• No results found

TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP: THE EMERGENCE OF IT SELF-LEADERSHIP AND ITS IMPACT ON JOB SATISFACTION

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP: THE EMERGENCE OF IT SELF-LEADERSHIP AND ITS IMPACT ON JOB SATISFACTION"

Copied!
55
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP:

THE EMERGENCE OF IT SELF-LEADERSHIP

AND ITS IMPACT ON JOB SATISFACTION

Bartosch Patryk Biernath

Lijnbaanstraat 18B 9711RV Groningen

The Netherlands

Supervisor:

U. Y. Eseryel, PhD

Assistant Professor at the University of Groningen, Innovation Management & Strategy

Faculty of Economics and Business

Submitted

June 23, 2014

Words: 15,792

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to investigate the relation of transformational leadership and self-leadership on job satisfaction in an IT context, which was identified as a gap in the literature. As a consequence, an empirical study

across industries is conducted, in which 130 employees from different IT- teams have participated. The study reveals that transformational IT leadership is positively related to IT self-leadership. The relation of transformational leadership on job satisfaction could not be confirmed which allows for further research to be

conducted. The practical implications of this study evolve around the acceptance a

nd innovative use of IT in organizations and how transformational IT leaders can enhance IT usage through IT self-leadership amongst followers. Moreover, this research provides interesting insights on how businesses can

(2)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my parents, Darius and Sylwia, for all their financial but more importantly, their emotional support during my study. They made trade- offs to make it possible for me to study and be able to receive excellent education in order to have all the opportunities that they did not have. Although my appreciation for all their support was present at all times, it was of high importance for me to thank them once again for everything they have done for me and I hope that I can ‘compensate’ for all their trust and support by the path that I will head towards very soon.

Further, I would like to thank my girlfriend Hannah for all her patience and her ability to motivate me during sunny days to read more and more papers, elaborate on things more intensively and stay disciplined until the very last paragraph.

Lastly, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Eseryel for all the friendly smiles and motivating words when I was in doubt, especially before the data collection period. When I was hesitant, she reinforced me to see it all ‘as a learning experience’ and stay excited rather than frightened regarding this important final assignment. An extraordinary ‘Thank You’ also because she has done everything that was under her influence to find a co- assessor to round off my study in time.

Related to that, I am very grateful for Prof. Dr. Berghout’s willingness and time to co- assess this research.

(3)

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 1 INTRODUCTION ... 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7 TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP ... 8 IT- SELF-LEADERSHIP ... 14 METHOD ... 16 PARTICIPANTS ... 16 RESEARCH SETTINGS ... 18

INSTRUMENT PRE- TESTING AND REFINEMENT ... 18

MEASURES ... 21

RESULTS ... 23

PROCEDURE AND TESTING ASSUMPTIONS ... 23

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS ... 25

REGRESSION ANALYSIS ... 28 DISCUSSION ... 30 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY ... 33 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRACTICE ... 34 LIMITATIONS ... 34 REFERENCES ... 37 APPENDIX A ... 42

FIGURE 11 – CORRELATION MATRIX TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP ... 42

FIGURE 12 – ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX – IT- SELF- LEADERSHIP ... 43

FIGURE 13 – REGRESSION ANALYSIS (TRANSLEADERSHIP / SELFLEADERSHIP) INCL. REGRESSIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS ... 44

FIGURE 14 – REGRESSION ANALYSIS (TRANSLEADERSHIP / JOBSATISFACTION) ... 45

FIGURE 15 – SCATTERPLOT OF RELATION BETWEEN TRANSLEADERSHIP AND JOBSATISFACTION ... 45

FIGURE 16 – REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR AGE GROUP 19-33 YEARS ... 45

FIGURE 17 – MEDIATION ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCTION INDUSTRY ... 46

APPENDIX B ... 47

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ... 47

APPENDIX C ... 51

OVERVIEW OF SAMPLE (BY INDUSTRY) ... 51

APPENDIX D ... 52

(4)

1. Introduction

The worlds’ leading information technology research and advisory company, Gartner Inc., has revealed that $296 billion was spent on enterprise software in 2013 (Pettey & Goasduff, 2013). This is an increase of 6.4 percent compared to 2012 (Pettey & Goasduff, 2013). Wang, Chou & Jiang (2005) uncovered that those investments are 178% over budget while returning only 30-50% of the promised benefits among ERP- implementations (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005). These numbers suggest that investments in information technology (IT) are underutilized (Li & Hsieh, 2007; Jasperson, Carter, & Zmud, 2005). Especially, the underutilization of IT by users has received considerate attention in recent years (Wang, Li, & Hsieh, 2013; Hsieh & Wang, 2007; Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005). Most organizations decide upon which technology they want to use at the top of the organization and mandate usage of the technology upon lower- level employees. Albeit the fact that employees were not involved in the selection of the technology, they are obliged to use it (Li & Hsieh, 2007).

Particularly nowadays, where most organizational processes are IT- enabled (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005), IT plays an important role in the business world (Afshari, Bakar, & Luan, 2009; Devine et. al, 1999). Depending on the industry, ‘proper’ IT usage may even be “vital to create and sustain competitive advantages” (Li & Hsieh, 2007, p. 15), which is why management of organizations needs to ensure employees’ cooperation and acceptance of the technology.

Research has uncovered that IT is far from saturation (Bjorn-Andersen & Raymond, 2014). However this does not mean that firms necessarily need to resume their large spending on information systems. It rather means that the potential of IT lies in management’s hands by developing strategies which encourage the use of IT in new and innovative ways (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005) that go beyond the minimum requirements of IT usage (Li & Hsieh, 2007) to improve task performance (Kim, Malhotra, & Narasimhan, 2005). According to Bjorn-Andersen & Raymond (2014) and Afshari, Bakar & Luan (2009), the implementation and usage of IT is related to change, which requires strong leadership.

(5)

process of inspiring subordinates to share and pursue the leaders’ vision” (Andressen, Konradt, & Neck, 2012, p. 70) as well as “motivating others to move beyond their own self- interests and work for the aims of the team” (Andressen, Konradt & Neck, 2012, p.70).

As outlined, some researchers in the field of information system management have built the link of IT underutilization and employees’ actual usage. Many of the models, such as the “extended use” model (Hsieh & Wang, 2007), the “innovate with IT” model (Wang, Li & Hsieh, 2013) or “personal innovativeness with IT” (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998), originate in the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992) which tries to investigate how the interaction of individuals with IT can be enhanced or stimulated.

