-1-
Coaching Leadership The mediating role of affective commitment in the relationship between coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour
Author Lotte van de Zanden Prof. Gimbrèrelaan 127 5037 EH Tilburg ANR: 40.53.65 Tilburg University Master Human Resource Studies Tilburg, the Netherlands
Thesis Supervisor Dr. R.S.M. (Renée) de Reuver
Second Assessor R.A. (Alexander) Waringa
Project Period January – September 2011
Project Theme Coaching Behaviours
-2-
Preface
In front of you is my master thesis which I have written in order to graduate for the master ‘Human Resource Studies’ at Tilburg University. This thesis focuses upon coaching behaviours of leaders and if these behaviours have an effect on affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour of employees. While reflecting on the process of writing this thesis, I would like to thank some people which made it possible to finish this project. First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor Renée de Reuver for her guidance, support and valuable feedback throughout the process. I would also like to thank Theo van der Weegen for his critical reflections on my research. Although we did not always agree I am sure his comments improved my thesis. The same accounts for Yvonne for her help and useful comments during the project. Moreover, I would like to thank all employees of Qurius Netherlands, for their participation in this study and interest in this project. A special appreciation goes out to Emmy de Vrieze, my mentor at Qurius. Not only for her support and constructive comments but also for providing me with useful insights on a personal level. She personalized the process of writing my thesis and added an extra learning dimension to it. Last, but not least, I would like to thank some people that have played an important role in my study career. To my best friend Eveliene: thank you for making this study time unforgettable. Not to forget, my boyfriend Marco for his encouraging words and support during my study. And thank you to my parents for their mental and financial support throughout the years. By finishing this project another chapter will close as I graduate for the master’s program ‘Human Resource Studies’ and at the same time end my time as a student at Tilburg University. With the knowledge gained from my study, I am now looking forward to face new opportunities and challenges as I enter the job market.
Lotte van de Zanden Tilburg, September 2011
-3-
Abstract
This research examines different types of coaching behaviours of leaders and their effect on the employees’ organizational citizenship behaviours. Moreover, it was examined whether affective commitment has a mediating effect on the relationship between coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour. The coaching behaviours examined in this study were divided into four subscales, namely: ‘consider and connect’, ‘develop and inspire’, ‘feed back and acknowledge’ and ‘listen and ask’. Data for this study was collected by means of a questionnaire which was distributed among leaders and employees of teams / units within different organisations within the Netherlands. In total, survey data of 239 employees and 33 leaders, nested within 33 units across 7 organisations was collected. Leaders were asked to rate the likelihood in which they engaged in behaviour associated with the four different coaching behaviours. Employees were asked to evaluate the coaching behaviour of their leader, affective commitment to the leader/organisation and their likelihood to engage in organizational citizenship behaviours. Results of the analyses indicated a significant effect of all coaching behaviours on affective commitment to the leader. A positive effect on affective commitment towards the organisation was found for the second and fourth subscale, meaning that the use of these coaching behaviours will make employees more affectively committed to the organisation. Moreover, the results show that affective commitment is positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour of employees. Affective commitment towards the leader was found to have a mediating effect in the relationship between coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour.
This study shows that coaching behaviours can have a positive effect on employee behaviour and work outcomes. An obvious implication of the present research is the development of leadership coaching skills. Leaders should be made aware that their daily interactions with employees affect their work behaviours. Leaders should shape their interactions to elicit more desired employee behaviours.
Key words: Coaching behaviours, Affective commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Leader – Employee Relationship.
