MODERATING ROLE OF CORE SELF-EVALUATIONS
Master Thesis, MScBA, specialization Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 18th, 2013
LIESBETH VAN DER MEER
Studentnumber: 1688618
Gedempte Gracht 22
1506 CG Zaandam
e.m.h.van.der.meer@student.rug.nl
Supervisor/university
prof. dr. J.I. Stoker
Second Assessor
THE EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENTAL FEEDBACK ON LEADER BEHAVIOR AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF CORE SELF-EVALUATIONS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore first the effect of developmental feedback on leadership behavior, and second the role that core self-evaluations play in behavioral change after development feedback. Hypotheses were assessed in a large retail organization using a longitudinal pre-experimental, one group pretest-posttest design (n = 249). Results demonstrated that leadership behaviors on which feedback was provided all significantly improved (i.e. 5 transformational leadership dimensions, participative, and ethical leadership). Moreover, two additional leadership behavior on which no feedback was provided to managers also improved, suggesting that the provision of feedback on specific behaviors does not make a difference. However, due to methodological limitations this conclusion cannot be drawn. Furthermore, results showed that only improvement of the transformational leadership dimension ‘providing an appropriate model’ correlated with core self-evaluations. Therefore, this study provides only little evidence to support that core self-evaluations relate to behavioral improvement after development feedback.
INTRODUCTION
This study contributes to the current research by investigating two unexplored entities that might be of influence in the relationship between developmental feedback and behavioral improvement. First, this study investigates the effect of developmental feedback on transformational leadership, participative leadership, and ethical leadership. Previous research has mainly explored the effect of feedback on an average aggregated overall score of effective leadership (e.g. Atwater et al. 2000; Walker & Smither, 1999; Johnson & Fersti, 1999) and thereby ignoring the role of the content of feedback (Hezlett, 2008). However it is likely that certain leadership styles are easier to develop as opposed to other following a feedback intervention. For instance, a study by Seifert and Yukl (2003) concerning influence tactics showed a significant increase in the use of consultation and collaboration, and no significant increase for inspirational appeal (appealing to the person’s values, ideals and emotions). Furthermore, Dai, De Meuse, and Peterson (2010) found that difficulty of the leadership competence (i.e. index based on complexity of skills involved, experience requirements beliefs -e.g. attitudes, values and opinions-, cognitive complexity, emotional involvement and human make-up) was negatively related to improvement. Hence, this research explores the effect of feedback on a variety of leadership behaviors.
researchers (Day & Sin, 2011; Walker et al., 2010) suggested that core self-evaluation may also influence the extent of leadership behavioral improvement, however this is not empirically proven. Therefore this study aims to provide empirical evidence for this assumed relationship.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Central to this study is the effect of developmental feedback on leadership behavior. First, developmental feedback will be discussed. Subsequently, the effect of developmental feedback on leader behavior will be described and corresponding hypotheses will be introduced. Finally, the moderating role of core self-evaluations of behavioral improvement after developmental feedback will be discussed.
Developmental Feedback
feedback is performance-improvement and feedback is mainly focused on specific job tasks. In contrast, the goal of development feedback is self-improvement, and feedback is person-focused and often includes preferences, personal characteristics and interpersonal styles. Additionally, in contrast to performance feedback, development feedback does not incorporate a performance standard or set goal (Blair, 2008) and leaders are often not held accountable for performance improvements (Bono & Colbert, 2005). Finally, developmental feedback differs from performance feedback with regards to the feedback type. According to Atwater, Waldman, and Brett, (2002), three main types of feedback can be distinguished. These are feedback provided by: superiors only, subordinates (upward), and multiple sources (360-degree feedback). Herewith, they argue that multisource and upward feedback mainly focuses on leadership behavior/performance and often constitutes a developmental purpose, whereas performance appraisal feedback, focused on the task is usually provided by the superior. Additionally, Ryan et al. (2000) remark that developmental feedback in management developmental programs can also be provided by strangers (external training programs) or indirect collegues (some assesment centres). While previous research concerning developmental feedback in the context of leader development has mainly explored the effect of upward or multisource feedback (e.g. Seifert & Yukl), this study will focus on these types of feedback when reviewing the literature.
