Theinfluenceofautocratic,ethicaland
charismaticleadershipontheperceptionofa
performancesituationandontheaccuracyof
performanceappraisals.
Abstract
This study examined the influence of the presence of the supervisor on the perception of a performance situation as a maximum or as a typical situation and if this influence is different between leadership styles (autocratic, ethical & charismatic). Furthermore it examined the consequences for the accuracy of performance appraisals. A questionnaire was administered under 76 subordinates and 38 supervisors from the police force of North‐Holland. Results did not show the presence of the supervisor to lead to a maximum performance situation. No clear difference was found between the appraisal by the supervisor and the colleague. The leadership styles did have different influences on the perception of a general situation as a maximum performance situation and on the overall appraisals. Masterthesis Work and Organizational Psychology Name: Aike Malchus Studentnumber:0016330
Guidance:dr.U.Klehe
Date:7thMay2010
Index
page 1. Introduction 3 2. Performance appraisals 4 3. Maximum and typical performance 6 3.1 Typical versus maximum performance 6 3.2 Appraisal of typical or maximum performance 9 Impact of supervisors’ leadership style on performance situations 10 4.1 Autocratic leadership style 11 4.2 Ethical leadership style 12 4.3 Charismatic leadership style 14 4. 5. Hypotheses 16 6. Method 20 6.1 Sample and procedures 20 6.2 Measures 21 7. Results 23 8. Discussion 32 9. Appendix 41 10. References 43 2 1.Introduction
We have entered an era where flexible working becomes more of a rule then an exception. Consequently supervisors won’t be as much in their employees’ vicinity as they used to be (Apgar, 1998). At the same time these supervisors are responsible for their employee’s ‘annual’ performance appraisal. More than three decades ago, Landy and Farr (1976) reported that 89% percent of 196 police departments in major metropolitan areas in the United States used supervisory ratings as the primary form of performance appraisals. Now‐
a‐days supervisory ratings are still one of the key appraisal instruments being used. Spending less time together with their supervisors forces employees to show their abilities whenever the supervisor is around. How does this influence the supervisors’ performance rating of employees, taken into account that every supervisor has his/her own leadership style? The above mentioned context leads to the discussion of three work fields; supervisory appraisal, typical versus maximum performance and leadership styles. In particular this research raises the question how the accuracy of the performance appraisal of employees will be influenced by different leadership styles. An answer to this question might partially contribute to the finding why there is a difference between colleague and supervisory ratings in performance appraisal of employees (Thorsteinson & Balzer, 1999). In this paper we will identify which leadership styles will affect performance of employees, in particular performance situations. Consequently, how this will influence the supervisors’ performance appraisals. 3 2.PerformanceAppraisals
Performance appraisal is a “general heading for a variety of activities through which organizations seek to assess and develop employees’ competence, enhance performance and distribute rewards” (Fletcher, 2001, p. 474; cited in Kline & Sulsky, 2009). Traditionally performance evaluations in organizations are done in a way that supervisors rate employees’ work performance on a number of criteria (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991; Murphy, 2008). There is a long history of discontent with performance appraisal research and practice, the discussion goes back to 1917 (Austin & Villanova, 1992). Although significant progress has been made on how to understand and measure performance, there is still much disagreement. Coen and Jenkins (2000) for instance stated that supervisory performance ratings should be banned entirely, Osterman (2007) argued that validation research that depends on performance rating as a main criterion measure might not produce trustworthy interpretable results, and Murphy and Cleveland (1995) noted the possible harm performance appraisal can cause in organizations. Conway and Huffcutt (1997) performed a meta‐analysis to examine the psychometric properties of subordinates, supervisor, colleague and self‐ratings of job performance. They found that subordinates rating themselves showed the lowest reliability and supervisors showed the highest. The inter‐rater reliability of colleagues was in between of the above mentioned. They confirmed what Viswesvaran, Ones and Schmidt (1996) also found: colleagues had lower reliabilities than did supervisors. Then finally Conway and Huffcutt found that correlations between supervisor and colleagues were fairly low (.34), which indicates a low relationship in performance rating of an employee between a supervisor and a colleague. Thorsteinson and Balzer (1999) examined the effects of the difference found 4 between the colleague appraisal of the employee and the performance appraisal from the supervisor. They suggested that different raters may rate different aspects of employees’ performance. Colleagues may observe daily information about individuals’ typical level of motivation and performance. Since employees tend to work a bit harder when the supervisor is around supervisors may only be allowed to observe employee’s maximum performance (Klehe & Anderson, 2007) The rater is seen as one of the most important reasons for the weak relationship between performance and performance appraisal (Murphy, 2008). Another reason for this weak relationship could be the dynamic nature of performance. Reb and Greguras (2008) and Fisher (2008) argued that since performance is dynamic and constantly changing, neither supervisors nor colleagues are able to accurately rate performance. Employees show different performance at different times. A series of studies by Rothe (summarized in Rambo, Chomiak & Price, 1978; cited in Fisher, 2008) found that correlations between week to week output of factory employees varied from .42 to .82, this is a low relationship. Stewart and Nandkeolyar (2006; cited in Fisher, 2008) observed the weekly performance of 167 salespeople for half a year and found that 73 percent of the variance in the weekly sales was within person. This indicates that performance fluctuates within individuals over time. For instance factors like fatigue, luck and private situations could influence the performance. The presence of the supervisor is another factor that could influence the performance of employees (Sacket et al., 1988). We expect that employees show a different performance when the supervisor is around than when their colleagues are around. Consequently it is expected that this different 5 performance will reflect on the performance appraisal. This difference in the performance of the employees is the main reason for the difference between supervisor and colleague appraisal. We expect that an employee shows maximum performance when the supervisor is around and typical performance when the employee is around colleagues. 3.Maximumandtypicalperformance.
Often there is a disagreement between colleague and supervisor appraisals. A possible reason for this disagreement is the perception of performance. Thorsteinson and Balzar (1999) suggested that supervisors possibly witness maximum performance, while colleagues possibly see typical performance. Yet, this assumption has never been tested. 3.1
Typicalversusmaximumperformance.
