The effects of leadership on employee motivation
between Chinese and German organizations
by power distance
Zeliang Yu
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Newcastle University Business School
Dissertation for MSc IBM & Marketing
Program: Master of advanced international business management and marketing Supervisor Newcastle: Rebecca Casey
Supervisor Groningen: Dr Bartjan Pennink Student number: S3025764
Abstract
This study aims at investigating the relationship between independent variables which are leadership behaviors and dependent variable that is employee motivation of Brano Filter Company under different power distance context, with empirical research of Brano Filter in China and Germany. Additionally, the prevalent leadership behaviors in these two organizations are examined as well. Based on path goal theory and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of power distance, the results show directive leadership behavior is prevalent in high power distance organizations. While supportive, participative and achievement oriented leadership behaviors are more prevalent in low power distance context. Moreover, directive, supportive and achievement oriented leadership behaviors are positively correlated with employee motivation in low power distance organizations, while participative leadership behavior is negatively correlated with employee motivation there. Only supportive leadership behavior is correlated with employee motivation in high power distance context, where is China in this study. However, further research with abundant cross cultural organization samples should be conducted to prove the findings and make them universal for organizational management field.
Acknowledgements
The research and completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the help of many people. I wish to acknowledge the assistance and support of not only the people mentioned below. First of all, I wish to thank the following organizations so that I could apply this interesting topic to my research: University of Groningen (RUG), University of Newcastle, Brano Filter. Because ccultural differences always draw my attention as I almost experience it every day during these years of study abroad, despite the cause of different languages between Chinese which is my mother tongue and English. Thanks for the research method knowledge I obtained from pre-master of RUG and SPSS practices from Newcastle University which I could adopt for this study.
1. Introduction
revealed the influence of leadership on employee motivation in China as Western concepts of motivation are generally applied (Jackson and Bak, 1998).
Many studies relating to cross cultural leadership identified different cultural dimensions to investigate organizational leadership behaviors in different countries and organizations. Power distance proposed by Hofstede (1980) which directly indicates the relationship of power position between managers and subordinates is suitable and accurate to identify the relationship between superiors and subordinates in German and Chinese organizations in this study.
The research introduced above investigated cultural influence with leadership, and how different leadership behaviors affect employee motivation. However, lack of research combined these two streams to test the relationship between leadership behaviors and employee motivation under different power distance context. Thus, this study aims at investigating the relationship between independent variables which are leadership behaviors and dependent variable that is employee motivation of Brano Filter (Branofilter.de, 2017) under different power distance context, with empirical research of Brano Filter in China and Germany. Additionally, the prevalent leadership behaviors in these two organizations are examined as well.
1.1 Integrated Framework
As this research mainly follows Path-Goal theory proposed by House (1971) which analyzed the culture-specific differences in relationship between leaders and employee motivation of Brano Filter, combining with Hofstede’s cultural framework of power distance as moderator in this relationship, the transition of conceptual model based on literature review is conducted below.
1.2 Main research question
For the purpose of investigating the power distance effect towards the relationship between leadership behaviors and employee motivation, the main research question of this paper is:
How do different leadership behaviors affect employee motivation in different power distance organization?
1.3 Sub research questions
1. What leadership behaviors are prevalent in low power distance organization?
2. What leadership behaviors are prevalent in high power distance organization?
3. How do leadership behaviors affect employee motivation in low power distance organization?
4. How do leadership behaviors affect employee motivation in high power distance organization?
1.4 Method
2. Literature review
2.1 Common Threads Between Entrepreneurship and Leadership
Entrepreneurship is a self-directed activity participated by individuals who are able to identify opportunities and strive for achievement afterwards. Thus, this cluster of people is defined as entrepreneurs (Shane, 2003). In order to define the person who possesses entrepreneurship, Shane et al. (2010) compared five personality traits from thousands of twins in Western organizations which are extraversion, open mind, disagreeableness, responsibility, and emotional stability (Shane et al., 2010). Wagener et al. (2010) investigated seven areas where character traits between leaders and entrepreneurs would be similar, which are independence, opportunity assessment ability. The overall distinctions between these two parties are detected while entrepreneurs show the kind of profile associated with successful innovation, business growth and profit realization, while leaders tend to look for more stability for their business.
support for innovation, organizing feedback, recognition, rewards, providing resources, monitoring, and task assignment. Nevertheless, these leadership behaviors could be regarded as the ramification of four leadership behaviors proposed by House and Mitchell (1974) which investigated the relationship between leaders and subordinates with influence of culture. Section 2.3 describes this relationship comprehensively.
