Personnel Review: Article Information

Personnel Review
Empowering leadership, employee goal orientations and work performance: A competing hypothesis
approach
Sut I. Wong Humborstad Christina G.L. Nerstad Anders Dysvik
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sut I. Wong Humborstad Christina G.L. Nerstad Anders Dysvik , (2014),"Empowering leadership, employee goal
orientations and work performance", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 2 pp. 246 - 271
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2012-0008
Downloaded on: 08 December 2015, At: 06:32 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 97 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 06:32 08 December 2015 (PT)
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2241 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Shahidul Hassan, Rubiná Mahsud, Gary Yukl, Gregory E. Prussia, (2013),"Ethical and empowering leadership and leader
effectiveness", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. 133-146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941311300252
Karthik Namasivayam, Priyanko Guchait, Puiwa Lei, (2014),"The influence of leader empowering behaviors and employee
psychological empowerment on customer satisfaction", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 69-84 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2012-0218
Anitha J., (2014),"Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance", International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 3 pp. 308-323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-01-2013-0008
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:394461 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
PR
43,2 Empowering leadership,
employee goal orientations and
work performance
246
A competing hypothesis approach
Received 19 January 2012
Revised 23 July 2012
Sut I. Wong Humborstad
19 October 2012 Department of Communication, Culture and Languages,
13 December 2012 BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway, and
Accepted 3 March 2013
Christina G.L. Nerstad and Anders Dysvik

Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour,
BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the possible curvilinear relationship between
empowering leadership and individual in-role and extra-role work performance and the potential
moderating role of individual goal orientations.
Design/methodology/approach – Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted based on data
from 655 certified accountants. Leaders’ empowering behavior was measured using Ahearne et al.’s
scale. Mastery and performance goal orientations were measured using items from VandeWalle.
In-role work performance was measured via a ten-item scale developed and used by Kuvaas and
Dysvik. Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using items validated by Van Dyne and
LePine.
Findings – Too little empowerment might have a negative or limited impact – or none at all – on
individual in-role and extra-role work performance. In addition, individual mastery orientation
positively moderates these curvilinear relationships.
Research limitations/implications – Empowering leadership-employee performance relationships
are not necessarily linear. The present study provides an alternative explanation to the somewhat
inconsistent findings in the current literature.
Practical implications – Due to the curvilinear nature of empowering leadership, leaders should
not just casually adopt this leadership style but ensure that they implement it at high levels with clear
clarification of the goals and work roles.
Originality/value – Even though empowering leadership is important to individual performance,
scant research has explored whether and when empowering leadership could be detrimental. This
study provides an additional view to empowerment research by examining the potential curvilinear
influence of empowering leadership.
Keywords Quantitative, Curvilinear relationships, Empowering leadership, Goal orientation,
Work performance, Empowerment, Accountants, Norway
Paper type Research paper
Personnel Review Considerable research has highlighted the importance of empowering leadership
Vol. 43 No. 2, 2014
pp. 246-271 behavior for individual performance (Ahearne et al., 2005; Arnold et al., 2000; Pearce
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited and Sims, 2002; Vecchio et al., 2010). Empowering leadership is a leadership style that
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2012-0008 decentralizes power to provide more responsibilities and autonomy to employees
(Srivastava et al., 2006). Leaders who encourage greater independence from authority, Empowering
greater lateral cooperation, and greater individual self-management skills are leadership
considered to have subordinates with a higher level of satisfaction and performance
(Stewart et al., 2011; Vecchio et al., 2010). Studies show that the more the empowering
leadership, the higher employee adaptability (Ahearne et al., 2005; Chebat and Kollias,
2000), lower role ambiguity (Chebat and Kollias, 2000) and higher job performance
(Sigler and Pearson, 2000). 247
However, not all existing studies have derived consistent results. Some studies have
demonstrated that empowering leadership outcome relationships could be detrimental
(Ahearne et al., 2005; Hui et al., 2004; Robert et al., 2000). For example, some previous
studies revealed that empowering leadership may arouse resistance (Maynard et al.,
2007) and task uncertainty (Cordery et al., 2010), which in turn might hinder individual
and organizational performance. These studies argue that empowering leadership
might not always be beneficial and that the extra responsibilities and autonomy
resulting from empowerment programs (e.g. job enrichment, skill enhancement) could
be seen as burdens by some individuals. Recent research is starting to point to the need
to investigate specific conditions that influence this association (Vecchio et al., 2010).
In response to these ambiguities, the first purpose of this study is to provide an
alternative relationship between empowering leadership and employee work
performance by investigating whether the relationship may be curvilinear. The need
for this line of research has also been stressed by a recent review study by Maynard
et al. (2012) as the current findings on empowering leadership indicate that its
association with employee outcomes may not be straightforward. On the one hand,
empowering leadership may become “too much of a good thing” when increased
responsibilities owing to autonomy are a burden. Employees may respond to such a
burden by exhibiting lower levels of work performance. Also, when empowering
leadership is perceived as virtually absent or lacking altogether, similar patterns can
be observed (Vecchio et al., 2010). The roles of leaders and their subordinates differ
from many traditional models, and the implementation is much more complex and
often arouses conflicts (Spreitzer, 2008). Accordingly, we set out to investigate whether
the relationship between empowering leadership and work performance may be
curvelinear rather than traditional (e.g. Ahearne et al., 2005; Mathieu et al., 2006). The
intended contribution of our study is to advance the understanding of the relationship
between empowering leadership and work performance by explaining previous
inconsistent findings (Maynard et al., 2012; Vecchio et al., 2010). By doing so, this study
intends to contribute by providing an alternative and more comprehensive theoretical
and practical view of empowering leadership.
The second purpose of this study is to respond to a recent call from Maynard et al.’s
(2012) review study to investigate whether individual differences in goal orientation
may influence the relationship between empowering leadership and work performance.
Research on how individual differences may influence employee responses to
empowering leadership has been limited (Maynard et al., 2012). In particular, Maynard
and colleagues stressed the relevance of individual goal orientation because of its
predictive power on individual prompt responses to situational factors.
Goal orientations are viewed as rather stable personality dispositions (DeShon and
Gillespie, 2005; Payne et al., 2007) and have been characterized as dispositions toward
developing or demonstrating ability at work (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Payne et al.,
PR 2007). Accordingly, goal orientations address why individuals are motivated to
43,2 perform, including the criteria or standards that they will apply to judge successful
performance (Pintrich, 2000; Roberts et al., 2007). Based on their goal orientation,
individuals are predisposed to focus on certain cues in the work environment (Maehr
and Zusho, 2009), such as the signals of empowering leadership. Depending on the
strength of the empowering leadership, employees’ goal orientation may make them
248 interpret empowering leadership as either conflicting or in line with their personal goal
orientation (DeShon and Gillespie, 2005).
There are several frameworks in the current goal orientation literature that
operationalize goal orientations differently (Dickhauser et al., 2011; Elliot and McGregor,
2001; Hulleman et al., 2010), but the general focus is on two facets of goal orientation –
mastery and performance (Hulleman et al., 2010). Mastery orientation refers to the aim of
improving personal performance based on a self-referenced conceptualization of
competence (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1989). Performance orientation refers to the drive to
outperform others and is based on a normative conceptualization of ability (Nicholls,
1989; Van Yperen et al., 2011). Mastery orientation has typically been linked to
self-determined types of motivation while performance orientation has been linked to
more controlling types of motivation (Ntoumanis, 2001). These facets are therefore likely
to affect the relationship between empowering leadership and individual performance
differently. However, research on the relevance of goal orientation in the empowerment
process remains limited (Hon and Rensvold, 2006). Goal orientation is a highly relevant
individual difference variable in this study because meta-analytical evidence has shown
that a mastery orientation predicts job performance above and beyond the big five
personality traits (Payne et al., 2007). Therefore, goal orientation has been emphasized as
a variable that should be of particular relevance to organizational researchers (Payne
et al., 2007). Accordingly, we argue that goal orientation may be a more suitable
moderating variable than, for example, conscientiousness (see Payne et al., 2007; Zweig
and Webster, 2004). In line with these arguments, this study sought to extend previous
empowering leadership research by increasing our understanding of the potential
boundary conditions facilitated by the goal orientation of the empowering
leadership-individual work performance relationship.
Theoretical background
Empowering leadership and work performance
In recent decades, empowerment has gained increasing attention in the management
discipline (Spreitzer, 2008). Derived from the belief that employees who are given
greater opportunities for self-direction will manifest superior outcomes, empowering
leadership emphasizes leaders sharing power with subordinates (Vecchio et al., 2010)
and their abilities to increase subordinates’ sense of meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact (Ahearne et al., 2005). In the enabling leadership
process, a greater motivational state can be enhanced among subordinates through
leader behaviors such as delegating authority and responsibility, eliminating formal
organizational practices, and identifying and removing conditions that foster
powerlessness (van Dijke et al., 2012). Hence, empowering leadership in the present
study is viewed as an interpersonal relationship between leaders and subordinates
where empowerment interventions are cascaded from the upper hierarchy (Liden and
Arad, 1996). Leaders play a central role in this process (Rapp et al., 2006).
Some empirical studies support the view that empowering leadership leads to better Empowering
employee work performance (Ahearne et al., 2005; Pearce and Sims, 2002; Raub and leadership
Robert, 2010; Vecchio et al., 2010). It is also considered an important driver for
organizational effectiveness (Ahearne et al., 2005; Kanter, 1983; Pfeffer and Veiga, 1999).
However, some studies have demonstrated non-significant results in its relationship with
employee performance (e.g. Ahearne et al., 2005; Eylon and Bamberger, 2000; Langfred,
2004; Snipes et al., 2005; Somech, 2005; Ueno, 2008). A recent study by Cordery et al. 249
(2010) suggests that empowerment leads to a higher level of task uncertainty, which in
turn alters the positive relationship between autonomy and performance.
Job performance is considered a multi-faceted construct (Viswesvaran and Ones,
2000). While task performance, or in-role performance, represents the proficiency with
which employees perform activities that are formally recognized as part of their jobs
(Viswevaran and Ones, 2000), it is concerned with the accomplishment of duties and
tasks that are specified in a job description (Murphy, 1989). On the other hand,
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) entails individual behavior that is beyond an
employee’s formal work role and that promotes the effective functioning of the
organization (Organ, 1988). This is also referred to as extra-role performance. In this
study, the two job performance constructs are included to capture how empowering
leadership is associated with employee engagement in both types of roles.
In the current literature, studies have only assumed that the relationships between
empowering leadership and performance-related outcomes are linear. However,
research on autonomy and task uncertainty led us to question whether this relationship
could be curvilinear. The answer to this question will perhaps help us explain the
inconsistent findings in the current literature and provide us with a more nuanced
understanding of the relationship. Drawing from relevant psychology and
management theories, two possible models are recognized to specify the associations
between empowering leadership, in-role performance, and OCB. These two alternative
models present rival explanations for the direction of causality between the two.
Instead of an exploratory or dominant hypothesis approach, a competing hypothesis
approach is considered more appropriate when two or more reasonable explanations
can be derived from prior knowledge (Armstrong et al., 2001; Choi and Cho, 2011).
Thus, two competing models were posited in this study.
“Too much of a good thing” model