Effect of Developmental Feedback on Leadership Behavior
individuals use feedback to assess their performance relative to the goal or standard (Kluger & Denisi, 1996). In turn, control theory suggests that if individuals become aware of discrepancies between actual performance and the goal or standard individuals become motivated to reduce this discrepancy. Similar, goal theory suggests that if individuals become aware of discrepancies, individuals will be motivated to regulate their behavior to improve their performance. Traditionally, in performance feedback, the discrepancy represents the difference between the actual level of performance and a preset performance norm. With regards to developmental feedback the discrepancy entails the gap between the leader’s own perception of his performance and the feedback provided by others. Subsequent to identifying the discrepancy, leaders can react in four different ways according to feedback intervention theory. They can reduce the discrepancy by changing behavior, changing the standard or goal, abandoning the standard, or finally rejecting the feedback (Kluger & Denisi, 1996). Accordingly, Kluger and Denisi (1996) suggested that how individuals reacts depends on moderators such as feedback, task and individual characteristics.
Overall, Smither, et al. (2005) found in their meta-analysis, empirical evidence that multisource and upward feedback with a developmental purpose resulted in small improvements (i.e. average effect size was .25). In line with this finding, it is expected that developmental feedback will results in behavioral improvements. Contrarily, it is expected if no developmental feedback is provided, no behavioral improvements will occur.
To investigate behavioral improvement after development feedback, this study explored behavioral change of three leadership behavioral styles1: transformational leadership (i.e. articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, providing individual support, and providing intellectual stimulation), participative
1 The current study explored the improvement of leadership behaviors that were included in the case study’s
leadership and ethical leadership. Moreover, this study explored behavioral change in two additional leadership behaviors (i.e. communicating high performance expectations and transactional contingent reward) on which no feedback is provided. In the following paragraph, these styles will be shortly discussed and corresponding hypotheses are introduced.
feelings and needs”. Finally, intellectual stimulation reflects “Behavior on the part of the leader that challenges followers to re-examine some of their assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Multiple studies (e.g. Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Parry & Sinha, 2005; Kelloway, Barling, & Helleur, 2000) have provided evidence that transformational leadership can be taught. Moreover, results of a study by Kelloway et al., (2000) has shown that solely the use of feedback resulted in enhanced transformational behavior. Based on the latter it is expected that transformational leadership behaviors will improve after developmental feedback.
Hypothesis 1a. Transformational leadership behaviors ( i.e. articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, providing individual support, and providing intellectual stimulation ) will improve after developmental feedback.
effective leadership score (e.g. Smither, et al., 1995). The hypothesis below is based on the fact that in general leaders improve their behavior after receiving developmental feedback.
Hypothesis 1b. Participative leadership behaviors will improve after developmental feedback.
Ethical leadership behavior. Ethical leadership is defined by Brown, Treviño, and Harrison (2005) as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate (e.g. honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and care) conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making”. Ethical leadership behaviors include demonstrating integrity and high standards, considerate and fair treatment of employees, and holding employees accountable for ethical conduct (Brown et al., 2005). According to Treviño, Hartman, and Brown (2000), to be perceived as an ethical leader, managers should have a reputation of being a moral person (e.g. honest and trustworthy) and moral manager (i.e. role model for ethical conduct, communicating regularly about ethics and values, using reward systems to hold people accountable to values and standards).
Furthermore, May, Hodges, Chan, and Avolio (2003) suggests that moral capacity (i.e. ability to see their role as including an ethical responsibility to their stakeholders) can be enhanced by self-awareness and self-reflection. Therefore, they propose that leaders should be exposed to discussion and self-reflection about the role of leaders in organizations and the moral responsibilities associated with their actions. Based on the above, it is expected that ethical leadership can be developed by enhancing the leader’s self-awareness concerning ethical behavior. In turn, as developmental feedback enhances self-awareness it is expected that developmental feedback concerning ethical behavior will results in ethical leadership behavioral improvement. Therefore it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1c: Ethical leadership behaviors will improve after developmental feedback.
Finally, it is expected that leadership behavior will not improve in the absence of feedback. Therefore two additional leadership behaviors were included in this study, respectively transformational leadership (i.e. communicating high performance expectations), and transactional contingent reward leadership behavior. Transactional contingent reward is herewith defined as a leader that “contracts exchanges of rewards for effort, promises rewards for good performance, [and] recognizes accomplishments” (Bas, 1990).
