• No results found

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF PROMOTION FOCUS IN THE CROSS-CULTURAL CONTEXT

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF PROMOTION FOCUS IN THE CROSS-CULTURAL CONTEXT"

Copied!
50
0
0

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

Hele tekst

(1)

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF PROMOTION FOCUS

IN THE CROSS-CULTURAL CONTEXT

Master Thesis, MSc, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

2 ABSTRACT

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is important for organizational effectiveness at the individual and team level. Previous research has shown that OCB is related to empowering leadership, but failed to clarify which mechanisms explain that relationship. One of the psychological mechanisms that may explain this relationship is regulatory focus, which consists of two types: prevention and promotion focus. Because an empowering leader provides support and autonomy, this research proposes that this leadership style encourages promotion focus (i.e., striving for gains, ideals, and advancements). Moreover, it also proposes that culture moderates the relationship between leadership and employee outcomes, and this study focuses specifically on power distance. To examine these hypotheses, this study was conducted in two countries that differ in power distance, the Netherlands and Indonesia. The participants in this study were 294 employees from several companies. The result revealed that promotion focus partially mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and OCB. Moreover, power distance strengthens the relationship between empowering leadership and promotion focus, in turn leads to OCB.

(3)

3 INTRODUCTION

In dynamic business environments, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has an important role in stimulating organizational effectiveness at the individual and team level. Specifically, OCB refers to “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988 : 4; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Podsakoff, et al. (2009) showed that OCB may be related to the "bottom line" of the organization. At the individual level, they found a positive relationship between OCB and employee performance, and a negative relationship between OCB and absenteeism, turnover intentions, and actual turnover. Moreover, at the team level, OCB was positively related to productivity, efficiency, profitability, and customer satisfaction, and negatively related to costs and team-level turnover.

(4)

4 Although it seems clear that empowering leadership stimulates OCB, it is less clear why this relationship occurs. On the other words, there is a black box in that relationship. One of the psychological mechanisms for explaining the relationship is regulatory focus, which consists of two categories, namely prevention and promotion focus (Neubert, et al., 2013). Promotion focus refers to the pursuit of gains, ideals, and advancements; while prevention focus refers to the pursuit of duties and obligation. This research examines regulatory focus since it refers to a motivational principle that has a major impact on people’s feelings, thoughts, and actions. This research proposes that empowering leadership relates to promotion focus rather than prevention focus. The basic reason is that empowering leadership, which involves leading by example, coaching, and participative decision making (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000), is more likely to lead employees to pursue aspiration as well as challenge the status quo which are the characteristics of promotion focus. In turn, it potentially stimulates OCB. Therefore, this study intends to examine whether promotion focus as a category of regulatory focus mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and OCB.

(5)

5 This study proposes that low power distance will strengthen the relationship between empowering leaders and employees' promotion focus because it elicits the participation of employees. In high power distance cultures, however, the efficacy of participation is uncertain. Employees are inclined to view participative system with disrespect, distrust, and fear because participation is incompatible with the national culture. Thus, managers are likely to be seen as lacking competence if they encourage subordinates’ participation (Newman & Nollen, 1996). Subordinates in high power distance culture will believe that power should be exerted by those with high status and leaders feel that extending power to individuals with low status is improper. Thus, empowerment effectiveness depends on individuals’ motivation and desire to exert the power. It also depends on individuals’ perspectives towards the legitimacy of power differentials among individuals at different levels of the hierarchy.

(6)

6 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Empowering Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Empowering leadership can be defined as the process by which leaders distribute power with employees through providing decision-making authority over resources and work, also give support to manage the additional responsibility effectively (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005). Manz and Sims (1987) suggested that the main role of an empowering leader is leading others to lead themselves. This leadership behavior involves shifting the source of control from the leader to followers. Moreover, empowering leaders facilitate employee performance by stimulating workers to conduct the work roles in empowered work environments (Arnold, et al., 2000).

There are eight dimensions of empowering leadership (Arnold, et al., 2000). First, leading by example refers to a set of behaviors showing the commitment of leaders to their own work and the work of their team members. Second, coaching is a collection of behaviors that educate as well as help team members to become self-reliant. Third, participative decision making refers to a leader's use of information and input from team members in making decisions. Fourth, showing concern is a set of behaviors that express a general regard for the well-being of team members. Fifth, informing refers to the distribution of company-wide information by a leader such as mission, philosophy, and other important information. Sixth, encouraging refers to a set of behaviors that stimulate high performance. Seventh, interacting with the team involves a collection of behaviors that entail working closely with the team as a whole. Eighth, group management refers to the leader's behavior to manage the functioning of the team.

(7)

7 discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”.

Organ (1988) suggested five dimensions of OCB consisting of altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. First, altruism refers to discretionary behaviors that focus on helping others to conduct tasks and solve organizational problems. Second, conscientiousness (often called compliance) is a discretionary behavior of employees that goes beyond the minimum requirements related to attendance, taking breaks, and obeying regulation of the company. Third, sportsmanship refers to a willingness of the employee to tolerate unfavorable circumstances without complaining and making problems seem bigger than the actual. Fourth, courtesy can be defined as a discretionary behavior of an individual to prevent work-related problems with others. Fifth, civic virtue is defined as a behavior of an individual that demonstrates responsibility to participate and involve in particular events, takes an active interest, and concerns about conditions of the company.

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) explained some antecedents of OCB and classified them into four categories: individual characteristics (e.g., fairness, commitment), task characteristics (e.g., task feedback, routinization), organizational characteristics (e.g., formalization, group cohesion), and leadership behaviors (e.g., transformational leadership, leader-member exchange). Furthermore, OCB has several impacts on organizational effectiveness, such as that it enhances productivity, reduces need to use scarce resources to maintenance functions, improves effectiveness to coordinate activities between and across teams, enhances the stability of organizational performance as well as the ability to adapt environmental changes (Podsakoff, et al., 2000).