A brief summary of the prior empowerment research informs us that empowering
leadership is important for employee job performance. However, could there be too
much of a good thing? Some studies suggest that autonomy can be a double-edged
sword in relation to performance (Haas, 2010; Langfred, 2004) and individual wellbeing
(Nagel, 2010). At the team level, team autonomy can provide individuals with their own
independent decisions that serve the best interest of their tasks (Kirkman and Rosen,
1999). On the other hand, with high autonomy, teams might become isolated from their
environment with a lesser degree of input from others as an outcome of high-level
self-management, resulting in poorer performance (Haas, 2010). At the individual level,
the increased number of alternatives presented to an individual as a result of
self-determination reinforcement can become a burden (Nagel, 2010). Having a choice is
recognized as better than not having choice. However, as the opportunity costs
associated with every decision and the fear of regret become overwhelming,
PR individuals can no longer make a rational decision, and their wellbeing can be hindered
43,2 (Nagel, 2010). A study by Langfred (2004) demonstrated that high levels of individual
autonomy can become a liability in self-managing teams when the level of trust is high
and little monitoring takes place.
Besides the increase in autonomy, empowering leadership also comes with extra
responsibilities, duties, and changes in the roles of leaders and their members (Hakimi
250 et al., 2010; Spreitzer and Doneson, 2005). These studies point to the argument that
empowering leadership, which involves passing on influence to followers as part of the
leadership process (Ford and Fottler, 1995), may resonate better in some conditions
and/or with some employees than with others. When these extra responsibilities and
duties become too much for employees to handle, in-role performance may then be
hindered as they become overloaded (Brown et al., 2005).
For extra-role performance, as the role demands become too high due to extra
responsibilities and duties, employees may create the perception that they no longer
have the adequate resources available to deal with their job. Drawing from the
conservation of resource theory, employees who perceive a resource reduction may
withdraw their level of engagement in OCB (Wright and Hobfoll, 2004). Besides extra
responsibility and duties, empowerment also comes with higher role ambiguity
(Cordery et al., 2010). A recent meta-analytic study by Eatough et al. (2011) found that
role ambiguity is negatively related to OCB. Thus, efforts to empower employees could
be detrimental and may not always yield positive results (Ahearne et al., 2005;
Forrester, 2000; Randolph and Sashkin, 2002). With the aforementioned changes in
leader and subordinate work roles, it is plausible that at a certain level, empowering
leadership could turn into a double-edged sword with detrimental effects on individual
in-role and extra-role performance. Specifically, the positive relationship between
empowering leadership and individual performance would tip, becoming negative as
the level of empowering leadership increases:
H1a. Empowering leadership behavior is curvilinearly related to in-role
performance in an inverted U-shape.
H1b. Empowering leadership behavior is curvilinearly related to organizational
citizenship behavior in an inverted U-shape.
“Too confusing to be a good thing” model

Empowering leadership involves leading others to lead themselves (Vecchio et al., 2010).
In contrast to traditional leadership models, a leader who pursues empowering
leadership is responsible for facilitating self-leadership among his/her subordinates,
implementing conditions that increase the employees’ feelings of self-efficacy and
control, and nurturing conditions that diminish a sense of powerlessness so that
empowered employees feel competent and are allowed to exercise influence over their
work process and make their own decisions (Ahearne et al., 2005; Gibson et al., 2009;
Pearce and Sims, 2002; Vecchio et al., 2010). This creates a more robust, flexible, and
dynamic leadership infrastructure (Ahearne et al., 2005; Cox et al., 2003). Still, such an
infrastructure appears to require employees to clearly understand their decision-making
roles and responsibilities; if not, confusion and uncertainty may arise (Gibson et al.,
2009). Accordingly, several empirical studies have evidenced that ambiguity is one of the
major challenges for empowering leadership (e.g. Wall et al., 2002; Cordery et al., 2010).
A grounded study by Labianca et al. (2000) demonstrates that subordinates develop Empowering
a cognitive judgment of empowerment based on their expectations. These expectations leadership
are developed largely based on their previous experiences (Weick, 1979). Situations in
which subordinates rate their leaders for not pursuing high or low levels of
empowering leadership could imply that in the employees’ eyes, the leaders appear to
in some way encourage independent action and involve the employees in decision
making. At the same time, to employees, the leaders appear to be direct and less 251
welcoming for the employees to exercise discretion. When empowering leadership is
neither strong nor weak, it is plausible that it would be harder for employees to predict
leaders’ empowering behaviors. Because the role of one position is a way to relate to
other roles in a given situation (Turner, 2009), the confusion in leaders’ roles would
make subordinates less able to make sense of their work in regards to the level of
autonomy, involvement in decision making, and participation in goal setting.
Drawing from the sense-making literature (Weick, 1995), such uncertainties derived
from ambiguous empowerment conditions experiences would interrupt ongoing
activities, and employees would find themselves puzzled. Thus, the uncertainties in
decision-making roles and responsibilities may result in employee ignorance and
inaction when a decision needs to be made (Gibson et al., 2009). Subsequently,
employee in-role job performance will be hindered. In regards to employee extra-role
performance, the ambiguity caused by the lack of clarity of decision-making roles gives
rise to experiences of anxiety and tension, resulting in avoidance-oriented motivations
(Johnson et al., 2010). This, in turn, reduces the likelihood of employee engagement in
discretionary behaviors, such as OCB (Eatough et al., 2011):
H2a. Empowering leadership behavior is curvilinearly related to in-role
performance in a U-shape.
H2b. Empowering leadership behavior is curvilinearly related to organizational
citizenship behavior in a U-shape.
The moderating role of goal orientation