Although researchers have agreed that managerial support is essential for innovative IT usage to take place (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005; Bassellier, Benbasat & Reich, 2003), research has yet not explicitly addressed the influence that transformational leaders might have to stimulate that behaviour. Especially research in the post- adoptive phase, being the longest and where most benefits accrue for the firm (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005) in terms of Return on investments (ROI), little research has been done so far.

Given the tremendous potential that IT still has to offer and the opportunities that are being missed due to inefficient usage, this research aims at investigating whether transformational leaders can stimulate IT usage to yield higher ROI by ensuring an efficient application of IT. Moreover, research has established a positive relation of transformational leadership to self-leadership behavior (Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014; Andressen, Konradt & Neck, 2012) whose link will be narrowed down to an IT context throughout this research. As Cho, Park & Michel (2011) and Choi (2006) have investigated, there is also a positive relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. This research will test this relationship in the IT context, as the following paragraphs will explain.

(6)

common task” (Wang, Chou, & Jiang, 2005, p. 174). Knowing the importance of teams for organizations, this research will contribute to the understanding of team dynamics through leader-follower interaction and therefore takes a team-level perspective.

In the following, the concepts of transformational leadership and self-leadership will be defined and linked to IT to arrive at the research question, which establishes the foundation for this research.

Additionally, this research will take a firms’ perspective accounting for the changes that take place in the environment which have an impact on firms and how those firms have to adapt to them. Means to respond to environmental changes are empowered employees who are enhanced to make timely decisions and whose self- directing behavior is stimulated (House, 1995) to take greater responsibility for their behaviors and actions (Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Pearce & Manz, 2005). In the past, firms behaved as if top-down, highly formalized organizations with “heroic leaders” who were “expected to have all the knowledge” (Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello, 2012, p. 217) would enable them to control the changes in the environment. Admittedly in today’s knowledge- based world, those views are no longer appropriate (Uhl- Bien, Marion & McKelvey, 2007). In relation to that, empowerment of employees today is seen as the “primary leadership outcome” of which self-leadership is a key mechanism (Houghton & Yoho, 2005, p.76).

As a consequence of the decreasing importance of “heroic leaders” (Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello, 2012, p. 217), the structure and leadership approach is becoming less formalized and adapts more and more towards todays’ complex and fast-paced environment (Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello, 2012). Transformational leadership is argued to provide a strong leadership style that influences the empowerment of employees positively (Jung, Chow & Wu, 2003). Further, transformational leadership enables followers to acquire the knowledge and skills they need in order to work more effectively and accordingly perform better (Yukl, 2012). Although the research around transformational leadership has acquired much attention in recent leadership literature (Gundersen, Hellesoy & Raeder, 2012; Afshari, Bakar & Luan, 2009), the extent to which it is described in the IT-context is rather limited (Li & Hsieh, 2007).

(7)

2005). Therefore, this research will introduce and operationalize the concept of ‘transformational IT leadership’, which emphasizes the leaders’ willingness to accommodate IT usage to inspire subordinates and pursue a vision that everyone is willing to work towards.

The concept of transformational leadership in its original context can be divided into six essential components (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). Those components are namely, (1) Articulating a vision, (2) Providing an appropriate model, (3) Fostering the acceptance of group goals (4) High performance expectations, (5) Individualized support, and lastly, (6) Intellectual stimulation.

As Li & Hsieh (2007) have pointed out, the degree to which this construct is described in the IT- context is limited. As a result, those components will be used in the theoretical framework and transformed into an IT context. The resulting construct will thereby be conceptualized as ‘Transformational IT leadership’ to emphasize the focus on IT. The literature review aims at describing in detail how the construct is derived from past research and how each of those components can relate to IT.

Next to inspiration and envisioning, transformational leadership can influence self-leadership practices (Andressen, Konradt & Neck, 2012; Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014). Especially, the component of empowerment is relevant for the purpose of this study, as a strong link seems to exist between transformational leadership and empowerment (Choi, 2006; Jung, Chow & Wu, 2003; Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003). Empowerment was argued to provide the basis for self-leadership (Bass, 1999; Avolio & Gibbons, 1988).

Self-leadership, as the corresponding construct, is defined as the ability to “motivate oneself to do pleasant but also unpleasant things” (Andressen, Konradt & Neck, 2012). For organizations, empowerment of employees is very valuable since followers are to a certain degree, able to “become their own leaders” (Manz & Sims, 1987).

(8)

Neck & Manz (1996) have found a positive impact of empowerment on job satisfaction and a reduction in absenteeism (Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 2011). Further, self-leading employees appreciate the empowerment and trust that is given to them by the leader (Stewart, Courtright & Manz, 2011) and are therefore involved in a process of continuous improvement (Biswas, 2012), which responds to managers’ desire to use IT beyond the “minimum requirements” (Li & Hsieh, 2007). Further, empowerment enables the leader to focus on more strategic issues by limiting their time, energy and knowledge assigned to tasks that self-leading employees could perform themselves (Yun, Cox & Sims Jr., 2006).

Given those benefits of self-leading followers, it is of interest for this research to not only consider whether transformational (IT) leadership can be narrowed down to an IT context in general, but also to analyze whether self-leadership can be enhanced by a transformational IT leader. As outlined above, the concept of IT self-leadership will be defined in the following chapter based on the initial construct of self-leadership. Thus, this research argues that a transformational leader, who uses IT successfully, should be able to stimulate followers to realize self-leading behavior through IT, establishing the basis of IT self-leadership.

Overall, this research will shed light on the concepts of transformational leadership and self-leadership in the IT- context and investigates whether leaders can influence the IT behavior of their team members and what effect this will ultimately have on job satisfaction. The respective research questions is accordingly:

What is the impact of transformational IT leadership behavior on IT self-leadership and job satisfaction in teams?

2. Theoretical Framework

This section deepens the understanding of the introduced concepts of transformational IT leadership and IT self-leadership. Moreover, it describes how they should be related to IT in order to contribute to the literature of those concepts in the context of IT. The term ‘follower’ and ‘employee’ are used interchangeably and stand for a member of a team, who is not the team leader.

(9)

Thereafter, the transformed components of transformational IT leadership and IT self-leadership with its respective hypotheses will be stated. The chapter will be concluded with a conceptual model, which illustrates the hypothesized relationships.