-4-
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
p. 7
2. Theoretical Framework
p. 9
2.1 Coaching behaviours and affective commitment
p. 9
2.2 Organizational citizenship behaviour
p. 12
2.3 Coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour
p. 13
2.4 Mediating effect of affective commitment
p. 15
3. Method
p. 16
3.1 Sample
p. 16
3.2 Research set-up and procedure
p. 17
3.3 Preliminary analysis
p. 17
3.4 Measures
p. 18
3.4.1 Leadership Coaching Behaviours
p. 18
3.4.2 Affective Commitment
p. 19
3.4.3 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
p. 19
3.5 Control Variables
p. 19
3.6 Variations within teams
p. 20
4. Results
p. 21
4.1 Correlations
p. 21
4.2 Regression analyses
p. 23
4.2.1 Leadership coaching behaviours and affective commitment
p. 23
4.2.2 Organizational citizenship behaviour
p. 26
4.3 Path analyses and sobel tests
p. 31
4.4 Differences leaders and employees
p. 32
5. Conclusion and discussion
p. 34
5.1 Affective commitment
p. 34
5.2 Organizational citizenship behaviour
p. 35
5.3 Mediation effects
p. 35
5.4 Differences scores leaders – employees
p. 36
-5-
5.5 Limitations
p. 37
5.6 Recommendations for future research
p. 37
5.7 Practical implications
p. 38
6. References
p. 39
Appendix A: Information about organisations
p. 49
Appendix B: Questionnaire Leaders
p. 51
Appendix C: E-mail employees
p. 57
Appendix D: Questionnaire Employees
p. 58
Appendix E: Overview composition coaching behaviours questionnaire
p. 69
Appendix F: Factor loadings
p. 78
Appendix G: Mean scores leaders – employees per team
p. 83
Appendix H: Overview results
p. 94
Appendix I: Results regression analysis subtracted scores leader – employees
p. 95
-6-
1. Introduction
Modern organisations are under continuous pressures to change due to customer demands that keep on growing, new technologies and competition (Wenzel, 2000, Valverde, Ryan & Soler, 2006). Human resource management offers a rich area of practices for organisations to adapt and respond to these specific changes in the business environment. Evidence shows that middle and line managers have started to play a more prominent role in achieving HRM goals and plans (McConville, 2006; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Teo & Rodwell, 2007), as more HRM responsibilities have devolved to the operational level (Mayrhofer et al. 2004). The development, motivation and retention of employees are becoming one of the important responsibilities of leaders, because of their understanding of employees and their competence, and their impact on employees’ behaviour (Mayrhofer et al. 2004, p. 131). One proven method for establishing positive employee behaviour is to engage in leadership coaching behaviours (Hamlin, Ellinger & Beattie, 2009). By engaging in these behaviours, leaders help their specific employees to improve, to grow and to get to a higher level of performance (Richardson, 1996). With the growing attention of leadership coaching as an effective initiative in organizations, there have been increasing needs to assess the coaching behaviours of leaders (Park, McLean & Yang, 2008). There is a need to understand what kind of interpersonal (coaching) behaviours leaders use in the daily management of employees and more specifically, which of these behaviours can help to establish positive work attitudes. In establishing positive work perceptions attitudes among employees, the behaviour of the leader plays an important role (Ellinger, Ellinger & Keller, 2003). Research illustrated a strong and immediate impact of coaching behaviour of a leader on employees’ perceptions (Yukl & van Fleet, 1992; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). One of these positive work perceptions is commitment by the employee. Commitment can be defined as an individual attitude that reflects an employees’ identification with and involvement in a particular organisation (Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982). A commonly used dimension of commitment is affective commitment, which can be described as the extent to which an employee feels emotionally attached to an organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Besides emotional attachment to an organisation, employees can also feel attached to a specific leader (Becker, 1992). This attachment can be of significant importance to the success and effectiveness of a leader-employee relationship as employees and leader interact on a daily and intensive basis. Leaders have proven to play a crucial role in the development of employee commitment through their
-7-
leadership behaviours (Koh, Steers & Terborg, 1995; Staton, Young, Bartram & Leggat, 2010) and their ability to communicate and motivate employees (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Besides the fact that behaviour of the leader is an important predictor of affective commitment, even more importantly for organisations as a whole, is the influence of the leader on employee performance (Stern, 2004). In order to increase performance, a leader should induce employees to engage in extrarole behaviours that go beyond formal job descriptions (Katz & Kahn, 1996). This type of behaviour is also known as organizational citizenship behaviour (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Darwisch (2000) showed that when employees perceive their supervisors as advisory and supportive, employees are more committed to an organisation, more satisfied with their job and perform better. Other research found that commitment to the leader was positively related to employees’ prosocial behaviours (Becker & Kernan, 2003). The purpose of the current research is to examine the extent to which leaders engage in specific leadership coaching behaviours, measured by a newly developed scale on leadership coaching behaviours in the workplace (Ribbers, Waringa, van Woerkom & Poell, 2011). Furthermore, this study attempts to identify which behaviours might correlate with affective commitment and extra-role behaviours of employees. This study also examines the role of affective commitment as a mediator in the relationship between these coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour. The primary research questions addressed in this paper are: Which aspect of coaching behaviour will lead to affective commitment of employees? And which aspect of coaching behaviour will lead employees to engage in organizational citizenship behaviour? And finally: to what extent does affective commitment mediate the relationship between coaching behaviours and employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour? By means of answering the above described research questions, this study may contribute in several ways to the existing literature. This research is the first to examine a range of leadership coaching behaviours as predictors of affective commitment. Prior research has not tested the mediating role of affective commitment in the relationship of these specific coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour. By combining these features into one single study, it is aimed to advance research on specific leadership coaching behaviours, affective commitment and improved employee performance. From an organizational perspective, this study contributes by providing leaders suggestions of interpersonal (coaching) skills they need to develop to make employees (more) committed to the organisation and /or supervisor. Supportive leadership behaviour has shown to be worthwhile for organisations because they increase positive employee attitudes regarding work and improve employee performance (Meierhans, Rietmann & Jonas, 2008).
