The moderating effect of transformational leadership in the relationship
between autonomy and individual performance
by
Kirsten van der Laan
University Groningen
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
2 ABSTRACT
3 TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ... 2
TABLE OF CONTENT ... 3
INTRODUCTION ... 4
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ... 5
Job Autonomy and Three Types of Job Performance ... 5
Transformational Leadership as a Moderator. ... 8
METHOD ... 11 Participants ... 11 Procedures ... 11 Measures ... 11 Control variables ... 12 RESULTS ... 12 Descriptive statistics ... 12 Hypothesis testing ... 13 DISCUSSION ... 15 Main findings ... 15 Theoretical implications ... 16 Practical implications ... 17
Limitations of the study ... 18
Future research ... 19
REFERENCES ... 20
4 INTRODUCTION
For many employees, the ideal organization might be an institute that provides them with total freedom and responsibility in performing their job and carrying out their tasks. Such an ideal organization relies on very high levels of job autonomy which is assumed by literature on organizational behavior to lead to high job performance. As such, autonomy refers to the degree to which an individual has substantial choice, independence, and discretion in
initiating, carrying out, and monitoring his or her task activities, such as scheduling work and determining and applying procedures to perform tasks (Hackman, 1980). This ideal picture as described above was the starting point of Xelvin BV to set up its organization. Xelvin BV is a partner for companies to recruit and employ highly educated technical professionals. The organization started in 2006 with three people and has been grown to an organization of 40 people at this moment. Now, in 2010, employees do not consider the autonomy basis of their organization as ideal anymore. They tend to be more and more in need of more structure and clear work goals to follow, instead of relying on their own freedom and responsibility to decide what to do and not to do in performing their jobs.
In general, providing employees with autonomy has been proposed and found to lead to higher motivation, satisfaction, and performance (Argote & McGrath, 1993; Dwyer, Schwartz, & Fox, 1992; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985; Spector, 1986). However, even though there is empirical support for a positive relationship between autonomy and performance (Spector, 1986), meta-analytic studies show that the effect size of the relationship remains modest (r = .26; Spector, 1986). In addition, the positive effects of autonomy have shown themselves to be much more elusive in practice than existing
theoretical models have suggested (e.g., Godard, 2001; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986). These mixed findings suggest that autonomy tends to be positively related to performance but that the strength of this relationship varies substantially across studies and situations,
suggesting the existence of moderating variables.
In the present study, I propose and examine the type of performance and
5 requirements but are important in actively promoting and strengthening the organization‟s effectiveness (Hunt, 1996; Organ, 1988). Moreover, employees can even be
counterproductive in their job performance by engaging in voluntary behaviors that harm the well-being of the organization (Robinson & Bennett, 2000). The first purpose of the present study is to propose and test differential relationships between autonomy and these distinct types of job performance.
Furthermore, prior research has primarily focused on how structural work and
organizational factors, such as task interdependence (Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Langfred & Moye, 2004), task variability (Langfred & Moye, 2004) and formalization (Langfred, 2005) can influence the relationship between autonomy and job performance. However, as leadership is a key factor in the work context that can facilitate and inhibit followers in performing their jobs (Avolio,1999; Bass, 1998), it is surprising that research has hardly investigated the role of leadership as a boundary condition that may intensify or attenuate the extent to which autonomy is related to job performance. I argue therefore that transformational leadership – defined as leader behavior directed at “broadening and elevating followers‟ goals and providing them with confidence to perform beyond the expectations specified in the implicit or explicit exchange agreement” (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002: 735) - can facilitate and encourage employees to utilize their autonomy to enhance their performance and inhibit them from engaging in counterproductive work behaviors. Thus, the second goal of the present study is to develop and test hypotheses about the moderating role of transformational leadership in the relationship between autonomy and job performance.
