HOW DO FOLLOWER CHARACTERISTICS AND EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP INTERACT TO INFLUENCE FOLLOWERS' JOB SATISFACTION?
MASTER THESIS
ALISHIA SIMPKINS
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Human Resource Management & Organizational Behavior Department
HOW DO FOLLOWER CHARACTERISTICS AND EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP INTERACT TO INFLUENCE FOLLOWERS' JOB SATISFACTION?
ABSTRACT
In today's working context it is an imperative for leaders to engage in empowering leadership as it is encouraging, inspirational, and linked to many positive outcomes. Most importantly, empowering leadership is linked to increased job satisfaction. Research suggests, however, that not all followers are equally receptive to empowering leaders. In accordance, the present research examines the role of empowering leadership and follower characteristics on followers' job satisfaction. The first proposition is that there is a positive relationship between empowering leadership and job satisfaction. Further propositions are that empowering leadership is only positively associated with job satisfaction for followers low (but not high) on independent critical thinking and active engagement. Results show that all three hypothesis were supported. The present research marks a contribution to leadership, as well as, to followership literature. Empowering leadership does not turn out to be a universally successful style and the interaction effects of independent critical thinking and active engagement give the followership construct a more modern and important connotation.
HOW DO FOLLOWER CHARACTERISTICS AND EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP INTERACT TO INFLUENCE JOB SATISFACTION?
1. INTRODUCTION
Now, and more than ever before, theory and research about leadership savor great attention and importance (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Loew & Carsten, 2014). In society, leadership guides nations through times of uncertainty and risk. In organizations, leadership has attracted special consideration because it is one of the major factors leading to organizational success (Mills, 2005). Especially empowering leadership has been proven to prevail as one of the most influential leadership styles. To date, research has published more than 50 empirical studies about the topic of empowering leadership (Leana, 1986, 1987; Offermann & Hellmann, 1997; Sharma & Kirkman, 2015; Yukl & Fu, 1999). The high significance of this well-established leadership style stems from its possession of numerous similarities with other relevant leadership constructs, such as delegation, participative leadership, transformational leadership, and leader-member exchange (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). Empowering leadership is defined as the successful behavior of delegating authority to employees, promoting employee's autonomous decision making, sharing information with employees, asking employees for input, and likewise coaching them (Chen, Lam & Zhong, 2007; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Konczak, Stelly & Trusty, 2000).
job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current expectations, or available alternatives; Balzer, Kihm, Smith, Irwin, Bachiochi, Robie, Sinar & Parra, 1997; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; Dewettinck & van Ameijde, 2011; Konczak, Stelly & Trusty, 2000; Vecchio, Justin & Pearce, 2010). In fact, the supportive, motivational, and power sharing aspects of empowering leadership have one of the strongest impacts on job satisfaction (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014).
To date, leadership research has focused almost exclusively on identifying beneficial outcomes of empowering leadership, such as job satisfaction. Little attention has been paid, however, to the boundary conditions for this relationship. The present research examines follower characteristics as a boundary condition for the relationship between empowering leadership and job satisfaction. Growing evidence reveals that empowering leadership does not work in all organizational contexts and that not all followers are equally receptive to this leadership style (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Lorinkova, Pearsall & Sims, 2013; Martin, Liao & Campbell, 2013; Yagil, 2002; Yun, Cox & Sims, 2006). Therefore, it is crucial to know how different follower characteristics influence the given relationship of empowering leadership and job satisfaction.
established relationship of empowering leadership and job satisfaction. Therefore, the present research examines the impact of follower characteristics on the relationship between empowering leadership and job satisfaction.
Two follower characteristics will be introduced for the purpose of this research: independent critical thinking and active engagement (Kelley, 1992). Followers high on independent critical thinking analyze information given to them, make judgments independent of the consequences of decisions, and thoroughly evaluate situations and actions (Kelley, 1992). Followers high on active engagement, on the other hand, take initiative and actively participate in owning their job (Kelley, 1992; Latour & Rast, 2004). The present research proposes that these two follower characteristics moderate the relationship of empowering leadership and job satisfaction. This is expected because empowering leadership is highly dependent on followers. Research has found that without followers, leaders cannot function the way they want to (e.g. Hansen, 1987). Their effectiveness and accomplishments are tied to the acceptance of the follower (DePree, 1992). Furthermore, independent critical thinking and active engagement are linked to many positive outcomes, most importantly to job satisfaction (Salanova, Lorens, Martinez & Schaufeli, 2003; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Martinez, Marqués-Pinto, Salanova & Bakker 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá & Bakker, 2002). Thus, when a relationship includes empowering leadership that is highly dependent on followers, independent critical thinking and active engagement cannot be excluded from that relationship. Especially not, when empowering leadership is linked to job satisfaction, an outcome that is also strongly connected to the two follower characteristics. Independent critical thinking and active engagement moderate the relationship of empowering leadership and job satisfaction.
