Self-sacrificial leadership and the self-sacrificial behavior of employees:

BEHAVIOR OF EMPLOYEES

Self-sacrificial leadership and the self-sacrificial behavior of employees:

The moderating role of organizational crisis

June 19, 2013

CHARITINI KAMATSOU University of Groningen

MSc HRM, Faculty of Economics and Business Student number: s2339978

Antillenstraat 193 9714 JT Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)684408331 E-mail: xaritini_k@hotmail

First Supervisor:

Dr. R. Sijbom

Second Supervisor:

Dr. D. B. Veltrop

Acknowledgement: First of all, I would like to thank all the employees that participated in this

research. Second, I would want to thank my supervisor Roy Sijbom for his help. And finally, I

want to thank my parents and friends for their support during my studies.

2 Abstract

Leaders in organizations are sometimes willing to make personal sacrifices in order to protect the interests and the benefits both of their followers and their organization. This behavior sometimes leads employees to imitate the self-sacrificial behavior of their leader, by making personal sacrifices. The research focused on the willingness of employees to imitate the self- sacrificial behavior of their leader, when their organization was confronted with an

organizational crisis and when it was not confronted with an organizational crisis. A

questionnaire was filled out by 119 employees. The results of this research proved that there is indeed a positive relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and self-sacrificial behavior of employees, but this relationship was not affected by the presence of an organizational crisis. This research helps us understand that employees appreciate the

altruistic motives of their leaders and they are also willing to reciprocate their good intentions, by making personal sacrifices.

KEYWORDS: CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP, SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP,

SELF-SACRIFICIAL BEHAVIOR, ORGANIZATIONAL CRISIS, ORGANIZATIONAL

UNCERTAINTY.

3 The are various examples in the press describing the behavior of top executives that either embezzled the money of their company to satisfy their personal needs or were accused of mistreatment of their colleagues and their subordinates. For instance, John Thain, CEO of Merrill Lynch, spent more than 1 million of dollars to redecorate his office while in the same time his company was on the verge of bankrupt and was discharging many people (Rus, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010). John Thain’s leadership could be characterized mainly by his desire to satisfy exclusively his personal interests and by the indifference for the needs of his subordinates and for the benefits οf his company. Research has shown that leaders who use company’s recourses for their own benefit (Aquino, & Reed, 1998) are usually less effective than those who use the resources to benefit their employees and their company (Choi, & Mai- Dalton, 1999).

When leaders use resources not to benefit themselves but instead prioritize the needs of their company and the needs of their followers could be characterized as self-sacrificial leaders. Self-sacrificial leadership can be defined as the willingness of a leader to lose various kinds of things in order to defend some values (Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999).

Of course, self-sacrificial behaviors can also be expressed by followers, by their willingness to “place themselves in a position of risk in order to obtain organizational goals” (Halverson et al, 2004, p. 265).

The importance of self-sacrificial behavior has drawn much attention recently,

whereby research has consistently shown a positive relationship between leaders’ self-

sacrifice and followers’ cooperation and performance (e.g., Choi, & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De

Cremer, & van Knippenberg, 2004; Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). More specifically,

De Cremer and van Knippenberg (2004) examined the results of self-sacrificial leadership on

employees’ behavior and found that when these leaders manage to persuade their followers

that they have mutual and collective goals, the followers are then more willing to work

4 together, to get involved in the job and in general they evaluate their leaders more favorably.

In another study, De Cremer (2006) proved that people prefer to work with leaders who are self-sacrificial than leaders who are autocratic and that these self-sacrificial leaders have a strong emotional impact on people.

Other researchers have introduced situational factors in their analysis, such as an organization crisis. An organizational crisis can be defined as a situation that poses into risk the viability of the organization and in which situation uncertainty is widespread among employees (Sommer, & Pearson, 2007). More specifically, Havelson et al (2004) found that self-sacrificial leaders who confronted with a crisis situation were considered more

charismatic by their followers. In addition, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) proposed that in a crisis situation, self-sacrificial leaders could serve as role models to show how employees could overcome it.

Despite the fact that many surveys have conducted indicating the outcomes of self- sacrificial leadership on the behavior of employees, less is known on the effects of self- sacrificial leadership on the self-sacrificial behavior of employees. Moreover, although multiple studies provided evidence that a crisis situation can affect the perceptions or behavior of followers, no study extensively investigated how a situational factor, such as an organizational crisis, can affect the willingness of employees to imitate the self-sacrificial behavior of their leaders.