The skills possessed by entrepreneurs and leaders are strengthened after individual training, and they could learn and improve techniques such as in-depth interview, decision-making style from each other (Baron, 2000a). Last but not least, entrepreneurs may become leaders to fulfil different duties or leaders can be entrepreneurs to start up “new firms” after organizational realignment (Schein, 1983).
2.2 Cross cultural leadership
Management literature indicated that the influence of leadership behaviors in organizational performance are different by culture from many perspectives (Berrell, Wright and Van Hoa, 1999, p.578). According to globalization nowadays, various cultures are with critical roles in daily operation of global economics. Many studies have engaged in cultural framework towards various aspects of leadership (e.g., Dorfman and Howell 1988, Dorfman et al. 1997, Ardichvili 2001, Aditya and House 2002). Thus, an independent field named cross cultural leadership has been formed. It is essential to understand the impacts of different cultures on organizational behaviors especially for leadership since it acts as behavioral role which affects organizational performance the most when the business crosses the border to a new context. It is stated that globalization brings many challenges for leaders, which forces them to understand the difficulties and realize the opportunities from cross cultural leadership behaviors (Jogulu, 2010).
2.3 Path-goal theory
Path-goal theory was proposed by House which belongs to the situational school. The idea of this theory is that leader must facilitate subordinates to find the path of organizational goals and guide them in that process (1971, p. 326). House (1996) conducted a retrospective review of his early research and summarized that path-goal theory analyzed the relationship between leaders and employees in an organization. Specifically, it investigated how leaders impact and motivate their followers, which implied leaders are in the position to motivate employees to fulfill the tasks effectively. This concept fits the research of this case study the most not only for the definition of leadership by House et al. (2004): the ability of the individual to impact, motivate and enable subordinates to work effectively and achieve organizational goals successfully, but also for the concern of specific leadership behaviors prevailing in different cultures.
Four leadership behaviors which are directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented were identified by House and Mitchell based on path-goal theory (1974, p. 90). They argued that leadership behaviors could be viewed as a mechanism of motivation for subordinates (1974, p. 84).
2.3.1 Directive leadership behaviors
(1974, p. 81-97) argued that clarification of expected goals, processes, and rules are behaviors of directive leadership. Many literature have identified that directive leadership behavior is more influential in countries with high power distance than low (Dorfman et al., 1997). In high power distance organization, directive leadership is the most effective and critical behavior since leaders there are with highly status conscious to reduce the task ambiguity of followers. By contrast, they proved that directive leadership is not that effective in low power distance culture such as America.
2.3.2 Supportive leadership behaviors
Supportive leadership behavior defined by House and Mitchell (1974) exposures when leader considers about subordinates needs and facilitate them during the work. Moreover, leaders care about employees’ welfare so that trust is built through this procedure. With this behavior, leaders are willing to listen to subordinates’ issues and to increase their confidence to complete goals. Dorfman et al. (1997) proposed that supportive leadership behavior is more present and accepted in low power distance culture like the US. Moreover, Dickson et al. (2003) argued supportive leadership behavior exists in both high and low power distance countries, while it is more efficient in low power distance context.
2.3.3 Participative leadership behaviors
of leadership behavior, managers offer a consensual decision making mechanism to make a common task goal with followers. The employee commitment and autonomy increase from this behavior and the success rate of task achievement raises. This leadership behavior is more prevalent in low power distance culture (Dorfman et al., 1997) since the concept contradicts power position of leader in high power distance context. It even negatively affects the organizational commitment in high power distance organizations.
2.3.4 Achievement oriented leadership behaviors
2.4 Employee motivation
According to Burke and Litwin’s organizational performance model about interaction among organizational variables in organizational behavior and change, the relationship between leadership and employee motivation is illustrated. They proposed that external environment factor in the most influential driver that affects internal relationships. Employee motivation is defined as the passion or willingness individual possesses to achieve organizational goals effectively (Burke and Litwin, 1992). McClelland’s motivation theory (1987) identified four types of motivation which are achievement, power, affiliation and avoidance. The common purpose of these motivations is to boost work effectiveness of employees.