In sum, the present study extends research on job autonomy and job performance in two ways. First, we examined the differential relationships between autonomy and three distinct types of job performance, namely, in-role performance, extra-role performance, and counterproductive performance. The purpose of this analysis was to gain a better
understanding of how autonomy influences different types of performance. Second, we propose and test hypotheses predicting a moderating role of transformational leadership in the relationship between job autonomy and these distinct aspects of job performance.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Job Autonomy and Three Types of Job Performance
6 work motivation. According to Hackman and Oldham (1976), autonomy is one of five job characteristics that determine the motivating potential of a job. As one of a set of job characteristics, autonomy leads to the outcomes of increased motivation and work
effectiveness. More specifically, according to Hackman and Oldham (1976), autonomy leads to the critical psychological state of “experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work,” which in turn leads to outcomes such as high work effectiveness and high internal work motivation. Although much has been learned about the relationship between autonomy and performance from the research using the job characteristics model, the level of specificity concerning the job performance construct is limited, which might partly clarify why the effects found were modest (Spector, 1986). Therefore, it is interesting to explore autonomy in relation to distinct types of performance and see if the strength and direction of the
relationships might vary across different performance types.
Autonomy in relation to in-role performance. In-role performance is prescribed performance (Katz,1964) which is regulated, established, and enforced by job descriptions, standard work procedures, and standard performance system. Therefore, in-role performance may be less dependent on intrinsic motivational processes inherently associated with job autonomy. More specifically, the formal job descriptions and standard operating procedures provide a common understanding of appropriate in-role work behaviors and facilitate the coordination of work roles across employees with a minimum of effort (Dougherty & Heller, 1994). Moreover, institutionalized feedback, appraisal procedures, and reward systems used in organizations enable employees and their supervisors to form explicit expectations and draw clear-cut conclusions about the quantities and qualities of employees‟ in-role
performance (e.g., DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984; Heidemeier & Moser, 2009; Ilgen, Barnes-Farrel, & McKellin, 1993). As such, in-role performance can be expected to be regulated by processes and systems that are institutionalized by the organization rather than by motivational processes driven by job autonomy. Therefore, I argue that autonomy has no significant influence on in-role performance.
Hypothesis 1. Autonomy has no significant relationship with in-role performance.
7 functioning of the organization as a social system (Bateman & Organ, 1983). It has been assumed that individuals have greater discretion to engage in extra-role behaviors than required task behaviors (Smith et al., 1983). Therefore, extra-role performance is dependent on intrinsic motivational processes inherently associated with job autonomy. Increased autonomy will allow individuals greater flexibility in how they define their role because they will have greater discretion in deciding how to perform the work (Fried, Hollenbeck, Slowik, Tiegs, & Ben-David, 1999; Troyer, Mueller, & Osinsky, 2000). Researchers have shown that when employees regard their jobs as having stimulating and high motivating characteristics (e.g. autonomy), those employees have greater job involvement which leads to extra-role performance (Chen & Chui, 2009). Anderson and Williams (1996) found that autonomy increased the incidence of employees‟ seeking help from others and that this search for help, in turn, fostered the employees‟ own efforts to help others. As cooperative and helping behavior that goes beyond formal job requirements is the core element of extra-role
performance (Barnard, 1938; Katz, 1964), I argue that autonomy has a positive influence on extra role performance.
Hypothesis 2: Autonomy is positively related to extra-role performance.
Autonomy in relation to counterproductive performance. Counterproductive work behaviors consists of a broad array of behaviors that violate the organization‟s legitimate interests, including among others theft, unsafe behavior and misuse of information, time, or resources (Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Besides the positive relation between autonomy and extra-role performance, there are also findings of detrimental consequences of autonomy in relation to performance (Farh & Scott, 1983; Cosier & Aplin, 1980). An explanation for these
detrimental consequences is that subjects in the autonomous conditions might spend more time in making decisions about which task to switch to next and how to find the best strategies for carrying out complex or multiple tasks. If so, the occurrence of this decision-making behavior might intrude upon task performance (Fahr & Scott, 1983). Another
explanation by Alexander (1991) is that autonomy can be perceived by employees as a subtle form of control, in that they become more accountable and responsible for their own
8 autonomy as an undesirable job attribute. The higher the level of autonomy on the job the higher the associated uncertainty and stress might be. Negative perceptions of work
environment relate to negative emotions, which are positively correlated with the occurrence of counterproductive work behavior (Sackett et al., 2006). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 3. Autonomy is positively related to counterproductive performance
Transformational Leadership as a Moderator.