(8)

8 proactive and self-directed activities since these self-governing behaviors are intrinsically satisfying (Gagne & Deci, 2005). In this sense, proactive and self-directed behaviors are related to OCB. Second, empowering leadership provides autonomy and support to employees for addressing unstructured tasks, so it would improve employees' self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a capability perceived by an individual to perform proactive, interpersonal, and integrative activities that extend beyond prescribed tasks (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006) and these activities could be categorized as OCB. Indeed, Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011) demonstrated that psychological empowerment, including the sense of impact, competence, meaning, and autonomy, associated with important employee attitudes and work behaviors, such as OCB.

The relationship between empowering leadership and OCB is also supported by empirical research. In a team context, if team members are empowered to make job-related decisions on their own, they are more likely to share knowledge with others before and during the decision process to make sure everyone has adequate information. Therefore, team members’ decisions are reasonable and justifiable. As a result, empowering leadership is the stimulant that encourages and nurtures knowledge sharing (Xue, Bradley, & Liang, 2011), which represents a particular form of helping others as one dimension of OCBs.

(9)

9 psychological empowerment are resistant to obtain opportunities to engage those behaviors (Raub & Robert, 2010).

Furthermore, empowering leadership behavior influences affiliative extra-role behavior that emphasizes interpersonal and cooperative aspects. Empowering leaders who lead by example might be a role model to encourage affiliative social behaviors. Empowering leaders also convey a signal that affiliative behaviors are valued and appreciated by showing concern for subordinates. Moreover, by providing opportunities for participative decision-making, empowering leaders would stimulate collaboration among subordinates to solve workplace problems (Raub & Robert, 2010). Therefore, this research proposes the hypothesis below:

Hypothesis 1: Empowering leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior

Empowering Leadership and Promotion Focus

(10)

10 careful to avoid losing, focused on obligation and duties, inclined to avoid undesirable situations, and predisposed towards fear (Stam, Van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010).

Focusing on the dynamics of leadership influence on followers, Kark and Van Dijk (2007) proposed that leaders can influence followers by highlighting different aspects of their followers’ regulatory foci, i.e. prevention or promotion. This is likely to affect the self-perception of followers primarily in terms of promotion focus, such as their ideals, hopes, wishes, and aspirations, or in terms of prevention focus, such as their duties, obligations, and responsibilities. Moreover, previous research on regulatory focus has also revealed that leaders as role models elicit particular regulatory mindsets and employee behaviors in work settings (Neubert, Kacmar, Carison, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008).

This study proposes that empowering leadership will potentially raise employees’ promotion focus. Brockner and Higgins (2001) pointed out that the role of leaders as “makers of meaning” through the use of language and symbols may influence the regulatory focus of followers. A leader who focuses on ideals would activate followers’ promotion focus. On the other hand, a leader who focuses on responsibilities, obligations, and accuracy would encourage followers to adopt a prevention focus.

Empowering leaders specifically convey confidence to employees’ ability to handle challenging work, increase growth motivation, lead employees towards valued goals, and attain pleasure which are comparable in certain respects with transformational and charismatic leaders. Therefore, transformational and charismatic leaders tend to evoke followers’ promotion focus, whereas transactional and monitoring leaders tend to evoke followers’ prevention focus (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007).

(11)

11 opportunities for employees to pursue ideals. Furthermore, Raub and Robert (2010) explained that empowering leadership behaviors, which involve leading by example, coaching, and informing, delivers important feedback to employees and increases their sense of self-efficacy, which in turn encourages them to achieve their desired goals. Since empowering leadership elicits a focus on ideals and achievements, it is thus more likely to enhance the promotion focus and implies the proposed idea below:

Hypothesis 2: Empowering leadership is positively related to promotion focus

Promotion Focus and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Promotion focus encourages the engagement of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). Based on regulatory focus theory, a promotion mindset influences individuals to focus on pursuing opportunities for growth or advancement, as well as attaining ideals or aspirations (Higgins, 1997). It intends to achieve a set of desired positive outcomes, contributes to initiative and exploratory behaviors that like OCB which exceeds the minimum expectations and defies the status quo (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hynes, 1994). In a study conducted by Neubert, et al. (2008), promotion focus, which involves pursuing opportunities to grow and attain aspirations, manifested in a cooperative behavior that goes beyond the standard requirements as a characteristic of OCB. Furthermore, Wallace, Johnson, and Frazier (2009) found that promotion focus characterized by pursuing achievement and gains leads to extra-role behaviors corresponding with OCB.

(12)

12 allocate resources inaccurately in the absence of prescribed job duties (Wallace, et al., 2009). Therefore, there should be a positive relationship between promotion focus and OCB, and a weak or no relationship between prevention focus and OCB.

Kark and Van Dijk (2007) suggested that a promotion focus can result in followers’ eagerness, creativity, risk-taking, attentiveness to positive outcomes, affective commitment, willingness to change, and innovative organizational or unit culture. In contrast, a prevention focus can result in followers' tendency for accuracy, preference for stability, risk aversion behavior, normative or continuance commitment, attentiveness to negative outcomes, and a culture that values quality and efficiency. Moreover, people who are promotion-focused will be more motivated when they receive positive feedback rather than negative feedback. On the other hand, prevention-focused people will be more motivated when they receive negative feedback rather than positive feedback.

In a previous study, Wallace, et al. (2009) examined the regulatory focus at work scale (RWS) to measure regulatory focus and found that a promotion focus in the workplace may positively impact the employees’ performance of OCB. The reason is that those who focus on accomplishments and gains will likely lead to successful engagement in OCB. In addition, meta-analysis study revealed that promotion focus is positively related to OCB, as a strong promotion focus corresponds with high levels of achievement, perseverance, and openness to new ideas (Lanaj, et al., 2012). From the explanations above, the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Promotion focus is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior

Promotion Focus as a Mediating Variable

(13)

13 previous sections, empowering leadership affects promotion focus, and promotion focus subsequently leads to OCB. Thus, it probably implies the role of mediation. Indeed, previous research noted that promotion focus has been found to mediate the relationship between a number of leadership constructs and OCB. Empowering leadership shares a number of conceptual similarities with ethical and servant leadership behaviors, such as maintaining personal connection with employees and enhancing employee development.