Transformational IT Leadership

Transformational leadership gives its followers a special role by treating them appropriately, paying personalized attention to their needs, challenging them to think ‘out of the box’ and encouraging intrinsic more than just extrinsic motivation (Li & Hsieh, 2007; Utman, 1997; Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992). In this paper the construct ‘Transformational IT leadership’ refers to transformational leaders who encourage IT usage, which is new in the literature and has not been developed yet as a separate stream in research. Given the possibilities and the importance of IT in todays’ dynamic and fast-paced business world (Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello, 2012) and the robustness of the transformational leadership concept across cultural contexts (Gundersen, Hellesoy & Raeder, 2012), it is essential to improve the understanding of transformational leadership with regard to IT. The concept of transformational leadership has been tested in a variety of studies and has a positive influence on self-leadership, role perceptions, task performance, collective identity, group cohesiveness and job satisfaction (Choi, 2006). Especially the relationship to IT self-leadership and job satisfaction is of distinct importance for this study.

In order to understand the concept of transformational IT leadership, it is vital to grasp its emergence, also with regard to other leadership theories, that arose either before or in parallel to that leadership style. However, this segment will limit itself to the theories that stand in direct relation to transformational leadership since prior leadership theories have been investigated sufficiently. Transformational leadership is grounded in transactional leadership and extends its conceptualization, as will be contrasted in the following paragraph (Gundersen, Hellesoy & Raeder, 2012).

(10)

enhance ‘commitment’ that is effectively limited to ‘behavioral compliance’ whereas transformational leaders trigger ‘affective commitment’, as described above. ‘Behavioral compliance’ is related to undertaking tasks because they have to be done. Bringing IT into the picture, which has, globally, increased demand on adaptability and flexibility of organizations (Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014), transactional leaders were found to be less effective in changing environments, as they “neglect people and organizational issues” (Afshari, Bakar & Luan, 2009, p. 238). In contrast, transformational leaders show an interest and emphasis for organizational issues, can take advantage of IT to further strenghten their relation with employees and thereby increase job satisfaction and performance of their followers (Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014). As a consequence, one could argue that transactional IT leaders would not be able to stimulate IT usage because they show no emphasis for organizational issues. Generally, and in line with the findings of Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw (1992), transactional and transformational leaders can eventually be distinguished by the type of motivation (extrinsic / intrinsic) being employed. Before conceptualizing transformational IT leadership further, IT self-leadership will be described.

The main contributor to the concept of self-leadership is Charles C. Manz who has started to describe the concept of self-management (Manz & Sims, 1980), the ‘antecessor’ of self-leadership. He stated that self-leadership is “the core of the management process” because it complements external leaders by initiating an additional control mechanism, which “exists within each person” (Manz, 1991, p. 88). Self-management is conceptualized as an approach for leaders to “address self- regulation or higher level control standards” (Manz & Sims, 1980, p. 366) for followers to work more independently by means of self-observation, self-goal- setting, cueing strategies, self-reinforcement, self- punishment and rehearsal (Manz, 1986). In later publications, Manz described the concept of self-management as “incomplete” (1986, p. 585) because it did not capture the full potential of intrinsic motivation that could possibly be obtained. Self-management guides people to perform tasks because there is a necessity to do them and/ or there is an extrinsic reward linked to their performance (Manz, 1986).

(11)

perform a certain task, no matter whether they like it or not, but irrespectively also ask themselves what task they are performing and look for justification (Georgianna, 2007). By stimulating this deep understanding and awareness for the task, intrinsic motivation is increased (Stewart, Courtright & Manz, 2011) which results in the natural reward of deciding deliberately how the work should be performed (Manz, 1986). Self-management, in comparison, only stimulates extrinsic motivation (Georgianna, 2007). Thus, Manz (1986) argues that followers do not only have to contribute to the organizations’ objectives but they actually want to contribute in case of enhanced self-leadership. For the purposes of this study, Manz’ (1986) reasoning would incorporate that self-leading employees are highly motivated to use IT, not only because they are asked to do so, but moreover they are willing to use IT to perform their task because they believe in its usefulness. This behavior can be stimulated in a number of ways, amongst others by a transformational IT leader. While followers are invited to take responsibility and work independently (Houghton & Yoho, 2005), external leaders are nevertheless essential to reinforce self-leading behavior (Manz & Sims, 1987). Those external leaders are then taking a coaching role in the development of the follower (Stewart, Courtright & Manz, 2011) rather than a directing role, which can be undertaken by a transformational IT leader.

Bandura (1977) distinguishes between two types of control mechanism, which match the relationship between leader and follower. He argues that there are ‘organizational’ control systems and ‘self- control’ systems in place. He describes their relationship as reciprocal as there seems to be an interdependent relationship between them. Organizational control systems are supposed to guide employees through formal and informal systems, including managers. However those are not “able to control the individual action directly” (Manz, 1986, p. 586). With regard to this research, those organizational control systems would relate to the transformational IT leader, as described above. Opposed to that, Bandura (1977) emphasizes self-control mechanisms, which take place within a person, and as it was argued by Manz (1986, p. 586), seem to be the “ultimate system of control”. Hence, self-control systems are also those who relate to self-leadership (Manz & Sims, 1980).

Bringing those two concepts together that have been shown to be linked, the following paragraphs will underline their relationship in more detail.

(12)

leaders show behavior that establishes a common, trusted environment between leader and follower by means of identification with the team (Li & Hsieh, 2007), common goals that the team is working towards (Choi, 2006), psychological empowerment (Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003) and a strong will to perform well (Choi, 2006). Charismatic and transformational leadership overlap to some degree: operationally as well as conceptually (Bono & Judge, 2003), as will become clear in the following paragraphs. Particularly, with regard to two components, making up an important share of transformational leadership, namely Articulating a

Vision and Providing an Appropriate Model.

Inspired by the research stream on “substitutes of leadership”, which deals with the significance and emphasis of leadership towards empowerment of employees, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996) have developed a measurement instrument for transformational leadership, which will be used in this research. In order to understand the emphasis of the instrument, the six components will be explained and brought into context with past findings from literature and a connection to IT and self-leadership will be established.

According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer (1996), and in line with the efforts of Bass (1999), envisioning is the most highly correlated aspect of transformational leadership. As a consequence, Articulating a vision is a key characteristic of transformational leadership and crucial to encourage followers to work harder by establishing cognitive models that they can picture (Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014). Further, by providing a vision, the leader gives his/ her followers adequate occasions to innovate and explore ways that “go beyond routine usage” and can unleash the “potential of the system”, as related to IT (Li & Hsieh, 2007, p. 3). Moreover, providing followers with a vision could influence their motivation to perform tasks, which is essential for self-leadership to occur.