Hypothesis 1d. Transformational leadership behavior ( i.e. communicating high performance expectations) and transactional contingent reward will not improve if no development
Moderating Role of Core self-evaluations
Core self-evaluations are defined as “a basic fundamental appraisal of one’s worthiness, effectiveness, and capability as a person” (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). This personality concept was first introduced in 1997 by Judge, Locke, and Durham and represents a broad latent construct consisting of four core personality traits: self esteem, generalized-self efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. Self-esteem is the overall evaluation of one’s worth (Rosenberg, 1965). Generalized self-efficacy refers to the beliefs about one’s own capabilities of performing well across a variety of situations (Locke, McClear, & Knight, 1996) Locus of control represents the beliefs that one’s events in life are determined by factors internal or external to themselves. Herewith, a person is considered to have an internal locus of control if individuals perceive events as contingent to their own behavior. In contrast, a person has an external locus of control if this individual perceives events as beyond his/her control (Rotter, 1966). Finally neuroticism (or emotional stability) represents the tendency to focus on negative aspects of the self (Watson, 2000 in Judge et al., 2003). According to Judge et al. (2003), individuals with high core self-evaluations possess high levels of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy and emotional stability (low neuroticism), and have an internal locus of control, resulting from a broad, general high positive self-regard.
antecedent of behavioral change, core self-evaluations might also have a positive influence on subsequent behavioral change after feedback. In line with this, Heslin and Latham (2004) found that the underlying subtrait self-efficacy moderated behavioral improvement following upward feedback.
Additionally, core self-evaluations were positively linked to learning goal orientation, commitment to goal pursuits, and setting challenging goals (Chang, Lance Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012), which in turn may promote behavioral improvement after feedback. For instance Day and Sin (2011) argue that individual learning goal orientation is linked to perceiving feedback as instructive instead of threatening, and having a heigthened motivation to grow en develop.
Furthermore, Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller (2011) suggests that individuals with a high core self- evaluations will be more able to use feedback effectively as they are probably more secure in the face of criticism. Additionally, Bono and Colbert (2005) suggests that individuals with high core self-evaluations are likely to hold more positive outcome expectations when faced with negative or discrepant feedback as opposed to individuals with low core self-evaluations. In turn, based on Carver’s control theory (1979), they note that individuals with positive outcome expectancies will put greater effort and try to improve performance.
are high on core self-evaluations are self-confident) resist coaching and feedback. While it is important to notify this possible negative effect of extremely high core self-evaluations, one should consider the size of the group of leaders with such high ratings. Since no previous research has been conducted in this area, the hypothesis below is based on the empirical evidence discussed above (e.g. Bono & Colbert, 2005; Heslin & Latham, 2004) Hence, it is expected that core self-evaluations are positively related to the (positive)change in leadership behavior after developmental feedback.
Hypothesis 2. Core self-evaluations are positively related to positive leadership behavioral change after development feedback.
Figure 1 below illustrates the expected realtionships between the concepts described above.
---
Insert Figure 1 around here
---
METHOD
Sample and Procedures
managers were obliged to participate in a leadership development program to enhance effective leadership. This study’s sample consisted of store managers who participated two times in a multisource feedback assessment as part of the leadership development program. The first assessment will be referred to as time 1 and the second, twelve months later as time 2. At time 1, 558 store managers were invited to participate in the multi-source feedback assessment. The multi-source feedback assessment was first announced through company-emails and general meetings. Thereafter, store managers received an email with an invitation to the assessment and additional information and instructions. The instructions included a list with randomly selected direct subordinates (ranging from 2 to 14 depending on store size), which the store managers had to insert into an online program. Hereafter, the store managers and subordinates received an email with an invitation to participate and a link to an online survey. At time 2 (12 months after time 1), 597 store managers were again invited to participate in a multi-source feedback assessment following the same procedure as at time 1.
age of store managers was 45,25 years (sd = 8, 76 years). 87,1 % were male. The mean functional tenure was 11,74 years (sd =9 years). At time 1 store managers were rated on their leadership behaviors on average by 6,79 subordinates (sd = 1,58) and at time 2 by 7,23 subordinates (sd = 2,28). In total, 1691 subordinate ratings at time 1 and 1801 subordinates ratings at time 2 were included in this study.