date, empowering leadership has been described as the universal solution and key to many positive outcomes (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). It is crucial to see whether a moderating variable, such as follower characteristics, reveal a different perspective. It may very well be that empowering leadership in combination with different follower characteristics does not distinctively and without further questioning lead to positive outcomes. As such, the present research will help to understand this leadership construct better by revealing what kind of followers benefit from it.
2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS Empowering Leadership
As mentioned before, abundant research has identified numerous beneficial consequences of empowering leadership. Out of all examined consequences, a highly relevant outcome of empowering leadership appears to be job satisfaction. To date, a number of studies have revealed that empowering leadership leads to increased job satisfaction (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014, 2015; Dewettinck & van Ameijde, 2011; Konczak et al, 2000; Vecchio et al., 2010). These studies showed similar results throughout: leaders who share power generally contribute to a higher level of job satisfaction. Vecchio et al (2010), for instance, showed that employees who were given greater opportunities for self-direction manifested superior outcomes, such as higher levels job of satisfaction. Furthermore, these authors showed that subordinates who have leaders that encouraged greater independence from authority reported higher levels of job satisfaction (Vecchio et al, 2010). Lastly, Amundsen and Martinsen (2015) revealed that leaders have a central role in the empowerment process of employees and that employees' attitudes are important because they eventually lead to job satisfaction. The present research aims to replicate these research findings and hypothesizes:
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive relationship between empowering leadership and job satisfaction.
The Moderating Role of Follower Characteristics
identified five follower styles based on followers` level of independent, critical thinking and active engagement. A follower can be high on both dimensions, low on both dimensions, or score differently on either one (Kelley, 1992). Tanoff and Barlow (2002) found that followers high on independent, critical thinking and active engagement can be identified as effective followers. Especially effective followers contribute largely to the organizational success because they are committed, credible and courageous (Kelley, 1988). Vice versa, followers low on independent critical thinking and active engagement can be seen as passive followers (Tanoff & Barlow, 2002). They do not add much value to the organization (Kelley, 1988). As a result, different levels of independent critical thinking and active engagement have distinct impacts on organizational success.
(Salanova et al, 2003; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Martinez et al, 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova et al, 2002). Therefore, empowering leadership certainly is dependent on follower characteristics to shape outcomes.
Logically, the impact of empowering leadership is also dependent on the two follower characteristics, respectively. Independent critical thinking is the first dimension to be examined. Followers high on independent critical thinking analyze the information given to them, evaluate situations, give construct criticism and make judgments without fearing the consequences (Kelley, 1992; Latour & Rast, 2004). Furthermore, they think for themselves and have a creative and innovative nature (Banutu-Gomez, 2004).
The present research proposes that empowering leadership increases job satisfaction for followers low on independent critical thinking. That is because this particular follower can accept assignments easily and trusts the leader to eventually make the right decisions. He or she is a team-player who leaves little room for conflict (Kelley, 1992). The empowering leader invests in the work of the employee and shows great interest in relationships and collaboration (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). The cooperation of an empowering leader and a follower low on independent critical thinking is, therefore, very complementing (Blanchard et al, 2009). The follower feels happy in his or her spot and gets the job done. Ultimately, the follower low in independent critical thinking will be more satisfied when empowered.
making judgments and is thinking for him- or herself (Kelley, 1992). The redundancy of these two characteristics eventually does not influence the relationship of empowering leadership and job satisfaction. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. Empowering leadership is only positively associated with job satisfaction for followers low (but not high) on independent critical thinking.
The impact of empowering leadership is also dependent on the second dimension of followership, active engagement. Followers high on active engagement take initiative and actively participate in performing their job. They take responsibilities beyond job requirements and demonstrate great effort (Kahn, 1990; Romano, 1995; Rothbard, 2001). Likewise, they proactively participate in activities and provide work of a high quality (Blanchard et al, 2009).
(Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). Eventually, the contributions of the follower will get more directed and he or she will know when to take the initiative. That is when empowerment has accomplished to justify the behavior of a follower low on active engagement. At last, his or her effort justification will lead him or her to more satisfaction (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015).
Contrary to that, research proposes that there is no association with empowering leadership and job satisfaction for followers high on active engagement. It is because leaders and followers should not exhibit too much redundancy in their characteristics (Kelley, 1992). Emerging literature adds that effective followers and leaders share many of the same characteristics (e.g. Agho, 2009). Logically, active engagement (as in being strongly responsible and taking initiative) and empowering leadership (as in encouraging all sorts of distinct behaviors from employees) appear to be somewhat redundant (Blanchard et al, 2009). There is no need to encourage an employee to work autonomously and actively providing input if he or she is already doing so. I subsequently hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3. Empowering leadership is only positively associated with job satisfaction for followers low (but not high) on active engagement.
3. METHODOLOGY Data Collection
complete high-school while 26.5 % can exhibit a high-school diploma and 16.9 % a diploma of some other college. Many participants either had a Bachelor's (21.7 %) or a Master's degree (26.5 %) . 6 % finished advanced graduate work or a PhD (SD = 1.35). Tenure within the organization ranged from two months to 40 years, while the average of the respondents worked for about 11 years. The tenure with the supervisor displayed a shorter range, from 2 months until a maximum of 20 years.
Measures
All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 to 7. For the followership characteristics, 1 equaled “rarely” and 7 “almost always”. For job satisfaction and empowering leadership, 1 equaled “strongly disagree” and 7 “strongly agree”. The survey items can be found in Appendix A.
Empowering leadership was measured with 18 items from the empowering leadership
scale (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; α = .94). Examples of items are: “My leader conveys that I shall take responsibility.” and “My leader lets me see how he/she organizes his/her work.”. The scale was developed and tested by Amundsen and Martinsen (2014) and revealed discriminant validity compared with leader-member exchange and transformational leadership. Moreover, they found the scale to have concurrent validity and that empowering leadership is related to work effort, job performance, creativity, self-leadership, psychological empowerment and job satisfaction (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014).
Job satisfaction was assessed by three items, taken from the Michigan Organizational
job satisfaction items from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire showed high reliability and construct-validity.
Independent critical thinking (α = .81) and active engagement (α = .85) were
measured by Kelley's (1992) followership survey. Independent critical thinking was measured by 10 items; examples of items are: “My work helps me fulfill some societal goal or personal dream that is important to me.” Active engagement was evenly measured by 10 items; examples of items are: “I take the initiative to seek out and successfully complete assignments that go above and beyond my job.” (Kelley, 1992). Originally, the items in the survey were framed as questions. For better comprehensibility and flow of reading, all questions were rephrased into statements (see Appendix A).
Control variables. I considered age, gender, nationality, level of education, tenure
within the organization, tenure with the supervisor, part- or full-time work and hours of work as possible control variables. Previous research has shown that these variables can influence follower's job satisfaction (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; Dewettinck & van Ameijde, 2011; Konczak, Stelly & Trusty, 2000; Spector, 1997; Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek & Frings-Dresen, 2003) Vecchio, Justin & Pearce, 2010).
4. RESULTS Preliminary Analysis
1 displays a value of -1.21 for skewness, which is still within the wider scope of acceptance for a symmetrical distribution. Furthermore, kurtosis was checked to find out whether or not the shape of the data distribution matches the normal distribution. A normal distribution has a kurtosis of 0 (Bortz & Schuster, 2010), while job satisfaction had one of 1.2 (Table 1). Another rule of thumb is that if the difference between skewness, kurtosis and its standard error is not too large, the data analysis can be continued. The difference of skewness and the related standard error was -0.95, the difference of kurtosis and the related standard error was 0.68. Ultimately, the construct of job satisfaction did not deviate very strongly from a normal-distribution. Therefore, the data analysis was continued.