Ethical leadership has been found to influence extra-role voice behavior by evoking employees’ promotion focus (Neubert, et al., 2013). In addition, ethical leaders exhibit behaviors beyond a morality of duty and obligation (Wiltermuth, Monin, & Chow, 2010). Ethical leaders also trigger a promotion-oriented regulatory focus among employees by taking others’ interests into account and communicating moral ideals. They evoke the benefits or positive outcomes of information associated with gain or success (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). Then, the outcomes encourage employees to suggest improvements and enhancements as well as challenge the status quo through voice behaviors as a part of promotive citizenship behaviors (Neubert, et al., 2013; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).

(14)

14 expectations (Neubert, et al., 2008) as a part of OCB. Based on the explanation above, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by promotion focus

Power Distance as a Moderating Variable

Although it remains underresearched, the relationship between empowering leadership and promotion focus may depend on cultural values, which is defined as a set of norms and beliefs anchored in the morals, customs, laws, and practices of a society. These norms and beliefs determine what is right and wrong, as well as specify general preferences (Adler, 2002; Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009). In the leadership domain, cultural value orientations can include beliefs about styles, personality traits, skills, and behaviors that identify with effective leadership (Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque, & House, 2006).

Power distance, as a cultural dimension, represents the degree to which members of a society accept the existence of hierarchies and differences along with the unequal power distribution between superiors and subordinates in organizations (Hofstede, 1980; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2007). The term power distance orientation is used to differentiate an individual-level construct from a country level (Kirkman, et al., 2009). High power distance associated with "hierarchy" and low power distance associated with "egalitarianism" (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, Gupta, & GLOBE Associates, 2004; Schwartz, 1992).

(15)

15 empowerment. This culture only allows individuals with formal status to exercise power at their discretion, while those with low status must follow the explicit orders of superiors (Raub & Robert, 2010). From the perspective of individuals with high power distance values, status differences are fundamental so they would not question the directives from superiors. In contrast, individuals with low power distance values perceive that power and authority should be distributed so people have equal rights and voice (Yang, et al., 2007). Moreover, Hofstede (1980) remarked that subordinates prefer managers who have autocratic or paternalistic styles in countries where most employees are afraid to disagree with their managers (high power distance countries).

Farh, Hackett, and Liang (2007) proposed that subordinates in a high power distance context build strong deference to authority figures so they are less likely to be reliant on the reciprocity norm. Exchange of information, which is an integral part of OCB, is also uncommon in societies with high power distance, as employees believe that decision-making and problem-solving processes are the prerogatives of managers (Hofstede, 1980). In addition, individual power distance orientation may also affect how subordinates react to empowering leadership and subsequently influences the extent of OCB. Individuals oriented towards high power distance tend to have strong respect for authority, so they avoid challenging their leaders’ behaviors and refrain from questioning their integrity (Farh, et al., 2007; Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004; Li, He, Yam, & Long, 2015). Therefore, empowering leadership is relatively not effective when subordinates have high power distance orientation.

(16)

16 Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between empowering leadership and promotion focus will be stronger when the power distance is low rather than high

As noted in hypothesis 4 and 5, there are mediation and moderation mechanisms of promotion focus and power distance in the relationship between empowering leadership and OCB. Therefore, this research proposes the hypothesis below:

Hypothesis 6: The indirect relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, as mediated by promotion focus, is moderated by power distance, such that the relationship becomes stronger when power distance is low rather than high

Based on six proposed hypotheses, the relationship among variables could be depicted through a conceptual model in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - Conceptual Model of Research

(17)

17 METHOD

Sample and Procedure

Respondents were 294 employees (117 Dutch and 177 Indonesian people). They work at several local companies in the Netherlands and Indonesia. Data were collected within 6 weeks in March-April 2016. The language of the survey was translated into Dutch and Bahasa Indonesia by using double-blind back translation procedure so that respondents can easily understand the statements. In order to examine the hypotheses, a set of softcopy and hardcopy questionnaires were given to employees who participated voluntarily. In the beginning of questionnaire, the content, purpose, and explanation of confidentiality were explained. The approximation of time to complete the questionnaire was 15 minutes. Table 1 below represents demographic data of respondents.

Table 1 - Demographic Data of Respondents

(18)

18 Table 1 - Demographic Data of Respondents (continued)

Measures

Each questionnaire consists of all main variables, namely empowering leadership, promotion focus, organizational citizenship behavior, and power distance. Additional variables were also measured, such as prevention focus, collectivism, and masculinity. All items used a six-point Likert scale, from “very much disagree” to “very much agree”.

Empowering leadership was measured by a questionnaire consists of 18 items from Arnold, et al. (2000). It was divided into five parts explaining the dimensions, such as lead by example, participative decision making, coaching, informing, and showing concern. For instance, “sets high standards for performance by his/her own behavior”, “encourages team members to express ideas/suggestions”. The reliability was α=.94.

Promotion focus was measured by a questionnaire consists of 9 items from the regulatory focus scale. These items were adapted from Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002). The sample items were “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations”, “I often think about the person I would ideally like to be in the future”. The reliability was α=.86.

(19)

19 Prevention focus was measured by a questionnaire consists of 9 items from the regulatory focus scale. These items were adapted from Lockwood, et al. (2002). The sample items were “In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in my life”, “I am anxious that I will fall short of my responsibilities and obligations”. The reliability was α=.86.

Organizational citizenship behavior was measured by 23 items from Podsakoff, et al. (1990). It was divided into five parts explaining the dimensions, such as altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness. The specific items were “helps others who have heavy workloads”, “takes steps to prevent problems with other workers”. The reliability was α=.81.

Power distance was measured by 8 items from Earley and Erez (1997; see also Kirkman, et al., 2009). It examined power distance orientation of individuals. Some items were “in most situations, managers should make decisions without consulting their subordinates”, “in work-related matters, managers have a right to expect obedience from their subordinates”. The reliability was α=.77.

Collectivism is measured by Wagner and Moch's (1986; see also Moorman & Blakely, 1995) 11-item scale. The sample items were “My work group is more productive when its members do what they want to do rather than what the group wants them to do (R)”, “I prefer to work with others in my work group rather than work alone”. The reliability was α=.74.

(20)

20 RESULT

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics that includes means and standard deviation for every group and t-tests comparing the two samples.