For these two reasons the aim of this research paper is to investigate the relationship

between self-sacrificial leadership and the self-sacrificial behavior of employees. In addition,

I investigate organizational crisis as a specific situational factor that can affect the above

mentioned relationship. So, this paper aims to answer the following: “What are the effects of

self-sacrificial leadership on the self-sacrificial behavior of employees in periods of crisis and

in periods of non-crisis?

5 In order to answer this I will first explain the main concepts of this paper. These are:

charismatic leadership, which characterizes self-sacrificial leaders, self-sacrificial leadership, self-sacrificial behavior of employees, and organizational crisis. Then I will explain the relationships among these variables through the hypotheses that follow.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Charismatic Leadership

Charisma is a Greek word and its meaning is connected with “divinely inspired gift”

(Yukl, 2013, p. 300). Charismatic leaders have some extraordinary qualities. These extraordinary qualities are usually the result of some specific behaviors, which are quite representative of charismatic leaders. That is, charismatic leaders communicate appealing visions by expressing themselves in a strong manner. (Yukl, 2013). In addition, charismatic leaders are able to enhance the trust of their followers, they act according to their espoused values, and they have high expectations of themselves and as a consequence of their followers (Yukl, 2013). Finally, charismatic leaders are able to make their followers to identify with the group or the organization and they are willing to make personal sacrifices to achieve their goals (Yukl, 2013).

One important characteristic that makes charismatic leaders effective is that they resort to behaviors that are self-sacrificial in order to build trust between themselves and their

followers and in order to influence followers’ dedication to the company (Conger, &

Kanungo, 1987). This means that they are willing to risk or sacrifice their personal interests in

order to attain organizational goals, to protect the interests of their followers and mainly in

order to persuade followers to trust them. Especially, trust is a remarkable feeling that

charismatic leaders can cultivate to their followers because trust can have important and

determining impact on the behavior of employees. The importance of trust and its’

6 consequences will be explained later in more details.

Self-sacrificial Leadership

As mentioned above, one of the most important characteristics of charismatic leadership is self-sacrificial behavior. Self-sacrificial behavior can be defined as the willingness of someone to lose various kinds of things in order to defend some values (Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). In an organizational setting, self-sacrificial leadership can be expressed in three different ways: “in the division of labor, in the distribution of rewards and in the exercise of power” (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, p. 479).

Irrespective of how self-sacrificial leadership is expressed, the reasons that motivate leaders to self-sacrifice are quite specific. A reason that explains why leaders make self- sacrifices is their aim for reciprocity. When they do so they expect that in the future their followers will be willing to do the same (Gouldner, 1960). But in order that leaders motivate followers to reciprocate, trust is necessary. The consequences of reciprocity for followers are of especial interest in this paper and will be explained later extensively.

Another reason that might motivate leaders to self-sacrifice might be their desire to partially satisfy their own self-interests (Avolio, & Locke, 2002). Despite the fact that this could be true, in this paper I am not interested in which way leaders might make self- sacrifices in order to satisfy self-interests. Instead I focus only on their desire to make self- sacrifices in order to benefit their followers and their organization. In addition, my research is also aimed to analyze the leaders’ self-sacrifices in the distribution of rewards.

Self-sacrificial behavior of employees

Not only leaders can exert some kind of self-sacrificial behavior but employees also.

The definition of self-sacrificial behavior mentioned in the previous section can also

characterize the behavior of employees. Employees may also be willing to lose various kinds

of things in order to defend some personal values (Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). More

7 specifically, in followers the self-sacrificial behavior can be expressed by their willingness to

“place themselves in a position of risk in order to obtain organizational goals” (Halverson et al, 2004, p. 265).

It is obvious that employees can also self-sacrifice. But when is this possible to happen? That is, when and why do employees self-sacrifice? One reason that might explain employees’ willingness to self-sacrifice or to imitate leaders’ self-sacrifices is their need for reciprocity. Need for reciprocity is expressed not only in social contexts but also in

organizational ones. So, reciprocity might be one reason that explains why employees are willing to make personal self-sacrifices, when their leader does the same. Trivers (1971) supports the idea that society is based on the fundamental idea of reciprocity, by meaning that people tend to reciprocate what they receive. Reciprocity theory (Gouldner, 1960) strongly supports the idea that people feel pressure from their social environment to reciprocate as much as they receive. For this reason, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1998) suggest that self-

sacrificial leadership will create emotional and cognitive pressure in followers to reciprocate or imitate the leader’s self-sacrifices. This means that, according to the reciprocity theory, when leaders make self-sacrifices for the benefit of the organization or followers, followers will feel the need to reciprocate leader’s behavior by also making self-sacrifices for the benefit of their leader or their organization.