As mentioned above and investigated by Sun, Xu & Shang (2014), Providing

an appropriate model is another influential component. By ‘appropriate model’, the

(13)

component of the self-leadership construct, as will be described on the following pages. With regard to IT, Yukl (2012) pointed out that the “leader must be able to communicate about technical matters with team members”, which assumes that he/she is familiar with the technology, reflecting the core of the above-named components.

Following, the component of Fostering the acceptance of group goals will be described. This component relates strongly to the leaders’ abilities to define common goals, enhance collaboration and alignment of followers’ interests (Li & Hsieh, 2007) in order to strive towards the teams’ goal(s). As IT can support clarification and facilitation of goal- setting (Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003) and increases employee empowerment by assigning expertise to followers (Zhang & Bartol, 2010), this component can contribute to the concept of transformational IT leadership. Additionally, this type of collaboration with the followers might initiate a process that has an impact of fellow colleagues. More precisely, an employee that feels involved in the process of goal setting, might be more likely to accept those and stimulate other followers to accept those goals and work towards them more effectively, which emphasizes the component of ‘group impact’, as it will be described in the IT self- leadership segment.

High performance expectations was also figured to be an important

component in order to describe transformational leadership (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996). According to the authors, this component relates very closely to the leaders’ expectations towards the team, and therefore describes a rigorous one- way relationship. However, considering this concept in its entirety, there are components such as charisma or vision, that motivate the followers voluntarily to perform the allocated tasks in the ‘expected’ manner (Sun, Xu & Shang, 2014). Additionally, the following component, called Individualized support, offsets the one- way relationship by illustrating the opposite relation. IT can provide a practical tool to outline expectations and at the same time enables the leader to provide technological tools and support. Relating this component to self-leadership, performance expectations might have an impact on the constructive cognition of the employee. The employee could process the expectations towards him/ her and develop thought patterns on how to meet and exceed those expectations.

Individualized support is one of the components that has also been mentioned

(14)

of attention that the leader pays towards the followers on a more individual basis. This factor is concerned with the leaders’ ability to filter out individual wants and needs (Choi, 2006), show appreciation and involve their input in decision- making (Choi, 2006). Further it relates to the leaders’ attention towards employees’ feelings and emotions to ultimately develop them beyond their potential (Lee, 2005). Houghton, Dawley and DiLeillo (2012) have described this in their construct of self-leadership as ‘Behavior awareness and Volition’. With regard to this component of transformational leadership, it could be expected that the followers’ behavior is dependent on the individual consideration of the leader. More explicitly, it could be argued that followers are more likely to cooperate if they feel that their needs are being considered. IT can be very supportive in structuring and organizing input, gather feedback or support decision- making which can then be processed in an efficient manner. Choi (2006) figured that this component has a significant impact on job satisfaction of followers. By showing respect and considering their followers’ feelings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996), leaders can increase instrinsic motivation which in turn could make the use of IT to ‘be enjoyable in its own right, apart from material returns’, such as extrinsic rewards (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992). Sun, Xu & Shang (2014) researched that, as a consequence of showing interest and appreciation for their followers, team performance is affected positively.

Lastly, Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer (1996) describe Intellectual

stimulation which has also been mentioned in Bass (1994) work under the same

(15)

to contribute to the innovativeness of the employee which comprises one of the components of IT self-leadership, as the following sections will outline.

Overall, transformational leadership has been discussed to have a positive influence on followers’ self-leadership and job satisfaction. This research tries to investigate whether this link persists in the context of IT by solely evaluating the leaders’ transformational leadership skills with regard to IT usage and how this affects IT self-leadership, which will be described next. In the following, the hypotheses that relate to transformational IT leadership will be stated, followed by the construct and hypotheses that are derived from IT self- leadership.

H1: Transformational IT leadership has a positive impact on job satisfaction

IT- Self-leadership

Related to the definition, given in the previous section, recent work of Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello (2012) and Andersen & Prussia (1997), has resulted in an abbreviated leadership questionnaire which will be used to measure IT self-leadership. In order to understand the three dimensions of self-leadership that Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello (2012) have identified, they will be described and brought into the IT context in order to arrive at the hypotheses which will be tested thereafter.

Georgianna (2007) and Neck & Houghton (2006) have named the first category ‘behavior- focused strategies’ which relate to the elements of self- observation, self-goal setting, self-rewards, self-correcting feedback and self-cueing. A high degree of behavior- focused strategies increases self-leadership abilities and should be supported by an external leader who provides coaching and support (Andressen, Konradt & Neck, 2012). This coaching and support can be stimulated by means of IT, such as monitoring performance and recommending alternative tools or solutions to work with. In the questionnaire of Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello (2012), this category is summarized under the component Behavior Awareness & Volition. It corresponds to the component of Providing an appropriate model of the transformational leadership construct, as outlined above.

(16)

as feelings of competence, self-control or the sense of purpose (Konradt, Andreßen & Ellwart, 2009). Georgianna (2007) described it under the term ‘motivational strategies’, which clarifies the categories’ purpose more clearly. By providing followers with the right IT tools and proper training, intrinsic motivation can be increased. Above, it was described that Articulating a vision that is shared among all team members can enhance task motivation. Li & Hsieh (2007) and Jasperson, Carter & Zmud (2005) support this argument in their research by stating that transformational leaders can have an impact on the degree to which employees use IT.

The last component of the concept of self-leadership is ‘constructive thought strategies’ (Georgianna, 2007; Neck & Houghton, 2006), later renamed by Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello (2012) to Constructive Cognition. This dimension draws deeply on the mental processes in order to picture and assess performance, enable self-talks and mental images which increase constructive ways of thinking and/ or perception (Georgianna, 2007). With regard to IT, those ‘constructive ways’ could be facilitated by a transformational leader who encourages experimenting with IT in order to stimulate different scenarios but also to increase the comfort level of employees while working with IT and possibly relates to the Performance expectations that a transformationa leader has.

In line with the findings related to the ‘classical’ self-leadership, it was established that some followers develop more self-leadership skills than others (Manz, 1986). However, it is interesting to investigate whether IT overcomes differences in leadership abilities. Konradt, Andreßen & Ellwart (2009) uncovered that self-leadership can be learned and that employees who receive training in self-self-leadership, show increased mental performance, higher job satisfaction (Stewart, Courtright & Manz, 2011) and express less negative emotions. It can be assumed that a transformational leader should therefore be able to stimulate self-leadership learning which can be facilitated by IT, assuming that the leader possesses sufficient knowledge to provide meaningful coaching.