Originally the concept of maximum and typical performance comes from the field of personnel selection. It was used to differentiate between ability and personal measures (Cronbach, 1960). In the literature there has been debate over which factors employers should be looking for when they search for personnel. In most of the assessments organizations look at what a future employee can do, while according to Cronbach it is better to look at what an employees is willing to do. Sacket, Zedeck and Fogli (1988) rephrased “what employees are willing to do” into typical performance and “what employees can do” into maximum performance. Sacket et al. (1988) used the concepts of maximum and typical performance to describe differences in job performance. They argued that during typical performance, the day‐to‐
day performance on the job, performers (a) are relatively unaware that their performance 6 may be observed or even evaluated, (b) are not consciously trying to perform at their ‘absolute best’, and (c) are working on their task over an extended period of time. For many jobs, ranging from supermarket cashiers to sales managers to chief executive officers, typical performance arguably represents the broadest part of daily activities. In situations of maximum performance, however, such as when supermarket cashiers become aware of the boss watching over their shoulder or when sales managers do a presentation, it is most likely that performers are (a) very well aware of being evaluated, (b) aware and accept implicit or explicit instructions to maximize their effort, and (c) observed for a short‐enough time‐
period to keep their attention focused on the task. Sacket et al. compared the typical and maximum speed and accuracy with which 1370 supermarket cashiers processed grocery‐
items. A situation which can be perceived as typical was created by unobtrusively measuring how many grocery‐items per minute were scanned and how many voids per shift were taken. A situation which can be perceived as maximum was created by telling employees that they would be timed and errors would be recorded while they processed the grocery‐
items. They were told that this was part of a research project on cashier performance. They were asked to do their best and to place equal emphasis on speed and accuracy. Sacket et al. found a low correlation between the typical and maximum speed with which the employees processed the grocery items. This means there was a difference in maximum and typical performance. Sacket et al. concluded that a performance situation will be seen as a maximum performance situation when three criteria are met: the first one is that people know that their performance is being evaluated; second they should receive instructions to exert great effort; and third the duration of the assessment is short enough to enable performers to remain focused on the task. In contrast a typical performance situation will be perceived when people are not aware that they are being evaluated on the job, when they 7 are not instructed to do their ‘very best’, and when their job performance is assessed over an extended period of time. This distinction will also impact the importance of different predictors of performance. Performance is seen as a product of ability and motivation (Locke, Mento, & Katcher, 1978;; Maier, 1955), which states that the levels of ability and motivation directly influence the performance. Since ability is constant per person, the higher the motivation is the higher the performance will be. Campbell (1990) stated that motivation can be seen in the light of three choices: the choice to invest effort (direction), which level of effort to invest (level) and persist in that level of effort (persistence). These choices (direction, level, persistence) determine the height of the motivation and consequently the level of performance. In the typical performance situation motivation is a choice. How much direction, level and persistence an employee shows is up to the employee. This leads the performance in a typical situation to be an outcome of both motivation and ability (Klehe & Latham, 2008). One can assume that in a situation where the supervisor is present an employee chooses to invest effort (direction), to exert a high level of effort (level), and to persist in making that effort (persistence). These choices will likely lead to a high motivation when the supervisor is present. When motivation is high, it is no longer a variable that can differ in strength, which leads to the fact that in a maximum performance situation only ability is a predictor of performance (Klehe & Latham, 2008). Consequently abilities should correlate higher with performance in a maximum performance situation than performance in a typical performance situation. Accordingly DuBois et al. (1993) found general mental ability to be a better predictor of the maximum rather than of the typical speed with which supermarket cashiers processed goods. Klehe and Latham (2008) found structured interviews to be better 8 predictors of typical than of maximum team playing performance among MBA students and measures of team playing knowledge and practical intelligence to be better predictors of maximum than of typical team playing performance. 3.2
Appraisaloftypicalormaximumperformance.
Supervisory appraisals are still widely used in organizations to rate employees’ performance. In most cases these appraisals are the main factors on which future career developments are based. Although a lot of research has been done on appraisals (Murphy, 2008), nobody has yet established the best way to rate an employee. Which means a lot of emphasis is being placed on these appraisals, while they might be inaccurate. In their research with supermarket cashiers Sacket et al. (1988) also found supervisors’ subjective ratings of cashiers’ performance were significantly stronger related to the maximum than to the typical speed and accuracy with which supermarket cashiers processed grocery‐items. In other words supervisors were more prone to rate the cashiers on maximum performance. Bearing this in mind Klehe and Anderson (2007) used a situation of ‘supervisory evaluation’ to create a maximum performance situation. In that laboratory experiment, the mere presence of the experimenter in the room created a more maximum performance situation and motivated participants to work significantly harder than they did during the rest of the experiment. Although these results rely on a lab experiment, ecological validity was maximized by using a realistic task. The propositions of Sacket et al. about maximum and typical performance were confirmed. Klehe and Anderson further found that motivation increased in a situation of maximum performance. It seems that the presence of the supervisor creates a maximum performance situation. This indicates that supervisor´s 9 possibly witness maximum performance and will rate accordingly. In this paper we try to replicate this finding in a field setting to maximize ecological validity. 4.Impactofsupervisors’leadershipstyleonperformancesituations.
A basic assumption of the current paper is that the more employees are aware of the presence of their supervisor watching over their shoulder and the more pressure they feel to maximize their effort, the more subordinates are likely to rate this situation as a maximum rather than a typical performance situation (Klehe & Anderson, 2007). We further assume that an important influence on the performance of an employee is the supervisors’ leadership (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Chemers (2001) quite clearly states that leadership is a process of influence. An important focus in leadership theories is the extraordinary influence leaders have on followers in terms of affect and motivation (De Cremer, 2006). The next step would be to find out if the presence of supervisors with different leadership styles influences the perception of performance situations. Researchers have examined many facets of leadership styles, and many leadership styles all together (Bass, 1981). For this paper it was then required that leadership styles will had to be handpicked selectively. The selection of these different leadership styles is done on basis of the dimension power distance: the extent to which supervisors stretch their power and thereby create distance between them and their employees. Power is then distributed unequally (www.geerthofstede.nl). On the basis of the degree to which the supervisor 10 pronounces or diminishes the existing power distance three leadership styles have been chosen: autocratic, ethical and charismatic leadership. Autocratic leadership is associated with high power distance characteristics (Trompenaars & Hampden‐Turner, 1998). Low power distance values can be more directly associated with ethical leadership (Offermann and Hellmann, 1997). Charismatic leadership can be defined as somewhere in between autocratic and ethical leadership on the continuous dimension of power distance. It seems logical that different leadership styles have a different influence on the creation of a maximum performance situation. In the next section the characteristics and influence of these three leadership styles on performance will be discussed. 4.1