Measures
Leadership behaviors. Managers were rated on their leadership behaviors by randomly selected direct subordinates at time 1 and time 2. These ratings were subsequently aggregated to the store manager’s level of analysis. All items were rated on a five-point Likert-scale varying from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
expectations = .87 at time 1 and .85 at time 2; providing individualized support = .77 at time 1 and .80 at time 2; and intellectual stimulation = .94 at time 1 and .93 at time 2.
Participative leadership was measured using three items adopted from De Poel et al. (2011) using a 5-point likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Items include: “my leader consults with us even on important business”, “my leader acts without consulting his/her team members” (R) and “my leader gives his/her team members enough responsibility”. Cronbach’s Alpha was .69 at time 1 and .71 at time 2.
Ethical leadership was measured using nine items adopted from Brown et al. (2005) 10-item scale. The tenth item (i.e. “When making decision, asks: what is the right thing to do?”) was excluded due to a measurement error at time 2. Two examples of the items were: “Listens to what employees have to say” and “Can be trusted”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.90 at time 1 and 0.93 at time 2.
Transactional leadership behavior was measured using the 5-item measure of Podsakoff et al. (1990) of contingent reward behavior. Two sample items were: “Always gives me positive feedback when I perform well” and “Commends me when I do a better than average job”. Cronbach’s alpha was .95 at time 1 and .96 at time 2.
The Feedback Intervention
Over a period of 14 months, approximately 750 managers participated in the development program. The program was compulsory and consisted of an introductory day, followed by a multi-source feedback assessment, 3 leadership development days and concluded with a follow-up multi-source feedback assessment. In addition to the official program, managers were encouraged to organize extra meetings with their colleagues to discuss their experiences and learning’s.
Feedback report. In the multisource feedback assessments managers were rated by themselves, their superior and their direct reports on numerous statements regarding leadership behaviors and personality characteristics. Of these statements, 25 concerning leadership behavior with regards to identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, providing individual support, providing intellectual stimulation, participative leadership, and ethical leadership were fed back. These 25 statement were presented in a personalized report, which was sent to the managers in confident by e-mail. Out of the other statements measured during the assessment, a selection was used for the analyses of leadership behavioral change of behaviors that were not fed back.
Data Analysis
was therefore decided to drop item 16 and 19, as it was believed that the remaining items 17 and 18 still provided a good measure for providing individualized support.
RESULTS
Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations of variables under study for time 1 and time 2 are presented in table 1.
Hypothesis 1a to c stated that transformational leadership (i.e. identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, providing individual support, providing intellectual stimulation), participative leadership, and ethical leadership behaviors would improve after developmental feedback. Results as shown in table 2 of a two-tailed paired t-test as used by Atwater, Roush, and Fischthal (1995), and Heslin and Latham (2004) revealed that all behaviors have significantly improved after developmental feedback. Hence, hypothesis 1a to c is supported. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of the improved leadership behaviors ranged from .14 to .41, which indicates that the magnitude of improvement ranged from fairly small to fairly moderate (Cohen, 1988: 0,2 = small, 0,5 = moderate, 0,8 = large). Herewith, the effect size was largest for providing intelectual stimulation and participative leadership and smallest for providing individual support and providing an appropriate model.
hypothesis 1d is rejected.
Hypothesis 2 stated that core self-evaluations would be positively related to positive leadership behavioral change after developmental feedback. In line with similar research (Atwater & Brett, 2006; Walker et al., 2010) behavioral change was assessed using residual change scores. This approach has been advocated in literature as these scores are independent from the pre-measure (as opposed to difference scores), but still describe the direction and relative magnitude of change (Robins, Fraley, & Krueger, 2007: 528). Residual change scores were obtained on each behavioral dimension by regressing time 2 scores onto time 1 scores. Subsequently, bivariate correlations between the residual change scores and core self-evaluations were calculated. Table 3 shows these correlations. As can be seen, only the residual change scores of ‘providing an appropriate model’ correlated significantly to core self-evaluations (r = .12, p < .05). This implies that leaders with high core self-evaluations improved more with regards to ‘providing an appropriate model’ after developmental feedback, as opposed to leaders with low core self-evaluations.
--- Insert Table 1,2 and 3 around here
---
DISCUSSION
self-ratings on core self-evaluations and two administrations of subordinate self-ratings on manager’s leadership behaviors over a period of one year were analyzed.