Based on the expounded concept of IT self-leadership, the following relation will be tested.

(17)

As mentioned in the previous paragraphes, past research by Sun, Xu & Shang (2014) and Choi (2006), has attributed transformational leadership a positive link to self- leadership and job satisfaction. Based on the assumption that transformational leadership therefore enhances self-leadership, higher job satisfaction could be seen as outcome of this relation. As a result of that, one can hypothesize that IT self-leadership should mediate the relationship between transformational IT self-leadership and job satisfaction. Therefore, this research aims to analyze the following:

H3: IT Self-Leadership mediates transformational IT leadership and job satisfaction.

The outlined relationships are summarized in the conceptual model below (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Conceptual Model

3. Method

This section describes the preparation and process of data collection. It will be divided into four sections, namely participants, research setting, instrument pre-testing and refinement and measures.

Participants

This study was conducted among larger firms (> 50 employees) whose employees utilize IT on a daily basis. In order to test the concepts of transformational IT leadership and IT self-leadership, the research was conducted across industries, as can be seen in Figure 2 below and Appendix C. The sample comprised of 130 employees (N=130) from different teams and firms in which one employee per team was represented to ensure that each survey relates to a different (team) leader and accounts for team- level analysis.

Transformational     IT  leadership  

IT  Self-­‐  

Leadership   Job  satisfaction  

(18)

Figure 2 – Distribution of teams per industry

The data was explicitly gathered for this study and has consequently not been used or published before. The survey was sent out to 100 companies, which resulted in a response rate of 44% with regard to number of firms. In general, every company participated with an average of 3.38 teams in this study. The sample consisted of 58% male and 42% female participants with a mean age of 35 years. As two researchers gathered the data, means to approach organizations have been different. Whereas one researcher has approached a variety of organizations (98 companies), the other researcher has focused on two organizations, which account for 50 percent of the sample each. Namely, the researcher that has had contact with two organizations, provided most of the participants pooled in the financial industry, and some that are gathered in the energy service industry, as shown above (Figure 2). Consequently, one organization has contributed significantly more teams (41 teams) to the study than other organizations in the sample. Yet, the researchers have ensured that all participants are from different teams by asking explicitly for the name of the team in the survey. The location of the respective team member could not be traced.

(19)

The following figure illustrates the identified proportions.

** Other countries include Canada, USA, India, Poland, Bulgaria.

Figure 3- Overview of participants per country

Research settings

Prior to sending out the survey link, all companies were contacted with a short description of the survey. Further, this notification entailed information about the confidentiality of the gathered information. This email also informed companies about the starting date of the data collection, which was April 15, 2014.

Two weeks later, the survey was distributed via e- mail and provided a link to the related survey. Participants were able to select the language of their preference and were asked to indicate which language they have chosen. Companies were asked to fill in the survey in a timely manner, without defining a specific time frame. Once a participant started the survey, he/she had seven days time to complete the survey. After that, the respective survey was discarded.

Companies, who had neither reacted to the notification nor the survey, were reminded to participate after two weeks. Overall, the survey was accessible for six weeks.

Instrument pre- testing and refinement

As will be described below, survey instruments (Appendix B) for transformational leadership, self-leadership and job satisfaction were used. Despite the survey

Netherlands,   54%   Germany,  31%  

Other  countries,   15%  **  

(20)
(21)

The following table shows the initial and adapted components.

Initial component Transformed component Changes

Articulating a vision

Articulating an IT- vision

(TLAV = Transformational leadership Articulating Vision)

All questions were adapted (see Appendix D) Providing an

appropriate model Providing an appropriate IT- role model (TLAM = Transformational leadership Appropriate Model)

All questions were adapted (see Appendix D) Fostering group

goals

Fostering the acceptance of group goals through IT (TLFG = Transformational leadership Fostering Goal)

All questions were adapted (see Appendix D) High performance

expectations

High performance expectations with IT (TLPE = Transformational leadership Performance Expectations)

All questions were adapted (see Appendix D) Individualized

support

Individualized support (TLIN = Transformational leadership individualized) Questions remained unchanged (Appendix D) Intellectual

stimulation Intellectual stimulation with IT (TLIS = Transformational leadership Intellectual stimulation)

All questions were adapted (see Appendix D)

Table 1 – Comparison of components between initial and adapted concept of transformational (IT) leadership

(22)

concerning the chosen language was included to control for deviations in interpretation across languages. As mentioned above, this has also enabled the researcher to estimate the location of the participant partially.

Measures

Apart from the demographic information asked in the beginning of the survey, all questions had to be answered on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Initially, the measurement instruments, which will be described below, have utilized a five-point Likert scale. According to Lozano, Garcia-Cueto & Muniz (2008), an increase of the items on the Likert scale increases reliability and validity of the data. Consequently, the number of items was increased to a seven-point scale. The concepts with its’ respective components and questions are described below. Likewise, the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the respective measures are presented.

Transformational IT Leadership. Inspired by the work of Podsakoff,

MacKenzie & Bommer (1996), the authors’ survey to measure Transformational leadership was used and adapted for the context of IT. Thereby the questions were rephrased in a way to measure how employees perceive their leaders’ ability to stimulate IT usage (Appendix B). As explained in the literature review, the concept evolved around six dimensions: (1) Articulating an IT- vision (abbrev. TLAV) (5 items, e.g. “The leader is always seeking new ways in which IT can be used for the team“; α = 0.836), (2) Providing an appropriate IT- role model (abbrev. TLAM) (3 items, e.g. “The leader uses the IT tools that he/she advocates, actively“; α = 0.846), (3) Fostering the acceptance of group goals through IT (abbrev. TLFG) (4 items, e.g. “The leader encourages employees to use IT tools to collaborate as a team“; α = 0.843), (4) high performance expectations with IT (abbrev. TLPE) (3 items, e.g. “The leader expects high IT- understanding to increase work performance“; α = 0.792), (5) individualized support (abbrev. TLIN) (4 items, e.g. “The leader shows respect for my personal feelings“; α = 0.832), (6) intellectual stimulation with IT (abbrev. TLIS) (4 items, e.g. “The leader has provided me with new ways of looking at IT, something that used to be a puzzle for me“; α = 0.814).