TABLE 1
Skewness and Kurtosis of Job Satisfaction
Statistic SE
Skewness -1.21 .26
Kurtosis 1.20 .52
Apart from that, the construct of job satisfaction had a mean of 5.90, indicating that respondents were very content with their working situation. In the entire data set, there were a total of six outliers. An outlier is any value that is numerically distant from most of the other data points in a set of data (Bortz & Schuster, 2010). If the removal of such outliers dramatically changes the results, then it should be suspected that it is an outlier that does not belong with the other observations (Bortz & Schuster, 2010). Taking out the outliers did not change the results considerably. Therefore, they were left in the set of data.
Descriptive Statistics
16
Full-Time Work 11. Hours of Work
39.25 12.21
Main Analysis
Table 3 depicts the results of the linear regression analysis on job satisfaction. For my first hypothesis, I aimed to replicate previous research that disclosed a positive relationship between empowering leadership and job satisfaction. Results indicate, that empowering leadership has a positive relationship with job satisfaction (t (82) = 4.91, B = .52, p < .001). Overall, empowering leadership explained 23.4% of variance in job satisfaction values. The control variable”hours of work” displayed a negative relationship with job satisfaction (t (82) = -2.80, B = -.02, p = 006). In conclusion, hypothesis 1 was supported.
TABLE 3
Linear Regression on Job Satisfactiona b
Variable Model 1 B SE B t p (Constant) 4.32 .58 7.44 < .001 Empowering Leadership .52 .10 4.91 < .001 Hours of Work -.02 .01 -2.80 .006 R² .30 F for change in R² 17.23 < .001
a. Predictors: (Constant), Empowering Leadership, Hours of Work b. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
TABLE 4
Multiple Linear Regression with Empowering Leadership and Independent Critical Thinkinga b Variable Model 2 B SE B t p (Constant) 5.97 .10 57.67 < .001 Empowering Leadership .37 .11 4.97 .001
Independent Critical Thinking .31 .11 2.86 .005
Empowering Leadership x Independent Critical Thinking
-.17 .10 -1.80 .08
Hours of Work -.29 .10 -2.98 .004
R² .40
F for change in R² 12.76 < .001
a. Predictors: (Constant), Empowering Leadership, Independent Critical Thinking, Hours of Work b. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
FIGURE 1
Interaction of Independent Critical Thinking on the Relationship of Empowering
Leadership and Job Satisfaction
Simple slopes analysis revealed that empowering leadership was not significant with job satisfaction for followers high on independent critical thinking (+1 SD: B = .20, SE = 1.34, p = .18), while empowering leadership was positively associated with job satisfaction for followers low on independent critical thinking (-1 SD: B = .53, SE = 1.30, p = .0001). Thus, the second hypothesis was supported
TABLE 5
Multiple Linear Regression with Empowering Leadership and Active Engagementa b Variable Model 3 B SE B t p Constant 5.98 .10 58.33 < .001 Empowering Leadership .33 .11 3.01 .004 Active Engagement .32 .12 2.74 .008
Empoweing Leadership x Active Engagement
-.14 .08 -1.82 .07
Hours of Work -.28 .10 -2.86 .005
R² .41
F for change in R² 13.74 < .001
a. Predictors: (Constant), Empowering Leadership, Active Engagement, Hours of Work b. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction
FIGURE 2
Simple slopes analysis revealed that empowering leadership was not significant with job satisfaction for followers high on active engagement (+1 SD: B = .12, SE = .14, p = .19), while empowering leadership was positively associated with job satisfaction for followers low on active engagement (-1 SD: B = .48, SE = .13, p = .0004). Thus, the third hypothesis was also supported.
5. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine how empowering leadership and follower characteristics (independent critical thinking and active engagement) interact to influence followers' job satisfaction. I first aimed to replicate the positive relationship of empowering leadership and job satisfaction. I succeeded in repeatedly showing a moderate strength and a positive relationship. The relationship of empowering leadership and job satisfaction is well-researched, strong and of great importance. In the future, researchers do not necessarily need to replicate this relationship, but take the scientific evidence and proceed to examine more unknown variables related to it.
not very well known yet (Blanchard et al, 2009). Future research should examine the effects of independent critical thinking and active engagement more thoroughly.