As stated before, research has hardly investigated the role of leadership as a boundary condition that may intensify or attenuate the extent to which autonomy is related to job performance. To fill this void, the present study is concerned with the moderator role of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is important in so far it has a significant and positive influence on follower work attitudes, work behaviors, and job performance (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway 1996; Behling & McFillen 1996; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam 1996; DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross 2000; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir 2002; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio 2002; McCann et al. 2006; Picollo & Colquitt, 2006). Therefore, it is interesting to explore if transformational leadership interacts with job autonomy in its effects in relation to the distinct types of performance.
Bass (1985) indicates that transformational leadership comprises four dimensions; intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, charisma, and inspirational motivation. Charisma (idealized influence) is the degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways that cause followers to identify with him or her. Inspirational motivation refers to a leader‟s ability to create a sense of collective mission among followers by articulating an exciting vision. Through intellectual stimulation, a leader provides followers with challenging new ideas to stimulate rethinking of old ways of doing things. Individualized consideration refers to coaching and mentoring while trying to assist each individual in achieving his or her fullest potential (Bass, 1985). The following reasons can be provided why transformational leaders moderate the relation between autonomy and in role performance.
Job autonomy, transformational leadership, and in-role performance. One theoretical basis for expecting a positive moderated effect of transformational leadership on the
9 ability to articulate visions, to a transformational leader, personal identification has occurred. They internalize their leader‟s values and beliefs and behave consistently with them, including putting collective interests over self-interests. In so doing, they receive leader praise and recognition. These in turn nourish the follower‟s sense of self-worth and felt obligation to reciprocate, thereby motivating behaviors that serve this obligation (e.g., Bass, 1985; Yukl, 2002). However, followers with insignificant autonomy in their job have less possibility to regulate and control their performance to perform beyond their expectations. As for followers with a high form of autonomy there is the possibility to deliver in-role performances beyond the limits and the formal expectations of the organization.
An alternative, but closely related, reason to expect a positive moderated effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between job autonomy and in-role
performance is the process of social identification. By means of social identification, which derives from followers taking pride in being part of a group or organization, followers come to view their individual efforts and work roles as contributing to a larger collective cause. This perspective enhances the personal meaningfulness and importance of their work. By emphasizing the ideological importance of an inspirational and unifying vision, and by linking the followers‟ self-concepts to this vision, transformational leaders build the social
identification and self-concepts of their followers. Internalization of the beliefs and values of a leader in such an instance is driven less by a desire to emulate the leader and more by the desire to identify with a collective cause (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Behaving in ways that express the values and beliefs of this social entity enhances a follower‟s self-concept. The self-efficacy of followers is strengthened when transformational leaders express confidence in their abilities and celebrate their accomplishments. Thereby, it can be presumed that job autonomy helps to transform the motivation given by the transformational leader in higher in-role performance, because autonomy gives space to provide those extra performances.
Hypothesis 4. Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between autonomy and in-role performance such that this relationship becomes positive when transformational leadership is high rather than low.
10 larger collective cause over individual interests. Individuals who are intrinsically motivated to fulfill a collective vision without expecting immediate personal and tangible gains may be inclined to contribute toward achieving the shared workplace goal in ways that their roles do not prescribe. These individuals make these contributions because their senses of self-worth and/or self-concepts are enhanced in making these contributions. However, followers can only act in this way when they have autonomy in the job. Autonomy gives them the freedom of self-management and thus to perform extra-role behaviors. Thus, followers with much autonomy in the job have the space and the possibility to get stimulated by the
transformational leader to contribute to collective goals by performing extra-role performance.
