the discussion on the importance of interpersonal relationships in motivational context. The fact that the relationship with a leader can have a large effect on the motivation of employees enhances our knowledge of how motivation works. LMX is also a mediator between CSE and motivation. The relationship with a leader is very important for an employee. How the relationship with a leader will develop follows at least partially from stable personality traits (Judge et al., 1997). The relationship with a leader is therefore partly predetermined to develop towards different levels of quality depending on the core self-evaluations of a person. This predetermined positive connection between CSE and LMX gives an insight into de development of work relations.
answered to calls made in earlier research (Grant, 2007; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004) to move beyond task-focused motivation and towards relational motivated perspectives.
Practical implications
Core self-evaluations have been connected to job performance (Kacmar et al., 2009) and goal setting motivation (Erez & Judge, 2001). But this study can give new insight in the influence of CSE on different aspects of the work environment. It was found that CSE was connected to LMX and that CSE could explain which motivations would be prominent in employees when their core self-evaluations are known. The mediating effect of LMX between CSE and high autonomy motivations can have practical implications.
Intrinsic motivation has been heralded as the motivation that leads to the best work related outcomes on for example performance (Joo et al., 2010). The current study was done among employees in a telecommunication company. One of the questions one can ask oneself is the following; How can intrinsic motivation become more prominent, leading to a more productive and healthy company? As the effects of CSE work through LMX to autonomy and motivation, having high CSE in employees would be the best solution. However, CSE is a personality trait that is stable (Judge et al., 1997), and therefore, it is almost impossible to change CSE in existing personnel; it is, however, possible to test the CSE of future employees. This can give an indication what the relationship with a future leader will be like and what kind of motivation will be prominent. Thus, selecting high CSE employees will lead to benefits for the company.
Limitations and directions for future research
Although the present research gives a good insight in the workings of connections between CSE, LMX and different motivations, at least four limitations should be taken into account.
First, the study is based on self-reports. Because of this, social desirability might have led to the underreporting of socially undesirable behavior. However, since the respondents were informed that the survey was completely anonymous, this might not be an issue.
Second, due to cross sectional design it was not possible to determine the direction of causality among the variables. However, CSE is a personality trait that is stable over the life of a person (Judge et al., 1997). In contrast, LMX is variable that is found to be dependent on personal characteristics of employees and leaders (Grean & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996). Therefore CSE can be seen as an antecedent of LMX. In addition LMX has been an antecedent to autonomy in previous research (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brourer, & Ferris 2011). This gives a theoretical basis for the causal relationship between LMX and the motivations with different levels of autonomy.
The fact that CSE is a stable trait also indicates that is most likely an antecedent for the motivations. However other explanations for the relationships found can still be possible. Longitudinal and experimental studies are necessary to provide evidence of causation.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,
Psychological Review, 84(2): 191-215
Barbuto, J., Gifford, G. T. (2012). Motivation and leader-member-exchange: Some evidence counter to similarity attraction theory. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(1): 18-28.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The Moderator-Mediator variable distinction in Social Psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S., Giles, W.F., & Walker, H.J. 2008. The influence of personality differences between subordinates and supervisors on perceptions of LMX: An empirical investigation. Group & Organization Management, 33: 216-240.
Bipp, T. 2010. What do people want from their jobs? : The Big Five, core self-evaluations and work motivation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(1): 28-39.
Blau, F. D. 1993, Gender and Economic Outcomes: the Role of Wage Structure. Labour, 7: 73– 92.
Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. 1992, Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. Western
Journal of Communication, 56: 200–25.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. 2007. Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 202-212.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. 1985. The support of autonomy and control of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 1024–1037.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. 1986. Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634. Duchon, D., Green, S. G. & Taber, T. D. 1986. Vertical dyad linkage; A longitudinal
assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 56-60.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. 2012. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management. Advance online publication.
Eaton, J., Wardstruthers, C., & Santelli, A. 2006. Dispositional and state forgiveness: The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism. Personality and Individual
Differences. 41(2): 371–380
Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1270-1279.
Funder, D. C. 2001. Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 197-221.
Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.
Academy of Management Review, 32: 393-417.
Graen, G. B. 1976. Role-making processes within complex organizations. In Dunnette, M. D., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Ed., 1201-1245). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally
Graen, G. B., Liden, R., & Hoel, W. 1982. Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 868-872.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. 1996. Demographic and organizational influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 66: 203–214.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J., & Blanchard, C. 2000. On the assessment of state intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and
Emotion, 24: 175-213.
Joo, B. K., Jeung, C. W., & Yoon, H. J. 2010. Investigating the influences of core self-evaluations, job autonomy, and intrinsic motivation on in-role job performance.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(4): 353–371.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2003. The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2): 303-331.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. 2005. Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2): 257-268.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., Kluger, A. N. 1998. Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (1): 17–34.
Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J. Harris, K J., Judge, Timothy A. 2009. Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(6): 1572-1580
Laschinger, H. K. S., Purdy, N., & Almost, J. 2007. The impact of leader-member exchange quality, empowerment, and core self-evaluation on nurse managers’ job satisfaction, Journal of Nursing Administration. 37 (5): 221-229.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. 1997. Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in
personnel and human resources management, vol. 15: 47–119. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24: 43–72. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2000. An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 407–416.
Meglino, B.M., & Korsgaard, M.A. 2004. Considering rational self-interest as a disposition: Organizational implications of other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 945-959.
Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. 1999. The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 29(7): 1371-1394.
Pinder, C.C. 2008. Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Psychology Press.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.
Schyns, B. & Collani, G. V. 2002. A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organisational variables. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 11: 219-241.
Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology: 290–312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., Judge, T. A., & Adams, J. W. 2010. Core self-evaluations as
causes of satisfaction: The mediating role of seeking task complexity. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 77: 255-265.
Staw, B., & Cohen-Carash, Y. 2005. The Dispositional Approach to Job Satisfaction. Journal
of Organization Behavior, 26(1): 59–78.