Another argument that supports even more the previous idea is the fact that trust can

motivate employees to self-sacrifice. Since a self-sacrificial leader is willing to sacrifice

his/her personal interests for the benefit of the organization, this leader is considered to be

more committed to the goals of the organization (Conger, & Kanungo, 1987). This means

that with respect to “Charismatic Leadership Theory”, trust to the leader is enhanced due to

his/her willingness to make personal sacrifices and due to his/her dedication to the goals of

the company (Halverson et al, 2004, p. 265). In addition as mentioned above, trust is an

8 important characteristic of the relationship between self-sacrificial leaders and followers.

Consequently, since trust is quite important, self-sacrificial leaders are able to increase the followers’ motivation to make personal sacrifices (De Cremer, 2002).

All the above mentioned information leads us to the direct relation that exists between self-sacrificial leadership and the self-sacrificial behavior of employees. The arguments explained above are enough to let me develop the basic relationship of this research topic which is the first hypothesis:

H1: The relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and the self-sacrificial behavior of employees is positively direct.

Organizational Crisis

As mentioned in the introduction one of the factors that can influence the above relationship is a crisis situation. An organizational crisis can be defined as “a low-probability, high-impact event that threatens the viability of the organization and is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect and means of resolution” (Sommer, & Pearson, 2007, p. 1235).

Respectively, when the viability of an organization is not threatened, and is not characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect and means of resolution, the organization is not confronted with a crisis situation. Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) equate a crisis situation with organizational uncertainty. When an organization is confronted with organizational uncertainty, employees express worries about whether the organization can survive or not (Choi, & Mai-Dalton, 1999).

The presence of a crisis can be quite determining for the behavior of self-sacrificial leaders. When an organization has to face an organizational crisis, its members have already realized that the conventional ways of facing difficult situations are not effective anymore.

So, the presence of a crisis gives leaders the opportunity to take on new and probably

unconventional initiatives for facing the crisis (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1992). When

9 leaders take on unconventional initiatives that turn out to be successful, followers trust them and get influenced by them even more (Shils, 1965). So, the presence of a crisis allows for unconventional ways to be used for facing the crisis and when used successfully, employees’

trust in the leaders is enhanced by. As mentioned above, since trust is enhanced by, self- sacrificial leaders are able to increase the followers’ motivation to make personal sacrifices (De Cremer, 2002).

But an organizational crisis can also influence the behavior of employees. Shamir and Howell (1999) support that under extreme conditions (such as an organizational crisis) followers prefer leaders who seem to have power, have high self-esteem and can provide a solution to the situation. Moreover, a crisis situation is usually associated with feelings of anxiety and panic, where employees prefer leaders who can show them how to handle the crisis (Hunt et al, 1999). Self-sacrificial leaders provide as a dynamic solution to the crisis the personal self-sacrifices of all. This provided solution can enhance the perceptions of followers that leaders know how to resolve the crisis. So, under a crisis situation, where followers need guidance in how to handle the crisis, the provided solution of self-sacrifices will motivate followers to adopt the solution for facing the crisis, by making self-sacrifices.

It is obvious that the presence of a crisis influences the behavior of leaders, as well as the perceptions of employees and their motivation for self-sacrifices. This can also be

demonstrated by the results in the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and the self-

sacrificial behavior of employees when an organizational crisis is not present. Choi and Mai-

Dalton (1999) suggest that when a leader has a high self-sacrificial behavior when there is no

organizational uncertainty his/her behavior will not be appreciated neither admired by his/her

followers. Consequently, it is almost impossible for this leader to motivate followers to

imitate his/her behavior. In addition, Halverson et al (2004) point out that “followers would

negatively evaluate a leader who exhibits self-sacrificial leadership when ambiguity is low”

10 (p. 66). The reason that explains this might be that self-sacrifices are usually associated with crisis situations and they are provided as a solution to a problem. When there is not an

organizational crisis such behaviors should be characterized as unnecessary and followers will not be motivated to imitate leaders’ self-sacrifices. In addition Halverson et al (2004) support that when an organization is not confronted with a crisis situation and leaders are self-

sacrificial, followers might think that leaders have personal reasons to make self-sacrifices.

Finally, a crisis can determine whether self-sacrificial behaviors are necessary or not.