Hypothesis 5: Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between autonomy and extra-role performance such that this relationship becomes more positive when transformational leadership is high rather than low.
Job autonomy, transformational leadership, and counterproductive performance. Autonomy in the job can lead to frustration, uncertainty, stress and feeling of insolvency. These feelings can lead to counterproductive performance. According to Bass (1985), transformational leadership provides constructive feedback to their followers, convince followers to exhibit extra effort, and encourage followers to think creatively about complex problems. By doing this, these leaders set a framework of how to manage freedom to decide and to take responsibility. As a result, followers tend to behave in ways that facilitate high levels of performance. Thus, a transformational leader gives followers a framework, direction and support which will lessen stress, uncertainty and frustration. Bass (1985) also argued that transformational leaders energize employees to persist when conditions are unpredictable, difficult and stressful. Therefore, I argue that the relation between autonomy and
counterproductive performance becomes less positive when there is a transformational leader.
Hypothesis 6: Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between
11 METHOD
Participants
To test the hypotheses, a survey was conducted among 85 employees from two different organizations. Thirty employees were from the recruitment company Xelvin BV, which recruits and employs highly educated technical professionals for clients all over The Netherlands. Xelvin‟s organization structure is comparable with an adhocracy. Participants‟ occupation was managing consultant. In addition, 55 teachers from a high school college were asked to participate in the survey. The structure of this college is comparable with a
professional bureaucracy. All recruits reported to a direct supervisor.
From the 85 questionnaires which were distributed, 78 returned. In total, there were 52 (66.66%) male and 26 (33.33%) female respondents. The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 62 (M=34.96; SD=10.89) and the average tenure in their current job was 52.64 months (SD = 57.89).
Procedures
For the present study, questionnaires were sent out to all the employees of the two companies. The questionnaire utilized for the study was composed of a variety of instruments, designed to assess the independent, moderator, dependent, and control variables. After the participants filled in the questionnaire, they returned the questionnaires in closed envelopes. The assurance of confidentiality and anonymity for the participants was guaranteed in this way. In order to prevent common method variance, the measures of the dependent variable and the independent variable were collected independently of each other (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). The leader survey measured the level of individual performance, whereas the follower survey measured the self-reports of job autonomy and perceived transformational leadership. The distinct questionnaires were labeled with unique identification codes such that leader and follower data could be matched.
Measures
All items were assessed on Likert-type scales on which 1 represented „‟strongly disagree‟‟ and 5 represented “strongly agree‟‟.
12 Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was measured with items from the questionnaire by MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Rich (2001). Items were used to measure intellectual stimulation (e.g., „‟My supervisor... seeks differing perspectives when solving problems‟‟), inspirational motivation (e.g., „‟… articulates a compelling vision of the future‟‟), and individualized consideration (e.g., „‟… shares expectations of me‟‟), charisma (e.g., … is a role model for me‟‟). Cronbach‟s alpha for this scale was .85.
In-role behavior. Supervisors were asked to complete the 5-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). Supervisors indicated the extent to which they agreed with statements about their subordinates‟ performance, such as, „‟This employee… adequately completes assigned duties‟‟ and „‟… fulfills responsibilities specified in his/her job description.‟‟ Cronbach‟s alpha for this scale was .81.
Extra-role behavior. Supervisors also completed the 7-item measure of extra-role behavior published by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). Items included: “This employee assist others with their duties,‟‟ “This employee attends functions that are not required but that help the organizational image,‟‟ and “This employee offers ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.‟‟ Cronbach‟s alpha for this scale was .81.
Counterproductive performance. This was measured using the 10-item measure of counterproductive behavior published by Bennett, and Robinson (2000). Example items are: “This employee takes property from work without permission,” “This employee takes an additional or a longer break than is acceptable at your workplace.‟‟ Cronbach‟s alpha for this scale was .77.
Control variables
The control variable that have been included in the regression analyses are the
demographical variables age, tenure and gender. Research of Chatman (1991) and Heller and Yukl (1969) suggests that these demographic variables may influence the effects of
leadership. We also controlled for tenure because it may affect job performance (e.g. Sturman, 2003).