employees who are absent or unpunctual frequently. Last but not least, bonus systems are referred to the rewards besides salary. For instance, profit center is established relating to organizational performance. Employees generate extra bonus monthly or yearly when the profit of the company increases. Therefore, subordinates are willing to work even after normal working hours. Based on their claim above, questions to measure employee motivation are developed for later empirical research, which are:
l The manager praises us when the task is done excellently; l The training programs are offered;
l I expect to get job promotion;
l Many rules and policies should be followed when execute the task;
2.5 Cultural dimensions of Hofstede and leadership
Many studies relating to cross cultural leadership identified different cultural dimensions to investigate organizational leadership behaviors in different countries and organizations. The cultural dimensions by Hall and Hall (1960) focused on communication at work. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) proposed the relationship between human nature and human problem solutions which was an example for later research (Fink et al., 2006). The dimensions by Trompenaars (1993) were based on imagination rather than empirical study (Hofstede, 1996). Moreover, the cultural dimensions of GLOBE (1996) and Hofstede (1980) both researched business culture at national and organizational level with the same characteristics of power distance and uncertainty avoidance raised by Hofstede earlier. However, GLOBE did not define the terminologies of value, organizational culture and so forth for comparison under different contexts (Smith, 2006), and it adopted same questions to test national and organizational dimensions which should be measured separately. Therefore, in order to investigate the influence of culture towards organizational relationship between leaders and employee motivation, cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1980) which directly indicates the relationship between managers and subordinates is suitable for this study.
It is proved by Zhang and Begley (2011) that power distance has a moderating impact on management empowerment and team participation in both high power distance context which is China and low power distance culture which is USA. In their study, Hofstede’s power distance concept was adopted as moderator of this relationship. Empowerment was referred to tasks assigned by firm’s managerial practice (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Spreitzer 1995), for instance, leadership. While team participation was defined as the actions taken by employees for effective team outcomes (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp and Gilson 2008), which is linked to employee motivation towards working effectiveness in this study. Therefore, power distance is with the role of moderator towards the relationship between leadership behaviors and employee motivation for this study.
3. Hypotheses development
After extracting literature illustrated above, hypotheses to test Brano Filter in Germany and China are formulated.
3.1 Hypotheses for leadership behaviors in different power distance
organizations
Directive leadership behavior focuses on reducing task ambiguity of employees by assigning distinct requirements of work to be completed and attain expected outcome. House and Mitchell (1974, p. 81-97) argued clarification of expected goals, processes, and rules are behaviors of directive leadership. Many literature have identified that directive leadership behavior is more influential in countries with high power distance than low (Dorfman et al., 1997). In high power distance organization, directive leadership is the most effective and critical behavior since leaders there are with highly status conscious to reduce the task ambiguity of followers. By contrast, they proved that directive leadership is not that effective in low power distance culture such as America.
Hypothesis 1a:
H1: Directive leadership behavior is more prevalent in high power distance organization.
about employees’ welfare and trust is built through this procedure. With this behavior, leaders are willing to listen to subordinates’ issues and to increase their confidence to complete goals. Dorfman et al. (1997) proposed that supportive leadership behavior is more present and accepted in low power distance culture like the US. Moreover, Dickson et al. (2003) argued supportive leadership behavior exists in both high and low power distance countries, while it is more efficient in low power distance context.
Hypothesis 1b:
H1: Supportive leadership behavior is more prevalent in low power distance organization.
Participative leadership behavior is defined when the behaviors are relating to encouragement of employees to participate into decision making process (House and Mitchell, 1974). For this type of leadership behavior, managers offer a consensual decision making mechanism to make a common task goal with followers. The employee commitment and autonomy increase from this behavior and the success rate of task achievement raises. This leadership behavior is more prevalent in low power distance culture (Dorfman et al., 1997) since it contradicts power position of leader in high power distance context. It even negatively affects the organizational commitment in high power distance organizations.
Hypothesis 1c:
Achievement oriented leadership behaviors are referring to achieve superb organizational performance through challenging tasks (House and Mitchell, 1974). In order to obtain an excellent outcome, leaders who are experienced to customize the process and allocate appropriate tasks to professional employees for organizational success. According to Hofstede (2001), leaders depends more on expert employees in low power distance context since difficult tasks require high working autonomy. Thus, achievement oriented leadership behavior is more popular in low power distance organizations. While it can be imagined the serious consequence when challenging task fails in high power distance organizations if this behavior is prevalent there.
Hypothesis 1d:
H1: Achievement oriented leadership behavior is more prevalent in low power distance organization.
3.2 Hypotheses for relationship in different power distance organizations
Adsit et al. (1997) argued directive leadership behaviors have more influence in high power distance organizations since autocratic behaviors are widely accepted by employees to work effectively.
Hypothesis 2a:
Asian countries are the lowest on respect for employees which implies leaders in high power distance organizations do not pay sufficient attention for employees’ welfare and building trust. Thus, supportive leadership is less significant in high power distance context to influence leaders in raising employee motivation.
Hypothesis 2b:
H1: The relationship is less positive between supportive leadership behavior and employee motivation in high power distance organization.
Participative leadership is more suitable for the relationship between superiors and subordinates in low power distance organizations because they are with limited dependence of employees on their supervisors. And leaders usually invite relevant employees to participate in decision making process (Adsit et al., 1997).