Primarily, results of this study showed significant improvement of leadership behavior over a period of one year following a leadership development intervention. In this way, the current study supports previous research (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009) showing that leadership behaviors can be improved through developmental efforts. Furthermore, this study extends the current body of research by providing evidence that specific behaviors such as ethical leadership can be developed.
feedback. Therefore, the measured improvements are a results of both the feedback and leadership development days. This prohibits the conclusion to accept all hypotheses regarding the effect of feedback, as an isolated mechanism on leadership behaviors.
Furthermore, there may be limited discriminant validity (Hezlett, 2008) between behaviors that were fed back and not fed back in this study. For instance table 1 shows moderate internal correlations between transactional leadership and the fed back leadership behaviors at time 2 (r = .59 - .70). Therefore it might be possible, that when providing developing feedback on these leadership behaviors, the other two leadership behaviors were also indirectly influenced. Taken together, no conclusions can be drawn concerning the isolated effect of developmental feedback on leadership behaviors.
importance for transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000; Bass,1990), ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006), and leadership in general (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). With regards to the specific transformational leadership dimensions, previous research linking core self evaluations (Hu, Wang, Liden, & Sun, 2012) or neuroticism (Bono & Judge, 2004) to transformational leadership revealed no notable differences of strength of this relationship between the dimensions. Thus, no clear explanation can be provided why only improvement of ‘providing an appropriate model’ correlated to core self-evaluations.
Furthermore, when interpreting the results it should be taken into considerations that there is a slight possibility that the correlation found is a result of chance. Namely, the expected number of correlations that is expected due to chance at a significance level of .05 is .35. Taken together, this study showed only little evidence to support the hypothesis 2. These findings are similar to a study by Walker, et al. (2010), who found little to no evidence to support that the big five personality traits were systematically related to improvement in multisource feedback.
individuals with low core self-evaluations were most committed to goals after feedback when ratings of self and others were in agreement. Taken together, the relationship between core self-evaluations and behavioral improvement after feedback may be more complex than hypothesized in the current study.
Limitations
In addition to the limitations mentioned in the previous section, some further limitations of this study need to be noted.
First, this study used a pre-experimental, one group pretest-posttest design. With this design it cannot be verified that behavioral change was a direct result of the feedback intervention as no control group was used. Leadership behaviors could also have been effected by other factors such as additional occurring events, maturation as a function of passing time, or the effect of testing (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Particularly, as mentioned above, it is likely that the changes in leadership behaviors were partly caused by the coaching sessions that the store managers participated in. Additionally, observed statistical changes in behaviors could also have been caused by regression to the mean (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). However, this effect may be limited while participants were not selected for their extreme values (e.g. poor performing managers).
potential to improve (Seifert & Yukl, 2003). In the latter cases, this may jeopardize the internal validity.
Finally, a possible limitation of this study is that core self-evaluations (measured at time 2) could have been influenced by the feedback intervention. Although, the majority of literature has regarded core self-evaluations as a stable trait (Nübold, Muck, & Maier, 2013), research by Schinkel, Van Dierendonck, and Anderson (2004) showed that feedback negatively influenced the level of core self-evaluations.
Future Research
The results of the current study are limited due to several methodological limitations. To enhance methodological strength, future research should investigate the hypotheses in this study using a 2 (feedback) x 2 (training/development days) design as described by Kelloway, Barling, & Helleur, 2000. Herewith, conclusions can be drawn related to the isolated effect of developmental feedback on leadership behaviors, and additionally the isolated effect of training.
development days). Further research should extend the current by exploring the ability to develop additional specific leadership styles, behaviors or skills that have been regarded as effective and advocated to adopt. Furthermore, future research should investigate which developmental methods (e.g. feedback, executive coaching, simulation, etc.) are most appropriate and effective to develop and improve specific behaviors.
Finally, future research should extend the current by investigating the relationship between core self-evaluations and behavioral improvement following feedback. As described above (page 22), this relationship may be more complex than hypothesized in the current study. Therefore further research is advised to investigate this relationship.