Autocraticleadershipstyle
Autocratic leadership (directive leadership) follows from early experimental studies of leadership styles by Lewin and Lippitt (1938) and has been developed since that time by a number of researchers. A non‐scientific definition of autocratic leadership is: a tyrannical, despotic, domineering leader with unlimited power and authority. Therefore, an autocratic leadership style is one who leads as a tyrant with absolute power and ruling "with an iron fist”. As already follows from the definition autocratic leadership is best described by its characteristics found over the years. Peterson (1997) argued that autocratic leadership is described as the leader making all the decisions. However, autocratic leadership is also defined in terms of how the leader directs and behaves during the process leading up to the decision. That is, Peterson argues that autocratic leadership often reveals negative consequences because these leaders, in the process of making a decision, do not allow discussions of all alternatives and are determined 11 to push their followers to accept the leaders’ solutions. Peterson conducted two studies in which the directiveness of the leadership (autocratic style) was manipulated. Peterson’s results showed that leaders pushing their ideas during a group discussion were particularly seen as negative and autocratic. The leadership literature generally identified autocratic leadership as not taking care of the socio‐emotional dimensions of groups such as maintaining group cohesion and promoting the group as a viable social entity (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2006). Empirical evidence shows that autocratic leaders negatively influence group stability, effectiveness, group climate, and feelings of being content and happy (Bass, 1990). Followers are negatively aroused, in other words they do not favor autocratic leaders because they don’t motivate followers to exhibit loyalty and dedication towards the leader and the group. Autocratic leaders are often seen as limiting group members’ control and voice over the decision‐making processes and as displaying a dominating and pushy leadership style in which they show little respect towards followers’ opinions and values (Bass, 1990). Autocratic leaders are said to decrease employees’ satisfaction and motivation (Bass, 1990; De Cremer, 2006). With low satisfaction and motivation we assume that employees have a low performance in situations where the supervisor is absent, since performance is a product of motivation and ability. Supervisors can’t see this behavior and thus will not take this into account during the performance appraisal. When the supervisor is around however, motivation is constrained to be high and employees will try to maximize their performance because they are very well aware of the presence of the supervisor (DuBois, Sackett, Zedeck & Fogli, 1993; Sackett et al, 1988; Klehe & Anderson, 2007; Klehe & Latham, 2008). We 12 assume that with the presence of an autocratic supervisor employees will be more concerned with the mere presence and evaluation of their leader, and thus try to maximize their performance. The other way around: when the leader is not present, employees will perform much less and their immediate colleagues will rate them accordingly (thus much lower than the supervisors would do). This will create a low supervisor‐colleague appraisal correlation. 4.2Ethicalleadershipstyle
Much attention has been given to an ethical dimension of leadership, mostly within the discussion of the transformational leadership paradigm. “Transforming” leaders are said to inspire followers by aligning their own and their followers’ value systems toward important moral principles (Burns, 1978). Four dimensions of transformational leadership have been found: inspirational motivation, idealized influence, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation (Bass & Avolio, 1993). The ethical component among these sub dimensions can be found in the idealized influence dimension. This means that ethical leaders are role models for followers who will then strive to equal or excel their leaders, especially through imitation (Bass & Avolio). Ethical leaders can be counted on to do the right thing and they demonstrate high standards of ethical and moral conduct. Ethical leadership can be defined as: “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two‐way communication, reinforcement, and decision making” (Brown, Trevino & Harrison, 2005, p. 118). Ethical leaders can be characterized by making principled and fair choices, by being trustworthy and honest, building followers’ confidence, and encouraging and empowering so that followers gain a sense of personal competence 13 (Brown et al., 2005; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Ethical leaders are also known to be transparent and engage in open communication and provide followers with voice. It is found that ethical leadership is positively and significantly associated with transformational leadership, transformational culture of organization, contingent reward dimension of transactional leadership, leader effectiveness, employee willingness to put in extra effort, and employee satisfaction with the leader. Because of ethical leaders’ honesty, trustworthiness, caring and concern for employees and their fair and principled decision making it is expected that ethical supervisors have a positive influence on employees’ motivation in general. As a consequence will likely perceive a working situation in the presence of their supervisor just as typical as in the absence of their supervisor and act accordingly. An ethical supervisor will therefore have a realistic representation of the employees’ performance, the effects of the presence of the supervisor get weaker the more ethical the supervisor is. 4.3Charismaticleadershipstyle
Over the years the term charismatic has been used interchangeably with other terms like “visionary”, “inspirational” and “transformational”. All of these theories have in common that they focus on exceptional leaders who have astonishing effects on their followers and eventually on the social systems they function in. It is said that such leaders transform the needs, values, preferences and aspirations of followers from self‐interests to collective interests (Shamir & House, 1993). Further, charismatic leaders cause followers to become highly committed to the leader's mission and to make significant personal sacrifices in the 14 interest of the mission. Shamir and House (1993, p. 585) defined charismatic leadership as “an interaction between leaders and followers that results in (1) making the followers’ self‐
esteem contingent on the vision and mission articulated by the leader, (2) strong internalization of the leader’s values and goals by the followers, (3) strong personal or moral (as opposed to calculative) commitment to these values and goals, and (4) a willingness on the part of followers to transcend their self‐interests for the sake of the collective (team or organization)”. Building on this definition, a charismatic leader can be characterized by the way that they articulate an attractive vision for the organization and behave in ways that reinforce the values off that vision. Charismatic leaders link work with meaning and inspire followers to transcend their self‐interest for the sake of the collective (Bass, 1985; House, 1996; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Furthermore charismatic leaders give followers (1) an energizing sense of purpose, (2) cause followers to believe that they will achieve existing goals and (3) create a sense of empowerment (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1999). Assuming that all of the above mentioned characteristics have a positive effect on employees’ motivation in general, it will likely make them perform at their best most of the time, independently from either presence or absence of the supervisor. With a high motivation a situation where the supervisor is present will not differ much from a situation where the supervisor is absent. Therefore charismatic supervisors will see a realistic representation of the employees’ performance, and rate them accordingly. 15 5.Hypotheses