Hypothesis 2c:
H1: The relationship is more positive between participative leadership behavior and employee motivation in low power distance organization.
Hypothesis 2d:
4. Methodology
This section is about constructing the quantitative research which is purely scientific, precise and justifiable from exact figures (Jonker and Pennink, 2010) to test the hypotheses about Brano Filter so that the research questions can be resolved. Thus, the philosophy adopted for this study is pragmatism as it was argued that the most important determinant of the epistemology, ontology and axiology the researcher adopted is the research question. Moreover, deductive approach is employed as this thesis is mainly based on path goal theory and cross cultural leadership literature (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009).
4.1 Sample and data
Brano Filter in Germany and China through WeChat conversation. Each factory contains over one hundred employees. There are all German employees in Brano Germany and all Chinese employees in Brano China, which makes this company ideal for this distinctive cultural comparison study. According to the various departments of Brano Filter, stratified random sampling method should be adopted to assure the representativeness of each department and precise outcome due to its homogeneous characteristics (Socialresearchmethods.net, 2017). However, intra firm communication through WeChat with the permission of Ally enables online survey to reach all employees in that group. Totally, 210 replies from German and Chinese firms had been collected in 2 weeks. After the elimination of those subordinates who have worked less than 1 year since most of them are interns and lack of the organization experience, and incomplete replies, eventually, 75 samples from Germany and 85 from China were remained for empirical research.
(Source: Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p219)
According to the estimated sample size table (table 1) and integrating with the population of Brano Filter, 151 samples should be obtained minimally from both organizations of Brano based on 250 population at 95% confidence level which is commonly adopted in research. Moreover, since it is conducted by administered questionnaire method, high response rate can be anticipated (see section 4.2.1), which is approximately 90%. On the basis of the equation below, the actual sample size required is expected as 168 optimally. However, 160 valid samples still meet the minimum criteria described above.
*Where na is the actual sample size required, n is the minimum (or adjusted minimum) sample size, e% is the estimated
response rate expressed as a percentage.
4.2 Measurement and measures
4.2.1 Survey researchFor the data collection process, secondary data and primary data will be collected. The online information of Brano Filter was viewed initially, then the relevant book and journals were reviewed, which are illustrated in literature review section. Additionally, most literature were accessed online. The detail literature is listed in reference section. On the other hand, primary data will be collected through online survey.
The survey method of this study should be group administered questionnaire method. As the samples are all selected among Brano Filter, it is feasible and effective to assemble employee groups at each department of the company in Germany and China (Socialresearchmethods.net, 2017). The advantages of this method are high response rate and clear clarification of the questions. However, since the survey is online and assigned by the manager who is familiar with organizational structure, the high response rate can be still expected.
Therefore, the population of Brano is accessible. Firstly, all of the employees in Brano except managers will receive the survey as they are all in intra firm WeChat group. Secondly, they are all literate to complete questionnaire since Brano recruits people who are undergraduates or with higher educated. Additionally, the questionnaire is made in English and Chinese both for target samples (Appendix A). Furthermore, sampling issues are minimized because all subordinates can be reached by online survey. Moreover, as stratified random sampling method and group administered questionnaire method which are substituted by online survey assigned by the manager, the sample will still be expected representatively with high response rate. With the analysis of SPSS, the hypotheses formulated in section 3 will be examined.
4.2.2 Independent variables
questions (Appendix A) to measure these variables are designed and elaborated below. According to the reliability check of the collected data, Cronbach’ alpha was conducted and the questions were realigned by factor analysis from original questionnaire.
Directive leader behavior aims to reduce the role ambiguity of subordinates by setting clear structure of work to be implemented and procedures to obtain expected outcome. Therefore, question 1, 2, 5, 6 denoted as D1, D2, D5, D6 in data analysis were employed to measure this variable: (D1) The manager supervises me closely during task implementation; (D2) The manager clarifies the expected performance of the task to me; (D5) The manager makes decisions and tasks unilaterally for us; (D6) Punishment is applied when the task did not meet the goal or failed.
Supportive behaviors occur when a leader is friendly and considerate of the needs of his subordinates. Question 4, 10 11 marked as S4, S10, S11 measure this domain: (S4) The manager helps and supports me during task implementation; (S10) The manager cares about my welfare; (S11) The manager trusts us.
decision makings; (P9) The manager asks us to evaluate organizational performance.
Achievement oriented leadership are any behaviors towards encouraging performance excellence by setting challenging goals, emphasizing excellence in performance and in instilling confidence that the subordinates will strive for higher standard of performance.