Table 2 - Descriptive Statistics

Variables Complete n = 294 Dutch n = 117 Indonesian n = 177 t-test

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Empowering Leadership 4.59 0.76 4.48 0.84 4.66 0.70 -2.00* Organizational Citizenship Behavior 4.78 0.40 4.83 0.40 4.75 0.40 1.77 Promotion Focus 4.42 0.73 4.03 0.76 4.68 0.57 -8.28*** Prevention Focus 3.66 0.90 3.08 0.85 4.04 0.72 -10.40*** Power Distance 3.28 0.76 2.84 0.66 3.57 0.68 -9.09*** Collectivism 4.19 0.56 4.24 0.55 4.17 0.57 1.09 Masculinity 3.46 0.35 3.32 0.39 3.55 0.29 -5.80*** Notes: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Preliminary analyses of independent sample t-tests were performed to determine whether there were differences between Dutch and Indonesian respondents regarding variables. The result revealed significant differences (p < .05) in terms of empowering leadership (t = -2.00), promotion focus (t = -8.28), prevention focus (t = -10.40), power distance (t = -9.09), and masculinity (t = -5.80). Surprisingly, all of these variables were higher in Indonesia than in the Netherlands. However, there was no difference (p > .05) regarding organizational citizenship behavior and collectivism between Dutch and Indonesian.

Correlation

(21)

21 correlations between gender and other variables, so this variable was considered to be dismissed while three other variables would be examined as control variables. The correlation among variables of the complete sample shown in Table 3.

Table 3 – Correlation among Variables of the Complete Sample (control variables: Age, Gender, Education, Tenure)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Empowering Leadership 2 Organizational Citizenship Behavior .379** 3 Promotion Focus .119* .157** 4 Prevention Focus .087 -.066 .523** 5 Power Distance .204** .037 .203** .314** 6 Collectivism .183** .380** .082 -.160** -.047 7 Masculinity -.005 .008 .274** -.042 .247** -.051 8 Age .080 .188** -.339** -.303** .047 .215** .057 9 Gender .039 -.028 -.002 -.009 .097 .024 .196** .013 10 Education -.066 -.088 .266** .156** .070 -.071 .064 -.245** -.055 11 Tenure .106 .112 -.227** -.150** .133* .131* .072 .781** .022 -.189** Notes: *p < .05; **p < .01

(22)

22 Table 4 – Correlation among Variables of Dutch and Indonesian Samples

(control variables: Age, Gender, Education, Tenure)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Empowering Leadership .409** .099 .028 .150 .199* -.060 -.061 .141 -.090 -.008 2 Organizational Citizenship Behavior .387** .203* -.101 -.009 .367** -.105 .099 -.020 -.051 .115 3 Promotion Focus .054 .250** .406** .064 .157 .083 -.315** .098 .261** -.242** 4 Prevention Focus .034 .052 .364** .037 -.195* -.355** -.381** .054 .094 -.254** 5 Power Distance .187* .165* -.059 .136 -.064 .177 -.056 .200* -.071 -.051 6 Collectivism .190* .382** .095 -.115 .008 -.075 .273** -.004 -.183* .238** 7 Masculinity -.030 .179* .245** -.157* .063 .004 .177 .356** -.027 .096 8 Age .250** .249** -.342** -.202** .251** .164* .003 -.065 -.367** .708** 9 Gender -.041 -.033 -.089 -.060 .053 .042 .079 .079 -.029 .051 10 Education -.145 -.068 -.033 -.177* -.153* .080 -.084 -.026 -.094 -.309** 11 Tenure .187* .122 -.326** -.186* .226** .070 .017 .878** .002 -.144 Notes: *p < .05; **p < .01

Dutch data are on the upper right and Indonesian data are on the bottom left.

From the separated data shown in Table 4, this study revealed that Data of Dutch and Indonesian was quite similar. There was a positive correlation between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in both countries, Dutch (r = .409, p < .01) and Indonesia (r = .387, p < .01). However, there was no correlation between empowering leadership and promotion focus in the Netherlands (r = .099, p > .05) and Indonesia (r = .054, p > .05). Moreover, there was a positive correlation between promotion focus and organizational citizenship behavior for Dutch (r = .203, p < .05) and Indonesian (r = .250, p < .01). Although there was a difference in terms of significance between power distance and empowering leadership, there was only a slight difference correlation between Indonesia (r = .187, p < .05) and the Netherlands (r = .150, p > .05). Furthermore, there was no correlation between power distance and promotion focus in both countries, the Netherlands (r = .064, p > .05) and Indonesia (r = -.059, p > .05).

Hypotheses Testing

(23)

23 examined a mediation model. The results are depicted in Table 5 (complete sample), Table 6 (Dutch sample), and Table 7 (Indonesian sample).

Table 5 – Regression Analysis of Complete Sample – Model 4 (n = 294)

Predictors Promotion Focus

Organizational Citizenship Behavior b t b t Age -.3636 -4.2024*** .3326 3.8101*** Tenure .0787 0.9189 -.1485 -1.7677 Education .2016 3.6598*** -.0699 -1.2661 Empowering Leadership .1530 2.8489** .3379 6.3353*** Promotion Focus - - .2147 3.7274*** R2 .1773 .2138

Effect SE t LLCI ULCI

Direct .3379 .0533 6.3353*** .2329 .4429

Indirect .0329 .0172 .0079 .0767

Notes: Bootstrap 5,000; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 6 – Regression Analysis of Dutch Sample – Model 4 (n = 117)

Predictors Promotion Focus

Organizational Citizenship Behavior b t b t Age -.2346 -1.7428 .1454 1.1835 Tenure -.0286 -0.2186 .0700 .5931 Education .1884 1.8825 .0003 .9971 Empowering Leadership .0959 1.1351 .3589 4.6901*** Promotion Focus - - .2161 2.5403* R2 .1341 .2312

Effect SE t LLCI ULCI

Direct .3589 .0765 4.6901*** .2073 .5106

Indirect .0207 .0255 -.0169 .0842

Notes: Bootstrap 5,000; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 7 – Regression Analysis of Indonesian Sample – Model 4 (n = 177)