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
13 significant. Transformational leadership had no significant correlation with any of the three types of job performance.
--- Insert Table 1
---
Hypothesis testing
Since there are 3 different dependent variables in this research, 3 sets of linear regression analyses were used to test hypothesis 1-6. To test hypothesis 1-3 a two step regression analysis was used. After entering the control variables age, gender and tenure in the first step, job autonomy was included as a predictor of the respective job performance in a second step as presented in table 2.
--- Insert Table 2
---
Results indicated that the demographic control variables accounted for 3% (ΔR²=.03, N.S.) of the variance in in-role performance, 4% (ΔR²=.04, N.S.) of the variance in extra role
performance and 6% (ΔR²=.06, N.S.) in counterproductive performance. The first hypothesis predicted no significant relationship between autonomy and in-role performance. As
expected, no significant relationship between autonomy and in-role performance was found (B=.03, N.S.). This result is in line with hypothesis one.
The second hypothesis predicted a significant and positive relationship between autonomy and extra role performance. As expected, a significant positive relationship was found between autonomy and extra role performance (B=.27, p=0.05). This provides evidence supporting hypothesis two.
The third hypothesis predicted a significant positive relationship between autonomy and counterproductive performance. However, the results revealed a non significant
relationship between autonomy and counterproductive performance (B=-.02,N.S.), thereby disconfirming hypothesis 3.
14 between autonomy and transformational leadership was entered in the third step. Table 3 present the results of the moderated hierarchical regression.
--- Insert Table 3
---
The fourth hypothesis predicted that transformational leadership moderates the relationship between autonomy and in-role performance such that this relationship becomes positive when transformational leadership is high rather than low. There is found no
significant effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between autonomy and in-role performance (B=-.02, N.S.). This means that there is no evidence that supports
hypothesis four.
Hypothesis five tested if transformational leadership moderates the relationship between autonomy and extra-role performance such that this relationship becomes more positive when transformational leadership is high rather than low. Transformational leadership has no significant effect on the relationship between autonomy and extra-role performance (B=.13, N.S.). Even though a relationship between autonomy and extra-role performance was supported, the positive effect of transformational leadership on this relationship was not confirmed. Thus, there is no moderating effect, and support for hypothesis five cannot be provided.
I tested hypothesis six to examine if transformational leadership moderates the
relationship between autonomy and counterproductive performance such that this relationship becomes less positive or even negative when transformational leadership is high rather than low. It appeared that transformational leadership had also no significant effect on the relationship between autonomy and counterproductive performance (B=-.03,N.S.). This means that there is no evidence that support hypothesis six.
15 DISCUSSION
In this study, I developed theory regarding the relationship between autonomy and performance. Existing theory and studies of autonomy have not only fallen short on not providing theory incorporating the moderator leadership but also have not addressed the mechanism that might contribute to null or negative effects of autonomy. I have attempted to remedy those shortcomings by presenting a study that explores and examine the type of performance and transformational leadership as two factors that might influence the strength and direction of the relationship between autonomy and performance. That is, I argued that autonomy is differently related to the distinct types of in-role performance, extra-role performance, and counterproductive performance. Furthermore, I proposed that
transformational leadership will moderate the relationship between autonomy and these three types of performance.
I believe that the elaboration and integration of this exploration create a more complete picture of the relationship between autonomy and performance and illuminate why- and under what conditions- autonomy will and will not lead to performance gains. With this study, I hope to bring the theory of autonomy closer to the reality of practice. In the next session we discuss the main findings of this study. We then discuss the theoretical and practical
implications. Finally, I include suggestions for empirical research.
Main findings
The first three hypotheses investigated the relationship between autonomy and the three distinct types of performance. As predicted there is no significant relationship between autonomy and in-role performance, because in-role performance is less dependent on
motivational mechanisms since this type of performance is mainly regulated by job descriptions, standard work procedures, and norms and rules (hypothesis 1).