Yukl (2013) suggests that charismatic leadership, as well as self sacrificial leadership implies some kind of drastic change in the philosophy of an organization. But this may not be

necessary for an organization that does not face any financial problems. This means that self- sacrificial leadership is usually effective for organizations that are confronted with situations such as an organizational crisis, where there is an urgent need for change. This is usually the case of organizations which face financial problems and seek a way to overcome them and not the case of organizations that are prosperous and where changes are unnecessary. So, when there is no crisis or organizational uncertainty the intention of leaders to persuade followers to make self-sacrifices or adopt some kind of change in their philosophy will not be welcomed.

The reason for this is that in a non-crisis situation, followers perceive no reason for change, let alone for self-sacrifices.

The importance of an organizational crisis and its effects on the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and the self-sacrificial behavior of employees can be summarized in the following hypothesis:

H2: This positive direct relationship between the self-sacrificial leadership and the self- sacrificial behavior of employees will be moderated by the situational factor of a crisis. In the case of a crisis the relationship is stronger.

The two hypotheses are illustrated in the conceptual model in Figure.

11 METHODOLOGY

Design and Participants

In order to test the hypotheses, I used a 2 (Self-sacrificial leadership: self-sacrificial vs. non self-sacrificial) by 2 (Organizational crisis: crisis vs. non-crisis) between subjects experimental design -in which 131 participants had initially taken part. All participants filled out the questionnaire online using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (for the questionnaire see Appendix A). The questionnaire took about 10 minutes to complete and participants received the compensation of €0.50 for their participation. From them, the results of 12 participants were deleted due to the fact that some answers were missing. A requirement for the

participants to take part in this research was to have some kind of work experience. So, participants without work experience were deleted from the sample. This resulted in a final sample of 119 participants of which 52.1percent was male and 47.9 percent was female. The respondents had an average age of 36.31 years (SD = 12.59). In addition, participants had an average of 16.89 years of work experience (SD = 11.58). For the means and standard

deviations see Table 1.

Experimental Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four scenario conditions.

They were first presented a scenario. The scenario described that participants were working in the customer service of a big multinational company that was producing software and that they had been working on this position for five years now. In addition, participants read that their job was to answer phone calls and e-mails of customers that have some questions about old and new products and to respond to complaints. Moreover, it was pointed out that they were very satisfied from their cooperation both with their team leader and the company.

Finally, participants read that the company recently took on a risky project and it was not sure

whether the project might have succeeded or have failed. This means that it was really

12 doubtful if old customers would consider the new software as being innovative and useful.

Then participants read one of the four different scenarios, which will be explained in the next paragraph. In all scenarios, participants were asked to make some self-sacrifices (such as working more hours or accepting a lower wage), which would last for a limited period of time. After participants read the scenario, the dependent variable was measured and the manipulation checks were assessed. Finally, the participants were thanked for their time and their participation.

Manipulations

Organizational crisis manipulation check. Organizational crisis was manipulated by

providing specific information about the outcome of the risky project the company took on.

The crisis condition was presented as follows: “The new project fails and as a consequence the financial performance of your organization radically declines. This fact poses into risk the interests of your company and as a result yours.” The scenario about the non organizational crisis experimental condition was presented as: “The new project succeeds and as a

consequence the financial performance of your organization improves. This means that there is nothing that should pose into risk the interests of your company and as a result yours”.

Self-sacrificial leadership manipulation check. After participants were informed

about the success or failure of new project, self-sacrificial leadership was manipulated. The

scenario about the self-sacrificial leader was presented as follows: “Your team leader declares

that all employees should make some self-sacrifices. In order to convince you, your team

leader declares to make more self-sacrifices than you. So, you, your colleagues, and your

team leader all contribute to this mutual effort to help the organization.” The scenario about

the non self-sacrificial leader was presented as: “Your team leader declares that all employees

should make some self-sacrifices. So, you and your colleagues all contribute to this mutual

effort to help the organization”. The manipulation of self-sacrificial leadership was based on

13 previous research of De Cremer and van Knippenberg (2004) but they were much adapted to fit the certain context.

Measures

Organizational crisis manipulation check. To test whether the manipulation of crisis

versus non crisis was successful, I asked participants “To what extent was your company in a financial crisis?”, and “To what extent does the financial situation of the company pose into risk the interests of your company?” (α = .81). The response categories varied from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

Self-sacrificial leadership manipulation check. To test whether the manipulation of

self-sacrificial leadership versus non self-sacrificial leadership was successful, participants were asked “To what extent is the behavior of your leader characterized by self-sacrificial behaviors?” In addition, they were asked to what extent the following statement represented their leader’s behavior:” My team leader is more willing than me to make self-sacrifices”

(α = .78). The response categories varied from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