Practical Implications
Previous research has provided evidence that feedback interventions results on average in small performance/behavioral improvement (Kluger & Denisi, 1996; Smither et al., 2005). Results of the current study supports this and provides additional encouraging initial evidence that specific leadership behaviors can be developed through development efforts. As organizational aim to develop effective leadership as a mean to increase their competitive advantage, it is therefore useful to invest in developmental efforts such as developmental feedback interventions. Here, organizations should consider factors that play a role in behavioral improvement after developmental feedback, such as characteristics of the feedback, initial reactions to feedback, recipient’s goal orientation and personality, beliefs about change, perceived need for change, goal setting, and taking action (Smither et al., 2005).
REFERENCES
Atwater, L. E., & Brett, J. F. (2006). 360-degree feedback to leaders Does it relate to changes in employee attitudes? Group & organization management, 31(5), 578-600.
Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., & Charles, A. C. (2007). Multisource feedback, lessons learned and implications for practice. Human Resource Management, 46(2), 285–307.
Atwater, L. E., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, 35–59.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., & Brett, J. F. (2002). Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback. Human Resource Management, 41(2), 193–208.
Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 764–784.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes:A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827-832.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: The Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects on traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1773-1801.
Blair, C. A. (2008). A dispositional model of leader development: the role of core self-evaluations, narcissism, and goal-orientation . PhD diss., University of Tennessee.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901–910.
Bono, Y. E., & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multisource-feedback: the role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychology(58), 171-203.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical Leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583-616.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Chang, C., Lance Ferris, D., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core Self-Evaluations : A Review and Evaluation of the Literature. Journal of Management, 38(1), 81-128.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., & Peterson, C. (2010). Impact of multi-source feedback on leadership competency development:A longitudinal field study. Journal of Managerial Issues, XXII(2), 197-219.
Day, D. V. (2001). Leader development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.
Day, D. V., & Sin, H. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 545-560.
De Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & van der Zee, K. I. (2012). Climate control? The relationship between leadership, climate for change, and work outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(3), 694-713.
Delmhorst, F. P. (2006). Self-awareness and leadership development: examining the impact of self subordinate agreement on perceptions of leadership. Dissertation Abstract International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 67(3-B), 1739.
Fulmer, R. M., & Goldsmith, M. (2001). The leadership investment: How the world's best organizations gain strategic advantage through leadership development. New York: AMACOM.
Funderburg, S. A., & Levy, P. E. (1997). The influence of individual and contextual variables on 360-Degree feedback system attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 22(2), 210-235.
Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. The leadership quarterly, 22, 495-509.
Heslin, P. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The effect of upward feedback on managerial behavior. Applied psychology: an international review, 53(1), 23-37.
Hezlett, S. A. (2008). Using multisource feedback to develop leaders: applying theory and research to improve practice. Advances in developing human resources, 10, 703-720.
Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(1).
Hu, J., Wang, Z., Liden, R. C., & Sun, J. (2012). The influence of leader core self-evaluation on follower reports of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 860-868.
Jerković-Ćosić, K. (2012). The Relation between Profession Development and Job (Re)Design: The Case of Dental Hygiene in the Netherlands. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review(21), 331-341.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluation scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradig. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855-875.
Kail, E. G. (2007). Does personality predict perceived performance chnage following a leadership development intervention? Unpublished dissertation. North Caroline State University.
Kelloway, K. E., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000). Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles of training and feedback. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 145 - 149.
Kluger, N. A., & Denisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E., McClear, K., & Knight. (1996). Self-esteem and work. International review of industrial and organizational psychology(11), 1-32.
Maurer, T. J., Barbeite, F. G., & Mitchell, D. R. (2002). Predictors of attitudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development activity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 87-107.
May, D. R., Hodges, T. D., Chan, A. Y., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260.
McCall, M. W. (1998). High Flyers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders. United States of America: Harvard Business Press.
McCarthy, A. M., & Garavan, T. N. (2007). Understanding acceptance of multisource feedback for management development. Personnel Review, 36(6), 903 - 917.
Mitchell, M. S., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). Understanding the managerial relevance of ethical efficacy. In M. Schminke (Ed.). Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality(2), 89-108.
Parry, K. W., & Sinha, P. N. (2005). Researching the trainability of transformational organizational leadership. Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 165 – 183.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Poel, F. M. (2011). Making a difference : about the mechanism underlying effective leadership in a change-oriented organizational context. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton University Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1).