The second hypothesis about the relation between autonomy and extra-role performance is also confirmed by this study. Since autonomy is a stimulating and motivating job
16 performance, thereby disconfirming hypothesis 3. All in all, the present results show that autonomy not always leads to higher performance. This means that the positive effects of autonomy have shown themselves to be much more elusive in practice than theory have suggested (Godard, 2001; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986).
In sum, we can conclude the job characteristic autonomy has only a positive influence on extra-role performance. This type of performance refers to behaviors that are exerted by employees over and above their core task requirements, but that actively promote and
strengthen the organization‟s effectiveness (Hunt, 1996; Organ, 1988). However, autonomy as part of the job has no significant influence on in-role performance, which seems to suggest that autonomy has less influence on performance which refers to the basic required duties of a particular job.
Hypothesis 4 to 6 examined the possible moderator role of transformational leadership in the relationship between autonomy and the distinct types of performance. However, we found no evidence at all that transformational leadership is a boundary condition for the relationship between job autonomy and performance. An explanation for the outcome of hypothesis 4 and 5 might be given by the paradox effect. Autonomy gives followers responsibility, increases the intrinsic rewards of the task and transfers ownership of work activity from leader to followers. In this way the follower has substantial freedom to perform the job. Since transformational leadership sets a framework and gives direction it limited the freedom to perform the job. Thus, the paradox effect that arises is that autonomy gives freedom while transformational leadership limits the freedom. In this way transformational leadership cannot operate as a boundary condition for a positive effect between autonomy and performance. Hypothesis 6 stated that the relation between autonomy and counterproductive performance becomes less positive when there is a transformational leader as the
transformational leader sets a framework and gives direction which will lessen stress, uncertainty and frustration. Thus, on the one hand transformational leadership lessens the appreciating aspects of autonomy, but on the other hand it is pleasant to get direction when followers feel uncertain as a consequence of autonomy. Future research should be conducted to know more about what effects transformational leadership may exert as a potential
moderator.
Theoretical implications
17 Other research discovered that giving autonomy to employees is generally expected to result in higher performance (Argote & McGrath, 1993; Dwyer, Schwartz, & Fox, 1992; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985; Spector, 1986). In previous research autonomy was related with general job performance or only task performance. Since performance is a broad and complex construct, a shortcoming of previous research is that in did not implicate potential differential effects of job autonomy in relation to distinct types of performance. The current study adds to theory on autonomy by differentially linking it with three distinct types of job performance, namely in-role performance, extra-role performance, and counterproductive performance. An important implication is that it gives an explanation for why autonomy is not always (positively) related to performance, but that the strength and direction of the
relationship may vary across different types of performance.
Furthermore, the addition of some form of leadership to the theory of autonomy is a step toward developing a more comprehensive model of autonomy. To my knowledge, this boundary condition has not yet explored before in relationship with autonomy and
performance. Although this research did not show significant results, it will be interesting to further explore if leadership has a moderated effect on the relation between autonomy and performance. The underlying reason for this is that leadership is a key factor in the work context that can facilitate and inhibit followers in performing their jobs in particular when they seek guidance in jobs with a autonomy (Avolio,1999; Bass 1998). I suggest to do further research in the laboratory setting, were transformational leadership can be manipulated. In this way there is a possibility to differentiate between really low and high levels of
transformational leadership which should increase the chance to find significant results. In the present field study the absolute scores of perceived transformational leadership were
relatively high. It will be interesting to incorporate also other potential moderators from the socio-contextual work environment to create a much more complete picture of the
relationship between autonomy and performance.
Practical implications
The expanded theory about autonomy has several implications for organizations or managers who wish to incorporate autonomy, or have already incorporated autonomy in organizational setting. In general, this study helps delineate the conditions under which autonomy might be most appropriate.
18 manager. Therefore, with the design of functions managers need to have in mind that
autonomy in the job leads to extra-role performances. However, autonomy in the job has no influence on in-role performances, which means that autonomy has no effect when
performing tasks of the technical core.