Question 3 and 7 noted as A3 and A7 examine this leadership behavior: (A3) The manager sets challenging goals for me; (A7) Incentives are derived from excellent task performance.
4.2.3 Dependent variable
Employee motivation
Jackson and Bak (1998) classified the type of motivational techniques and methods managers actually employed to improve employee motivation towards effectiveness which are praise, training, job rotation and enrichment, rule enforcement, and bonus systems. they were measured by question 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, respectively abbreviated as E: (E12) The manager praises us when the task is done excellently; (E13) The training programs are offered; (E14) I expect to get job promotion; (E15) Many rules and policies should be followed when execute the task; (E16) I work after normal working hours reasonably although it is not required by the manager; (E17) I think that the current working environment should be changed.
The questions of the survey will be constructed in a structured way relied on Likert scaling method (Socialresearchmethods.net, 2017). It requires respondents to rate the items from 1 to 5 response scale which indicates never, rarely, sometimes, very often, always respectively. Due to the single option variable in this case, the response format will be circling the answer. As it is conducted by the online survey tool which is named Qualtrics, the participates click each answer on their PC or mobile device.
4.2.5 Unobtrusive measures
The physical presence of the researcher may affect the respondents’ behavior in the research context. (Socialresearchmethods.net, 2017). In this study, unobtrusive measures were taken into account since respondents may feel resentful to fill in questionnaire which influences the validity and accuracy of the results. With this online survey, researchers and managers do not intrude the research as both parties do not present to collect the questionnaires physically. Moreover, it is stated at the first page of questionnaire that all data obtained from participators will be anonymous and confidential for only study purpose (Appendix A Questionnaire).
4.3.1 Validity
Validity should be considered normally as some research involves the causal relationship that whether staff motivation affects leadership for instance (Socialresearchmethods.net, 2017). However, that is not the case for this study as Ally said Brano Filter Germany and China both adopt hierarchic structure so top down approach is common accepted in both organizations. Moreover, according to the definition of leadership by House et al. (2004): the ability of the individual to impact, motivate and enable subordinates to work effectively and achieve organizational goals successfully, subordinates are impacted and motivated by managers. Additionally, questionnaire is set on the basis of influence from superiors. Due to the specific case employed for this study, control variables such as firm size, firm age are not able to be included to lessen validity issue.
4.3.2 Reliability
Table 2. Internal consistency of Brano questionnaire
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
N of Items
rotation should be conducted to avoid multidimensional issue. After multidimensional issue check, the questions were realigned and displayed in adjusted questions column (table 3). The questions designed to test 4 independent variables were still extracted by 4 dimensionalities (Appendix C). Only question 5 switched to measure achievement oriented leadership behavior as the value is quite low comparing with other items in that dimension. And Cronbach’s alpha was conducted again after the realignment for reliability check. However, 2 components were extracted for dependent variable while there is only one component in this research which is employee motivation (Appendix D). The all items belong to one component after the elimination of question 17. Afterwards, descriptive statistics and regression analysis could be conducted.
Table 3. Questions of variables in survey
Variables Original questions Adjusted questions
Directive leadership behavior 1,2,5,6 1,2,6
Supportive leadership behavior 4,10,11 4,10,11
Participative leadership behavior 8,9 8,9
Achievement oriented leadership behavior
3,7 3,5,7
4.4 Analysis
4.4.1 Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis which is referred to descriptive statistic is used to describe the distribution, central tendency and dispersion of the collected data. Normally they are summarized and presented by graphical technique such as histogram to be easily observed and understood. Distribution of data is expressed by frequency. Central tendency uses numerical techniques including mean, median and mode. Last but not least, dispersion is measured by variance or stand deviation (Socialresearchmethods.net, 2017). One –way ANOVA and Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test is adopted to test hypotheses 1a to 1d by comparing the mean when they are significant. ANOVA test is statistically better than t-test as the former test can reduce the possibility of a type-I error which misleads you to reject null hypothesis when it is true. It helps researchers to predict the single dependent variable relating to one or more independent variables. Moreover, ANOVA does not require equal sample size between variables (Cardinal and Aitken, 2006).
5. Findings
Descriptive statistics and ANOVA test (table 5) were conducted to test hypotheses 1a to 1d which are about prevalent leadership behaviors in Germany and China.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA Test for Hypotheses 1 summary
Workplace N Mean p Directive leadership behavior Germany 75 2.34 0.00* China 85 2.75 Supportive leadership behavior Germany 75 3.39 0.00* China 85 3.32 Participative leadership behavior Germany 75 3.53 0.00* China 85 3.01 Achievement oriented leadership behavior Germany 75 3.38 0.00* China 85 3.05 Employee Motivation Germany 75 3.91 0.00* China 85 3.42 * Two-tailed tests, p < 0.05
organization. Thus, hypothesis 1a: Directive leadership behavior is more prevalent in high power distance organization is supported.