Leadership behaviors are not universally effective; rather, their effectiveness depends
on a number of factors, including subordinates’ personal characteristics (Perry et al.,
2010). Individuals rely on informational cues from their social environment when
making assessments about their work context (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Salancik and
Pfeffer, 1978) that may influence subordinates’ understanding of what is valued and
expected in their organizations (Kopleman et al., 1990). More specifically, the type of
leadership emphasized by the leader portrays what he/she values, recognizes, and
evaluates relative to subordinates’ achievement at work (Weiss et al., 2009). Yet
different individuals do not necessarily react in the same way (Terborg, 1981). That is,
individuals select, interpret, and act based on their mental framework (Brett and
VandeWalle, 1999; Weick, 1995; Yeo and Neal, 2004), such as goal orientation in
achievement situations (Poortvliet and Darnon, 2010).
Mastery goal orientation

A mastery orientation stems from the belief that one’s attributes are dynamic and
changeable, and that exerting effort leads to performance improvement (Dweck, 1986;
Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004). It focuses on the development of skills, abilities, and task
PR mastery and defines competence self-referentially (Cellar et al., 2011; Payne et al., 2007).
43,2 Meta-analytical evidence has shown that a mastery orientation is positively associated
with adaptive motivational processes and outcomes, such as intrinsic interest, increased
learning, and performance (Cellar et al., 2011; Hulleman et al., 2010; Payne et al., 2007).
Linear moderating influence

252 Individuals with a high mastery orientation seek challenging tasks, and they are
typically self-driven and persistent in the face of obstacles (Dweck, 1986; Ntoumanis,
2001; Rawsthorne and Elliot, 1999). Therefore, they might see the uncertainties and
extra responsibilities that may come with empowerment as positive challenges which
may energize their motivation to perform either with their in-role or extra-role duties
(see Figure 1). Also, because individuals with a higher mastery orientation are more
adaptive and see change as inevitable (Dweck and Leggett, 1988), they might fit better
in the dynamic leadership infrastructure as a result of empowering leadership. Thus,

the posited curvilinear regression lines of in-role and extra-role performance on
empowering leadership behavior are more likely to occur at higher levels for
individuals with a higher mastery orientation than individuals with a lower mastery
orientation. We therefore hypothesize the following:
H3. Mastery goal orientation will have a positive linear moderating role on the
curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership behavior and
individual (a) in-role performance and (b) organizational citizenship
behavior, as demonstrated by an inflated linear slope of the curvilinear
relationship for individuals with higher mastery goal orientation.
Curvilinear moderating influence

Besides its linear moderating role, we also argue that employee mastery goal
orientation may influence the shape of the alleged curvilinear relationship between
empowering leadership and performance. First, we consider the possible moderating
role of the curvilinear in the “too much of a good thing” model. With high mastery goal
Figure 1.
The curvilinear
relationships between
empowering leadership
and individual in-role and
extra-role performance
orientation, employees tend to improve proficiency and persist in their proficiency by Empowering
putting more effort into their job when they face challenges (Dweck, 1986; Janssen and leadership
Van Yperen, 2004). Moreover, they are better at coping with complex and unfamiliar
tasks (Elliot and McGregor, 2001). In other words, they may handle the challenges
coming from empowering leadership better than employees who are lower in mastery
goal orientation. This persistent tendency to demonstrate proficiency and the ability to
handle more difficult tasks may help employees maintain their in-role and extra-role 253
performance even when the “burdens” derived from increased autonomy and
responsibilities become too much for them to handle. As such, it may buffer the “tip
over” effect of empowering leadership on employee in-role and extra-role performance.
Thus, we posit the following:
H4. Mastery goal orientation will have a positive moderating role on the

behavior, as demonstrated by a flattening of the inverted U-shape.
For the “too confusing to be a good thing” model, employees with high mastery goal
orientation cope better with strains due to uncertainties than employees with low
mastery goal orientation (Ralston et al., 2010). Moreover, mastery-oriented employees
have a more active orientation toward their work role and tend to demonstrate greater
self-determination (Rawsthorne and Elliot, 1999). As such, they may be less dependent
on their leaders while going about their work. The lack of clarity provided by the
leaders on the decision-making role and levels of discretion at work may then become
less salient. Kanter (1983) argues that even under bureaucratic constraints, employees
often look for latent opportunities to empower themselves. Thus, with their high
tendency to be active and self-driven, mastery-oriented employees may be less affected
by confusion due to lack of clarity from their leaders. We therefore posit the following:
H5. Mastery goal orientation will have a positive moderating role on the
behavior, as demonstrated by a flattening of the U-shape.
Performance goal orientation

When employees are performance-oriented, they focus on normative criteria of success,
including the demonstration of ability relative to others (Dweck and Leggett, 1988;
Payne et al., 2007). Performance-oriented individuals possess high motivation to meet
their respective performance standards as long as they do not risk revealing
inadequate ability in front of significant others (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004).
Accordingly, regardless of whether a leader uses in-role or extra-role performance to
help colleagues develop an esteem-relevant attribute, individuals with a high
performance orientation will be pressured to perform well to preserve their sense of
self-worth (Rawsthorne and Elliot, 1999).
Linear moderating influence

The pressure to perform evokes evaluation anxiety and disrupts task involvement
(Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1994). Yet individual task involvement is vital for effective
empowering leadership (Butts et al., 2009; Yang and Konrad, 2011).
PR Performance-oriented individuals may find that this leadership infrastructure conflicts
43,2 with their own mental framework for achievement and thus hinders their performance.
Moreover, task uncertainty is often a byproduct of autonomy resulting from high
empowering leadership (Cordery et al., 2010). However, research has shown that
performance-oriented individuals typically avoid task uncertainty because it may
make them more prone to fail in front of others (Dweck, 1986; Janssen and Van Yperen,
254 2004). Such evaluative pressures may therefore elicit performance anxiety and
undermine feelings of autonomy and self-determination (Deci and Ryan, 1985) and
thereby attenuate the impact of empowering leadership on individual in-role and
extra-role performance. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H6. Performance goal orientation will have a negative linear moderating role on
the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership behavior and
individual (a) in-role performance (b) organizational citizenship behavior, as

demonstrated by an attenuated linear slope of the curvilinear relationship for
individuals with higher performance goal orientation.
Curvilinear moderating influence