Predictors Promotion Focus

Organizational Citizenship Behavior b t b t Age -.2186 -1.7897 .6130 4.3556*** Tenure -.0905 -.7467 -.3722 -2.6844** Education -.0292 -.4990 -.0541 -.8092 Empowering Leadership .1197 1.8726 .3017 4.0943*** Promotion Focus - - .4049 4.6508*** R2 .1406 .2993

Effect SE t LLCI ULCI

Direct .3017 .0737 4.0943*** .1563 .4472

Indirect .0484 .0292 .0027 .1215

(24)

24 Hypothesis 1 predicted that there was a positive relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Regression analysis was conducted for this relationship, including the control variables. The significant control variable for this relationship was age. From table 5, this study indicated that empowering leadership has a positive relationship with organizational citizenship behavior (b = 0.3379; t = 6.3353, p < .001). Moreover, when the data were separated into two groups, the relationships were significant with Dutch (b = 0.3589; t = 4.6901, p < .001) and Indonesian (b = 0.3017; t = 4.0943, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is accepted.

(25)

25 Hypothesis 4 predicted that the positive relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior was mediated by promotion focus. Table 5 depicted that promotion focus mediated the positive relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (b = 0.0329; LLCI = 0.0079; ULCI = 0.0767). However, when data were separated, the mediation effect only occurred for Indonesian (b = 0.0484; LLCI = 0.0027; ULCI = 0.1215), but it did not occur for Dutch (b = 0.0207; LLCI = -0.0169; ULCI = 0.0842).

Furthermore, the two last hypotheses were tested using Model 7 of PROCESS tool by Andrew F. Hayes (2013) that examined a moderated-mediation model. The results are depicted in Table 8 (complete sample), Table 9 (Dutch sample), and Table 10 (Indonesian sample).

Table 8 – Regression Analysis of Complete Sample – Model 7 (n = 294)

Predictors Promotion Focus

Organizational Citizenship Behavior b t b t Age -.2684 -4.3304*** .3326 3.8101*** Tenure .0274 .4471 -.1485 -1.7677 Education .1321 3.3663*** -.0699 -1.2661 Empowering Leadership .1114 2.7781** .3379 6.3353*** Power Distance .1356 3.4477*** - - Empowering Leadership x Power Distance .0818 2.5388* - - Promotion Focus - - .2953 3.7274*** R2 .2238 .2138

Indirect Effect Coeff. SE LLCI ULCI

Low PD .0088 .0190 -.0221 .0543

Average/ Medium PD .0329 .0169 .0077 .0750

High PD .0570 .0273 .0177 .1299

(26)

26 Table 9 – Regression Analysis of Dutch Sample – Model 7 (n = 117)

Predictors Promotion Focus

Organizational Citizenship Behavior b t b t Age -.1793 -1.8289 .1454 1.1835 Tenure -.0373 -.3883 .0700 .5931 Education .1370 1.8785 .0003 .0036 Empowering Leadership .1367 1.7366 .3589 4.6901*** Power Distance .0638 .8051 - - Empowering Leadership x Power Distance .0864 1.4733 - - Promotion Focus - - .2972 2.5403* R2 .1531 .2312

Indirect Effect Coeff. SE LLCI ULCI

Low PD .0034 .0357 -.0493 .0856

Average/ Medium PD .0258 .0256 -.0116 .0863

High PD .0482 .0396 -.0010 .1705

Notes: Bootstrap 5,000; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 10 – Regression Analysis of Indonesian Sample – Model 7 (n = 177)

Predictors Promotion Focus

Organizational Citizenship Behavior b t b t Age -.1795 -1.9907* .6130 4.3556*** Tenure -.0496 -.5596 -.3722 -2.6844** Education -.0163 -.3781 -.0541 -.8092 Empowering Leadership .0741 1.5654 .3017 4.0943*** Power Distance .0076 .1579 - - Empowering Leadership x Power Distance .0660 1.5776 - - Promotion Focus - - .5567 4.6508*** R2 .1530 .2993

Indirect Effect Coeff. SE LLCI ULCI

Low PD .0225 .0337 -.0338 .1089

Average/ Medium PD .0553 .0319 .0038 .1254

High PD .0881 .0552 .0108 .2163

Notes: Bootstrap 5,000; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

(27)

27 moderation effect of power distance is depicted in Figure 2. In addition, when this study processes the data separately into Dutch and Indonesian, there is no interaction between empowering leadership and power distance in both countries.

Figure 2 – The Graph of Moderating Relationship of Power Distance

Hypothesis 6 predicted that the indirect relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, as mediated by promotion focus, was moderated by power distance, such that the relationship became stronger when power distance was low rather than high. As can be seen in Table 8, there was a significant interaction between empowering leadership and power distance. However, the hypothesis proposed that the interaction would be negative while the result indicated that the interaction was positive. There was an indirect relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior that was mediated by promotion focus and moderated by power distance, but it became stronger when power distance was medium and high (medium power distance: b = 0.0329; LLCI = 0.0077; ULCI = 0.0750; high power distance: b = 0.0570; LLCI = 0.0177; ULCI = 0.1299). However, there is no indirect effect when power distance was low (b = 0.0088; LLCI = -.0221; ULCI =

(28)

28 .0543). Hence, Hypothesis 6 was rejected. Furthermore, when data was separated into two groups, Dutch and Indonesian, it showed there was no moderation effect in both countries because there was no interaction between empowering leadership and power distance. The result indicated that there was a mediation effect of promotion focus in the relationship between empowering leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in Indonesia for medium (b = 0.0553; LLCI = 0.0038; ULCI = 0.1254) and high power distance (b = 0.0881; LLCI = 0.0108; ULCI = 0.2163), but it did not occur for low power distance (b = 0.0225; LLCI = -.0338; ULCI = .1089). Moreover, there was no mediation effect in the Netherlands (Dutch sample) for all level of power distance (low, medium, and high).

Exploratory Analysis

This research also examined several relationships among variables. Table 11 shows Model 4 and Table 12 shows Model 7 of PROCESS by Andrew F Hayes with additional control variable, namely Group. This analysis added the dummy variable based on Group, Dutch = 0.00 and Indonesian = 1.00.