Ryan, A., Brutus, S., Greguras, G., & & Hakel, M. (2000). Receptivity to assessment-based feedback for management development. Journal of Management Development, 19(4), 252-276.
Seifert, C. F., & Yukl, G. (2003). Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior of managers toward subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 561–569.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? a theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnal psychology, 58, 33-66.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Richmond, K. R. (2005). The Relationship Between Leaders' Personality and Their Reactions to and Use of Multisource Feedback: A Longitudinal Study. Group & Organization Management, 30, 181.
Smither, J. W., London, M., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Salvemini, N. (1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 1-34.
Solansky, S. T. (2010). The evaluation of two key leadership development program components: Leadership skills assessment and leadership mentoring. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 675–681.
Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables:a multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1003– 1018.
Stuive. (2007). A comparison of confirmatory factor analysis methods: Oblique Multiple Group Method versus Confirmatory Common Factor Method. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Confirmatory Common Factor Methos. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(6), 923-939.
Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California management review, 42(4), 128-142.
Voorn, B., Walter, F., & Stoker, J. I. (2013). Affective mechanism for the trickle-down effect of transformational leadership: the moderating role of procedural justice. Groningen: University of Groningen.
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliability coefficients
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. T1 Articulating a vision 3,68 ,41 (0,94) 2. T1 Providing an appropriate model 3,49 ,54 ,76** (0,9)
3. T1 Fostering group goals 3,60 ,44 ,81** ,69** (0,93)
4. T1 High performance expectations 3,79 ,40 ,55** ,50** ,50** (0,89)
5. T1 Providing individual support 3,76 ,48 ,62** ,67** ,65** ,20** (0,84)
6. T1 Providing intellectual stimulation 3,57 ,41 ,76** ,62** ,70** ,56** ,52** (0,94)
7. T1 Participative leadership 3,68 ,35 ,67** ,61** ,65** ,31** ,66** ,57** (0,69) 8. T1 Ethical leadership 3,84 ,37 ,76** ,74** ,76** ,38** ,80** ,65** ,72** (0,90)
9. T1 Transactional leadership 3,39 ,54 ,60** ,58** ,65** ,30** ,62** ,51** ,62** ,64** (0,95) 10. T2 Articulating a vision 3,83 ,43 ,48** ,42** ,40** ,34** ,25** ,39** ,30** ,34** ,37** 11. T2 Providing an appropriate model 3,61 ,52 ,46** ,57** ,39** ,26** ,36** ,33** ,31** ,44** ,39** 12. T2 Fostering group goals 3,75 ,42 ,40** ,35** ,45** ,24** ,30** ,29** ,31** ,37** ,38** 13. T2 High performance expectations 3,89 ,39 ,25** ,19** ,21** ,54** -,03 ,26** 0,06 0,08 ,17** 14. T2 Providing individual support 3,82 ,42 ,30** ,36** ,33** 0,08 ,41** ,22** ,35** ,41** ,34** 15. T2 Providing intellectual stimulation 3,75 ,40 ,42** ,34** ,37** ,34** ,22** ,41** ,29** ,31** ,32** 16. T2 Participative leadership 3,83 ,35 ,35** ,35** ,35** 0,04 ,39** ,25** ,38** ,37** ,31** 17. T2 Ethical leadership 3,91 ,34 ,41** ,44** ,40** ,18** ,44** ,31** ,36** ,49** ,34** 18. T2 Transactional leadership 3,50 ,56 ,37** ,39** ,41** ,17** ,37** ,27** ,36** ,42** ,57** 19. T2 Core self-evaluations 4,01 ,41 0,12 0,10 ,13* 0,06 ,04 0,1 -0,03 0,08 0,06
TABLE 1 (continued)
Variable 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. T1 Articulating a vision