In the face of challenges (either due to the burden of too much empowerment or too
much confusion due to unclear decision-making roles), performance-oriented
employees may experience anxiety as their self-worth is threatened (Janssen and
Van Yperen, 2004). Instead of exerting more effort to overcome challenges, this
elevated performance anxiety may promote withdrawal behavior and hinder
performance (Sideridis, 2005). As such, the curvilinear influence (either the inverted
U-shape or U-shape model) of empowering leadership on in-role and extra-role
performance may be further exaggerated for employees with high performance
orientation such that the inverted U-shaped curve “tips over” or the U-shaped curve
becomes more dramatic:
H7. Performance goal orientation will have a negative moderating role on the
behavior, as demonstrated by an exaggeration of the inverted U-shape.
H8. Performance goal orientation will have a negative moderating role on the
individual (a) in-role performance and (b) organizational citizenship, as
demonstrated by an exaggeration of the U-shape.
Methods
Sample
This study employed a sample of 655 certified accountants in Norway. The data were
collected through access to the member database of the Norwegian Association of
Authorized Accountants (NARF). NARF is a member organization that promotes and
encourages the professional and technical interests and skills, as well as the economic
and social interests, of its members, who are all certified accountants. The survey was
distributed via a web-based survey to 2,194 potential respondents from NARF’s
database. The aims and importance of the study were introduced in the cover letter.
Moreover, confidentiality and the use of the data for academic purposes were
emphasized. The respondents were given three weeks to reply. During that period, two Empowering
reminders were e-mailed (one each week) to each participant, resulting in an increased leadership
response rate each time; 672 employees responded. A screening question regarded type
of employment. All respondents purported to be full-time accountants employed by
companies. After screening for outliers, 17 cases (approximately 2.5 percent) were
removed. As a result, the final sample consisted of 655 respondents with a response
rate of approximately 30 percent, which is an average response rate for web-based 255
surveys (Cook et al., 2000).
Although a 30 percent response rate is considered reasonable, a non-response bias
test was performed using a t-test to ensure the data were appropriate. Following the
standard Armstrong and Overton (1977) procedure, two groups of data (one consisted
of the first 100 respondents to reply and the second consisted of the last 100
respondents to reply) were extracted from the original data set. T-tests were carried out
to compare the mean responses of all variables, including control variables between the
two groups to assess whether there were any significantly different patterns in the two
groups. This commonly used extrapolation method is based on the assumption that the
subjects who respond less readily are more similar to the non-respondents (Armstrong
and Overton, 1977). This method is particularly relevant to the present study as no
information could be obtained for the non-respondent group. The results of the t-tests
indicate that there were no significant differences observed across the two groups.
Thus, we conclude that potential non-response bias is not a threat to the present study.
Measures
All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Leader empowering behavior. Leader empowering behavior (LEB) was measured
using Ahearne et al. (2005) scale, consisting of 12 items and the following four
sub-scales:
(1) Enhancing the meaningfulness of the work (e.g. “My manager helps me
understand how my objectives and goals relate to those of the company”).
(2) Fostering participation in decision making (e.g. “My manager makes many
decisions together with me”).
(3) Expressing confidence in high performance (e.g. “My manager believes that I
can handle demanding tasks”).
(4) Providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (e.g. “My manager allows
me to do my job my way”).
Goal orientation. Goal orientation was measured using a nine-item scale originally
developed by VandeWalle (1997). The original scale consisted of three dimensions:
(1) mastery approach orientation;
(2) performance approach orientation; and
(3) performance avoidance orientation.
Two dimensions (approach dimensions) of individual goal orientation, mastery

orientation, and performance approach orientation are more commonly used
(e.g. Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004), and they were adopted in this study. Example
PR items are as follows: mastery orientation – “I am willing to select a challenging work
43,2 assignment that I can learn a lot from” – and performance orientation – “I’m
concerned with showing that I can perform better than my coworkers.” The scale was
used in a Norwegian setting (Dysvik and Kuvaas, 2010).
Work performance (in-role and extra-role). In-role performance was measured using
a ten-item scale developed and used by Kuvaas and Dysvik (2009). The scale measures
256 employee work effort and work quality as equal aspects of work performance (e.g. “I
intentionally expend a great deal of effort in carrying out my job”; “The quality of my
work is usually high”).
Organizational citizenship. Organizational citizenship behavior was measured by
the seven-item discretionary behavior scale validated by Van Dyne and LePine (1998),
previously used in a Norwegian setting (Kuvaas and Dysvik, 2009) and has shown
high consistency among the items (e.g. “I help orient new employees in their work
group”).
Control variables. Education, gender, age, and tenure were used as control variables.
Individual demographic characteristics are important in influencing motivational
processes, making it important to control for them (Payne et al., 2007). Education was
measured by five categories ranging from one year of college education to more than a
five-year master’s degree. Tenure was measured by seven categories ranging from less
than two years to more than 20 years. Age was measured by five categories ranging
from 20-29 to older than 60 (official retirement age in Norway is 67 for men and 65 for
women as of 2010).
To ensure the reliability of the translation for the items of leader empowering
behavior, each question was back translated from Norwegian to English by a second
translator and compared with the original text by three highly educated individuals
who are fluent in both English and Norwegian (Brislin, 1970). Some modification was
made after the review. Secondly, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a pilot sample
of 15 individuals to ensure that all directions and items were clearly understood. The
data and feedback collected from the pilot test were reviewed, and minor modifications
to the translation were made.
Analytic procedure
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses (Cohen et al.,
2003). Recent leadership researchers have recognized that the lack of confirmatory
findings regarding moderators may be largely due to the low statistical power when
numerous predictors are included in a single regression equation (Dionne et al., 2002;
Villa et al., 2003). Thus, this study adopted Villa et al.’s (2003) analytical approach to
examine the moderating hypotheses (i.e. H3-H8) by including empowering leader
behavior and a single moderator (i.e. a mastery or performance approach) in each
regression equation. For the curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership
and performance (i.e. H1 and H2), the approach suggested by Aiken and West (1991)
and Cohen et al. (2003) was used.
First, we centered the variables used to create the curvilinear (quadratic) term and
the interaction (product) terms by subtracting the mean of each variable. An
assessment of potential multicollinearity of all independent variables was carried out
using variance inflation factor scores, and all values were far below 10, ranging from
1.04 to 2.13 (Hair et al., 1998). To avoid distorting the significance and directions of the
interaction and curvilinear terms, one of the interaction terms (the product term of Empowering
empowering leadership and mastery or performance goal orientations) and the leadership
quadratic term (empowering leadership) were added to the linear model (baseline
model in which either in-role or extra-role performance was regressed on empowering
leadership), as depicted in the polynomial regression equation below (Aiken and West,
1991). To examine the significance of the higher order (curvilinear and moderating)
terms, the coefficients must be significant and in the predicted direction (Aiken and 257
West, 1991). In addition, the higher order terms must provide a significant amount of
explained variance in addition to the lower order terms (Aiken and West, 1991). While
X 2 represents the curvilinear term of empowering leader behavior, the product term
(XZ) represents the linear interaction by either the mastery or performance approach,
assessing whether the simple slope regression curves of Y on X would be parallel for all
values of the moderator (Z). On the other hand, the product term X 2Z assesses whether
the shape of the simple regressions of Y and X would be constant across Z values
(Cohen et al., 2003):
Y ¼ b0 þ b1X þ b2X 2 þ b3Z þ b4XZ þ b5X 2 Z þ e;