Table 11 – Regression Analysis of Complete Sample – Model 4 (n = 294)

Predictors Promotion Focus

Organizational Citizenship Behavior b t b t Group .3761 6.8504*** -.2389 -3.9216*** Age -.2452 -2.9822** .2897 3.3732*** Tenure -.0570 -.6949 -.0693 -.8210 Education .0748 1.3742 -.0073 -.1291 Empowering Leadership .1059 2.1023* .3542 6.7835*** Promotion Focus - - .3037 5.0096*** R2 .2926 .2538

Effect SE t LLCI ULCI

Direct .3542 .0522 6.7835*** .2515 .4570

Indirect .0322 .0207 -.0019 .0789

(29)

29 Table 12 – Regression Analysis of Complete Sample – Model 7 (n = 294)

Predictors Promotion Focus

Organizational Citizenship Behavior b t b t Group .2573 5.7843*** -.2389 -3.9216*** Age -.1968 -3.2793** .2897 3.3732*** Tenure -.0413 -.6965 -.0693 -.8210 Education .0560 1.4188 -.0073 -.1291 Empowering Leadership .0960 2.5186* .3542 6.7835*** Power Distance .0271 .6487 - - Empowering Leadership x Power Distance .0681 2.2260* - - Promotion Focus - - .4176 5.0096*** R2 .3051 .2538

Indirect Effect Coeff. SE LLCI ULCI

Low PD .0116 .0254 -.0320 .0683

Average/ Medium PD .0401 .0205 .0066 .0862

High PD .0685 .0333 .0182 .1529

Notes: Bootstrap 5,000; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

(30)
(31)

31 DISCUSSION

This study was conducted on 294 employees in the Netherlands and Indonesia, and assessed the relationship between supervisors’ empowering leadership and their subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) by way of direct impact and also indirect impact via promotion focus. The result of the study posits promotion focus as the explanatory mechanism underlying the relationship between empowering leadership and OCB. Power distance orientation is also identified as a cultural dimension that moderates the relationship between empowering leadership and promotion focus.

This study revealed that promotion focus among employees partially mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and OCB. This finding is in line with the assumptions drawn from the regulatory focus theory in which promotion-focused employees engage strategies to attain desired end-states (Brockner & Higgins 2001; Henker, Sonnentag, & Unger, 2015). Leaders displaying empowering behaviors are likely to establish supportive relationships with followers, thus upon the elicitation of promotion focus, the followers begin to focus on their aspirations and ideal self, as well as to attain accomplishments and gains, in turn, they may want to contribute to the organization beyond their prescribed roles (OCB).

(32)

32 however empowering leadership does not encourage subordinates to pursue gains and advancements.

Promotion-focused individuals are mostly inspired by positive and successful role models who emphasize on the strategies for achieving success. In contrast, prevention-focused individuals are mostly motivated by negative and failed role models who emphasize on the risks of failing and by influencing them to behave in ways that will enable them to avoid failure (Lockwood, et al., 2002; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Findings of this study suggest that OCB is not typically driven by a prevention focus because extra-role behaviors are not prescribed job duties. Therefore, prevention focus does not mediate the relationship between empowering leadership and OCB.

National culture generates statistically significant moderating effects on the relationship between leadership and motivational outcomes. Thus, in order to effectively manage a culturally diverse workforce, leaders should understand how leadership behaviors relate to followers’ cultural value orientations so as to influence and shape their affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes (Kirkman, et al., 2009). Therefore, this study also examined the moderating effect of power distance on the relationship between an empowering leadership and employees’ promotion focus, in turn, leads to OCB. Most research on motivation has been conducted in Western societies, and it remains unclear whether such findings generalize across cultures (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007; Chen, et al., 2011). On that account, this study was conducted at several companies in the Netherlands and Indonesia.

(33)

33 not occur when power distance is low. Therefore, specifically empowering leadership is higher and more effective in Indonesia, as a high power distance culture, rather than in the Netherlands, as a low power distance culture.

Regarding social learning theory, subordinates with high power distance orientation are inclined to view supervisors as role models (Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012). This study reveals that when leaders are empowering, subordinates with high power distance orientation would be more likely to build their own promotion focus, then develop and practice OCB. In fact, individuals with both high and low power distance orientation tend to perceive that supervisors are ‘rewarded’ with their positions. However, individuals with high power distance orientation are more likely to attribute the success of leaders to special characteristics innate to the individual (Hofstede, 1980). Thus, individuals tend to respect and learn from supervisors (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994), also expect persuasion and encouragement from their leaders (Li, et al., 2015).

(34)

34 prototypical form of empowering leadership, has strong motivational effects on individual behaviors in Japan (Erez & Earley, 1993; Li, et al., 2015) and has improved the quality of public services in China (Miao, Newman, Schwarz, & Xu, 2013).

(35)

35 STRENGTHS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This study has several notable strengths that contribute to theory and research on leadership, regulatory focus, culture, and OCB. The major strength of this study is examining two countries, namely the Netherlands and Indonesia. Cross-cultural research is relevant to examine the differences between countries in the work context. Moreover, the lack of research in non-western countries is also addressed by examining Indonesia as a sample. Furthermore, Gelfand, et al. (2007) noted that cross-cultural research could broaden the theories, constructs, and research questions in OB. In addition, it provides knowledge that can help individuals perform behaviors at work in the global context.

Specifically, this study chooses a strong and relevant cultural dimension of Hofstede, namely power distance. As additional variables, this study also examined collectivism and masculinity. From regression analysis, only power distance significantly moderated the relationship between empowering leadership and promotion focus, while collectivism and masculinity did not moderate that relationship. Previous research indicated that power distance is the stronger moderating variable than collectivism on cross-level relationships between leadership and some motivational outcomes, namely perceived organizational support and perceived supervisory support (Kirkman, Chen, Chen, & Lowe, 2006; Farh, et al., 2007).

(36)

36 This study acknowledges several limitations to this study and suggests related opportunities for future research.

First, although this study is cross-cultural research, it only included 117 Dutch and 177 Indonesian employees, therefore the result in each sample is not significant due to lack of statistical power. Future research should increase the number of respondents, compare both countries, and conduct regression analysis separately. Moreover, random population sampling was not used, which reduced the generalizability of results. However, use of convenience sampling should not be a problem unless one is seeking to generalize results to a specific population (Highhouse & Gillespie, 2009; Lian, et al., 2012). For future study, if it is possible, random sampling should be conducted to address a relevant concern about generalizability.