The next hypotheses were formulated following from the influences of the presence of supervisors with different leadership styles on the perception of a situation as a maximum or typical performance situation, and consequently the appraisals of the performance by the supervisors. The main focus was on how employees perform when their supervisor is around, and how this performance is being perceived and rated by the supervisor. Supervisors’ influence on perception of performance situations Consistent with the findings in Sacket et al. (1988) and Klehe & Anderson (2007) we expect the presence of the supervisor to create a perceived maximum performance situation. Hypothesis 1 The presence of the supervisor makes the employee perceive the situation as a maximum performance situation. Autocratic supervisors’ influence on perception of performance situations The employees with autocratic supervisors’ will be more concerned with the mere presence of their supervisor than employees with a supervisor who is less autocratic (Bass, 1990; De Cremer, 2006). Previous research has indicated that the more subordinates are aware of the presence of their supervisor watching over their shoulder and the more pressure they feel to maximize their effort, the more employees are likely to perceive a performance situation as a maximum rather than a typical performance situation (Klehe & Anderson, 2007). Consequently, it is expected that autocratic leadership is positively related to the perception of a maximum performance situation in the presence of the supervisor. 16 Hypothesis 2A  The more a supervisor shows an autocratic leadership style, the more the employee will perceive a situation in the presence of his/her supervisor to represent a maximum performance situation. Ethical supervisors’ influence on perception of performance situations The more employees feel supported due to the style of their supervisor, the less self‐
conscious and the less aware they will be of the “evaluating eye” of the supervisor (Klehe & Anderson, 2007b). Consequently, it is expected that ethical leadership is negatively related to the perception of a maximum (rather than a typical) performance situation in the presence of the leader. Hypothesis 2B  The more a supervisor shows an ethical leadership style, the less the employee will perceive a situation in the presence of his/her supervisor to represent a maximum performance situation. Charismatic supervisors’ influence on perception of performance situations Charismatic leadership is known for its positive influence on the employees (Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003). But it’s not all positive. Previous research stated that charismatic leaders have ambitious visions and high expectations, consequently they set high standards for performance. Because employees want to live up to the standards of their supervisor, this is likely to put pressure on the employee (Shamir et al, 1993; Conger, 1999). It is expected that the presence of a charismatic supervisor makes the employee perceive a situation as a maximum performance situation. Hypothesis 2C  The more a supervisor shows a charismatic leadership style, the more the employee will perceive a situation in the presence of his/her supervisor to represent a maximum performance situation. 17 Autocratic supervisors’ influence on performance appraisals Autocratic leadership often lowers the satisfaction and motivation of employees (Bass, 1990; De Cremer, 2006). Since there is a low motivation when the supervisor is absent, performance will also be low (Klehe & Latham, 2008). The colleagues will make their appraisals based on this low typical performance, whereas the supervisors will make their appraisal on the basis of the maximum performance they witness. It is expected that autocratic leadership will moderate the agreement of the supervisor and colleague appraisal of the target employee’s performance. Hypotesis 3A  The more autocratic the leadership style of the supervisor is, the lower the agreement between the supervisor‘s and the colleagues appraisal will be. Ethical supervisors’ influence on performance appraisals Ethical leaders build followers confidence, are encouraging and supporting so that followers gain a sense of personal competence (Brown et al., 2005; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Ethical leadership is expected to heighten the motivation of employees, in that way creating a higher typical performance. Since the presence of an ethical supervisor is not expected to create a maximum performance situation, the employee will show typical performance when the supervisor is around. The supervisor makes his/her appraisal based on the typical performance, so will the colleague, thus a high agreement between the colleague and supervisor appraisal is expected. It is expected that ethical leadership will moderate the agreement between the supervisor and colleague appraisal of the target employee. Hypotesis 3B  The more ethical the leadership style of the supervisor is, the higher the agreement between the supervisor and colleague appraisal will be. 18 Ethical supervisors’ influence on performance appraisals Charismatic leaders give employees an energizing sense of purpose, cause employees to believe that they will achieve existing goals and create a sense of empowerment (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1999). This will create a high motivation, which in turn will create a high typical performance. As said in hypothesis 2C, it is expected that the presence of a charismatic leader will create a perceived maximum performance situation. Charismatic supervisors will base their appraisal on the maximum performance of the employee, whereas the colleagues will base their appraisal on the typical performance. We assume that typical performance of employees with charismatic leaders is high. It is expected that charismtic leaderhip will moderate the agreement between the colleague and supervisor appraisal. Hypotesis 3C  The more charismatic the leadership style of the supervisor is, the higher the agreement between the supervisor and colleague appraisal will be. The hypotheses are illustrated in the research model in Figure 1. Figure 1. Perceived Typical Situation Perceived Maximum Situation (Absence of supervisor) (Presence of supervisor) Hypothesis 1
Leadership Styles 


Colleague Evaluation
Hypothesis 2 a t/m c Charismatic Autocratic Ethical Hypothesis 4 a t/m c Hypothesis 3 Supervisor Evaluation
19 6.
Method
To validate the above mentioned hypotheses the first criterion to meet was that of a field experiment. This was done by way of executing a survey within an established organization, the police force. In this way ecological validity was maximized. The second criterion to meet was that of small teams in which triads could be formed so that both colleagues as well as supervisors could provide valid appraisals of each target employee. Within the many hierarchical levels of the police force, small teams exist in which supervisor and colleague are easily identified in order to do the appraisals. 6.1
Sample&Procedure
The sample in this study consisted of 38 triads from one organization, the police force of North Holland. Every triad contained one reporting supervisor and two direct subordinates. For the analysis of the appraisals 30 triads were used, within the other 13 triads only one subordinate and the supervisor responded. In this case no comparison of evaluations was possible. Data from two participants could not be used, due to largely incomplete questionnaires. Consequently a total of 114 respondents (76 subordinates and 38 supervisors) were used for this study. The majority of the respondents were male (74%). Respondents’ average age was 41.5 year, the average time in function for subordinates was 6 years and for supervisors 4.5 years and the range in level of education was wide spread (VMBO= 6,6% ; MBO= 35,5% ; HAVO= 13,2% ; VWO= 3,9% ; HBO= 8,4% ; WO= 3,9% Other= 29,7 %). After a brief introduction at various police stations during general meetings, the researchers distributed the questionnaires among the supervisors. These in turn redistributed the questionnaires among the subordinates. Participants received the questionnaires and a stamped return envelope in person at workand could either send it 20 back directly to the university or hand in the questionnaire after completion. Employees were asked to complete the questionnaire in which they had to rate a specific colleague, assess their supervisor and rate specific work situation. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. 6.2
Measures
Two different questionnaires were used: one for the subordinates and one for the supervisors. For all questionnaires the 5 point Likert‐scale was used, where 1 represented to a very little extent and 5 to a very great extent. All scales were administered in Dutch. Both questionnaires can be found in Appendix A & B. Leadership Styles Charismatic and autocratic leadership were measured by the CLIO scale (CLIO; De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2004). Charismatic leadership was measured by 5 items and an internal consistency of .90. Autocratic leadership was measured by 6 items and an internal consistency of .65. Examples of the items used in this scale are: “My supervisor encourages employees to think independently” (charismatic leadership) and “My supervisor is the boss and gives orders” (autocratic leadership). Ethical leadership was measured by the Ethical Leadership Scale with 10 items and a proven internal consistency of .92 (ELS; Brown, Trevino and Harrison, 2005). Examples of the items used in this scale: “My supervisor is a good example of ethical behavior which is expected on the job” and “My supervisor acts in the interest of all employees”. Job Performance For rating other colleagues and subordinates the FELA questionnaire (Fragebogen zur Erfassung des leistungsbezogenen Arbeitsverhaltens) was adopted to measure job 21 performance by way of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) in German work settings (Staufenbiel & Hartz, 2000). The scale was translated to Dutch and then verified, the scale consisted of 25 items with an internal consistency of .89. Examples of the items used in this scale: “Is always on time at work” and “Helps others when they are overloaded with work”. Perception of typical or maximum situation The Typical Maximum Performance Scale (Klehe & Anderson, 2004) was used to assess whether participants indeed perceived the presence of a leader as a maximum performance situation. Which means that participants in a maximum situation perceive the situation as more evaluative, more maximized in effort and more focused. To assess maximum performance participants were asked to think of a situation in which their supervisor was present. To assess a typical situation, participants were also asked to fill in the same scale but instead think of a situation without their supervisor’s presence. Examples of the items used in this scale: “I worked as hard as I could.” and “Nobody had told me to do my best” (reverse scored). The scale consisted of 23 items and an internal consistency of .58 for maximum situation and .55 for typical situation. Finally participants had to fill in demographic questions: age, tenure, time with supervisor, level of education. The supervisor questionnaire is different from the one the subordinate received in that it only contained the evaluation of both direct subordinates using the above mentioned FELA questionnaire (Staufenbiel & Hartz, 2000). 22 7.Results
Table 1 on page 31 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations and internal consistencies of all the study variables used. Preliminary investigation presents some interesting findings. Table 1 shows a high correlation between the perception of the performance situation in the presence of the supervisor and the perception of the performance situation in the absence of the supervisor, r = .63, p < .01. This might indicate that the employee sees the performance situation when the supervisor is present to be similar to the performance situation when the supervisor is absent. Notable is the negative correlation between autocratic leadership and the perception of a performance situation in the presence of the supervisor, r = ‐.26, p < .05. This indicates that the more autocratic a supervisor is the less maximum the employee perceives the performance situation to be. This is in contrast with our expectations. This negative tendency can also be found with ethical and charismatic leadership, although the correlations are non‐significant. Table 1 also shows a very high correlation between ethical leadership and charismatic leadership, r = .83, p < .01. This might indicate that ethical and charismatic leadership have many of the same characteristics(see also Brown, Trevino & Harrison, 2005; Bono & Judge, 2003). More specifically, the ethical dimension is a component that bonds together with inspiring, visionary and stimulating leadership behaviors and together make up charismatic leadership. According to Brown et al. (2005) ethical leadership is a distinct leadership style from charismatic leadership. Since we expect different influences on the perception of a situation as a maximum performance situation and on the performance appraisals by the 23 charismatic and ethical leadership styles we will, in spite of the high correlation, treat ethical and charismatic supervisors as two distinct leadership styles. Another interesting finding is the very low correlation between the appraisal done by the supervisor and by the colleague, r = .14, p = .27. This indicates there is a low agreement between the appraisal done by the supervisors and by the colleagues of the same target employee. Hypothesis 1 proposed that the presence of the leader makes the employee perceive the performance situation as a maximum performance situation. Overall no difference emerged between the perception of a situation as a maximum performance situation in the presence or absence of their supervisor (Presence  M = 3.07, SD = .50 vs. Absence  M = 3.00, SD = .59; t(61)= ‐1.16, ns). A closer analysis of the sub‐dimensions of the TMPS revealed that employees did feel more evaluated when their supervisor was around (Presence  M = 2.68, SD = 1.02 vs. Absence  M = 2.48, SD = 1.05; t(59)= ‐2.10, p = .040). Employees did not feel more instructed (Presence  M = 1.96, SD = .91 vs. Absence  M = 1.99, SD = .97; t (59)= .24, ns) when their supervisor was around. There was no difference in the experienced duration of the task (Presence  M = 3.73, SD = .75 vs. Absence  M = 3.82, SD = .72; t (61)= 1.34, ns). Since employees did feel more evaluated in the presence of their supervisor, there is partial support for hypothesis 1 on the sub‐dimension evaluation. To test hypothesis 2a‐2c , which states that the different leadership styles have a different influence on the perception of a situation as a maximum performance situation a moderated regression analyses was done with the perception of a performance situation in the presence of the supervisor as independent variable. The influence of the different leadership styles was tested by using them as independent variables in the regression while controlling 24 for the influence of the perception of a situation in the absence of the supervisor. Results are shown in table 2. Table 2. Moderated regression analyses of the perception of a performance situation in the presence of the supervisor with the variables perception of performance situation in the absence of the supervisor, autocratic‐, ethical‐, and charismatic Leadership. β R2 Adj. R2 F ΔR2 1 2 3 Step 1 .39 .38 38.94 .39** Absence of the supervisor .63** .65** .61** Step 2 .49 .45 3.48 .09** Autocratic Leadership ‐.14* ‐.16* Ethical Leadership ‐.47** ‐.29* Charismatic Leadership .34** .15 Step 3 .53 .47 1.48 .04 Absence of the supervior x Autocratic Leadership ‐.04 Absence of the supervior x Ethical Leadership ‐.02 Absence of the supervior x Charismatic Leadership .23** Step Note. * p < .10 (marginal significant), ** p < .01. N = 64. Standard regression coefficients, R2 as well as adjusted R2 are shown. ΔR2 refers to unadjusted R2. 25 Figure 2. Step 1 in Table 2 shows that there was a main effect for perception of the performance situation in the absence of the supervisor on the perception of the performance in the presence of the supervisor (β = .63, p = .000). When controlled for the perception of a performance situation in the presence of the supervisor in step 2, the regression shows a marginally significant negative effect for autocratic leadership (β = .14, p = .081), a negative effect for ethical leadership (β = ‐.47, p = .009) and a positive effect for charismatic leadership (β = .34, p = .029) when controlling for the other leadership styles respectively. Autocratic supervisors as well as ethical supervisors make an employee perceive a performance situation in the presence of their supervisor as less maximum than employees with supervisors who score low on autocratic or ethical leaderships styles. Employees with charismatic supervisors perceive a performance situation in the presence of their supervisor 26 as more maximum than employees with supervisors who score low on charismatic leadership style. In step 3 the regression shows a significant interaction effect for the perception of the performance situation in the presence of the supervisor * charismatic leadership (β = .23, p = .03), while the effect of charismatic leadership on the perception of a situation becomes non significant. The model in step 3 is not significant. This means that although the interaction is significant it doesn’t explain enough incremental variance for the model to be significant. If the model was significant it would mean that the employees with charismatic supervisors perceives the situation in which their supervisor is present to represent more of a maximum performance situation than when the leader is not present. But since it is not significant hypotheses 2a‐2c cannot be confirmed. To test hypothesis 3a‐3c, in which it is expected that the different leadership styles of a supervisor influence the agreement between the overall colleague and supervisor’s appraisal, a moderated regression analyses was done with supervisor’s overall appraisal as dependent variable and colleague’s overall appraisal and the different leadership styles as independent variables. The results are shown in table 3. 27 Table 3. Moderated regression analyses on overall supervisor‐appraisal with variables colleague appraisal, autocratic‐, ethical‐, and charismatic leadership. Β R2 Adj. R2 F ΔR2 1 2 3 Step 1 .01 ‐.01 .55 .01 Overall Colleague evaluation .10 .06 .09 Step 2 .13 .05 2.13 .11* Autocratic leadership ‐.10 ‐.14 Ethical leadership .57** .70** Charismatic leadership ‐.38* ‐.50** Step 3 .19 .06 1.14 .06 Autocratic leadership * Colleague evaluation .07 Ethical leadership * Colleague evaluation .36** Charismati leadership * Colleague evaluation ‐.36* Step Note. * p < .10 (marginal significant), ** p < .01. N = 64. Standard regression coefficients, R2 as well as adjusted R2 are shown. ΔR2 refers to unadjusted R2. Figure 3. Effect of ethical leadership
on difference between supervisor/colleague appraisal.