Self-sacrificial behavior. Self-sacrificial behavior of the employees was measured

using a three-item scale developed by Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999). Items were adapted to fit the research context. Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they would exert a self-sacrificial behavior, by indicating how much the following items represented their behavior: “If my leader asks me to work some extra hours in order to help the financial performance of the organization I would do it”, “If my leader proposes a temporary benefit reduction from all employees to help the company, I would agree to it”, “If my leader proposes a temporary pay-cut from all employees to help the company, I would agree to it”

(α = .71). The response categories varied from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

14 RESULTS

Organizational crisis manipulation check. A T-test was conducted in order to test

whether the manipulation of the organizational crisis was successful. It yielded a significant main effect for organizational crisis. This result indicates that the participants in the

organizational crisis condition perceived more organizational crisis than participants in the non organizational crisis condition. Specifically, participants in the organizational crisis condition reported that their organization was confronted with more organizational crisis (M = 5.32, SD = 1.14), than participants in the non organizational crisis condition (M = 4.05, SD = 1.45); t (117) = 5.28, p = .00. Therefore, this manipulation was successful.

Self-sacrificial leadership manipulation check. A T-test was conducted in order to

test whether the manipulation of the self-sacrificing leadership was successful. It yielded a significant main effect for self-sacrificial leadership. This result indicates that the self- sacrificial leader was evaluated as more sacrificial than the non self-sacrificial leader.

Specifically, participants in the self-sacrificial leader condition reported that their leader self- sacrificed more (M = 5.33, SD = 1.23), than participants who were in the non self-sacrificial leader condition (M = 4.08, SD = 1.46); t (117) = 5.01, p = .00. Therefore, this manipulation was successful.

Correlations of the measures. Calculation of the correlations showed that there are

significant correlations among the dependent variable, the independent variable and the moderator. More specifically, self-sacrificial behavior correlated with the self-sacrificial leadership (r = .37, p <.01), and with the organizational crisis moderator (r = .23, p <.01). In addition, the organizational crisis moderator correlated with the self-sacrificial leadership (r = .32, p < .01). For the correlations see Table 1.

Self-sacrificial behavior. A 2 (Self-sacrificial leadership: self-sacrificial vs. non self-

sacrificial) by 2 (Organizational crisis: crisis vs. non-crisis) Univariate analysis of variance

15 (ANOVA) was conducted with self-sacrificial behavior as the dependent variable. Results showed a significant main effect of self-sacrificial behavior; F (1, 115) = 6.44, p < .05, n² = 9.96, whereby participants were showing more self-sacrificial behavior when they had a self-sacrificial leader (M = 4.72, SD = 1.18) than when they had a non-self-sacrificial leader (M = 4.14, SD = 1.29). These results are in line with Hypothesis 1. For the results of

Hypothesis 1 see Table 2.

In addition, results showed that the main effect of organizational crisis was not

significant; F (1, 115) = .28, p = .59, n² = .44. Participants were showing more self-sacrificial behavior when they had a self-sacrificial leader and their organization was confronted with an organizational crisis (M = 4.95, SD = 1.10) than when they had a non-self-sacrificial leader and their organization was confronted with an organizational crisis (M = 4.25, SD = 1.44).

Moreover, participants were showing a more self-sacrificial behavior when they had a self- sacrificial leader and their organization was not confronted with an organizational crisis (M = 4.50, SD = 1.24) than they had a non self-sacrificial leader and their organization was not confronted with an organizational crisis (M = 4.04, SD = 1.16). These results are not in line with Hypothesis 2. For the results of Hypothesis 2 see Table 3.

DISCUSSION Findings

In this research I have made two main propositions. Firstly, I proposed that there is a

positive relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and the willingness of employees to

imitate the behavior of their leaders, by making personal sacrifices. The results indicate on

average that there is indeed a positive relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and the

self-sacrificial behavior of employees. More specifically, the results showed that when

16 participants were leaded by a self-sacrificial leader, they were more willing to self-sacrifice than participants leaded by a non self-sacrificial leader.

Secondly, I proposed that there would be a moderation in the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and self-sacrificial behavior, when an organizational crisis is present. However, against the expectations, this moderation did not exist in the above

mentioned relationship. The results were the same for participants leaded by a self-sacrificial leader, as well as for participants leaded by a non self-sacrificial leader.

Theoretical Implications

The findings of the first hypothesis are in line with findings from many others researches because in my research I initially proved that the self-sacrificial leadership has positive outcomes on the behavior of employees. De Cremer (2006) also proved the positive outcomes of self-sacrificial leadership. More specifically, he proved that self-sacrificial leadership in contrary to autocratic leadership affects employees’ emotions and willingness to cooperate with the leader. Moreover, De Cremer and van Knippenberg (2004) provided evidence that leader’s self-confidence has a great impact on followers’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness and charisma.