IT Self-leadership. The concept of IT self-leadership was based on the survey

(23)

of IT Self-Leadership. The latter were taken from an qualititative research that refers back to the work of Wang, Li & Hsieh (2011). Before explaining and describing those questions, the survey instrument of Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello (2012) will be described in the context of IT (Appendix B).

Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello (2012) have identified three components, consisting of 9- items that describe self-leadership and were transformed into the IT- context in the following manner: (1) Behavior Awareness & Volition using IT (abbrev. SLBA) (3 items, e.g. “I establish specific performance goals for myself with the help of IT“; α = 0.806), (2) Task motivation to use IT (abbrev. SLTM) (3 items, e.g. “I visualize myself successfully performing a task using IT before I actually do the task“; α = 0.762), (3) Constructive IT- Cognition (abbrev. SLCC) (3 items, e.g. “Sometimes I talk to myself (out loud or in my head) to work through difficult IT situations“; α = 0.778). The following table constrasts the initial components of Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello (2012) with the adapted components.

Initial component Transformed component Changes

Behavior Awareness & Volition

Behavior Awareness & Volition using IT (SLBA = Self leadership Behavior Awareness)

All questions were adapted (Appendix D) Task motivation Task motivation to use IT (SLTM =

Self leadership Task Motivation)

All questions were adapted (Appendix D) Constructive

cognition

Constructive IT-Cognition (SLCC = Self leadership Cognitive Cognition)

All questions were adapted (Appendix D) Table 2 – Comparison of components between initial and adapted concept of (IT) Self-Leadership

(24)

my job more efficient, I share this with my teammates “; α = 0.782) and (5) Innovate with IT (3 items, e.g. “If I hear about a new information technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it”; α = 0.879). Consequently, the following two components were added to the survey instrument of IT self-leadership.

Additional components Changes

Group impact of IT (SLGI = Self leadership group impact) All questions were adapted (see Appendix D) Innovate with IT (SLIN = Self leadership Innovate) All questions were

adapted (see Appendix D) Table 3 – New components of the concept of (IT) Self-Leadership

Job satisfaction. In order to measure job satisfaction, the general job

satisfaction survey from Warner (1973) was used. The basis for this survey has been established by Brayfield & Rothe (1951). The purpose with regard to the research was to measure the “general satisfaction with the work role in an organization” (Warner, 1973). The instrument has been used because it has proven to be a valid and reliable index of overall job satisfaction (Warner, 1973).

Before participants were asked to answer general job satisfaction questions, it was explicitly mentioned that they should relate the questions to their work in the team that they have referred to with regard to the transformational leader. The survey contained 14- items (abbrev. JS1-JS14) of which 8- items were negatively phrased to ensure that participants read the questions attentively (e.g. “I am disappointed that I ever took this job”). The overall reliability of the survey instrument was (α = 0.915).

4. Results Procedure and testing assumptions

(25)

linearity, given that linearity is a basic assumption to run principal component analysis. Figure 4 below shows a scatterplot to prove linearity for “transformational IT leadership” and “IT self-leadership” and show its’ respective outliers.

Figure 4 - Linearity illustration: Transformational IT Leadership and IT Self- Leadership

Further, the Kaiser- Meyer- Olkin Measure of Sampling adequacy (KMO) is shown in below, which demonstrated the variables to have a linear relationship (Figure 5 and 6).

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .926

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 1787.204

df 153

Sig. .000

Figure 5 – KMO measure for “Transformational IT leadership”

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .795

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 874.544

df 78

Sig. .000

(26)

Based on the assumption of linearity, the further analysis included an inspection of the correlation matrix to possibly remove variables, which show no correlation with other variables prior to the factor analysis. As all components in both constructs revealed correlations with other variables, all variables were included in the principal components analysis. However, as Figure 11 (Appendix A) illustrates, the questions relating to the components of TLIN within the Transformational IT Leadership construct revealed only correlations among themselves, which were comparably low. Consequently, the component TLIN was given special consideration in the component analysis. With regard to the correlation matrix of IT self-leadership, correlations between variables did not raise any concerns.

As can be seen in Figure 5 and 6 above, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was performed, the null- hypothesis (p<0.05) was rejected and therefore allowed for variable reduction by means of component analysis.

Principal component analysis

As for the concept of transformational leadership, the scree plot as well as the variance explained by the Eigenvalue suggested extracting three to four components describing the concept of transformational IT leadership (Figure 7 and 8).

(27)

Component Initial Eigenvalues

Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 10.405 47.297 47.297

2 3.016 13.710 61.007

3 1.141 5.188 66.196

4 1.044 4.745 70.940

5 .870 3.953 74.894

Figure 8 – Eigenvalues for construct of Transformational IT leadership

However, even within these components, strong cross- loadings existed which demanded significant transformations. As outlined before, the component TLIN, relating to Individualized support showed low correlations. As most variables loaded on multiple components with higher values than 0.3, it was decided to remove the component TLIN. Although it was removed, most variables still loaded on two components. However, the removal of TLIN reduced the number of recommended components from three to two components. As the survey was conducted by Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer (1996) for the context of traditional transformational leadership, it may be that either the sample or the transformed questions were responsible for arriving at less than the initial six components. Ultimately, it was decided to use Transformational IT leadership as one component including TLAV, TLAM, TLFG, TLPE and TLIS which was named TransLeadership. The reason for that decision is rooted in the belief that Transformatonal IT leadership should to a great extant relate to the initial construct of transformational leadership. Further, the seperation into two components, as suggested by the sceeplot, did not reveal a seperation that showed a logical allocation of variables. The total variance explained by TransLeadership accounted for 55.96%.

With regard to IT self-leadership, the component analysis, using Direct

Oblimin rotation, suggested to maintain four components which explain 72.78% of

(28)

SLGI5 (Appendix B). Thereby, it was possible to create a simple structure for the

construct of IT self-leadership, as outlined in Figure 9 below.

Pattern Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 SLIN2 .906 .064 -.005 .053 SLIN3 .901 -.055 .088 .032 SLIN1 .602 .098 .136 .205 SLCC2 .191 .829 .048 -.147 SLCC1 -.069 .821 .104 -.074 SLTM3 -.148 .763 -.012 .111 SLTM2 .163 .555 -.114 .177 SLGI4 .144 .019 .899 -.186 SLGI2 -.162 .023 .878 .211 SLGI1 .145 .021 .752 .101 SLBA2 -.106 .054 .126 .883 SLBA3 .193 -.088 .011 .790 SLBA1 .197 .114 -.022 .647

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

Figure 9- Simple structure of the construct of ‘IT self-leadership’

(29)

Regression analysis

The regression analysis, revealed that only one of three hypothesized relationships is significant:

H2: Transformational IT leadership has a positive impact on IT Self-leadership

with F(1,126) = 44,892, at p < .00 (Figure 13, Appendix A).