5
High Char.LS
4
la
is
ra
p
p 3
a r
o
si
vr 2
e
p
u
S
1
Low Char. LS
0
Low
High
Colleague appraisal
28 Figure 4. Effect of charismatic leadership
on difference between supervisor/colleague appraisal.
0
Low
la
isa
rp
p
ar
o
si
vr
e
p
u
S
High
‐1
High Char.LS
‐2
Low Char. LS
‐3
‐4
‐5
Colleague appraisal
Step 1 in table 3 shows there is no main effect for overall colleague appraisal. Step 2 shows that the more ethical the style of the supervisor is the higher they rate their employees (β = .57, p = .012), controlling for the colleague appraisal and the other leadership styles. The more charismatic the style of the supervisors is the lower they rate their employees (β = ‐
.38, p = .077), marginally significant. Step 3 shows a marginally significant effect of the interaction ethical leadership * colleague appraisal (β = .36, p = .06) and a marginal significant effect of the interaction charismatic leadership * colleague appraisal. (β = ‐.35, p =.06). Yet again the model in step 3 is not significant. This means that although the interactions are significant it doesn’t explain enough incremental variance for the model to be significant. So hypotheses 3a‐c were not supported. If the model was significant it would mean the more supervisors show an ethical leadership style, the higher the agreement is between their rating and that of the colleague will be. For 29 charismatic supervisors it would be the other way around, the more charismatic the leadership style of the supervisor is the lower the agreement between the colleague’s and the supervisor’s rating will be. 30 Table 1. Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies and correlations between variables. Variables
N M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
11
Performance situation, absence of the 1. TMPS absence 62 3,00
0,59
.55
2. Evaluation 60 2,48
1,05
.70**
.84
3. Instruction
61 2,04
1,04
.67**
.43**
.74
4. Duration
62 3,82
0,72
.46**
‐.17
‐.19
.86
Performance situation, presence of the 5. TMPS presence 63 3,05
0,52
.63**
.45**
.37** .36** .58 6. Evaluation
63 2,64
1,02
.37**
.75**
.32** ‐.22 .67** .81 7. Instruction
63 1.99
0,92
.37**
.44**
.55** ‐.26* .42** .39** .57 8. Duration
62 3,73
0,75
.35*
‐.24
‐.08 .75** .55** ‐.16 ‐.14 .84 Leadership styles 9. Autocratic Leadership 64 2.88
0,61
‐.19
‐.16
.09 ‐.23 ‐.26* ‐.16 ‐.06 10. Ethical Leadership 64 3.76
0,65
.05
‐.03
.03 .10 ‐.18 ‐.12 11. Charismatic Leadership 64 3.66
0,78
‐.06
‐.04
.01 .08 ‐.10 Appraisals Performance Appraisals
12. Colleague Evaluation 52 3,97
0,52
‐.08
.04
‐.09 .11 13. Supervisor Evaluation 62 3,96
0,41
‐.27*
‐.16
.01 Demographics 14. Age
62 39
11
.04
.03
15. Gender
63 1,31
.47
.17
16. Tenure
64 73
86
17. Time with supervisor 64 25
23
12
13
14
15 16 17 ‐.20 .65 .04 ‐.20 .01 .89 ‐.11 ‐.03 ‐.17 ‐.04 .83** .90 .15 .10 .09 ‐.00 ‐.24* .33* .46** .93 ‐.29* ‐.04 .11 .04 ‐.22 ‐.03 .17 .04 .14 .88 ‐.11 .10 .08 ‐.04 ‐.03 .16 ‐.10 ‐.17 ‐.18 ‐.05 ‐.16 ‐
.12
‐.03 .21 .16 .16 ‐.10 .08 ‐.16 .10 .27* .10 ‐.21 ‐.24
‐
‐.05
‐.14
‐.02 .07 .00 ‐.14 ‐.08 .15 ‐.12 .07 .03 .11 ‐.22 .41**
‐.17 ‐ .09
.12
.20 ‐.15 ‐.06 .07 .06 ‐.15 .15 .10 .04 .03 ‐.00 .26*
‐.20 .20 ‐ Note. *p < .05. **p < .01; Gender: 1 = male 2 = female. Age in years, tenure and time with supervisor in months. Internal consistencies are reported on the diagonal. 31 8.Discussion
This study examined the influence of the presence of the supervisor on the perception of a performance situation by the employee and if this influence differed, depending on the supervisor’s leadership styles. The results, contrary to our expectations, show that the presence of the supervisor did not make employees perceive the situation as a maximum performance situation. This is not in line with our expectations and with the literature (Sacket et al. 1988; Klehe & Anderson, 2007b). But employees did feel more evaluated when the supervisor was around. Thus there is partial support for hypothesis one. The results also showed an indication that the presence of a supervisor with a charismatic leadership style made the employees perceive a situation as more maximum than when the supervisor was absent (see interaction in step 3 of table 2). The interaction did not explain enough incremental variance for the model to be significant, therefore it is just an indication. Main effects were found on the perception of performance situations in the presence of the supervisor as a maximum performance situation. Employees with a charismatic supervisor perceived any situation as a more maximum performance situation. On the contrary employees with an ethical supervisor perceived any situation as less of a maximum performance situation. The same goes for employees with an autocratic supervisor, although the effect was small. This was not included in the hypotheses, but it is support for the fact that different leadership styles have a different effect on the perception of a performance situation. The effects of charismatic and ethical leadership were in line with our expectations. Autocratic leadership did not have an effect. That there were no effects found with autocratic leadership could be caused by the organization in which the survey was given. The police force is an organization where a 32 strong hierarchical structure is present with great power distances between supervisors and employees (King, 2005). The employees might be used to the great power distance and therefore the autocratic leadership style is experienced as ‘normal’, this is supported by the low mean for autocratic leadership (in comparison to charismatic and ethical leadership). The influence of the presence of the supervisor was tested using a self‐survey questionnaire, which is probably one of the main reasons that we did not find an effect. The employees might have thought that it was not desirable to have a different performance when the supervisor was around. This caused them to answer questions on a situation where the supervisor is present equal as to when the supervisor is absent, so called demand characteristics. This happens when the participants expect that they will somehow be evaluated and thus they figure out a way to 'beat' the experiment to attain ‘good’ scores. Most of the research done on maximum and typical performance manipulated maximum and typical performance situation, instead of just asking. This might be one of the reasons why we found different results. Furthermore, this study examined the consequences of different leadership styles on the accuracy of performance appraisals. Supervisors do not differ from colleagues in their average rating of employees’ performance. This is in contrast with our expectations and the literature on performance appraisals (Viswesvaran, Ones & Schmidt, 1996; Conway & Huffcutt, 1997; Thorsteinson & Balzer, 1999; Murphy, 2008). Our expectations were that the different leadership styles would moderate the relationship between the appraisals done by supervisors and colleagues. There were indications that charismatic supervisors tend to rate their employees lower than the employees’ colleagues do. For ethical supervisors the indication was opposite, ethical supervisors tend to rate their employees higher than the 33 employees’ colleagues do. These are just indications since the interaction did not explain enough incremental variance for the model to be significant. Significant effects were found on the general appraisals done by the supervisors with different leadership styles. Supervisors with a strong ethical leadership style in general give their employees higher performance ratings than supervisors with low ethical leadership style. For supervisors with a strong charismatic leadership style it is the other way around in general they give their employees lower ratings than do supervisors with high charismatic leadership style. Overall we did not find the expected effects, but for charismatic as well as ethical leadership the results point in the right direction. Theoretical implications Our first goal was to replicate the findings of Sacket et al. (1988) and Klehe and Anderson (2007): the presence of a supervisor would create a maximum performance situation. Unfortunately we didn’t find the presence of a supervisor to lead to the perception of a situation as a maximum performance situation, so we cannot support the distinction made between typical and maximum performance. We did however find the presence of a supervisor to make the employee feel more evaluated, what in theory should also create a maximum performance situation. We also found an influence of the different leadership styles on the general perception of a situation as a maximum performance situation. Since the effects of different leadership styles on the perception of a situation as maximum or typical situation have not yet been published, this study does contribute to the literature by pointing out the importance of the influence of the different leadership styles on the perception of a situation as a maximum or as a typical performance situation. 