Based on the results of this research managers should look critical to the job designs at this moment, if autonomy leads to the desired behavior fitting the goal of the organization. It is important to know which influence autonomy has on the behavior of employees. Less autonomy in the job will lead to less extra-role performances. Managers have to take this into account when designing jobs and rewards systems etc..
In sum, this study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows that autonomy in the job not automatically leads to higher performance. Autonomy leads to extra-role performance, but has no significant influence on in-role performance and counterproductive performance.
Limitations of the study
The theoretical contribution discussed above should be interpreted in light of this study‟s limitations. The data that were collected come from two organizations characterized by relatively high levels of autonomy in their jobs, so alternative explanations for observed results may exist. Furthermore, the sample used in the study also offers some important limitations. The number of individuals participating in the research was 78. This number of individuals might be too little to confirm all the expectations and might have impeded the chance to find significant evidence for some of the hypotheses.
Another possible reason for not having obtained significant evidence for the effect of transformational leadership on the different types of performance is that the present research has been conducted in the field rather than in the laboratory Transformational leadership in the current study had a relatively high mean (M=3.83) with a relatively small standard deviation (SD=0.33). This means that there was actually no possibility to differentiate between low and high levels of transformational leadership which might have limited testing transformational leadership as a boundary condition in the relationship between autonomy and the distinct types of job performance. Therefore, I suggest to do this study in a laboratory setting, were transformational leadership can be manipulated.
19 Future research
Considering this study‟s limitations, further research should be conducted at different organizations with different levels of job autonomy, with larger samples, and by using different research methods. Therefore, generalization of the present results awaits further empirical examination. First and foremost, experimental and longitudinal research in the laboratory and in the field is needed to ascertain the causal relationship between autonomy and the three distinct types of performance and the moderated effect of leadership in these relationships. For example the negative effect of autonomy resulting from the stress, uncertainty, and frustration were autonomy can lead to would ideally be studied in a
laboratory setting, as it is difficult to envision a field setting in which to study such an effect (Langfred & Moye, 2004). The moderating effect of transformational leadership could also be studied with multiple methods and might lend itself particularly well to first establishing an effect in a laboratory setting and subsequently studying this aspect in field research across multiple organizations. Another avenue for further research is further investigation of more possible boundary conditions for the relation between autonomy and different types of performance. The issue of time, for example is one that can be further explored. Wageman (1995) found that autonomy preference changed over time. Also the boundary conditions of task interdependency and task variability on the relationship between autonomy and
individual performance could be more explored. It would be interesting to know the effect of these relations in combination with transformational leadership.
Overall, I hope that this study will be of benefit to researchers as well as those in practice. For researchers, I hope the study generates new testable research questions as to the conditions that enhance or diminish the effects of task autonomy on performance. For
20 REFERENCES
Alexander, J. A. (1991). Adaptive change in corporate control practices. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 162–193.
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes, at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 282-296.
Argote, L., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group process in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of organizational psychology (pp. 333–389). New York: Wiley.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barling, J., Weber, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Individual, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the
relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T., & Taber, T.D. (1976). Relationship of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied psychology, 61, 41–47.
Behling, O., and McFillen, J.M. (1996). A Syncretical Model of Charismatic/
Transformational Leadership. Group & Organization Management, 21, 163–191. Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, p. 349.
21 Chatman, J.A., (1991). Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in
public accounting firms. Administrative science quarterly, 36 pp. 459-484.
Chen, C.C. & Chui, S.F. (2009). The Mediating Role of Job Involvement in the Relationship Between Job Characteristics and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology. 149:474-494.
Cosier, A. & Aplin, J.C. (1980). A critical view of dialectical inquiry as a tool in strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 343-356.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356–371.
DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. P. & Meglino, B. M. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33: 360-396.