where Y ¼ dependent variable; X ¼ independent variable; Z ¼ moderating variable;
and e ¼ random disturbance.
Results
Harman’s single factor test was performed to assess whether the majority of the
variance was accounted for by one general factor as an ex post statistical remedy for
potential common method biases (Chang et al., 2010). To perform the Harman’s single
factor test, all items from each of the constructs were loaded into an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) to see whether one single factor would emerge. The common cut-off
factor loading of 0.5 was adopted as the criterion for item retention (Pedhazur and
Schmelkin, 1991). The results of EFA with Quartimax rotation indicate five factors
with an eigenvalue above 1.0, representing 61 percent of the variance. Out of the 38
items, three items (two items from in-role work performance, one item from mastery
orientation) demonstrated factor loadings lower than the criterion levels and were thus
removed. The remaining 35 items were loaded (the factor loadings range from 0.50 to
0.81) on their corresponding constructs, demonstrating a satisfactory structure with
five distinct factors. Moreover, common method bias does not appear to be a severe
threat.
To examine the construct validity of the variables measured, a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was also used because it has advantages over exploratory approaches
in validating theoretically developed constructs (Vandenbosch, 1996). The
measurement model included empowering leadership, employee in-role performance,
organizational citizenship behavior, mastery, and performance goal orientation and
indicated the appropriate validity with an acceptable model fit (x2 ¼ 3191:09,
p , 0:001, x2 =df ¼ 5:80, CFI ¼ 0:96, SRMR ¼ 0:082, RMSEA ¼ 0:086). The results
demonstrate that there was a reasonable fit between the model and the sample data.
To ensure the internal consistency of the items measured, a reliability test was
performed to examine their Cronbach’s alpha values. As depicted in Table I, the
Cronbach’s alpha value for leader empowering behavior was 0.93, with all 12 items
included. For mastery and performance orientation, the alphas were 0.81 and 0.73,
PR respectively. Reliability measures above 0.70 are deemed acceptable for research purposes
43,2 (Nunnally, 1978; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). For work performance, the alphas of
in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior were 0.88 and it was 0.90,
respectively. The results indicate that reasonable internal consistencies were established.
Hypothesis testing
258 For H1-H2, we proposed that the relationships between empowering leader behavior,
(a) in-role work performance, and (b) organizational citizenship behavior are
curvilinear. By using the hierarchical regression analysis procedure, in step 1, we
entered the control variables (education, age, gender, and tenure) and empowering
leader behavior. In step 2, the quadratic (squared) term of empowering leader behavior
was added to examine whether the quadratic term would provide a significant
additional variance in predicting in-role and extra-role performance. The results, as

presented in Table II, demonstrate that empowering leader behavior has significant
and positive linear associations with (a) in-role work performance (b ¼ 0:46;
p , 0:001) and (b) organizational citizenship behavior (b ¼ 0:50; p , 0:001).
Moreover, its squared term has significant but also positive associations with (a)
in-role work performance (b ¼ 0:21; p , 0:001) and (b) organizational citizenship
behavior (b ¼ 0:18; p , 0:001), indicating that there are significant curvilinear
relationships between empowering leader behavior and the two dependent variables
(Aiken and West, 1991). However, with the positive coefficients of the squared terms,
the results indicate that the curvilinear relationships form concave upward patterns,
thus supporting the “too confusing to be a good thing” model (H2a and H2b). The
coefficients of both the linear and the curvilinear slopes of the relationship between
leader empowering behavior and in-role and extra-role performance were significant
and positive (Aiken and West, 1991). The results indicate that the shape of the
curvilinear relationships was a predominantly positive concave upward curve. That is,
subordinates demonstrated lowest in-role and extra-role performance when they
considered their leaders’ empowering behaviors to be somewhat mediocre. However,
they also reported lower in-role and extra-role performance when they evaluated their
leaders to be less empowering than when they evaluated them to be more empowering.
To further investigate the forms of the curvilinear relationships hypothesized, we
followed Aiken and West’s (1991) procedure and plotted the graphs, as depicted in
Figures 2 and 3. The shapes of both curvilinear relationships were concave upward
patterns, supporting H2a and H2b, instead of the concave downward patterns in H1a
and H1b. For the curvilinear relationship with in-role work performance, until the level
of empowering leader behavior approached the mean of 3.75, the association between
Variables Means SD Cronbach’s Alpha 1 2 3 4
Leader empowering behavior 3.75 0.81 0.93

Mastery approach 3.81 0.63 0.81 0.31 *
Table I. Performance approach 3.04 0.82 0.73 0.03 0.26 *
Means, standard In-role work performance 4.21 0.49 0.88 0.38 * 0.54 * 0.21 *
deviations, reliabilities, Organizational citizenship behavior 4.08 0.66 0.90 0.44 * 0.54 * 0.06 0.57 *
and correlations among
variables Notes:. * p , 0:05; n ¼ 655
In-role work performance Organizational citizenship behaviour

Variables I II III IV V VI I II III IV V VI
Education 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03
Age 0.11 * 0.10 * 0.06 0.06 0.10 * 0.10 * 0.08 * 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.07
Gender 20.02 20.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06 * 0.06 * 0.04 0.04
Tenure 0.08 0.07 0.09 * 0.10 * 0.06 0.06 0.08 * 0.08 * 0.10 * 0.11 * 0.08 * 0.08 *
Leader empowering behavior (LEB) 0.38 * 0.46 * 0.29 * 0.31 * 0.45 * 0.45 * 0.43 * 0.50 * 0.33 * 0.34 * 0.50 * 0.50 *
LEB2 0.21 * 0.13 * 0.15 * 0.21 * 0.21 * 0.18 * 0.10 * 0.12 * 0.18 * 0.18 *
Mastery approach (MA) 0.44 * 0.46 * 0.43 * 0.41 *
LEB £ MA 2 0.10 * 2 0.10 *
LEB2 £ MA 2 0.04 0.03
Performance approach (PA) 0.19 * 0.18 * 0.04 0.02
LEB £ PA 2 0.06 2 0.04
LEB2 £ PA 0.04 0.05
Adjusted R 2 0.16 0.20 0.37 0.37 0.23 0.23 0.20 * 0.23 * 0.39 * 0.40 * 0.23 0.23
DR 2 0.17 * 0.04 * 0.17 * 0.01 * 0.04 * 0.01 0.21 * 0.03 * 0.16 * 0.01 * 0.00 0.00
Notes: * p , 0:05; n ¼ 655; Standardized regression coefficients are shown in each equation
leadership
Curvilinear relationship
Empowering
analysis
259
Table II.
PR empowering leader behavior and in-role work performance was negative and curved
43,2 upward when the level of empowering leader behavior continued to increase. For the
relationship with organizational citizenship behavior, the lowest level appeared to be
around below the mean value for leader empowering behavior (LEB mean ¼ 3.75). The
level of OCB was higher when empowering leadership behavior was either at the lower
or the higher levels. Thus, H1a and H1b, which predicted that empowering leadership
260 behavior is curvilinearly related to (a) in-role performance and (b) organizational
citizenship behavior (in an inverted U-shaped form), were not supported as the patterns
of the curvilinear relationships were concave upward shapes. Instead, H2a and H2b
were supported.
Next, the moderating hypotheses were examined (H3-H8). In these hypotheses, we
expected that mastery and performance goal orientation would moderate the
relationships between empowering leadership and individual in-role and extra-role
(OCB) performance. To examine the hypotheses, we further added mastery and