Second, data are collected from employees in several companies in two countries, i.e. the Netherlands and Indonesia, therefore it increases the generalizability and robustness of the findings. For the purpose of avoiding cultural bias between national and organizational culture, respondents were local citizens who work at local companies in both countries. On the other hand, this decision limits the context, thus making it irrelevant for multinational companies. Moreover, this study only considered cultural dimensions without the control of some contextual variables, such as the sector (manufacture, services, trade), ownership (public-owned enterprises, private-(public-owned enterprises, and town or village cooperatives), the original countries (national or multinational), and the size (small, medium, or large). These contextual factors could be included in a single study so that the results are able to explain a comprehensive effect of such contexts on OCB. Future study may also be applied in countries where cultural research is rarely conducted.

(37)

37 current study. Moreover, certain leader behaviors may increase not only the regulatory focus at the individual level but also at the group as a whole (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). This study has examined power distance orientation at the individual level. In particular, some researchers (e.g., Yang, et al., 2007) revealed that power distance is also relevant at the group level.

Fourth, methodological issues also occurred in this study. This study only used cross-sectional method. Moreover, the measurement of cultural dimensions, regulatory focus (promotion and prevention focus), and OCB relied only on a single source, namely self-report. Meanwhile, the empowering leadership of supervisor was assessed by their immediate subordinates. Thus, the use of single-source data increases a possibility of common method bias because of common rater effects, which participants want to maintain consistency in completing the questionnaire or the answers are biased systematically. Therefore, it could inflate the correlation between variables. Podsakoff, et al. (2000) recommended to solve this issue by separating the measurement of predictor and criterion variables, or by combining the source from self and supervisor rating to assess variables. Furthermore, future studies need to consider longitudinal or experimental designs in collecting data (Cheng, Chang, Kuo, & Cheung, 2014).

Fifth, the present study employed a measure of variables that have multiple dimensions. For instance, empowering leadership consists of leading by example, participative decision-making, coaching, informing, and showing concern; also OCB consists of conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism. However, we did not examine the relationships among dimensions of particular variables. Further study should analyze dimensions of the variables as there are varied possibilities of relationships among the dimensions.

(38)

38 prevention focus because it has a higher predictive validity rather than trait-like regulatory focus scales (Wallace, et al., 2009).

Other fruitful avenues for future research would be to broaden the relationship among variables.

First, this study revealed that empowering leadership is relevant to predict promotion focus and OCB of employees. Future research may examine whether empowering leadership style is more important than other styles of leadership, as previous research has noted some leadership styles that could be considered as antecedents. For example, transformational and transactional leadership (Podsakoff, et al., 1990), charismatic leadership and servant leadership behaviors (e.g. Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Neubert et al., 2008), also ethical leadership (Neubert, et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the future study may also examine the unique dimensions of empowering leadership that do not overlap with different styles of leadership to understand how empowering leadership significantly relates to OCB beyond other leadership styles.

Second, empowering leadership has been proven to influence other behavioral and performance outcomes. Therefore, further research could examine work unit task proficiency (Martin, et al., 2013) and individual creativity (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). This leadership style also elicits innovative behavior (Chen, et al., 2011) and team performance (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007). Similarly, supportive leader behaviors are positively correlated with task performance (Seibert, et al., 2011).

(39)

39 commitment (Chen, et al., 2011), intrinsic motivation (Martin, et al., 2013), and knowledge sharing attitude (Xue, et al., 2011).

Fourth, future research may consider chronic regulatory focus as a moderator. A regulatory focus can be categorized into chronic and situational. Chronic disposition is likely determined by personality (Wallace & Chen, 2006) and early life experiences (Higgins, 1997, 1998), while situational disposition refers to a psychological state that can be primed or evoked by situational cues (e.g., Friedman & Förster, 2001; Neubert, et al., 2008). Future research may investigate the importance of congruence between the chronic regulatory focus and some situational stimuli.

(40)

40 THEORETICAL IMPLICATION

The present research contributes to the literature in several ways. The first and main contributions are regarding empowering leadership, employees’ regulatory focus, and OCB in high and low power distance contexts, specifically in Indonesia and the Netherlands, respectively. The basic assumption drawn from some theories and depicted in the proposed model is a direct relationship between empowering leadership and OCB in a combined sample of both countries. The results also provide new and deeper insights into the impact of empowering leadership on OCB by highlighting the mediating role of promotion focus. In contrast, prevention focus does not mediate the relationship between empowering leadership and OCB.

This present research establishes a theory whether empowering leadership is effective in stimulating positive work attitudes in the context of the Netherlands and Indonesia. This research has a significant contribution to the theory because most empirical studies in this area were conducted in western cultures. Only a few number of research have examined the effectiveness of empowering leadership in non-western countries, especially Indonesia.

The most interesting finding is that high power distance strengthened the relationship between empowering leadership and promotion focus. Subsequently, promotion focus positively predicts OCB. This results indicated a distinct theoretical contribution by examining power distance because the previous research mainly revealed the opposite results. This present study identified that although Indonesia is a high power distance country, employees are not skeptical about participating in decision-making. In contrast, they are more motivated to pursue positive outcomes (promotion focus). Thus, it contributes to the cultural context theory.

(41)
(42)

42 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION

The results are likely to assist managers in making better decisions regarding the suitable leadership style to elicit OCB. OCB is essential in the work behavior context because employees will do jobs beyond standard requirements. Therefore, organizations need to facilitate OCB by enhancing employees’ promotion focus through giving employees autonomy to conduct the tasks. Organizations also need to be aware of the cultural context, such as power distance, to enhance the psychological state of employees, in turn to enable OCB.