The mean of supportive leadership behavior of Germany and China is 3.39 and 3.32, and they are significant at 95% confident level. Thus, hypothesis 1b: Supportive leadership behavior is more prevalent in low power distance organization is supported.
The mean of participative leadership behavior of Germany and China is 3.53 and 3.01. Since they are significant at 95% confident level, hypothesis 1c: Participative leadership behavior is more prevalent in low power distance organization is supported.
The mean of achievement oriented leadership behavior of Germany and China is 3.38 and 3.05. However, they are not significant at 95% confident level. Therefore, hypothesis 1d: Achievement oriented leadership behavior is more prevalent in low power distance organization is supported.
Table 6. Regression Results for Hypotheses 2a
Variable Employee Motivation
Model 1: Germany Model 2: China
Directive leader behavior 0.602* (0.111) 0.087 (0.114) Supportive leadership behavior 0.848* (0.111) 0.281* (0.105) Participative leader behavior -0.235* (0.094) 0.202 (0.106) Achievement oriented leadership 0.243* (0.083) 0.234 (0.128) Model statistics R2 0.604 0.402 Adjusted R2 0.581 0.372
a Standardized regression coefficients are shown; standard errors are in parentheses. * p < 0.05
Hypothesis 2a predicts that, the directive leadership behavior to employee motivation is higher in high power distance organization. Model 1 predicted positive and significant relationship for these two variables (b = 0.602, p < 0.05). However, the relationship is not significant of model 2. Therefore, hypothesis 2a: The relationship is more positive between directive leadership behavior and employee motivation in high power distance organization is not supported.
Hypothesis 2b predicts that, the supportive leadership behavior to employee motivation is lower in high power distance organization. Both model 1 (b = 0.848, p < 0.05) sand model 2 (b = 0.281, p < 0.05) interpret positive and significant relationship between these variables. Moreover, model 1 shows larger and very high coefficient between supportive leadership behavior and employee motivation. Therefore, hypothesis 2b: The relationship is less positive between supportive leadership behavior and employee motivation in high power distance organization is supported.
organization is not supported.
Hypothesis 2d predicts that, the achievement oriented leadership behavior to employee motivation is higher in low power distance organization. Model 1 shows a significant correlation (b = 0.243) between these two variables. While it is not significant in Model 2. Therefore, hypothesis 2d: The relationship is more positive between achievement oriented leadership and employee motivation in low power distance organization is partially supported.
5.1 Results of empirical-based framework
Chart 2 and 3 below illustrate the results of empirical-based framework of Model 1 and Model 2, respectively.
Chart 3. Empirical-based Model 2 framework
6. Discussion
This study tested different leadership behaviors prevalent in German and Chinese organizations, and the relationship between Leadership behaviors and employee motivation in Germany (model 1) and in China (model 2).
behavior is more popular in low power distance organizations. Additionally, for this company, it can be asserted that the employees of German factory are more motivated than their Chinese colleagues in China according to the analysis of variance of employee motivation variable.
Afterwards, the regression analysis found that the majority of Adsit et al. (1997)’s arguments are not supported as only the statement that leaders in high power distance organizations do not pay sufficient attention for employees’ welfare and building trust is proved from findings.
Therefore, research questions proposed in section 1.2 and 1.3 are answered.
However, it is noticed that the R square of model 1 (Germany) is pretty high comparing with model 2 (China), which implies the case selection might be not optimal as Brano is a German firm with its headquarter in Germany. Although Brano Germany and Brano China engage in different business, the organizational standards were set by German leaders. Moreover, the question design of employee motivation for Chinese subordinates are based on Western motivation theories which were tested mainly within western organizations. Can Western motivation theories be generally applied to China (Jackson and Bak, 1998)? This doubt may explain why only supportive leadership behavior is correlated to employee motivation, Brano China.
7. Conclusion
This thesis investigated the power distance effect towards the relationship between leadership behaviors and employee motivation of Brano Filter. The results showed directive leadership behavior is prevalent in high power distance organizations. While supportive, participative and achievement oriented leadership behaviors are more prevalent in low power distance context. Moreover, directive, supportive and achievement oriented leadership behaviors are positively correlated with employee motivation in low power distance organizations, while participative leadership behavior is negatively correlated with employee motivation there. Only supportive leadership behavior is correlated with employee motivation in high power distance, where is China in this study. This research merged path goal theory with Hofstede’s cultural dimension of power distance in a specific company, Brano Germany and China, to boost employee working effectiveness by identifying distinctive leadership behaviors in different working environment. For Brano Germany in this study, supportive leadership behavior could facilitate employee working effectiveness the most to achieve organizational performance. By contrast, participative leadership behavior is undesirable in that organization. For Brano China, devoting supportive leadership behavior will increase subordinates’ working effectiveness.