performance goal orientations and their interaction terms with empowering leadership
(both LEB and LEB2), as depicted in Table II. If the interaction terms with the linear
term of LEB are significant and provide significant additional variance to predict
in-role and/or extra-role performance, a linear moderating role is to be supported (H3
and H6). Because of the interaction, the curves are no longer expected to be parallel, but
Figure 2.
The curvilinear
relationship between
empowering leader
behavior and in-role work
performance
Figure 3.
The curvilinear
empowering leader
behavior and individual
organizational citizenship
behavior
they should be identical in shape (Aiken and West, 1991). On the other hand, if the Empowering
interaction terms with the curvilinear term of LEB are significant and provide leadership
significant additional variance to predict in-role and/or extra-role performance, this
would provide support to the curvilinear moderating hypotheses (H4-H8). As such, the
shapes of the curves are expected to be altered. When both linear and curvilinear
moderating hypotheses are supported, both the angles and the shapes of the curves are
affected. 261
The results demonstrated that mastery goal orientation is positively related to both
in-role performance (b ¼ 0:46; p , 0:001) and OCB (b ¼ 0:41; p , 0:001). This
implies that the curves of the relationships were elevated for individuals with higher
mastery goal orientation than those with lower mastery goal orientation. But its
interaction terms with empowering leadership were also related to in-role performance
(b ¼ 20:10; p , 0:01) and OCB (b ¼ 2 0.10; p , 0:01), but in negative directions.
This could indicate that the slopes of the empowering leadership – in-role job
performance and the empowering leadership – OCB relationships are greater for low
mastery goal orientation than for high mastery goal orientation. However, because
mastery goal orientation has a strong positive relationship with both in-role
performance and OCB, the intercepts of these relationships are expected to be higher
for those who are higher in mastery goal orientation than those who are lower. This
indicates that the positive influence of a mastery goal orientation would be diminishing
when leaders’ empowering behaviors are at the higher levels. Further inspections with
actual graphs are needed.
To further inspect the moderating roles of mastery goal orientation on the
relationships between empowering leadership and in-role performance and OCB, the
curvilinear graphs were plotted, as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. As expected, for
individuals with higher mastery goal orientation, the intercepts of the curvilinear
relationships between empowering leadership and in-role job performance and
between empowering leadership and OCB are higher than for individuals with higher
mastery goal orientation. Thus, H3a and H3b, which predict that a mastery goal
orientation has a positive linear moderating role on the curvilinear relationship
between empowering leadership behavior and individual (a) in-role performance and
(b) organizational citizenship behavior, were supported. However, the curvilinear
Figure 4.
The moderating role of
mastery goal orientation
on the curvilinear
empowering leader
in-role job performance
PR moderating roles of mastery goal orientation were not supported as its interactions
43,2 with the squared term of empowering leader behavior are shown to be non-significant
with the two outcome variables. Thus, H4 and H5 were not supported.
With respect to performance goal orientation as a moderator, the results indicate
that it has a positive relationship with in-role performance (b ¼ 0:18; p , 0:001), but a
non-significant relationship with OCB (b ¼ 0:02; p . 0:05). This implies that the
262 curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and in-role performance was
elevated for individuals who had a higher performance goal orientation than those who
had a lower performance goal orientation. However, its interaction terms (both linear
and curvilinear) with empowering leadership on in-role job performance and OCB were
all non-significant with p-values greater than 0.05. The results indicate that neither the
angles nor the shapes of the curvilinear relationships between empowering leadership
and in-role performance and OCB would be affected by individual performance goal
orientation. Thus, H6 to H8 are not supported.
Discussion
The present study advances the empowering leadership literature by providing an
alternative explanation for the relationship between empowering leadership and facets
of employee performance. We found that these associations are not necessarily linear,
as is commonly presumed in the current literature. This contributes an alternative view
of leadership in general and, more specifically, of empowering leadership, both
theoretically and practically. While we have two competing hypotheses on the nature
of the curvilinear relationships between empowering leadership behavior and in-role
and extra-role performance (i.e. too much of a good thing model versus too confusing to
be a good thing model), our findings support the “too confusing to be a good thing”
model and show that the relationships are U-shaped curvilinear. This indicates that
moderate levels of empowering leadership may have no/limited or even a negative
impact on employees’ in-role and extra-role performance. The results support our
arguments that when leaders’ empowering behaviors are at moderate levels, there can
be greater ambiguities in terms of what and how decision-making responsibilities are
shared. In contrast to traditional models of leadership, a leader who pursues
Figure 5.
The moderating role of
mastery goal orientation
on the curvilinear
empowering leader
organizational citizenship
behavior
empowering leadership is responsible for facilitating self-leadership among Empowering
subordinates so that empowered employees feel competent and are allowed to leadership
exercise influence over the work process and make their own decisions (Ahearne et al.,
2005; Gibson et al., 2009; Pearce and Sims, 2002; Vecchio et al., 2010). Helping
employees to lead themselves creates a more robust, flexible, and dynamic leadership
infrastructure (Ahearne et al., 2005; Cox et al., 2003; Stewart et al., 2011). This change
requires a corresponding change in managers’ roles and responsibilities in the 263
empowered environment (Arnold et al., 2000). Hence, the leaders and their subordinates
need to clearly understand their decision-making roles and responsibilities or else
decisions may inadvertently be ignored, resulting in inaction and confusion and
hindering individual performance (Gibson et al., 2009).
In addition, the findings demonstrate that employees responded more positively in
terms of their in-role and extra-role performance when they perceived their leaders to
be high on empowering behaviors than when they perceived the leaders’ empowering
behaviors were low. Taken together, leaders should not just casually adapt
empowering leadership but ensure that they implement it at high levels with clear
clarifications of their and their subordinates’ work roles.
Second, our study contributes by showing the important interplay between
leadership behavior and individual characteristics in predicting in-role and extra-role
work performance. We found the curvilinear relationship between empowering
leadership behavior and work performance to be positively and linearly moderated by
mastery orientation. That is, with strong empowering leadership, highly
mastery-oriented individuals tend to demonstrate higher in-role and extra-role job
performance. This finding indicates that employees’ personal dispositions do have an
impact on how they interpret their leaders’ behavior (DeShon and Gillespie, 2005). This
suggests that the values emphasized in empowering leadership that are in line with
what is valued by a mastery-oriented person (e.g. self-determination, decision latitude)
drive individual performance. This finding supports the situational leadership
hypothesis, which argues that the effectiveness of leadership depends on the person or
the group being led (Hersey, 1985). The person and leadership style interact to
determine the employee’s outcomes (performance) while a mismatch between the
person and the leadership is believed to be the cause of less adaptive outcomes (Hersey,
1985). The curvilinear relationships were moderated to be higher, but they did not
flatten for individuals who were high in mastery goal orientation. This may imply that
even highly mastery goal oriented individuals prefer their decision-making roles
(either high or low) to be clear so they can go about their work.
On the other hand, although individuals with higher performance orientation tend to
demonstrate greater in-role job performance, its relationship with OCB was not
significant. This finding is consistent with the goal orientation literature, showing that
individuals with a high performance orientation are more focused on demonstrating their
own competence (Payne et al., 2007), but not necessarily on helping others in developing
competence (Van Yperen and Renkema, 2008). Van Yperen and Renkema (2008) found
that performance in terms of helping colleagues is considered unnatural by highly
performance-oriented individuals because they may then contribute to enhancing the
beneficial outcomes of others. For highly performance-oriented individuals, winning
means everything, and that does not include helping others if it may facilitate
PR advantages for them in terms of becoming more competent and successful than the
43,2 performance-oriented person (Nicholls, 1989; Van Yperen et al., 2011).
Moreover, the findings revealed that the moderating role of a performance
orientation was not significant, indicating that individuals with high or low
performance goal orientation demonstrate similar behavioral patterns between
empowering leadership and in-role performance and between empowering leadership
264 and OCB. This could imply that performance-oriented employees are less responsive to
leadership style. One explanation may be that there is a mismatch between the values
emphasized through empowering leadership behavior and the attributes important for
performance-oriented employees. Performance-oriented individuals may be more likely
to appreciate controlling leaders who emphasize normative ability because such a
focus is more in line with the performance-oriented individual’s personal theory of
achievement (i.e. outperforming others) (Roberts, 2012). Future research is
recommended to investigate this further.

Supporting previous studies, the present study highlights that the implementation
of empowering leadership can be complex (Spreitzer, 2008). Demonstrated by our
findings, empowering leadership-performance relationships are not straight forward. It
requires leaders to pay attention to the level of empowering leadership that they are
delivering to avoid ambiguities. Previous studies have found that employee resistance
and perceived ambiguities may hinder the effectiveness of empowering leadership
(Vecchio et al., 2010; Wall et al., 2002). Applying to our findings, in addition to the
importance for being conscientious about the level of empowering leadership, leaders
are also recommended to be persistent in how they communicate the sharing of
decision-making responsibilities with their subordinates. Operational uncertainty due
to unclear empowering leadership style can be detrimental (Wall et al., 2002).
Limitations and conclusion