The other two hypotheses, which are displayed below, did not show significant results, as will be explained below. Further, the results will be presented commonly as the result of H1 impact the results of the analysis of H3.

H1: Transformational IT leadership has a positive impact on job satisfaction

H3: IT Self-Leadership mediates transformational IT leadership and job satisfaction.

With regard to H1, the regression analysis revealed that TransLeadership is not significantly related to Jobsatisfaction (Figure 14, Appendix A), F(1,126) =

1.587, p > .05. In their publication, Baron & Kenny (1986) lay out three conditions

(30)

In order to illustrate those findings graphically, the conceptual model with the respective statistical numbers is outlined below (Figure 10).

Figure 10 – Graphical illustration of tested relations

Control variables. A number of control variables were used to improve the

validity and reliability of the results. With regard to the selection of the sample, control variables were used for gender, age, type of industry and survey language. The control variables for gender and age were proposed by Warner (1973), whereas industry and survey language were considered to be appropriate control variables by the researcher to account for differences across industries and ensure that survey questions were translated coherently.

Although controlling for those variables did not shift the results considerably, some findings deviate from the overall outcome. The sample was divided into three age- groups. In the age group of 19-33 years, transformational IT leadership and job satisfaction showed a positive relationship of F(1,70) = 4.186, p < .05 (Figure 16, Appendix A). According to Baron & Kenny (1986), all conditions for an partial mediating effect of IT Self-leadership hold within this control variable. This is an important finding given that 56% of the sample is categorized within this age group.

Another interesting finding where signs of partial mediation were found refers to the control variable for industries. Although the industry where mediation was found, namely ‘production’ only accounts for 15% of the entire sample, those findings are important to point out and are shown in Figure 17 (Appendix A). Lastly, controlling for gender and languages of the survey did not contradict any of the overall findings.

Transformational     IT  leadership  

IT  Self-­‐  

Leadership   Job  satisfaction  

No  effect  

+  

p  <0.05  

(31)

5. Discussion

The aim of the study was to link a number of constructs, which are relatively well established and researched into a new setting, namely the IT- context and test whether concepts such as transformational leadership and self-leadership can be condensed into that context. Although, this research delivers essential insights regarding the link of the constructs, it was not possible to demonstrate empirical evidence for all relationships.

The first link, being investigated, was the connection from transformational IT leadership to IT self-leadership. As outlined in the theoretical framework of this research, transformational leadership in the classical context stimulates self- leadership among followers. More explicitly, researchers in the past (Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Jung, Chow & Wu, 2003) have ascertained that transformational leaders trigger empowerment among employees.

This research aimed at contributing to the information systems field by using those findings and test whether transformational leaders who are willing and able to work with IT can mirror their attitude and behavior to IT towards their followers and enhance IT usage beyond expected usage. Given the survey instrument of Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer (1996) as a basis, it was possible to transform and adapt the survey instrument in a manner that narrows transformational leadership down to the IT context, without compromising the initial construct of transformational leadership excessively.

The survey instrument which was employed to measure IT self-leadership was a combination of the work of Houghton, Dawley & DiLiello (2012) and new questions which relate to efforts of Wang, Li & Hsieh (2013). Given the conversion of the instrument into an IT context with additional question which no empirical study has drawn upon, it is striking that empirical evidence for the positive relation of transformational IT leadership and IT self-leadership was established, across all control variables.

(32)

Moreover, the survey questions which were taken from the work of Wang, Li & Hsieh (2013), add one important dimension to the initial construct of self- leadership. Namely, IT self- efficacy was identified as a crucial component of the self-leadership construct in the IT- context. Wang, Li & Hsieh (2013) have elaborated on the concept of IT self- efficacy before, however it was not yet transcribed into the context of IT self-leadership. The established relationship thereby does not only illustrate the importance of empowerment through the transformational leader, but more essentially, the influence that the leader has on his/ her followers’ willingness to experiment with IT and share experiences with their colleagues.

As opposed to the general conclusions, the control variables have outlined that a positive relation exists between transformational IT leadership and job satisfaction in designated parts of the sample. Elaborating on a positive relationship with regard to age groups, it is conceivable to argue that IT self-leadership might be more appreciated by younger employees (19-33 years) than by older employees, given that 56% of the sample belong to that age group. This proposition is supported by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis (2003), who conceptualized the ‘Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology’ (UTAUT), which proved empirically that age is the single moderating variable among three others, namely gender, experience and voluntariness, that moderates all four components of their model (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions).

Combining the findings of this research with the work of Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis (2003), it is conceivable that younger employees see the use of IT as an opportunity and tool for more efficient work, and thereby experience higher levels of job satisfaction. Moreover, the regression analysis for that control group indicated that IT self-leadership mediates the relation of transformational IT leadership and job satisfaction partially, which strenghtens the claim that younger employees appreciate the empowerment through IT usage more than their older colleagues.

Although those claims are interesting to investigate, it should be kept in mind that other factors, which are outside the scope of this research, such as, the differing complexity of IT-tools across all firms in the sample, might as well influence followers’ willigness to show self-leading behavior with regard to IT.

(33)

Michel, 2011; Choi, 2006). It can be argued that the survey instrument for job satisfaction, although measured by means of an overall job satisfaction survey was not specific enough to influence the relationship between transformational leader and followers in the IT- context. A different outcome might have been achieved if a job satisfaction survey would have been used that differentiates between several components of job satisfaction and measures which components are thereby influenced the most. Also, the removal of the TLIN component within the transformational leadership construct for the purposes of the regression analysis, might be the explanation for this finding. TLIN explicitly dealt with the feelings and relations between leader and follower and was found to positively influence job satisfaction in the past (Choi, 2006; Lee, 2005). Given that the component did not fit in the principal component analysis of the construct, it had to be removed to arrive at a reliable model of transformational IT leadership. Further, the low correlations prior to the component analysis and the above mentioned uncertainty whether

Individualized support belongs to the transformational IT leadership construct,

reinforced that decision.