But the findings for the first hypothesis are also in line with the findings from Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999). Their research proved that when employees are leaded by a self- sacrificial leader, they have a tendency to reciprocate leader’s behavior. Reciprocity behavior can be defined as “returning help, benefit, kindness, favor, etc. to the donor in similar

magnitude and quality” (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999, p. 402). The main difference with my study is that I focused on the self-sacrificial behavior of employees which is the willingness of someone to lose various kinds of things in order to defend some values (Yorges, Weiss, &

Strickland, 1999).The reciprocity behavior does not entail the willingness of someone to lose

various kinds of things, so it does not entail any kind of risk. But instead, it only focuses on

17 the willingness of someone to reciprocate good behaviors. For these reasons, my research provides the first experimental evidence that the self-sacrifices of the leader will motivate followers to make personal self-sacrifices.

The findings of the second hypothesis are also in line with findings from Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999). Their research also failed to prove that a situational factor such as

organizational uncertainty would influence the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and reciprocity. Moreover, Halverson et al (2004) also failed to prove that a crisis situation can moderate the positive relationship between organizational commitment and self-sacrificial leadership. The reasons for failing to prove the moderation of organizational crisis can be various and will be explained in the next section.

Limitations and Future Research

Of course, this study is not flawless. Despite the fact that the manipulation of crisis was successful, it could have been even more successful if some important issues had been considered. In the Theory Section I mentioned that self-sacrifices are usually related to crisis situations. But, not only participants in the crisis situations were asked to make personal sacrifices, but also participants in the non crisis situation. This fact should have led

participants in the non crisis experimental condition to perceive at least some degree of crisis even when an organizational crisis was not present.

For this reason, I propose for future research that it should be clearer to participants confronted with a non crisis situation that self-sacrifices are not at all associated with

organizational crisis. If this had been taken into account, probably the moderation of crisis on the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and the self-sacrificial behavior would have been proven.

Despite the fact that I found significant results about the relationship between self-

sacrificial leadership and the self-sacrificial behavior of employees, the results might be even

18 more significant in the two following cases. As I have mentioned in the Theory Section, trust to the leader is an important prerequisite for followers to self-sacrifice. The information provided in all scenarios might not be sufficient to make followers feel that they can trust their leader.

Another reason that might not have motivated followers to self-sacrifice more is the motives of leaders. As mentioned in the Theory Section, leaders do not always have altruistic motives. This means that it also possible that leaders might make personal sacrifices due to their desire to partially satisfy their own self-interests. Despite the fact that the aim of this paper was to focus on the altruistic motives of leaders, it is not sure whether or not

participants believed that the leader made self-sacrifices with aim to benefit followers or the organization and not in order to satisfy personal reasons and interests.

Concerning the intentions of leaders, I propose for future research that it should be pointed out that leaders’ motives are altruistic. It should be clear that leaders do not aim to have personal gains and they will not later be benefited by the self-sacrifices. This is also the case with trust in leader. More information should be provided so that participants would trust the leader more. These two solutions should motivate followers for additional self-sacrifices.

But, it might also be interesting for future research to manipulate trust in leader and/or perception of employees about leaders’ motives.

Since my survey was conducted through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, only American employees were able to take part in my experiment. So the results are representative of the behavior of American employees. If my survey had been conducted in another country, the results might be different. This argument is enhanced by the findings of a survey that Choi (2003) conducted. He tested the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and

reciprocity in America and Korea. The questionnaire filled was the same for both American

and Korean participants. Despite the fact that he found that self-sacrificial leadership was

19 influential on American participants’ willingness to reciprocate, this was not the case for Korean participants.

It is obvious that a limitation of my research is the fact that only participants from America participated. So, the results in the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and participants’ willingness for sacrifices would be totally different if the survey had conducted in a different country. For this reason, I propose that in order that the results of a research should be more reliable, participants from different countries should take part.

Moreover, in the Theory Section I made clear that I would analyze self-sacrificial leadership in the distribution of rewards. Self-sacrificial leadership can also be expressed in the “exercise of power, and in the division of labor” (Choi, & Mai-Dalton, 1998, p. 479).

Probably the results might not be the same if the leader were willing not to make use of his/her resources in order to benefit his/her followers and his/her organization. Respectively, the results might be different if the leader were willing to take on risky tasks or

responsibilities in part of his/her employees.