The results derived from our study should be interpreted in light of several limitations.
First, by using self-reported data, our results could suffer from common method biases
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). Hence, to control potential common method variance (CMV),
several remedies were applied. The proposed model in this study is rather complex,
involving interaction and quadratic terms. Complicated specifications of regression
models reduce the likelihood of CMV (Chang et al., 2010). Respondents are unlikely to
be guided by a cognitive map that includes difficult-to-visualize interaction and
non-linear effects (Chang et al., 2010). CMV is thus less likely to be persuasive in a
complex model such as the model employed in the present study. Furthermore, two
variables are considered the main causes of CMV – respondents’ affective states and
their tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thus,
two procedural remedies were used. The items for mastery and performance goal
orientation were shuffled to make it less possible for individuals to connect the
measurement of the criteria variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, to reduce
individual evaluation apprehension and thus make respondents less likely to edit their
responses to be more socially desirable, the respondents’ answers were anonymous,
and it was clearly stated that there are no right or wrong answers and that they should
answer questions as honestly as possible (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Finally, with the
results from the Harman’s single factor test, common method bias does not appear to
be a severe threat to our results.
A second limitation is the cross-sectional design of our study, which inhibits causal Empowering
interpretations of the presented model. Due to confidentiality, we could not identify the leadership
respondents and survey them at several points in time. As a result, the study was
cross-sectional. Future studies would therefore benefit from conducting a longitudinal
analysis to investigate whether the level of empowering leadership would lead to a
change in individual performance.
The third limitation is that this study did not extend across a range of 265
industries/countries and was confined to the Norwegian accountancy profession. We
recommend that future studies generalize the findings of this study for other industries
and/or countries. However, we included individuals from many accounting firms across
Norway in our sample. This strengthens the external validity of the study when compared
to research that focuses only on one single organization (Zhang and Bartol, 2010).
Fourth, because of confidentiality concerns, no information about the respondents’
employers was given to the researchers. Therefore, we do not know whether there
would be nesting effects due to some of the respondents working for the same
organizations. However, considering that the sample size is relatively large in this
study and the fact that there are usually only limited certified accountants employed in
an organization, we conclude this threat to be minimal.
The present set of results clearly demonstrates the curvilinear relationship between
empowering leadership and in-role and extra-role work performance, as well as the
moderating role of individual mastery orientation on this relationship. The unexpected
finding of the U-shape curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership and
performance provides us with interesting implications about whether empowering
leadership at middle levels is interpreted as imprecise and whether individuals are
confused about when and if they should be involved in the decision-making process at
work. Continued studies of these issues may have important organizational and
individual implications. Moreover, because previous research has paid limited
attention to how individuals with different goal orientations react to empowering
leadership, this study contributes to the importance of leader-subordinate fit.
References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005), “To empower or not to empower your sales force?
An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on
customer satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5,
pp. 945-955.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Armstrong, J.S., Brodie, R.J. and Parsons, A.G. (2001), “Hypotheses in marketing science:
literature review and publication audit”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 171-187.
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowering leadership
questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader
behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
Brett, J.F. and VandeWalle, D. (1999), “Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of
performance in a training program”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 6,
pp. 863-873.
PR Brislin, R. (1970), “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-216.
43,2
Brown, S.P., Jones, E. and Leigh, T.W. (2005), “The attenuating effect of role overload on
relationships linking self-efficacy and goal level to work performance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 972-979.
Butts, M.M., Vandenberg, R.J., DeJoy, D.M., Schaffer, B.S. and Wilson, M.G. (2009), “Individual
266 reactions to high involvement work processes: investigating the role of empowerment and
perceived organizational support”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 122-136.
Cellar, D.F., Stuhlmacher, A.F., Young, S.K., Fisher, D.M., Adair, C.K., Haynes, S., Twichell, E.,
Arnold, K.A., Royer, K., Denning, B.L. and Riester, D. (2011), “Trait goal orientation,
self-regulation, and performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 467-483.
Chang, S.J., van Witteloostuijn, A. and Eden, L. (2010), “From the editors: common method
variance in international business research”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 178-184.
Choi, K. and Cho, B. (2011), “Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group
task conflict and group relationship conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32
No. 8, pp. 1106-1126.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Cook, C., Heath, F. and Thompson, R.L. (2000), “A meta-analysis of response rates in web- and
internet-based surveys”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60 No. 6,
pp. 821-836.
Cordery, J.L., Morrison, D., Wright, B.M. and Wall, T.D. (2010), “The impact of autonomy and
task uncertainty on team performance: a longitudinal field study”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2-3, pp. 240-258.
Cox, J.F., Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (2003), “Toward a broader agenda for leadership
development: extending the traditional transactional-transformational duality by
developing directive, empowering and shared leadership skills”, in Riggio, R.E. and
Murphy, S. (Eds), The Future of Leadership Development, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 161-179.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), “Instrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125, pp. 627-668.
DeShon, R.P. and Gillespie, J.Z. (2005), “A motivated action theory account of goal orientation”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1096-1127.
Dickhauser, C., Buch, S.R. and Dickhauser, O. (2011), “Achievement after failure: the role of
achievement goals and negative self-related thoughts”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 152-162.
Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L. and James, L.R. (2002), “Neutralizing substitutes for
leadership theory: leadership effects and common source bias”, Journal of Applied
Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B. (2010), “Exploring the relative and combined influence of
mastery-approach goals and work intrinsic motivation on employee turnover intention”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 622-638.
Dweck, C.S. (1986), “Motivational processes affecting learning”, American Psychologist, Vol. 41
No. 10, pp. 1040-1048.
Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988), “A social-cognitive approach to motivation and Empowering
personality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 265-273.
leadership
Eatough, E.M., Chang, C.H., Miloslavic, S.A. and Johnson, R.E. (2011), “Relationships of role
stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Elliot, A.J. and Harackiewicz, J.M. (1994), “Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic
motivation: a mediational analysis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66 267
No. 5, pp. 968-980.
Elliot, A.J. and McGregor, H.A. (2001), “A 2 £ 2 achievement goal framework”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 501-519.
Eylon, D. and Bamberger, P. (2000), “Empowerment conditions and empowerment acts:
recognizing the importance of gender”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 354-372.
Ford, C.F. and Fottler, M.D. (1995), “Empowerment: a matter of degree”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 21-29.
Forrester, R. (2000), “Empowerment: rejuvenating a potent idea”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 67-80.
Gibson, C.B., Cooper, C.D. and Conger, J.A. (2009), “Do you see what we see? The complex effects
of perceptual distance between leaders and teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94
No. 1, pp. 62-76.
Haas, M.R. (2010), “The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: analyzing
team effectiveness in a multinational organization”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 989-1008.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hakimi, N., van Knippenberg, D. and Giessner, S. (2010), “Leader empowering behavior:
the leader’s perspective”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 7041-7716.
Hersey, P. (1985), The Situational Leader, Warner Books, New York, NY.
Hon, A.H.Y. and Rensvold, R.B. (2006), “An interactional perspective on perceived empowerment:
the role of personal needs and task context”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 959-982.
Hui, M.K., Au, K. and Fock, H. (2004), “Empowerment effects across cultures”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 46-60.
Hulleman, C.S., Schrager, S.M., Bodmann, S.M. and Harackiewicz, J.M. (2010), “A meta-analytic
review of achievement goal measures: different labels for the same constructs or different
constructs with similar labels?”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136 No. 3, pp. 422-449.
Janssen, O. and Van Yperen, N.W. (2004), “Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of
leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 368-384.
Johnson, R.E., Chang, C.H. and Yang, L.Q. (2010), “Commitment and motivation at work: the
relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 226-245.
Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work, International
Thomson Business Press, Boston, MA.
Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999), “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 58-74.
PR Kopleman, R.E., Brief, A.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1990), “The role of climate and culture in
productivity”, in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass,
43,2 San Fransisco, CA, pp. 282-318.
Kuvaas, B. and Dysvik, A. (2009), “Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic
motivation, and work performance”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 217-236.
268 Langfred, C.W. (2004), “Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual
autonomy in self-managing teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3,