-8-
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Coaching behaviours and affective commitment Falling primarily within the leadership function is the establishment of positive work attitudes and work outcomes of employees (Wenzel, 2000; Stober, Wildflower & Drake, 2006). A commonly used method for achieving positive work outcomes is through work place coaching. The provision of coaching falls within the leadership function of management of personnel resources, or more specifically, the development and motivation of individual employees (Burke et al, 2006). Workplace coaching can be defined as: ‚a helping and facilitative process that enables individuals, groups/teams and organisations to acquire new skills, to improve existing skills, competence and performance, and to enhance their personal effectiveness or personal development or personal growth‛. (Hamlin et al, 2009, p. 18) Through workplace coaching, the leader tries to improve personal effectiveness of the employee in the workplace. This can be achieved by engaging in an intensive one-on-one coaching relationship with the employee, or more generally by using specific leadership coaching behaviours in the daily work environment. The emphasis in this research will be on the leader using specific types of coaching behaviours in the daily work environment, without entering into specific coaching relationships with employees. Research has illustrated that the use of leadership coaching behaviour in general can also have a strong and immediate impact on employees’ perceptions (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). General coaching behaviours of leaders have recently begun to receive much attention with regards to employee performance and positive workplace perceptions (Burke et al, 2006). Unfortunately, it has not been well defined what type of leadership behaviours can be used to establish more (or less) positive employee attitudes (Ladyshewky, 2010). Building on this problem statement, Ribbers, Waringa, van Woerkom & Poell (2011) developed a new model for leadership coaching behaviours. The authors provide a comprehensive and generic reflection of coaching skills and behaviours a leader can use to enhance employee attitudes and perceptions. The concept of coaching leadership was divided into 4 behavioural dimensions, namely: (1) ‘consider and connect’, (2) ‘develop and inspire’, (3) ‘feed back and acknowledge’, and (4) ‘listen and ask’. Every dimension captures a set of specific interpersonal skills that the leader can use or develop to make the leader-employee relationship effective. The first category consists of interpersonal skills that are associated with individual consideration. Skills representing this category include providing social support to employees, maintaining good relations, recognition of each other
-9-
and using humour. The category ‘develop and inspire’ addresses the empowerment of employees. Empowerment refers to giving, investing or granting power or authority to employees or giving them abilities so that they may obtain power by their own efforts (Swift & Levin, 1987; Forrester 2000). A leader engaging in this type of behaviours inspires employees to go beyond their potential, by giving them responsibility and encouraging personal growth. Empowerment will lead to greater self efficacy of employees – which is the belief that goals can be accomplished (Forrester, 2000). The third category ‘feed back & acknowledge’ refers to all skills bringing clarity to co-workers, e.g. providing feedback to employees. Moreover, using compliments in daily interaction is part of this category. The final category ‘listen and ask’ consists of interpersonal skills that refer to the power of verbal and nonverbal conversation techniques, such as really learning to listen and asking powerful questions (Ribbers et al., 2011). Peers at work, especially one’s leader, can dramatically affect the way someone feels about their work and about themselves (House, 1981; Ellinger, Ellinger & Keller, 2003; Mayrhofer et al., 2004). When leader and employee interact regularly, leaders can have an even stronger influence on employees’ feelings. Coaching behaviours can be regarded as types of trust-development behaviours (Mathieu & Pousa, 2011) which help to build high-quality relationships with employees. Leaders engaging in leadership coaching behaviours pay attention and care about the different needs and development of each individual employee (Burke et al. 2006). This behaviour encourages the follower to trust their leader/supervisor (Bennis, 2002). By reciprocating these signals of trust, employees will start valuing their leader (John, 1984; Ramaswami, Srinivasan & Gorton, 1997). Research shows that when leaders are supportive or considered towards employees, this treatment can also lead to other favorable outcomes for the employee and the leader such as affective commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003; Pool, 1997). Affective commitment can be defined as ‘an employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organisation’ (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 11). Affective commitment results in the employee ‚wanting‛ to remain in the working relationship and organisation (Clugston, Howell & Dorfman, 2000). Just as employees develop affective attachments to the global organisation, they may commit themselves to people that are internal to it, such as their leader/supervisor (Becker, 1992; Becker & Billings, 1993; Clugston et al., 2000; Vandenberghe, Bentein & Stinglhamber, 2004). Clugston et al. (2000) define affective commitment to the leader as an attachment characterized by identification and emotional attachment to the leader. Allen & Meyer (1990) state that work experience variables (such as behaviour of a leader) have proven to have a direct effect on affective commitment. Positive