For this reason, for a survey to be more complete, I propose that the self-sacrificial leadership should not only be expressed in the distribution of rewards, but also in the exercise of power and in the division of labor. So, self-sacrificial leadership should be more directly perceived by participants and they might be even more willing to make additional self- sacrifices.

To conclude, I consider that the fact that leaders’ self-sacrifices and a crisis situation might be perceived differently by different participants should be taken into account. A new survey should seriously consider the differences that exist between collectivistic and

individualistic societies. This means that the self-sacrifices of a leader might be more

appreciated in a collectivistic society than in an individualistic one. In addition, in a

20 collectivistic society, employees should be more willing to make personal sacrifices than in an individualistic one.

Moreover, a new survey should also consider how employees in different societies perceive a crisis situation. This means that in a country that has faced many crises in the past, employees perceive more seriously and alarmingly a crisis situation because they have faced similar situations in the past. So, this fact might influence their willingness for additional self- sacrifices. In contrary, in societies where crises are a rare phenomenon, employees might not be alarmed to make personal self-sacrifices because they might perceive a crisis as a

temporary phenomenon.

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

I found that that the willingness of employees to risk their interests and make personal sacrifices to benefit their followers or their organization will also motivate followers to make self-sacrifices. Furthermore, I found that this relationship will not be strengthened by the presence of an organizational crisis.

An important contribution of this research is that it proves that self-sacrificial

leadership is not only appreciated by followers but it can also elicit similar behaviors on part of employees. Organizations should be aware of this fact. So, I propose that when

organizations have to implement changes in their policies, which changes demand from

employees to make some kind of sacrifices, it is highly recommended for organizations to

demand first from their leaders to do the same or even more self-sacrifices. In this way leaders

should act as role models for employees. When leaders are not interested only in protecting

their personal interest and benefits, employees appreciate the good intentions and altruistic

motives of their leaders. In this way, employees perceive that there is equity and transparency

21

in the organization and they are willing to reciprocate this behavior by making personal self-

sacrifices.

22 REFERENCES

Aquino, K.., & Reed, A., II. (1998). A social dilemma perspective on cooperative behavior in organizations: the effects of scarcity, communication, and unequal access on the use of a shared resource. Group and Organization Management, 23, 390−413.

Avolio, B.J., & Locke, E.E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation:

Altruism versus egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 170-171.

Choi, Y. (2003). Self-sacrificial Leadership: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Implications.

Korean Social Science Journal, 30(1), 142-145.

Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R.R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 479.

Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R.R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical test. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 399-407.

Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.

De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership

effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 140-152.

De Cremer, D. (2002). Charismatic leadership and cooperation in social dilemmas: a matter of transforming motives? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 997-1016.

De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79-83.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 2(5), 161-178.

23 Halverson, K.S., Holladay, C.L., Kazama, S.M., & Quiñones, M.A. (2004). Self-sacrificial

behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and situational factors.

Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 264-272.

House, R. J., & Howell, J.M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 82-83.

Hunt, J.G., Boal, K.B, & Dodge, G.E. (1999). The Effects of Visionary and Crisis-Responsive Charisma on Followers: An Experimental Examination of Two Kinds of Charismatic Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 423–448.

Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, D. (2010). Leader power and leader self-serving behavior: The role of effective leadership beliefs and performance information.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 922-923.

Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M. (1999). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577–594.

Shils, E.A. (1965). Charisma, order and status. American Sociological Review, 30, 199–213.

Sommer, A., & Pearson, C.M. (2007). Antecedents of creative decision making in organizational crisis: A team-based simulation Original Research Article Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(8), 1235.

Trivers, R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.

Yorges, S.L., Weiss, H.M., & Strickland, O.J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 427-429.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8

edition). New York: Pearson.

24 Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations of Dependent and Independent Variables and Moderator

Correlations

Variable M SD (2) (3)

Self-sacrificial behavior (1) 4.43 1.27 .37** .23**

Self-sacrificial leadership (2) 4.70 1.48 - .32**

Organizational crisis (3) 4.67 1.45 -

Age 36.31 12.59

Years of work experience 16.89 11.58

Note: *Significant at the p < .01

25 Table 2

Univariate F of self-sacrificial behavior as a function of self-sacrificial leadership

Note: *Significant at the p < .01

df F η2 p

Self-sacrificial behavior 1 6.44 9.96 .01*

26 Table 3

Univariate F of self-sacrificial behavior as a function of self-sacrificial leadership, moderated by the organizational crisis.

df F η2 p

Self-sacrificial behavior 1 .28 .44 .59

27 FIGURE

Conceptual Model for Hypotheses 1 & 2

Self-Sacrificial Leadership Self-Sacrificial Behavior Organizational crisis

H2

H1

28 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear participant, welcome to this study on employment behavior. We really appreciate that you are willing to take part in our study. The purpose of this study is to gain more insight in the potential behavior of employees. The study will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. On the screens that follow you will be firstly asked a number of general questions about yourself and then you will be presented a scenario and asked to answer some questions.