References
Aditya, R., & House, R. J. (2002). Interpersonal acumen and leadership across cultures: Pointers from the GLOBE study. In R. E. Riggio, & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Adsit, D., London, M., Crom, S. and Jones, D. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in upward ratings in a multinational company. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(4), pp.385-401.
Amiri, N. S. and Marimaei, M. R. (2012). Concept of Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurs Traits and Characteristics. Scholarly Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 2(7) pp.150-155.
Anderson, N. R. and West, M.A. (1998). 'Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory,' Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 3, 235-258.
Ardichvili, A (2001). Leadership Styles and Work-related values of Managers and employees of manufacturing enterprises in Post- Communist Countries. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12 (4), 363-383.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate direction of incentive activity: economic and social factors (pp. 609–625). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bai, X., & Bennington, L. (2005). Performance appraisal in the Chinese state-owned coal industry. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 7(3), 275–287.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43–54.
Berrell, M., Wright, P. and Van Hoa, T.T (1999). The influence of culture on managerial behavior. Journal of Management Development, 18(7), 578-589.
Brano Filter, (2017). [online] Available at: https://www.branofilter.de/brano-panel-filters.html [Accessed 9 Oct. 2017].
Burke, W. W. and Litwin, G. H. (1992). A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change. Journal of Management, 18(3), pp.523-545.
Cardinal, R. and Aitken, M. (2006). Anova for the behavioral sciences researcher. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
Chandler, G., DeTienne, D., McKelvie, A. and Mumford, T. (2011). Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), pp.375-390.
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C. and House, R. J. (Eds.) (2007). Culture and Leadership across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-depth Studies of 25 Societies. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Den Hartog, D.N. and Koopman, P.L. (2001), “Leadership in organizations”, in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Kepir-Sinangil, H. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Psy Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Chology, Vol. 2, Sage, London.
Dickson, H.W, Hartog, D.N and Mitchelson, J.K (2003). Research on leadership in a cross- cultural context: Making progress and raising new questions. The leadership Quarterly, 14, 729- 768.
Dorfman, P. W. and Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127-150.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., and Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233–274.
Durand, D. E. (1975). Effects of achievement motivation and skill training on the entrepreneurial behavior of black businessmen. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 76–90.
Festing, M., & Barzantny, C. (2008). A comparative approach to performance management in France and Germany: The impact of the European and the country-specific environment. European Journal of International Management, 2(2), 208–227.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fink, G., Neyer, A. and Kölling, M. (2006). Understanding Cross-Cultural Management Interaction: Research into Cultural Standards to Complement Cultural Value Dimensions and Personality Traits. International Studies of Management and Organization, 36(4), pp.38-60.
Geert-hofstede.com. (2017). China - Geert Hofstede. [online] Available at: https://geert-hofstede.com/china.html [Accessed 12 May 2017].
GLOBE (1996). The development and cross - cultural validation of scales measuring societal culture, organizational culture, and prototypical leader attributes. Wharton School, PA, in review.
of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hall, A. and Hall, M. (1960). Newton's Theory of Matter. Isis, 51(2), pp.131-144.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: international differences in work - related values. Beverly Hills, Calif., Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1996). Riding the waves of commerce: A test of Trompenaars' “model” of national culture differences. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(2), pp.189-198.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.
Hofstede. G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005) Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede Insights. (2017). Country Comparison - Hofstede Insights. [online] Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/china,germany/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2017].
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J. and Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American psychologist, 49(6), 493
House, R. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), p.321.
House, R.J., and Mitchell, T.R., (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
IDRE Stats. (2017). What does Cronbach's alpha mean? | SPSS FAQ - IDRE Stats. [online] Available at: https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/spss/faq/what-does-cronbachs-alpha-mean/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].
Jackson, T. and Bak, M. (1998). Foreign companies and Chinese workers: employee motivation in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(4), pp.282-300.
Javidan, M. (2004). Performance orientation. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 235–281). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., & Dorfman, P. W. (2004). A nontechnical summary of globe findings. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 29–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jogulu, U.D (2010). Culturally-linked leadership styles. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(8), 705-719.
Jonker, J. and Pennink, B. (2010). The essence of research methodology. Berlin: Springer.
Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, pp. 499-524.
Retrieved 25 August 2017] from Cornell University
Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60–85.
Kluckhohn, F. R. and F. L. Strodtbeck (1961). Variation is value orientations. New York: HarperCollins.