- 10 -
work experiences can possess a motivation leading the individual to get attached to the leader (Hackett, Bycio & Hausdorf, 1994; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Another explanation as to why employees can get emotionally attached to their leader can be found in the literature on transformational leadership and commitment. A leader using coaching leadership behaviours can be described as a transformational leader because these leaders pay special attention to each individual’s needs for achievement and growth (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun & Dansereau, 2005). Leaders pay close attention to followers’ particular needs and makes efforts to satisfy them (Bass & Avolio, 1998), for example by using empowering behaviours (Ribbers et al., 2011). Leadership coaching behaviours used by the leader, allow the employee to have the perception that he or she, as an important and valuable employee, is being treated with respect (Burke et al., 2006). By providing this special attention and inspiring employees, a meaningful relationship between leader and employee is established. This will increase the chance of an emotional attachment to that specific leader. Several studies have confirmed a strong and significant relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment to the leader (Barling, Weber & Kelloway; 1996, Bycio, Hackett & Allen, 1995; Rowden, 2000). Steijns & Leisink (2006) showed that supervisors and leaders who use a coaching style of leadership will be able to increase levels of affective commitment of employees. Moreover, employees have shown to make strong commitments to their leader when they view them as important referents (Reichers, 1985; Erben & Güneşer, 2008). This leads to state the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1a: ‘Consider and Connect’ coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees towards the leader. Hypothesis 1b: ‘Develop and Inspire’ coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees towards the leader. Hypothesis 1c: ‘Feed back and Acknowledge’ coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees towards the leader. Hypothesis 1d: ‘Listen and Ask’ coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees towards the leader. Besides, previous research has devoted a great amount of attention between leadership behaviour and organisational commitment (Youssef, 2000). Several studies suggest a positive direct relationship between leadership behaviours and organisational commitment (Morris & Sherman, 1981; Wilson, 1995; Youssef, 2000). Efforts by the leader strengthen the psychological link between the employee
- 11 -
and his or her leader, and consequently this can improve the psychological link with the organisation (Becker & Kernan, 2003; Bhanthumnavin, 2003; Malatesta, 1995). Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky (2002) indicate that leaders, who show support, treat employees fair and demonstrate strong leadership will create commitment. With regard to the leadership coaching behaviors defined by Ribbers et al. (2011), a strong positive relationship was found between consideration and organisational commitment (Agarwal, DeCarlo & Vyas, 2009) and empowerment of employees and organisational commitment (Koberg, Boss, Senjem & Goodman, 1999). A coaching style of leadership that implies high levels of feedback and involvement of employees have shown to increase the levels of affective organisational commitment (Steijns & Leisink, 2006). Based on this literature, the following hypotheses are stated: Hypothesis 2a: ‘Consider and Connect’ coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees towards the organisation. Hypothesis 2b: ‘Develop and Inspire’ coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees towards the organisation. Hypothesis 2c: ‘Feed back and Acknowledge’ coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees towards the organisation. Hypothesis 2d: ‘Listen and Ask’ coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees across towards the organisation. 2.2 Organizational citizenship behaviour Effective functioning of an organisation requires employees to not only perform behaviour that is prescribed or required, but also to engage in behaviours that go beyond formal requisites (Katz & Kahn, 1966). This type of behaviour is also known as ‘organizational citizenship behaviour’ (Organ, 1988) and can be described as ‘employee behaviour that is extra-role, which promotes organisational effectiveness and that is not formally recognized by an organisation’s rewards system’ (p. 4). Empirical research (Organ, 1988; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991) suggests that OCB can be defined in terms of two broad categories/constituencies. The first category includes behaviours that are directed towards helping individuals within the organisation (OCB-I), such as assisting colleagues with work load. The second category includes organisationally-focused behaviours, such as volunteering on committees (OCB-O) and focuses on accomplishing organisational goals. Research has shown that these extra-role behaviours enhance the working environment and increase organisational effectiveness and performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).