Employees’ promotion focus are crafted by a situational characteristic, namely empowering leadership, then it leads to OCB. In contrast, prevention focus does not mediate the relationship. Therefore, leaders or supervisors should increase the level of employees’ promotion focus to enable them in encouraging engagement of OCB that benefits individuals and the organizations (Wallace, et al., 2009). Organizations may establish workplace policies and practices which potentially improve employees’ extra-role behaviors. For instance, to enhance ‘informing’ function, leaders are stimulated to explain rules and expectations to employees. Moreover, to enhance ‘coaching’ function, leaders are encouraged to solve problems together with employees. It is also important to monitor leaders and provide feedback in implementing empowerment.

(43)

43 Employees are inclined to perform OCB when the leadership style of their superior is congruent with national culture. Previous research indicated that a mismatch between national culture and work unit practices tends to reduce performance (Newman & Nollen, 1996). These effects have important practical implications because a situational promotion focus enhances OCB in a high power distance culture, but no effect of low power distance culture in that relationship. The different culture probably requires the same or different style of leadership. It sheds a light on how leaders in both countries ensure that their leadership style has beneficial effects on employee behaviors.

(44)

44 CONCLUSION

(45)

45 REFERENCES

Adler, N.J. 2002. International dimensions of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. 2005. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945– 955. Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A., & Drasgow, F. 2000. The empowering leadership

questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (3), 249–269.

Barbuto, J.E. & Wheeler, D.W. 2006. Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Organization Management, 31 (3), 300–326.

Blanchard, K., Carlos, J.P., & Randolph, A. 1999. The 3 Keys to Empowerment: Release the Power Within People for Astonishing Results. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Bochner, S. & Hesketh, B. 1994. Power distance, individualism/ collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 233–257.

Brockner, J. & Higgins, E.T. 2001. Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35-66. Çakar, N.D. & Ertürk, A. 2010. Comparing innovation capability of small and medium-sized

enterprises: examining the effects of organizational culture and empowerment. Journal of Small Business Management, 48 (3), 325–359.

Chen, G., Sharma, P.N., Edinger, S.K., Shapiro, D.L., Farh, J. 2011. Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (3), 541–557.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. 2007. A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346.

Cheng, J., Chang, S., Kuo, J., & Cheung, Y. 2014. Ethical leadership, work engagement, and voice behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114 (5), 817-831.

(46)

46 Ehrhart, M.G. 2004. Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.

Erez, M. & Earley, P.C. 1993. Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University Press.

Farh, J.L., Hackett, R.D., & Liang, J. 2007. Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), 715– 729.

Friedman, R.S. & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81 (6), 1001–1013.

Gagne, M. & Deci, E.L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.

Gelfand, M.J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.

Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. 2015. Transformational Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Promotion Focus and Creative Process Engagement. Journal of Business & Psychology, 30, 235–247

Higgins, E.T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280-1300. Higgins, E.T. 1998. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle.

Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46.

Higgins, E.T., Roney, C.J.R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. 1994. Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (2), 276-86.

Higgins, E.T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R.S. 1997. Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (3), 515-25.

Highhouse, S. & Gillespie, J.Z. 2009. Do samples really matter that much? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 247–265). New York, NY: Routledge.

(47)

47 Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates. 2004. Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D.M. 2004. Employment relationships in China: Do workers relate to the organization or to people?. Organization Science, 15 (2), 232–240.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., de Luque, M.S., & House, R.J. 2006. In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20 (1), 67–90.

Kark, R. & van Dijk, D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 500– 528.

Kirkman, B.L., Chen, G., Chen, Z.X., & Lowe, K.B. 2006. A multi-level and cross-cultural examination of transformational leadership in the U.S. and China. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta.

Kirkman, B.L., Chen, G., Farh, J.L., Chen, Z.X., & Lowe, K.B. 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Managerial Journal, 52 (4), 744–764.

Lanaj, K., Chang, C., & Johnson, R.E. 2012. Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 138 (5), 998-1034.

Li, S., He, W., Yam, K.C., & Long, L. 2015. When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China. Asia Pacific Journal Management, 32, 645–670.

Lian, H., Ferris, D.L., & Brown, D.J. 2012. Does Power Distance Exacerbate or Mitigate the Effects of Abusive Supervision? It Depends on the Outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (1), 107–123.

(48)

48 Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H., & Kunda, Z. 2002. Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864.

Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (1), 106–128.

Martin, S.L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E.M. 2013. Directive versus empowering leadership: a field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (5), 1372–1395.

Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. 2013. Participative Leadership and the Organizational Commitment of Civil Servants in China: The Mediating Effects of Trust in Supervisor. British Journal of Management, 24, 76–92.

Morrison, E.W. & Phelps, C.C. 1999. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4), 403–419.

Moorman, R.H. & Blakely, G.L. 1995. Individualism-Collectivism as an Individual Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142. Neubert, M.J., Kacmar, K.M., Carison, D.S., Chonko, L.B., & Roberts, J.A. 2008. Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (6), 1220-33.

Neubert, M.J, Wu, C., & Roberts, J.A. 2013. The influence of ethical leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23 (2), 269-296.

Newman, K.L. & Nollen, S.D. 1996. Culture and congruence: the fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 753–79. Oloko, M. & Ogutu, M. 2012. Influence of power distance on employee empowerment and

MNC performance: A study of multinational corporations in Kenya. Education Research Journal, 2 (2), 47-61.

Organ, D.W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M., & Turner, N. 2006. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Table 5 above shows the means and medians related to CEO characteristics and CEO’s pre-resignment performances of the sample of the CEOs who provided post-resignment services (99

By formulating the strategies that a mediator can follow in order to assist discussants in their efforts to rationally resolve a deep disagreement, I demonstrated how

The first is to create awareness about the urgent need for research regarding durable solutions for unaccompanied child refugees; the second is to establish research that exhibits

The relationship between teacher psychological capital, student psychological capital and study results, and the role of inspirational tutorship.. Master thesis Executive

To investigate the effect of remote touch in this distributed rope pulling setup, we designed a study where dyads of players played a collaborative game in which they either

When senior-level leaders use empowering leadership, high power distance oriented leaders will see that the organization expects this behavior even though a leader does not like

The results showed that all change characteristics had a significant influence on psychological uncertainty and that the frequency of change and impact of change

Hypothesis 3: A positive perceived ethical work climate strengthens the positive relationship of ethical leadership on followers’ organizational citizenship behaviour.. METHODOLOGY