Nevertheless, there is a much bigger point of consideration. What some literature alludes is that it might make more sense to look at the two follower characteristics (independent critical thinking and active engagement) together to see how they shape and influence certain relationships (Blanchard et al, 2009). In fact, Kelley (1992) determined that a follower who can complement any leader is the effective one. Yet, an effective follower is not only high on either independent critical thinking or active engagement, but on both characteristics. That follower focuses on the goal, does a great job in critical activities, takes the initiative to increase the value of the organization and realizes that he or she not only adds value through going beyond the job but by having experiences, ideals and dreams (Kelley, 1992). For future research, I would suggest to examine followership as one construct, independent critical thinking and active engagement taken together. That way, there might be completely different insights about existing, but also completely new relationships.
examine which styles match with high levels of independent critical thinking and active engagement, organizations could use these insights for their advantage as well.
Furthermore, the present research contributes to followership literature by giving it more importance and depth, indeed. The revealed interaction effects of independent critical thinking and active engagement on empowering leadership and job satisfaction reject the static, traditional, and hierarchical leader-follower relationship. Before, organizations could only guess that this leader-follower relationship had distorted their interactive effects on organizational growth, stability and survival. Now, organizations can be certain that the initial leader-follower relationship did just that and move on to give followership a more positive connotation. Additionally, organizations are now able to actually modernize that leader-follower relationship in order to restore their well-being and their competitive edge.
6. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS
First and foremost, I was able to answer the question of how empowering leadership and follower characteristics interact to influence followers' job satisfaction. I did so by testing and confirming my three hypothesis that revealed: a positive relationship between empowering leadership and job satisfaction, and an interaction effect of empowering leadership and independent critical thinking and active engagement on job satisfaction. Specifically, empowering leadership and a low level of independent critical thinking and active engagement were positively associated with follower’s job satisfaction.
2003). Therefore, I encourage future researchers to include social desirability measures or to even develop measures in which peers or leaders report on others’ followership behaviors. So far, only Kelley (1992) has developed a usable followership survey.
Elaborating on the self-reporting, empowering leadership and job satisfaction have also been measured that way. A problem can occur when measuring two or more constructs with the same method, the so-called single source bias (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). The major concern with measuring different constructs with the same method is the danger that some of the observed covariation between them may be due to the fact that they share the same method of measurement (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Future research should consider collecting data from multiple and external sources. Exclusively relying on self-reports should be avoided.
REFERENCES
Agho, A.O. 2009. Perspectives of Senior-Level Executives on Effective Followership and Leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 16: 159-166.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications.
Alcorn, D.S. 1992. Dynamic Followership: Empowerment at Work. Management Quarterly. 33: 9-13.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, O.L. 2014. Empowering Leadership: Construct Clarification, Conceptualization, and Validation of a New Scale. Leadership Quarterly. 25: 487-511.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, O.L. 2015. Linking Empowering Leadership to Job Satisfaction, Work Effort, and Creativity: The Role of Self-Leadership and Psychological
Empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 22: 304-323. Aronson, E. 1969. The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press. 1-34.
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. 1959. The Effect of Severity of Initiation on Liking for a Group.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 59: 177–181.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. 1988. Transformational Leadership, Charisma and Beyond.
Emerging Leadership Vistas. 29-49.
Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., Sinar, E. F., & Parra, L. F. 1997. Users’ Manual for the Job Descriptive Index. JDI; 1997 Revision
and the Job in General (JIG) Scales. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State
University.
Banutu-Gomez, M. B. 2004. Great Leaders Teach Exemplary Followership and Serve as Servant Leaders. The Journal of American Academy of Business. 4(1/2):143–151. Blanchard, A.L., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. 2009. Followership Styles and
Bortz, J., & Schuster, C. 2010. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer: Gießen.
Bowling, N.A., & Hammond, G.D. 2008. A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Construct Validity of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 73: 63-77.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. 1959. Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 56: 81-105.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. 1983. Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions of Organizational Members. Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide
to Methods, Measures and Practices. New York: John Wiley. 71-138.
Chen, G., Lam, W., & Zhong, J.A. 2007. Leader-Member Exchange and Member
Performance: A New Look at Individual-Level Negative Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Team-Level Empowerment Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92: 202-212.
DePree, M. 1992. Leadership Jazz. New York: Doubleday Publishing.
Dewettinck, K., & van Ameijde, M. 2011. Linking Leadership Empowerment Behaviour to Employee Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions: Testing the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment. Personnel Review. 40: 284-305.
Dowd, S. B., & Bolus, N. E. 1998. Stress Resulting from Change and Restructuring: A Cognitive Approach. Family and Community Health. 21: 70–78.
Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hansen, T.L. Jr. 1987. Management's Impact on First Line Supervisor Effectiveness. SAM
Advanced Management Journal. 52: 41-45.
Harris, T.B., Li, N., Boswell, W.R., Zhang, X., & Xie, Z. 2014. What’s New from
Newcomers: Empowering Leadership, Creativity, and Adjustment in the Socialization Context. Personnel Psychology. 67: 567-604.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal. 33: 692–724.
Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. 2000. Defining and Measuring Empowering Leader Behaviors: Development of an Upward Feedback Instrument. Educational and
Psychological Measurement. 60: 301-313.
House, R.J., Shamir, B., & Arthur, M.B. 1993. The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science. 577-594.
Humborstad, S. I. W., & Kuvaas, B. 2013. Mutuality in Leader-Subordinate Empowerment Expectation: Its Impact on Role Ambiguity and Intrinsic Motivation. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24:363-377.
Humborstad, S.I.W., Nerstad, C.G., & Dysvik, A. 2014. Empowering Leadership, Employee Goal Orientations and Work Performance: A Competing Hypothesis Approach.
Personnel Review. 43: 246-271.
Kelley, R.E. 1988. In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66: 142-148. Kelley, R.E. 1992. The Power of Followership. United States: Doubleday Business. Kirkman, T.W. 1996. Statistrics to Use: Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. Retrieved from
http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/KS-test.html. Accessed 04.01.2016.
Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerement. Academy of Management Journal. 42: 58-74.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2001. The Impact of Cultural Values on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Self-Managing Work Teams: The Mediating Role of Employee Resistance. Academy of Management Journal. 44: 557-569.
Konczak, L.J., Stelly, D.J., & Trusty, M.L. (2000). Defining and Measuring Empowering Leader Behaviors: Development of an Upward Feedback Instrument. Educational and
Psychological Measurement. 60: 201-313.
Latour, S. M., & Rast, V. J. 2004. Dynamic Followership. Air & Space Power Journal. 18: 1–7.
Leana, C. 1986. Predictors and Consequences of Delegation. Academy of Management
Journal. 29: 754-774.
Leana, C. 1987. Power Relinquisment versus Power-Sharing: Theoretical Clarification and Empirical Comparison of Delegation and Participation. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 2: 228-233.
Lorinkova, N.M., Pearsall, M.J., & Sims, H.P. Jr. 2013. Examining the Differential, Longitudinal Performance of Directive versus Empowering Leadership in Teams.
Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. 2013. Directive versus Empowering Leadership: A Field Experiment Comparing Impacts on Task Proficiency and Proactivity. Academy
of Management Journal. 56: 1372-1395.
Mills, D. Q. 2005. How to Lead, How to Live. Waltham: MindEdge Press.
Offermann, L.R., & Hellmann, P.S. 1997. Culure’s Consequences for Leadership Behavior: National Values in Action. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 28: 342-352. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D.W. 1986. Self-Reports in Oganizational Research: Problems
and Prospects. Journal of Management. 12: 531-544.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & 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.
Raub, S., & Robert, C. 2013. Empowerment, Organizational Commitment, and Voice Behavior in the Hospitality Industry: Evidence from a Multinational Sample. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly. 54: 136-148.
Romano, C. 1995. A Star Is Made. Management Review. 84: 6.
Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family Roles. Administrative Science Quarterly. 46: 655–684.
Salanova, M., Lorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I., & Schaufeli, W.B. 2003. Perceived
Collective Efficacy, Subjective Well-Being and Task Performance among Electronic Work Groups: An Experimental Study. Small Groups Research. 34: 43–73.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. 2004.Job Demands, Job Resources and their Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior. 25: 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I., Marqués-Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. 2002. Burnout and Engagement in University Students: A National Study. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology. 33: 464–481.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. 2002. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Aactor analytic Approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies. 3: 71–92.
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. 1965. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (for
Sharma, P.N., & Kirkman, B.L. 2015. Leveraging Leaders: A Literature Review and Future Lines of Inquiry for Empowering Leadership Research. Group and Organizational
Management. 40: 193-237.
Spector, P. E. 1997. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon,
Tanoff, G. F., & Barlow, C. B. 2002. Leadership and Followership: Same Animal, Different Spots? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 54: 157–167. Tuckey, M.R., Bakker, A.B., & Dollard, M.F. 2012. Empowering Leaders Optimize Working
Conditions for Engagement: A Multilevel Study. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology. 12: 15-27.