- 12 -
Employees’ affective commitment relates strongly to organisation-related behaviours such as attendance, performance and extra-role behaviour (Meyer et al., 2002). MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Ahearne (1998) reported commitment as the most important antecedent of OCB. The higher the commitment of an employee, the more likely he or she will be to engage in citizenship behaviour (MacKenzie et al., 1998). Several other studies found that affective commitment related strongly with extra role behaviours on the job (Parnell & Crandall 2003; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Allen & Meyer, 1990). With regard to the focus of the commitment, Gregersen (1993) and Chen, Tsui & Farah (2010) found that when an employee was affectively committed to a leader, he/she engaged in OCB. Employees who feel affectively committed towards the organisation have also proven to be willing to engage in OCB (Bishop & Scott, 1997). Based on these results, the following hypotheses are stated: Hypothesis 3a: The higher the level of affective commitment towards the leader, the more employees will engage in organizational citizenship behaviour. Hypothesis 3b: The higher the level of affective commitment towards the organisation, the more employees will engage in organizational citizenship behaviour. Based on the premise that a leader is psychologically and physically more proximal to the employee (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), it is believed that the relationship between commitment to the supervisor and OCB will be stronger than the relationship between organisational commitment and OCB. This may be reinforced by the employees’ belief that a leader will observe and reward good performance, whereas the organisation may not (Bentein, Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2002). Engaging in different coaching behaviours can be perceived as helping behaviour from the leader, rather than helping behaviour from the organisation. Employees who believe that they receive a high level of support from their leader will perform better on extra-role behaviours because they feel an obligation to ‘repay’ him or her by reciprocating this type of behaviour (Gouldner, 1960; Schnake, Cochran & Dumler, 1995). The relationship between commitment to the leader and extra-role behaviour has proven to be more enduring than the relationship between organisational commitment and extra-role behaviour (Gregersen, 1993). Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated: Hypothesis 3c: An employee that is affectively committed towards the leader, will engage more in OCB than an employee that is affectively committed towards the organisation. 2.3 Coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour By engaging in specific leadership coaching behaviours, leaders pay special attention to employees needs (Heslin, Vanderwalle & Lathen, 2006) with the goal to improve personal and overall
- 13 -
organisational effectiveness. Based on the norm of reciprocity in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964); the coaching behaviour of the leader will encourage the follower to engage in extra-role behaviours. In other words, employees will engage in behaviours beyond duties as an appreciation of the given support and attention, or as a way to give something in return to the leader and organisation (Burke et al., 2006). Moreover, employees consider the quality of their treatment by the leader as a determinant of fairness (Greenberg, 1990). Since coaching is about leaders adopting encouraging and facilitating behaviours towards employees (Krazmien & Berger, 1997), it is likely that employees will perceive these types of behaviours as an indication of fair treatment by the leader (Tansky, 2003). The existence of a positive relationship between fairness and leader-directed OCBs is supported by prior research (Liao & Rupp, 2005; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000). Perceptions of fairness, in turn, can increase the employee perception of a high quality relationship between leader and employee. Strong support is found for the relationship between the quality of a leader-employee relationship and perceptions of overall fairness (Tansky, 2003). With regard to the specific leadership coaching behaviours as suggested by Ribbers et al. (2011), Organ and Ryan (1995) found that leadership consideration displayed the strongest positive relationship with helping behaviours directed towards individuals. Regarding the second dimension, it was found that individuals who perceive psychological empowerment display organizational citizenship behaviour (Bhatnaga & Sandhu, 2005). The positive link between empowerment and OCB has been confirmed in prior research (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk & Gibson, 2004; Spreitzer, 1995). Cianci & Klein (2010) indicate that providing feedback on achievements may direct employees to engage in positive social behaviours in the workplace. Finally, open interaction, such as asking and listening, has proven to enhance motivation towards work and consequently leading employees to engage in OCB (Ishak & Alam, 2009). Literature has shown that leadership behaviours can have a strong influence on an employee’s willingness to engage in OCB (Jahangir, Akbar & Haq, 2004). Therefore, the following hypotheses are stated: Hypothesis 4a: ‘Consider and Connect’ coaching behaviours are positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour. Hypothesis 4b: ‘Develop and Inspire’ coaching behaviours are positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour. Hypothesis 4c:‘Feed back and Acknowledge’ coaching behaviours are positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour.
- 14 -
Hypothesis 4d: ‘Listen and Ask’ coaching behaviours are positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour. 2.4 Mediating effect of affective commitment Previous research has investigated a mediating role of affective commitment in several relationships. Affective commitment has proven to mediate the relation between a feedback environment and OCB (Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004) and between perceived organisational support and OCB (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Relations between employees and their leaders can influence the development of affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Moreover, the perception of a good relationship between leader and subordinate can be a predictor of coaching performance (Wales, 2003). This happens in the sense that employees, who are treated fairly and with consideration, are more committed. Moreover, substantial evidence exists that affectively committed employees are more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviour (MacKenzie et al., 1998). Thus, when a leader engages in different leadership coaching behaviours this will have a positive effect on the engagement in OCB. This effect will be higher if the employees feels affectively committed to the leader or the organisation. Based on this, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 5a: Affective commitment to the leader will mediate the relationship of coaching behaviours to organizational citizenship behaviour. Hypothesis 5b: Affective commitment to the organisation will mediate the relationship of coaching behaviours to organizational citizenship behaviour. The conceptual model illustrating the research hypotheses is shown in figure 1.