Lindholm, N. (2000). National culture and performance management in MNC subsidiaries. International Studies of Management & Organization, 29(4), 45–66.
Litwin, G. and Stringer, R. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate. The American Journal of Psychology, 82(4), p.554.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., and Gilson, L. (2008), ‘Team Effectiveness 1997–2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future,’ Journal of Management, 34, 3, 410–476.
McClelland, D.C. (1987), Human Motivation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McSweeney, B. (2002), ‘Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith,’ Human Relations, 55, 1, 89–118.
Robbins, S. P. (1997). Essentials of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Fifth Edition. Pearson Education Limited.
Schneider, S. C., and Barsoux, J.-L. (2003). Managing across cultures. New York: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Cultural dimensions of values: Towards an understanding of national differences. Individualism and collectivism: Theoretical and methodologic al issues: 85 - 119. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar.
Shane, S., Nicolaou, N., Cherkas, L. and Spector, T.D. (2010), ‘‘Genetics, the Big Five, and the tendency to be self-employed’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1154-62.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003), “Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-14.
Smith, P. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: the GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), pp.915-921.
Socialresearchmethods.net. (2017). Social Research Methods - Knowledge Base - Survey Research. [online] Available at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/survey.php [Accessed 2 Nov. 2017].
Measurement, and Validation,’ Academy of Management Journal, 38, 5, 1442–1465.
T. M. Amabile, “Creativity in Context,” West View Press, Boulder, 1996.
The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. (2017). PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. [online] Available at: http://www.processmacro.org/index.html [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
Thomas, K. W. and Velhouse, B. A. (1990). 'Cognitive elements of empowerment: An 'interpretive' model of intrinsic task motivation,' The Academy of Management Review, 15, 4, 666-681.
Turner, J.R., and Muller, R., (2005). The Project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(1), 49-61.
Van de Vijver, F.J.R., and Poortinga, Y.H. (2002), ‘Structural Equivalence in Multilevel Research,’ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 2, 141–156.
Vecchio, R. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common threads. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), pp.303-327.
Wagener, S., Gorgievski-Duijvesteijn, M.J. and Rijsdijk, S.A. (2010), ‘‘Businessman or host? Individual differences between entrepreneurs and small business owners in the hospitality industry’’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1513-26.
Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Appendices
Appendix A Questionnaire
Dear participant, this is a survey about organizational employee experience conducted by a master student of University of Groningen and Newcastle University. All data obtained from you will be anonymous and confidential, which will be reported as an aggregated format. It may take about 5 minutes to complete the whole survey. If you have any questions regarding to this research, please do not hesitate to contact me via e-mail: z.yu.4@student.rug.nl. /
5 z.yu.4@student.rug.nl.
1 = Never/ 2 = Rarely/ 3 = Sometimes/ 4 = Very often/ 5 = Always/
All responses are anonymous/ Block 1:
Gender/ : male/ female/
Age/ :
Workplace/ : China/ Germany/
Work age (e.g. 1.2 years)/ 1.2 : less than 1 year is excluded. Block 2:
1. The manager supervises me closely during task implementation. /
2. The manager clarifies the expected performance of the task to me. /
3. The manager sets challenging goals for me. /
5. The manager makes decisions and tasks unilaterally for us. /
6. Punishment is applied when the task did not meet the goal or failed. /
7. Incentives are derived from excellent task performance. /
8. The manager asks for my opinions before decision makings. /
9. The manager asks us to evaluate organizational performance. /
10. The manager cares about my welfare. / 11. The manager trusts us. /
12. The manager praises us when the task is done excellently. /
13. The training programmes are offered. / 14. I expect to get job promotion. /
15. Many rules and policies should be followed when execute the task. /
16. I work after normal working hours reasonably although it is not required by the manager. /
Organizational employee experience / - 3. The manager sets challenging goals for me. / .646 .141 -.447 .149 Organizational employee experience / - 4. The manager helps and supports me during task implementation. / .392 .266 .649 .333 Organizational employee experience / - 5. The manager makes decisions and tasks unilaterally for us. /
Organizational employee experience /
- 6. Punishment is applied when the task did not meet the goal or failed. /
Organizational employee experience /
Organizational employee experience /
- 11. The manager trusts us. /
.604 -.383 .198 .073
Organizational employee experience /
- 14. I expect to get job promotion. / .708 .299 Organizational employee experience / - 15. Many rules and policies should be followed when execute the task. / .635 .239 Organizational employee experience / - 16. I work after normal working hours reasonably although it is not required by the manager. /
Organizational employee experience /
- 17. I think that the current working
environment should be changed. /
.357 .836