Lastly, the link that this research tried to establish was the impact of IT self- leadership in the relationship of transformational leadership and job satisfaction. It was expected, given that transformational leadership and self- leading followers trigger higher job satisfaction (Cho, Park & Michel, 2011; Stewart, Courtright & Manz, 2011; Choi, 2006; Neck & Manz, 1996), that IT self-leadership would mediate this relationship. This research was not able to provide overall empirical evidence to attest this relationship. As already touched upon, the reason for the lack of evidence might be rooted in the selection and size of the sample, as will be explained in the following section. Given the established relationship between transformational IT leadership and IT self-leadership, it is arguable whether the instrument itself is responsible for the lack of empirical evidence. Particularly, because the unchanged job satisfaction survey by Warner (1973), was found valid and reliable throughout many research papers. Further research might also elaborate on ways to transform

TLIN in a way that fits into the transformational IT leadership construct.

(34)

Contributions to theory

This research has confirmed some of the previous findings, confuted some findings in the context of IT and extended the understanding of the constructs of transformational leadership and self-leadership in the context of IT. In the following, those implications will be described briefly.

The research was able to confirm the link of transformational leadership and self-leadership which was investigated by Sun, Xu & Shang (2014) and Andressen, Konradt & Neck (2012). In the classical context, as well as in the IT- context, those two constructs, although transformed, show a significant relationship. Further, this conclusion strengthens the outcome of Gundersen, Hellesoy & Raeder, (2012) that the construct of transformational leadership holds across different cultural contexts. Data was collected across a number of countries and thus also across a number of cultures and shows clear signs of the existence of the transformational IT leadership construct. The other relation between transformational leadership and job satisfaction which Cho, Park & Michel (2011) and Choi (2006) have found in their work could not be comprehended. As illustrated, the inclusion of age groups weakens this overall finding. Researchers in the field should therefore investigate how age influences the impact of transformational IT leadership on job satisfaction. One possible way to account for those age groups are by using a sampling technique that represents different age groups equally.

(35)

Contributions to practice

Research in the past, such as the work by Li & Hsieh (2007) and Jasperson, Carter & Zmud (2005) have argued that IT is underutilized. One of the practical goals of this study was to illustrate that large investments in IT are not necessarily the best way to increase performance in the face of global competition. Konradt, Andreßen & Ellwart (2009) have pointed out that self-leadership can be learned. As a result of this finding, businesses should select managers who have a high understanding of IT and possess leadership skills, as outlined by the components of transformational IT leadership, to communicate their knowledge to employees. Given that firms only attain 30-50% of the promised benefits (Jasperson, Carter & Zmud, 2005), while paying 178% of what they anticipated to pay (Wang, Chou & Jiang, 2005), the development and coaching of transformational IT leaders who enhance IT self-leadership among their followers could be an cost-effective approach to increase expected returns through innovative IT usage. Of course, this conclusion does not suggest that investments in IT should be avoided, however this research shows that ‘investments’ into the capabilities of managers and employees can increase overall benefits for the firm while having a clear outline over the budget.

6. Limitations

The limitations for this research have already been mentioned and will be elaborated on in the following section.

(36)

The initial aim was to approach a limited number of firms, which would contribute a high number of teams from different departments. However, technical problems related to the survey interface have reduced the number of teams per company considerably. Qualtrics, which was used for the data collection, was at times, temporarily not accessible to neither the researcher nor the participant, which made it very difficult for larger firms to schedule a time slot to fill in the survey. However, even among firms, which contributed with a larger number of teams, the overall findings do not deviate from between- firm findings.

Regarding the design of the survey itself, it was emphasized that the component Individualized support of the transformational IT leadership construct was kept in the survey although it was not adapted for the context of IT. Several approaches and angles have been taken to rephrase the questions that relate to this component. However, every possible solution that was found distorted either the emphasis of the component regarding feelings and thoughts or neglected the context of IT. Finally, the assessment was made that it is not possible to convert questions that relate to IT into the rather vague context of affective processes that relate to feelings. Retaining the component in the survey has caused some confusion during the pilot, however when participants in the pilot were asked how to possibly convert those questions into an IT context, they have suggested to maintain them in their initial format. Possibly, future research is able to bring those questions into an IT context in a way that fits into the construct of Transformational IT leadership, which were, in this study, excluded from the data analysis due to its low correlations.

(37)

Based on the findings, it is suggested to analyze the conceptualized relation of transformational IT leadership, IT self-leadership and job satisfaction in one industry, rather than in a variety of industries and pay increased attention to the influence of age in subsequent follow- up research papers, as outlined in the discussion.

(38)

REFERENCES

Afshari, M., Bakar, K., & Luan, W. (2009, July). Technology and school leadership.

Technology, Pedagogy and Education , 235-248.

Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly , 24 (4), 665-694.

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the domain of Information Technology. Information

Systems Research , 9 (2), 204-215.

Andersen, J. S., & Prussia, G. E. (1997). The self- leadership questionnaire:

Preliminary assessment of construct validity. The Journal of Leadership Studies , 4, 119-143.

Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, C. P. (2012). The relation between self- leadership and transformational leadership: Competing models and the moderating role of virtuality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 19 (1), 68-82. Applegate, L. M., & Elam, J. J. (1992). New Information System Leaders: A Changing role in a changing world. MIS Quarterly , 469-490.

Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A lifespan approach. In J. A. Conger, & R. N. Kanungo, Charismatic leadership: The

elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 276-308). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re- examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership

questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 72, 441-462. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 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 , 1173-1182. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 8, 9-32. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership: Improving

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Altogether, this causes enough reason to believe that transformational IT leadership acts as a moderator of the relationship between each of the abovementioned triggers

” In this example, the tediousness of the request procedures that have to be followed resulted in an enhanced IT self-leadership, but it also occurs that these type

H4: The expected mediating relationship of work engagement on the relation between transformational IT leadership and innovative behavior with IT is moderated by a

The climate for innovation moderates the relationship between IT self-leadership and innovative behaviour with IT such that the effect of this leadership on

P1: The idea exploration and generation process of innovation is positively influenced IT constructive thought pattern strategies through communication, networking

By additional analyses, the six transformational leadership dimensions showed several significant interaction effects with knowledge sharing, in predicting IT

The study had a cross-sectional multi-source design in which task conflict, relationship conflict, and transformational leadership were measured among team members, and

That is, a transformational leader that possesses the influence to directly motivate employees to engage in creative courses of action, may be more effective when he or