- 15 -
3. Method
3.1 Sample Data for this study was collected by four students from Tilburg University, who distributed questionnaires across different organisations in the Netherlands (Appendix A). The questionnaire was distributed among leaders and employees of teams within these organisations. Therefore, this study was quantitative and cross-sectional in nature. In order to participate in the study, respondents had to meet some requirements. The leader of the team had to engage in several types of leadership coaching behaviours. Employees needed to work at the department led by the leader and interact with this leader on a regular basis. Teams participating in the research needed to consist of at least five participating employees and one leader. In total, survey data of 239 employees and 33 leaders, nested within 33 units across 7 organisations, was collected. Of the leaders, 33.3% were female and 66.7% were male. The average age of the participating leaders was 42.1 (SD=9.5) years. Leaders worked a mean number of 38 hours per week (SD =4.3) and the average organisational tenure within the companies was 8.8 years (SD = 5.6). The educational level of leaders differed, 18.1 % finished secondary occupation education or lower while 81.9 % completed higher education or university. In table 1 relevant demographic characteristics of the leaders are displayed. Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the leaders (N = 33)
Age
Work hours per week
Tenure in organisation
Average
Standard deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Men
42.1
8.9
29
62
Women
42.1
11.3
25
56
Men
39.8
0.8
36
40
Women
34.5
6.1
24
40
Men
8.6
5.6
1
25
Women
9.2
6.1
24
40
The second sample consisted of the employees, nested within the teams of the leaders. On average, 7 employees per unit participated in the study. The employees sample consisted of 112 women and 127 men with an average age of 39.2 (SD = 10.5). The average number of hours worked per week was 35.1
- 16 -
hours (SD= 7.8). The average number of contact moments with leader was 2-3 times per week. The demographic characteristics of the employees sample are shown in table 2. Table 2: Demographic characteristics of the employees (N = 239)
Age
Work hours per week
Tenure in organisation
Average
Standard deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Men
38.9
8.9
18
63
Women
39.7
11.9
19
62
Men
38.9
3.5
8
40
Women
30.5
8.9
8
40
Men
5.4
5.5
01
41
Women
10.1
10.3
01
40
1
Tenure in organisation was assessed in years. Scores of 0 indicate that an employee is employed less than one
year in the organisation.
The sample used in this study can be regarded as a fairly good representation for the Dutch working population (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2011). The average number of working hours for the Dutch working population lies at a mean of 34.3 hours per week. Men in the Netherlands work 39.1 hours per week and women 28.3 hours on average (CBS, 2011). The employees that participated on average worked 7.6 years (SD= 8.5) at the same company, while the mean number is 10.8 years. Men reported a mean tenure of 5.4, in comparison to 11.8 for the Dutch population. Female numbers were relatively close, with 10.1 years for participating employees and 9.5 years for female Dutch workers (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2011). 3.2 Research set-up and procedure Leaders of teams that suited the guidelines were invited for a personal interview with the researcher. During this interview, the leader filled in the digital questionnaire (Appendix B). Leaders were asked to rate the likelihood in which they engaged in behaviour associated with the four different coaching behaviours. After this, the leaders sent an e-mail to each employee of the team with a link to the questionnaire (Appendix C). In turn, the employees’ were asked to evaluate the coaching behaviours of their leader, affective commitment to the leader/organisation and their likelihood to engage in organizational citizenship behaviours (Appendix D). 3.3 Preliminary analysis After the data collection, data analysis was performed in SPSS. First, a missing-value analysis was
- 17 -
conducted, to check whether all questionnaires were filled in correctly (Pallant, 2007). Secondly, an outlier check was conducted to ensure that no extreme values could interfere with the mean range or trend of the data (Field, 2009). The third step involved transforming particular items that were worded negatively. These specific items were reversed. The unit of analysis of this study was the individual employee level (Bryman, 2004), while the variables included in the conceptual model were measured through the perception of employees. Data gathered from the questionnaire of leaders was included indirectly by their characteristics and scores on the coaching behaviours scales. After the preliminary analyses, factor analyses / principal component analyses were performed in order to examine the construct validity of the variable. These were followed by performing reliability analyses on all the scales by using Cronbach’s Alpha (Pallant, 2007). 3.4 Measures 3.4.1 Leadership Coaching Behaviours A recently developed questionnaire by Ribbers et al. (2011), the ‘Leadership Coaching Behaviours Questionnaire’ (LCBQ), was used to measure the interpersonal skills of leaders. It consisted of items based on four dimensions, the so-called leadership coaching behaviours: (1) ‘consider and connect’, (2) ‘develop and inspire’, (3), ‘feed back and acknowledge’, and (4) ‘listen and ask’.