Please proceed to the next page to start with the study.

o Please read the instructions carefully on each screen.

o The following statements represent behaviors that you may or may not exhibit in your everyday life in as well as in your work environment.

o There are not right or wrong responses, so please be open and honest.

You are now presented a scenario. Try as much as possible to emphasize with the situation and respond as you would do in real life if you were in this situation. Please read the information carefully. You will be asked some questions about it afterwards.

Imagine that you work in the customer service sector of a big multinational company that produces software. You have been in this position for five years now.

Your job is to answer phone calls and e-mails of customers that have some questions about old and new products and to respond to complaints. Furthermore, once a year you need to organize a big research to identify how you and the company could improve customer satisfaction.

Your job is highly dependent on your excellent communication skills, your patience and your

ability to understand what customers really want. Your high performance is the result of your

high skills and abilities.

29 Your job is quite demanding because you have to handle many different and unpredictable situations every day. Until now you are very satisfied with the company for which you work.

SCENARIO 1(SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP+CRISIS SITUATION)

The new project fails and as a consequence the financial performance of your organization radically declines. This fact poses into risk the interests of your company and as a result yours.

For this reason your team leader asks you, as well as your colleagues, to make some self- sacrifices (such as working more hours or accepting a lower wage). By this means, you, as a team, all together help the organization to overcome this situation. These self-sacrifices will only last for a limited period of time.

Your team leader declares that all employees should make some self-sacrifices. In order to convince you, your team leader declares to make more self-sacrifices than you. So, you, your colleagues, and your team leader all contribute to this mutual effort to help the organization.

SCENARIO 2 (NON SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP+CRISIS SITUATION)

The new project fails and as a consequence the financial performance of your organization radically declines. This fact poses into risk the interests of your company and as a result yours.

For this reason your team leader asks you, as well as your colleagues, to make some self-

sacrifices (such as working more hours or accepting a lower wage). By this means, you, as a

team, all together help the organization to overcome this situation. These self-sacrifices will

only last for a limited period of time.

30 Your team leader declares that all employees should make some self-sacrifices. So, you and your colleagues all contribute to this mutual effort to help the organization.

SCENARIO 3 (SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP+NON CRISIS SITUATION)

The new project succeeds and as a consequence the financial performance of your

organization improves. This means that there is nothing that should pose into risk the interests of your company and as a result yours.

But due to the fact that the company took on a very risky project, spending much money on it, your team leader asks you, as well as your colleagues, to make some self-sacrifices (such as working more hours or accepting a lower wage). By this means, you, as a team, all together help the organization to overcome this situation. These self-sacrifices will only last for a limited period of time.

Your team leader declares that all employees should make some self-sacrifices. In order to convince you, your team leader declares to make more self-sacrifices than you. So, you, your colleagues, and your team leader all contribute to this mutual effort to help the organization.

SCENARIO 4 (NON SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP+NON CRISIS SITUATION)

The new project succeeds and as a consequence the financial performance of your

organization improves. This means that there is nothing that should pose into risk the interests of your company and as a result yours.

But due to the fact that the company took on a very risky project, spending much money on it,

your team leader asks you, as well as your colleagues, to make some self-sacrifices (such as

31 working more hours or accepting a lower wage). By this means, you, as a team, all together help the organization to overcome this situation. These self-sacrifices will only last for a limited period of time.

Your team leader declares that all employees should make some self-sacrifices. So, you and your colleagues all contribute to this mutual effort to help the organization.

Please answer the following questions, by indicating how much the following statements represent your behavior.

If my leader asks me to work some extra hours in order to help the financial performance of the organization I would do it.

If my leader proposes a temporary benefit reduction from all employees to help the company, I would agree to it.

If my leader proposes a temporary pay-cut from all employees to help the

company, I would agree to it.

32 You are now asked some general questions.

To what extent was your company in a financial crisis?

To what extent does the financial situation of the company pose into risk the interests of your company?

My team leader is more willing than me to make self-sacrifices.

To what extent is the behavior of your leader characterized by self-sacrificial behaviors?

Please answer the following questions about yourself.

What is your age?

What is your gender?

How many years of total work experience do you have?