34 We would have liked to support the theory of Reb and Greguras (2008) and Fisher (2008) on the dynamic nature of performance, this could be a reason for the different appraisals given by colleagues and supervisors. Differences were found in appraisals between colleagues and supervisors, although not in the same direction. This might indicate that colleagues and supervisors witness different performance though we cannot conclude that the presence of the leader is a cause for performance to have a dynamic nature. Therefore this study is not able to shed light on the ongoing debate over performance appraisals (Murphy, 2008). This study does contribute to the debate by introducing the assumption that supervisors with different leadership style have a different tendency to rate their employees. Charismatic supervisors generally rate their employees lower, while ethical supervisors rate their employee higher. Charismatic supervisors probably rate their employees lower because they have high expectations of their employees (Shamir & House, 1993). The reason that ethical supervisors rate their employees higher could be because they give high value to building followers’ confidence and encourage their employees so that they gain a sense of personal competence (Brown et al., 2005; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Limitations and directions for future research The research on typical versus maximum performance is still relatively young, and many research has been focused on replicating earlier results. For multiple reasons this study has not succeeded to confirm earlier results found in this area. Most importantly this study was not able to establish a perceived maximum performance situation when the supervisor was around. This may be due to several reasons (a) the theory might be wrong, (b) limitations. First, it has been relatively common to do laboratory experiments instead of field experiments in this area. Most laboratory experiments have focused on manipulating the 35 maximum and typical performance situation (Klehe & Anderson, 2007; Klehe & Latham 2006). A field experiment as described in this paper in an organization where a self‐survey questionnaire has been used to assess a perceived maximum performance situation has not been done before. This is the first attempt in the maximum and typical literature to create more external validity by way of a field study, and it is in that way unique. The contrasting results from this field study with conventional maximum and typical performance lab studies could thereby indicate flaws in the theory, effects which might not necessarily take place in real world situations. A reason why this field study failed to replicate earlier findings could have to do with the questionnaire which was used (see Appendix). The questionnaire, unintentionally, might have caused socially desirable responses with the employees. The scale on a situation where the leader was present followed directly on the scale where the leader was absent. In many cases employees from the police force directly wrote on the form that “It doesn’t matter whether the supervisor is around or not, I always perform the same”. This is a direct indication that employees might know what we were testing for. In the first place a within‐subject design was chosen to increase statistical power with fewer participants (Sawyer & Ball, 1981). For future research it is recommendable to use a between‐subjects design, in this way socially desirable responses are less likely because participants in one condition will only be answering the scale for when the leader is around and the others for when the leader is not around. This also makes the questionnaire as a whole less time consuming. Second, building on the above, statistical power could have been enlarged in another way. In most of the analyses for this study 63 participants were included. According to conventional standards more participants are needed to detect small statistical power when high correlations have been found between independent variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; cited 36 in Wilson & Morgan, 2007). This is the case for ethical and charismatic leadership in this study; thereby the minimum amount of participants has not been reached in the current study according to Cohen (1992). With conventional α= .05, power of .80 and the effect size assumed to be medium, Cohen states that for multiple moderated regressions with seven variables, a minimum of 102 participants is needed. For future research an increase in participants for this particular experiment might give more favorable results. Third, a field setting was chosen to enlarge ecological validity. Doing a field experiment was a challenge in itself, during the economic crisis not many organizations were willing to participate in research (specifically this kind of research) because of the ongoing changes. Eventually the police force of North Holland agreed on participating. Looking back at the results, having a public organization to participate in this kind of research could have had a fundamentally different effect on maximum and typical performance compared to a profitable commercial organization. Differences between public and private organizations have been described as early as 1969. The research evidence stems from studies which measured attitudes ranging from job satisfaction to organizational commitment. In a study comparing five major need categories (security, social, esteem, autonomy, and self‐
actualization), it was found that government middle managers reported considerably less need satisfaction than similar managers from private industries (Paine, Carroll & Leete, 1966; cited in Buchanan, 1974). The same measures of satisfaction were administered to a group of 2,026 managers from government agencies, and responses were compared with those collected earlier from a sample of business managers. Dissatisfaction was found to be significantly greater among the government group (Rhinehart, Barrell, DeWolfe & Spane; cited in Buchanan, 1974). In two studies done by Buchanan (1974) he found that business middle managers re‐ported significantly more involvement with work activities, greater 37 satisfaction and greater commitment than the government managers. Thus differences between the two types of organizations do exist. Then being forced to include a public organization for current research might have altered the results. Considering these differences between public and private organizations, some interesting alternative explanations can be given for the lack of difference between the perceived typical and maximum performance situations. First public organizations, and thus the police department, were found to have significantly less job commitment and satisfaction as compared to commercial organizations. Since commitment and satisfaction is lower than in private organizations, less attention might go out to a supervisor’s judgment in public organizations because employees are less committed towards job‐related outcomes. This may lead employees to perceive a situation where the supervisor is around to be the same as when the supervisor is not around. Another viable option would be the stakes at play, which could be much higher within a business environment. A business environment is often characterized by being target focused, performance driven and in many cases, the “up or out” principle applies. Just doing your job is not good enough (Rainey & Bozeman, 2000). Within public organizations, this is often less or not all the case. Employees in these organizations often have a long tenure and their performance is taken for granted by themselves and supervisors. Especially within the police force employees are not afraid to lose their job, which became clear after informally asking some of the employees. This question could also be added to the questionnaire in future research. Their performance is less visible and not as much target focused (for example within the police force performance is not on bases of a “crime solving”‐quota per employee which has to be reached, which would be the case with a sales target in a private 38 organization). With this in mind looking at the distinction between maximum and typical performance, a police department can be an environment where this difference may be less applicable. Having a supervisor around might stress you a little bit more, but not necessarily, knowing that appraisals rarely lead to losing a job in the police force. Within private organizations, appraisals have a bigger impact and losing your job is more common after a period of sub optimal performance. Consequently, the stakes are then higher in a business environment. Therefore future research should not only be focused on a public organizations but definitely involve private organizations, and make sure to distinguish these two when analyzing the results. Conclusion Although growing, research on maximum and typical performance needs much attention on a variety of topics. We have tried to build support for the typical/maximum construct; unfortunately we have not been able to confirm earlier findings. In part because of the research design limitations and in part simply because typical and maximum performance might be less applicable in public organizations. The most important finding in this paper would be the influence of different leadership styles on ratings of employee performance. Again this is the first paper on different leadership styles and its influence on the typical and maximum performance construct; it is not conclusive and needs more in‐depth research. Research on this topic will only get more important in the near future when flexible working will further evolve and supervisors are only sporadically near their employees. Awareness should be created among supervisors so that their leadership might be of influence and in that way bias appraisals. 39 9.Appendix(dubbelklikkenopdevolgendepaginavoorappendix)