These four
dimensions were based on extensive literature reviews and scales were created by combining existing scales and adding new items to them (Appendix E). Employees were asked to rate the likelihood of their leader to engage in these leadership coaching behaviours on a Likert-scale ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. The ‘consider and connect’ dimension consisted of 25 items, an example item ‘In facing conflict between individual needs and tasks, my leader puts priority on meeting people’s needs’. The second dimension, ‘develop and inspire’ contained 16 items, an example item ‘My supervisor sets useful goals for me to meet’. The third dimension, ‘feed back and acknowledge’ consisted of 16 items measuring the stimulating effect of feed back and compliments. One of the items was ‘My supervisor tells me the reasons for rules and policies’. The last dimension, ‘listen and ask’ consisted of 14 items examining the verbal and non-verbal conversation techniques of leaders, for example ‘My supervisor asks me to do things rather than tells me’. Factor analysis (PCA) was conducted to check whether the four coaching themes were extracted as four main components. The factor analysis (KMO =.945, p<0.000) did not reveal the four dimensions as expected. While forcing four dimensions, the coaching behaviours were not revealed and showed low reliabilities. Therefore, it was decided to perform uni-dimensional factor analyses (and reliability analyses) on each of the four dimensions. In this case, the four dimensions showed high loadings and internal reliabilities (Appendix F). The first subscale Consider and Connect had a KMO value of .938 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (.00). The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for the scale was α =
- 18 -
.943, which showed a good internal consistency reliability for the scale. The second subscale Develop and Inspire was also suitable for factor analysis (KMO-value = .930 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity <0.001). Reliability analysis showed a value of α = .941. The third scale Feed back and Acknowledge (KMO value .919, p<0.001). Reliability analysis showed a value of α = .919. Alpha if item deleted showed that by deleting items 55 and 58, the value would increase to .946. Therefore, these two items were deleted from the subscale. The final and fourth scale Listen and Ask (KMO value = .917, p<0.001). Cronbach’s Alpha reached a value of α=.946. 3.4.2 Affective Commitment Affective commitment was measured using a scale established by Vandenberghe, Bentein & Stinglhamber (2004). Affective commitment to respectively the organisation and leader was examined by two scales each containing 6 items. Two example items were: ‘This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning to me’ and for commitment to the leader ‘I appreciate my supervisor’. For all items, a 5-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ tot (5) ‘strongly agree’. Factor analysis was conducted (KMO =.850, p<0.000) which confirmed the existence of the two factors. The two factors explained a sufficient amount of variance among the categories (62.9%). Reliability analysis showed that Cronbach’s Alpha of the affective commitment to leader scale was α= 0.839. A value of α= 0.899 was found for commitment to the organisation. 3.4.3 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Items to measure OCB were measured by a scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). OCB was measured on two dimensions: citizenship behaviour directed towards the organisation (OCB-O) and citizenship behaviour directed towards the individual (OCB-I). Participants rated their behaviour on a 7item Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘extremely likely’ to (7) ‘extremely unlikely’. An example item of the OCB-O scale was ‘I conserve and protect organisational property’, and an item measuring OCB-I was ‘I assit my supervisor with his/her work (when not asked)’. Factor analysis was conducted (KMO = .755, p<0.001) for the scale but the two-way distinction was not confirmed. Results showed 4 components with an eigenvalue above 1, but these components could not be interpreted based on their content and showed low internal consistency. While forcing two components, the two components were not found. A second factor analysis was conducted in which 1 fixed factor was extracted. Reliability for the complete scale was α = 0.693. Item 115 was deleted from the scale, which increased the value of the scale to α = 0.706. 3.5 Control Variables Five employee demographic variables – age, education level, organisational tenure, gender and work hours – were included as control variables in this study. Gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for
- 19 -
female, work hours were based on the exact number of hours per week. Previous research has shown that these demographic variables can be associated with affective commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour and the evaluation of leadership behaviours (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Chen, Tsui & Farah, 2010; Schappe, 1998). Contact moment with leader was added as an extra control variable, because it is believed to be of significant importance on the perception and evaluation of leaders coaching behaviours. 3.6 Variations within teams The unit of analysis for this research was the individual employee level (Bryman, 2008). The variables that were included in this study were measured through the perception of individual employees. Therefore, it is possible that answers given by the employees are influenced as results of belonging to a team. Intra class correlation coefficients (ICC1) were used for this analysis (Bliese, 2000). The ICC1 value gives an indication of the variation in responses within the teams (Bliese, 2000). The higher the value of ICC1, the smaller differences in answers of the team members (Klein & Kowloszki, 2000; Veldhoven et al., 2005). The results of the analyses are shown in Table 3. The significance of the F-tests were used as an indication if the means of the team differed more than could be expected by chance. Table 3 shows that the F-test are significant (p>0.01) for all variables, meaning that their means are significantly different. ICC1 values ranged from 9.1% to 12.7%. This indicates that perceptions of employees are influenced on a low basis by employees’ membership of a team but are rather influenced by individual characteristics. Therefore, data aggregation was not necessary and analyses were further conducted at the individual level.