Thach, E.C., Thompson, K.J., & Morris, A. 2006. A Fresh Look at Followership: A Model for Matching Followership and Leadership Styles. Institute of Behavioral and Applied
Management. 304-319.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. 2007. The Romance of Leadership and the Social Construction of
Followership. Information Age Publishing: Greenwich
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R.E., Lowe, K.B., & Carsten M.K. 2014. Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 83-104.
Van Saane, N., Sluiter, J.K., Verbeek, J.H.A.M., & Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. 2003. Reliability and Validity of Instruments Measuring Job Satisfaction— A Systematic Review.
Occupational Medicine. 53: 191–200.
Vecchio, R.P., Justin, J.E., & Pearce, C.L. 2010. Empowering Leadership: An Examination of Mediating Mechanisms within a Hierarchical Structure. The Leadership Quarterly. 21: 530-542
Yagil, D. 2002. The Relationship of Customer Satisfaction and Service Workers’ Perceived Control: Examination of Three Models. International Journal of Service Industry
Management. 13: 382-398.
Yeo, R. K. 2007. (Re)viewing Problem-Based Learning: An Exploratory Study on Perceptions of its Applicability to the Workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 22: 369– 391.
Yukl, G., & Fu, P.P. 1999. Determinants of Delegation and Consultation by Managers.
Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H.P. Jr. 2006. The Forgotten Follower: A Contingency Model of Leadership and Follower Self-Leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 21: 374-388.
APPENDIX A Survey Items Empowering Leadership
Autonomy Support
1. My leader conveys that I shall take responsibility. 2. My leader gives me power.
3. My leader gives me authority over issues within my department.
4. My leader expresses positive attitudes related to me starting with my own defined tasks.
5. My leader encourages me to take initiative. 6. My leader is concerned that I reach my goals.
7. My leader is concerned that I work in a goal-directed manner. 8. My leader listens to me.
9. My leader recognizes my strong and weak sides.
10. My leader invites me to use my strong sides when needed. 11. My leader conveys a bright view of the future.
12. My leader discusses shared affairs with me. Development Support
13. My leader lets me see how he/she organizes his/her work. 14. My leader’s planning of his/her work is visible to me.
15. I gain insights into how my leader arranges his/her work days. 16. My leader shows me how I can improve my way of working. 17. My leader guides me in how I can do my work in the best way.
18. My leader tells me about his/her own way of organizing his/ her work.
Job Satisfaction
Followership
1. My work helps me fulfill some societal goal or personal dream that is important to me. 2. My personal work goals are aligned with my department’s priority goals.
3. I am highly committed to and energized by my work and my department, giving them mybest ideas and performance.
4. My enthusiasm also spreads to and energizes my coworkers.
5. Instead of waiting for or merely accepting what my departmental chairperson tells me, I personally identify which activities are most critical for achieving my department’s priority goals.
6. I actively develop a distinctive competence in those critical activities so that I become more valuable to my departmental chairperson and the department.
7. When starting a new assignment, I promptly build a record of successes in tasks that are important to my departmental chairperson.
8. My departmental chairperson gives me a difficult assignment without the benefit of much supervision, knowing that I will meet my deadline with highest-quality work and that I will “fill in the cracks” if need be.
9. I take the initiative to seek out and successfully complete assignments that go above and beyond my job.
10. When I am not the leader of a group project, I still contribute at a high level, often doing more than I share.
11. I independently think up and champion new ideas that will contribute significantly to my departmental chairperson’s or my department’s goals.
12. I try to solve the tough problems (technical or organizational), rather than look to my departmental chairperson to do it for me.
13. I help out other coworkers, making them look good, even when I don’t get any credit. 14. I help my departmental chairperson or department see both the upside potential and
downside risks of ideas or plans, playing the devil’s advocate if need be.
15. I understand my departmental chairperson’s needs, goals, and constraints and work hard to help meet them.
17. I make a habit of internally questioning the wisdom of my departmental chairperson’s decision rather than just doing what I am told.
18. When my departmental chairperson asks me to do something that runs contrary to my professional or personal preferences, I say “no” rather than “yes”.
19. I act on my own ethical standards rather than my departmental chairperson’s or my department’s standards.