40 Arbeids & Organisatiepsychologie Roetersstraat 15 1018 WB AMSTERDAM Tel: (020) 525 6860 E‐mail: [email protected] Amsterdam, mei 8, 2010 Betreft: Leiderschapsonderzoek Geachte leidinggevende, Ik wil u nogmaals danken voor het meewerken aan het onderzoek en hoop dat u de vragenlijst met plezier zult invullen. Het invullen van de vragenlijst spreekt waarschijnlijk voor zich. Denkt u er alleen om dat u de juiste werknemer in gedachten neemt bij het invullen van de vragenlijst. Met vriendelijke groet, Aike Malchus [email protected] & Lorenz Versloot [email protected] 41 10.References
Apgar, I. (1999), "The alternative workplace: changing where and how people work", Harvard Business Review, 3, 121‐36. Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,836–874 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32. Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press. Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134. Buchanan, B. (1974). Government Managers, Business Executives, and Organizational Commitment. Public Administration Review, 34, 339‐347. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row. Campbell, J.P. (1990) Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. , Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1, 687–732. Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376– 399). Oxford, UK7 Blackwell. Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (1992). Analyzing performance appraisal as goal‐directed behavior. In G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 10, 121–185. Cohen, J (1992). A power primer. Quantative methods in psychology, 112, 155‐159. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–179. 42 Conway, J.M., Huffcutt, A.I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: a meta‐analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self‐ratings. Human Performance, 10, 331‐360. Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing, Oxford, England. De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self‐sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 79–93. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation: The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 858– 866. De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: Een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties [The development of the CLIO: A questionnaire for measuring charismatic leadership in organizations]. Gedrag & Organisatie, 100, 354–382. De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi‐method study. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297–311. Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2009). Empowering behavior and leader fairness and integrety: Studying perceptions of ethical leader behavior from a levls‐of‐analysis perpective. Europen journal of work and orgnizational psychology, 0, 1‐32. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta‐analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611– 628. DuBois, C.L.Z., Sackett, P.R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1993). Further exploration of typical and maximum performance criteria: Definitional issues, prediction, and white‐black differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 205‐211. Fisher, C. D. (2008). What if we took within‐person performance variability seriously? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 185–189. Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499‐510. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159‐170. King, W. R. (2005), Toward a better understanding of the hierarchical nature of police organizations: Conception and measurement. Journal of Criminal Justice 33, 97– 109. 43 Klehe, U.‐C., & Anderson, N. (2005). The prediction of typical and maximum performance. In A. Evers, N. Anderson & O. Smit‐Voskuijl, Handbook of personnel selection, 331‐353. Klehe, U.C., & Latham, G. P. (2006). What would you do: really or ideally? Constructs underlying the Behavior Description Interview and the Situational Interview in predicting typical versus maximum performance. Human Performance, 19, 357–382. Klehe, U.‐C., & Anderson, N. (2007). Working hard and working smart: Motivation and ability during typical and maximum performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 978‐992. Klehe, U.‐C, Latham, G., (2008). Predicting typical and maximum performance with measure of motivation and abilities. Psychologica Belgica, 48, 67‐91 Kline, T.J.B., & Sulsky, L.M. (2009). Measurement and assessment issues in performance appraisal. Canadian Psychology, 50, 161‐171. Landy, F. J., Farr, J. L., Saal, F. G., & Freytag, W.R. (1976). Behaviorally anchored scales for rating the performance of police officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 752‐758 Locke, E.A., Mento, A.J., & Katcher, B.L. (1978). The interaction of ability and motivation in performance: An exploration of the meaning of moderators. Personnel Psychology, 31, 269‐280. Maier, N.R.F. (1955). Psychology in industry (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin. Mangos, P.M., Steele‐Johnson, D., LaHuis, D., & White, E.D. (2007). A multiple task measurement framework for assessing maximum‐typical performance. Human Performance, 20, 241‐258. McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect‐ and Cognition‐Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. The academy of management journal, 38, 24‐59. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Murphy, K. R.,&Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal‐oriented perspectives. Newbury Park, CA:Sage. Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., Skattebo, A. L., & Kinney, T. B. (2004). Raters who pursue different goals give different ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 158–164. 44 Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 148–160. Offermann, L. R. and P. S. Hellmann: 1997, _Culture’s Consequences for Leadership Behavior: National Values in Action, Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology,28, 342–351. Ones,D. S.,Viswesvaran, C.,&Schmidt, F. L. (2008).No new terrain: Reliability and construct validity of job performance ratings. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 174–179. Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision‐making can be both virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1107– 1121. Rainy, H.G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing Public and Private Organizations: Empirical Research and the Power of the A Priori. J‐PART, 10, 447‐469. Reb, J., & Greguras, G. J. (2008). Dynamic performance and the performance–performance rating relation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 194–196. Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical and maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 482‐486. Toor, S.R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: examining the relationships with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533‐547. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational aspects of charismatic leadership: A self‐concept theory. Organization Science, 4, 1–17. Thorsteinson, T. J., & Balzer, W. K. (1999). Effects of coworker information on perceptions and ratings of performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1157‐1173. Wilson Van Voorhis, C.R., & Morgen, B.L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in quantitative methods of psychology, 3, 43‐50. Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557‐574. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 45