2. T1 Providing an appropriate model 3. T1 Fostering group goals
4. T1 High performance expectations 5. T1 Providing individual support 6. T1 Providing intellectual stimulation 7. T1 Participative leadership
8. T1 Ethical leadership 9. T1 Transactional leadership
10. T2 Articulating a vision (0,95)
11. T2 Providing an appropriate model ,77** (0,89)
12. T2 Fostering group goals ,81** ,71** (0,94)
13. T2 High performance expectations ,58** ,38** ,46** (0,85) 14. T2 Providing individual support ,61** ,66** ,69** ,18** (.86)
15. T2 Providing intellectual stimulation ,78** ,60** ,69** ,58** ,54** (0,93)
16. T2 Participative leadership ,59** ,59** ,70** ,13* ,69** ,52** (0,71)
17. T2 Ethical leadership ,72** ,77** ,79** ,28** ,82** ,63** ,73** (0,93)
18. T2 Transactional leadership ,65** ,61** ,70** ,27** ,65** ,59** ,60** ,66** (0,96)
19. T2 Core-self evaluations 0,11 ,16* 0,1 0,07 ,07 0,11 0,04 ,13* 0,08 (0,76)
Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; Alpha reliabilities are shown in paranthesis on the diagonal; * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed); **
TABLE 2 Paired T-Test
Time 1 Time 2 Difference
M SD M SD M SD t(df;p) Cohen's d
Fed-back leadership behaviors
Articulating a vision 3,68 0,41 3,83 0,43 0,15 0,43 5,40(248;0,00) 0,35
Providing an appropriate model 3,49 0,54 3,61 0,52 0,12 0,49 3,84(248;0,00) 0,23
Fostering the acceptance of group goals 3,60 0,44 3,75 0,42 0,15 0,45 5,32(248;0,00) 0,35
Providing individual support 3,76 0,48 3,82 0,42 0,06 0,49 1,97(248;0,03) 0,14
Providing intellectual stimulation 3,57 0,41 3,75 0,40 0,17 0,45 6,15(248;0,00) 0,42
Participative leadership 3,68 0,35 3,83 0,35 0,14 0,39 5,85(248;0,00) 0,41
Ethical leadership 3,84 0,37 3,91 0,34 0,07 0,36 2,93(248;0,00) 0,19
Not fed-back leadership behaviors
Comm. high performance expectations 3,79 0,40 3,89 0,39 0,11 0,38 4,42(248;0,00) 0,27
Transactional leadership 3,39 0,54 3,50 0,56 0,11 0,52 3,32(248;0,00) 0,20
Note. p is one-tailed; N=249.
TABLE 3
Correlations between residual change of leadership behaviors and core self-evaluations
Core self-evaluations
Articulating a vision 0,06
Providing an appropriate model 0,12*
Fostering the acceptance of group goals 0,04
Providing individual support 0,06
Providing intellectual stimulation 0,08
Participative leadership 0,06
Ethical leadership 0,10
APPENDIX
TABLE A 1: Corrected correlations between transformational leadership items and subscales time 1 Item Vision Role Model Goal Accept. High Perf. Ind. Support Int. Stimulate
Vision 1 0,80 Vision 2 0,86 Vision 3 0,80 Vision 4 0,88 Vision 5 0,82 Role Model 6 0,72 Role Model 7 0,81 0,83 Role Model 8 0,89 Goal Accept 9 0,82 Goal Accept 10 0,86 Goal Accept 11 0,84 Goal Accept 12 0,85 High Perf. 13 0,77 High Perf. 14 0,82 High Perf. 15 0,66 Ind. Support 16 0,67 Ind. Support 17 0,53 0,55 0,53 Ind. Support 18 0,71 0,73 Ind. Support 19 0,49 Int. Stimulate 20 0,85 Int. Stimulate 21 0,84 Int. Stimulate 22 0,89 Int. Stimulate 23 0,81
TABLE A2: Corrected correlations between transformational leadership items and subscales time 2 Item Vision Role Model Goal Accept. High Perf. Ind. Support Int. Stimulate
Vision 1 0,81 Vision 2 0,87 Vision 3 0,85 Vision 4 0,89 Vision 5 0,84 Role Model 6 0,69 Role Model 7 0,79 0,82 Role Model 8 0,87 Goal Accept 9 0,85 Goal Accept 10 0,85 Goal Accept 11 0,82 0,85 Goal Accept 12 0,86 High Perf. 13 0,74 High Perf. 14 0,82 High Perf. 15 0,60 Ind. Support 16 0,68 Ind. Support 17 0,69 Ind. Support 18 0,70 0,72 0,71 Ind. Support 19 0,49 Int. Stimulate 20 0,81 Int. Stimulate 21 0,87 Int. Stimulate 22 0,86 Int. Stimulate 23 0,77 0,76