Dougherty, D., & Heller, T. (1994). The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms. Organizational Science, 5(2), 200-218
Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B., and Avolio, B. (2002). A Meta-analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, eds. B.J. Avolio and F.J. Yammarino, North Holland: JAI Elsevier Science, pp. 35–65.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.
Dwyer, D. J., Schwartz, R. H., & Fox, M. L. (1992). Decision-making autonomy in nursing. Journal of Nursing Administration, 22, 17–23.
Farh, J. & Scott, W. E. (1983). The experimental effects of “autonomy” on performance and self-reports of satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 31(2), 203–222.
Fried Y., Hollenbeck J.R., Slowik L.H., Tiegs R.B., Ben-David H.A. (1999). Changes in Job Decision Latitude: The Influence of Personality and Interpersonal Satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 233-243.
22 Guzzo, R.A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in
organizations. In M.D. Dunette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.269-313). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists‟ Press. Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 11, 445–455.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Heidemeier, H. & Moser, K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytical test of a process mode. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353-370. Heller, F. & Yukl, G. A. (1969). Participation, Managerial decision making and situational
variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4:227-241.
Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic work behavior: An investigation into the dimensions of entry- level, hourly job performance. Personnel Psychology, 49, 51–83
Ilgen, D. R., J. L. Barnes-Farrell, and D. B. McKellin (1993). Performance Appraisal Process Research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to Appraisals in Use? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, vol.54, pp.321-368.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9: 131– 133.
Kelman, H.C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, no. 1:51-60.
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 385-399.
Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31: 513-529.
Langfred, C.W. & Moye, N.A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model considering motivational, informational and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 934-945.
23 Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29(2): 115-134.
McCann, J.J., Langford, P.H., and Rawlings, R.M. (2006). Testing Behling and McFillen’s Syncretical Model of Charismatic Transformational Leadership. Group &
Organization Management, 31, 237–263.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Piccollo, F., and Colquitt, J.A. (2006). Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviours: The Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 2, 327–340.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Robinson, S. and Bennett, R. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 349-60.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). London: Sage. Sackett, P.R., Et Al, (2006). Citizenship and Counterproductive Behavior: Clarifying
Relations between the Two Domains. Human Performance, 19(4), 441–464.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. A. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4:577–594
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653–663.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies
concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human relations, 39, 1005–1016. Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective,
24 Sturman, M.C. (2003). Searching for the Inverted U-shaped Relationship between Time
and Performance. Journal of Management, 29, 609-640.
Troyer, L., Mueller, C.W. and Osinsky, P.I. (2000). Who's the boss? A role-theoretic analysis of customer work. Work and Occupations, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 406-27 Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 145–180.
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: A long-term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 280–304.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601–617.
25 APPENDIX
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Gender .33 .47 - .04 .03 -.07 -.31** .05 -.12 -.23* 2 Age 34.96 10.89 - .56** -.03 -.06 -.1 -.8 -.08 3 Tenure 52.64 57.89 - -.23* -.09 -.17 -.17 -.10 4 Autonomy 3.73 .54 - -.02 .07 .26* .08 5 Transformational leadership 3.83 .33 - -.06 .13 -.04 6 In role performance 3.62 .38 - .44** -.33**
7 Extra role performance 3.41 .64 - -.49**
8 Counterproductive perfor 1.63 .42 -
Table 2
Results of regression analyses testing Hypothesis 1-3 Step and independent
variables In-role Extra role Counterproductive
B R² B R² B R²
Step 1 ) control variables
Gender .04 -.20* -.22
Age .00 .00 .00
Tenure .00 .00 .00
Step 2) main effect .03 .04 .06
Autonomy .03 .27* -.02
26 Table 3
Results of regression analyses testing Hypothesis 4 -6
Step and independent variables In-role Extra role Counterproductive
B R² B R² B R²
Step 2) Main effect .03 .04 .06
Autonomy .03 .27* -.02
Transformational leadership -.07 .21 -.16
Step 3) Interaction effect .04 .10 .08
Autonomy -.02 .09 -.03
Transformational
leadership .04 .13 .08