pp. 385-399.
Liden, R.C. and Arad, S. (1996), “A power perspective of empowerment and work groups:
implication for HRM research”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and HRM,
Vol. 14, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 205-252.
Maehr, M.L. and Zusho, A. (2009), “Achievement goal theory: the past, present and future”,
in Wentzel, K.R. and Wigfield, A. (Eds), Handbook of Motivation at School, Routledge,
New York, NY, pp. 77-104.
Maynard, M.T., Gilson, L.L. and Mathieu, J. (2012), “Empowerment – fad or fab? A multilevel
review of the past two decades of research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 1231-1281.
Maynard, M.T., Mathieu, J., Marsh, W.M. and Ruddy, T.M. (2007), “A multilevel investigation of
the influences of employees’ resistance to empowerment”, Human Performance, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 147-171.
Mathieu, J.E., Gilson, L.L. and Ruddy, T.M. (2006), “Empowerment and team effectiveness:
an empirical test of an integrated model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1,
pp. 97-108.
Nagel, S.K. (2010), “Too much of a good thing? Enhancement and the burden of
self-determination”, Neuroethics, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 109-119.
Nicholls, J.G. (1989), The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001), “Empirical links between achievement goal theory and self-determination
theory in sport”, Journal of Sport Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 397-409.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Beaubien, J.M. (2007), “A meta-analytic examination of the goal
orientation nomological net”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 128-150.
Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (2002), “Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive,
transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors”, Group Dynamics;
Theory Research and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 172-197.
Pedhazur, E.J. and Schmelkin, L.P. (1991), Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated
Approach, Psychology Press, New York, NY.
Perry, S.J., Witt, L.A., Penney, L.M. and Atwater, L. (2010), “The downside of goal-focused
leadership: the role of personality in subordinate exhaustion”, Journal of Applied
Pfeffer, J. and Veiga, J.F. (1999), “Putting people first for organizational success”, Academy of Empowering
Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 37-48.
leadership
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviors:
the mediating role of core job characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49
No. 2, pp. 327-340.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000), “An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation
terminology, theory, and research”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, 269
pp. 92-104.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Poortvliet, P.M. and Darnon, C. (2010), “Toward a more social understanding of achievement
goals: the interpersonal effects of mastery and performance goals”, Current Directions in
Psychological Science, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 324-328.
Randolph, W.A. and Sashkin, M. (2002), “Can organizational empowerment work in
multinational settings?”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 102-115.
Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Schillewaert, N. (2006), “The impact of knowledge and
empowerment on working smart and working hard: the moderating role of experience”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 279-293.
Raub, S. and Robert, C. (2010), “Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and
extra-role employee behaviors: exploring the role of psychological empowerment and
power values”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1743-1770.
Rawsthorne, L.J. and Elliot, A.J. (1999), “Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:
a meta-analytic review”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 326-344.
Robert, C., Probst, T.M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J.J. (2000), “Empowerment and
continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on
the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism”, Journal of Applied
Roberts, G.C. (2012), “Motivation in sport and exercise from an achievement goal theory
perspective: after 30 years, where are we?”, in Roberts, G.C. and Treasure, D.C. (Eds),
Advances in Motivation in Sport and Exercise, Vol. 3, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL,
pp. 5-58.
Roberts, G.C., Treasure, D.C. and Conroy, D.E. (2007), “Understanding the dynamics of
motivation in sport and physical activity”, in Tenenbaum, G. and Eklund, R.C. (Eds),
Handbook of Sport Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 3-30.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and job design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224-254.
Sideridis, G.D. (2005), “Goal orientation, academic achievement, and depression: evidence in
favor of a revised goal theory framework”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 3,
pp. 366-375.
Snipes, R.L., Oswald, S.L., LaTour, M. and Armenakis, A.A. (2005), “The effects of specific job
satisfaction facets on customer perceptions of service quality: an employee-level analysis”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 1330-1339.
Somech, A. (2005), “Directive versus participative leadership: two complementary approaches to
managing school effectiveness”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 777-800.
PR Spreitzer, G.M. (2008), “Taking stock: a review of more than twenty years of research on
empowerment at work”, in Barling, J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of
43,2 Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 54-72.
Spreitzer, G.M. and Doneson, D. (2005), “Musings on the past and future of employee
empowerment”, in Cummings, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Development, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 311-324.
270 Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management
teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Stewart, G.L., Courtright, S.H. and Manz, C.C. (2011), “Self-leadership: a multilevel review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 185-222.
Terborg, J.R. (1981), “Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 569-576.
Ueno, A. (2008), “Is empowerment really a contributory factor to service quality?”, Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1321-1337.
van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D. and Van Quaquebeke, N. (2012), “When does procdural fairness
promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types in
relational justice models”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 235-248.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of
construct and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 108-119.
Van Yperen, N.W., Hamstra, M.R.W. and Van der Klauw, M. (2011), “To win, or not to lose, at any
cost: the impact of achievement goals on cheating”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 22,
Supplement S1, pp. 5-15.
Van Yperen, N.W. and Renkema, L.J. (2008), “Performing great and the purpose of performing
better than others: on the recursiveness of the achievement goal adoption process”,
European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 260-271.
VandeWalle, D. (1997), “Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation
instrument”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015.
Vecchio, R.P., Justin, J.E. and Pearce, C.L. (2010), “Empowering leadership: an examination of
mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 530-542.
Villa, J.R., Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W. and Daniel, D.L. (2003), “Problems with detecting
moderators in leadership research using moderated multiple regression”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (2000), “Perspectives on models of job performance”,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 216-226.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weiss, M.R., Amorose, A.J. and Wilko, A.M. (2009), “Coaching behaviors, motivational climate,
and psychological outcomes among female adolescent athletes”, Pediatric Exercise Science,
Vol. 21, pp. 475-492.
Wright, T.A. and Hobfoll, S.E. (2004), “Commitment, psychological well-being and job
performance: an examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout”,
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 389-406.
Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M. (2011), “Diversity and organizational innovation: the role of employee
involvement”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1062-1083.
Yeo, G.B. and Neal, A. (2004), “A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: effects Empowering
of ability, concientiousness, and goal orientation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 2, pp. 231-247. leadership
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Zweig, D. and Webster, J. (2004), “What are we measuring? An examination of the relationships 271
between the big-five personality traits, goal orientation, and performance intentions”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1693-1708.
Further reading
Murray, H. (1938), Explorations in Personality, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Corresponding author
Sut I. Wong Humborstad can be contacted at: sut.i.w.humborstad@bi.no
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Hussein Nabil Ismail. 2015. Training and organizational commitment: exploring the moderating role of
goal orientation in the Lebanese context. Human Resource Development International 1-26. [CrossRef]
2. Yingying Liu. 2015. The Review of Empowerment Leadership. Open Journal of Business and Management
03, 476-482. [CrossRef]
3. Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Torbjørn Torsheim, Ståle Pallesen. 2014. Use of online social network sites
for personal purposes at work: does it impair self-reported performance? 1. Comprehensive Psychology 3,
Article 18. [CrossRef]

Personnel Review: Article Information

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Personnel Review: Article Information

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Personnel Review

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Christina G.L. Nerstad and Anders Dysvik

“Too much of a good thing” model

“Too confusing to be a good thing” model

The moderating role of goal orientation

Mastery goal orientation

Linear moderating influence

in the dynamic leadership infrastructure as a result of empowering leadership. Thus,

Curvilinear moderating influence

curvilinear relationship between empowering leadership behavior and

Performance goal orientation

Linear moderating influence

individual (a) in-role performance (b) organizational citizenship behavior, as

Curvilinear moderating influence

Two dimensions (approach dimensions) of individual goal orientation, mastery

Y ¼ b0 þ b1X þ b2X 2 þ b3Z þ b4XZ þ b5X 2 Z þ e;

additional variance in predicting in-role and extra-role performance. The results, as

Variables Means SD Cronbach’s Alpha 1 2 3 4

Leader empowering behavior 3.75 0.81 0.93

In-role work performance Organizational citizenship behaviour

(OCB) performance. To examine the hypotheses, we further added mastery and

orientation. Thus, H6 to H8 are not supported.

recommended to investigate this further.

Limitations and conclusion

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

S-ar putea să vă placă și