Table 3: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1, ICC2) for the scales at the unit level of analysis (N=33) ICC1
F
Sig
Consider and Connect
.104
1.836
.006
Develop and Inspire
.091
1.723
.013
Feed back and Acknowledge
.127
2.049
.002
Listen and Ask
.086
2.049
.017
Affective Commitment to Leader
.119
1.976
.003
Affective Commitment to Organisation
.110
1.886
.005
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
.105
1.841
.006
- 20 -
4. Results 4.1 Correlations Means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables from the conceptual model and control variables are shown in Table 5. The subscales of coaching behaviours showed very strong mutual correlations (>0.7). This might indicate a case of multicollinearity (De Vocht, 2004). Coaching behaviours showed a stronger positive link with affective commitment to the leader than commitment to the organisation. The commitment variables showed a mutually positive correlation towards each other (r=.306, p<0.01). The use of coaching behaviours showed significant positive relationships with OCB. Affective commitment and OCB were also positively related, which could indicate that when a employee is affectively committed, he/she will engage in OCB. Control variables showed mutual effects, but there were two findings that could be of importance in this study. When there is more contact with leader, he/she might be better evaluated on the coaching aspects ‘consider and connect’ and ‘listen and ask’. Moreover, correlations showed that older employees might show more OCB, work more hours and longer in the organisation.
- 21 -
Table 5: Means, standard deviations and correlations Mean
Std.
(1) Consider and Connect
3.49
(2) Develop and Inspire
Measures
Min.
Max.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.61
1
5
1
3.43
.69
1
5
.807**
1
(3) Feed back and Acknowledge
3.37
.78
1
5
.751**
.866**
1
(4) Listen and Ask
3.29
.72
1
5
.774**
.795**
.828**
1
(5) AC to leader
3.52
.68
1
5
.669**
.643**
.575**
.605**
1
(6) AC to organisation
3.31
.78
1
5
.128*
.186**
.123
.169**
.306**
1
(7) Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
47.72
4.61
3
5
.199**
.154*
.179**
.277**
.219**
.176**
1
(8) Gender
1.47
0.5
1
2
-.127
-.058
.013
-.014
-.137*
-.073
.019
1
(9) Age
39.24
10.48
18
63
.039
.062
.063
.068
.104
.113
.139*
.037
1
(10) Educational Level
5.40
1.27
1
7
.004
.011
-.012
.034
.000
-.028
.020
-.297**
-.246**
1
(11) Working Hours
35.1
7.8
8
40
-.005
-.019
.058
.036
-.009
-.143*
-.003
.291**
.235**
-.255**
1
(12) Tenure in organisation
7.62
8.45
0
41
-0.29
.020
.033
.053
-.021
.026
.051
.278**
.536**
-.185**
.315**
1
(13) Contact moments with leader
1.83
0.82
1
3
.167*
.119
.069
.181**
.107
-.019
.125
.108
-.147**
-.164*
-.127
-.077
13
Control Variables
1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
- 22 -
4.2 Regression analyses Multiple hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the effects between the variables of this study. To exclude multicollinearity, each coaching behaviour subscale was added in a separate regression analysis. VIF and Tolerance values were analyzed on signs of multicollinearity. 4.2.1 Leadership coaching behaviours and affective commitment The results of the linear regression with the leadership coaching behaviours as the independent variables and affective commitment as dependent variable are shown in table 6 and 7. Model 1 contained the control variables, and in model 2 the subscales of leadership coaching behaviours were added. Model 2 led to a better prediction of affective commitment, as can be derived from the significant F-changes (p<0.01). The VIF and Tolerance values were within acceptable ranges (VIF values <10, tolerance >0.1). The results of the regression analyses show that all dimensions of coaching behaviours had positive and significant effects on commitment to the leader (resp. β=.656, β=.623, β=.560, β=.592, p<0.01). Contact moments with the leader has a significant effect on affective commitment to the leader (β=1.70, p<0.05). This confirms hypothesis 1a to 1d, which suggested that coaching behaviours are positively related to affective commitment of employees towards the leader. Table 7 shows the results of affective commitment to the organisation. Subscales 1 and 3 did not make a significant contribution to model 2. Moreover, no significant effects were found for these scales. Hypothesis 2a and 2c are rejected. Subscales 2 (β=.179, p<0.01) and 4 (β=.182, p<0.01) did show positive effects. Hypothesis 2b and 2d are confirmed. The amount of working hours showed a negative effect with affective commitment to the organisation for all coaching behaviours (β=.-1.97, p<.05), which means that when a employee works less hours in the organisation, he or she is less affectively committed to that specific organisation. The subscales of coaching behaviours had significant and higher beta coefficients for affective commitment towards the leader than towards the organisation.
23
Table 6: The influence of leadership coaching behaviours (subscales) on affective commitment to the leader Affective Commitment to Leader
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Gender
-.186
-.110
-.186
-.149
-.186
-.167*
-.186
-.137
Age
.147
.103
.147
.097
.147
.111
.147
-.099
Educational level
.035
.028
.035
.011
.035
.027
.035
-.016
Tenure
-.058
-.057
-.058
-.069
-.058
-.056
-.058
-.078
Working hours
.134
.074
.134
.102
.134
.084
.134
.069
Contact moments with leader
.170*
.031
.170*
.073
.170*
.116*
.170*
.031
Dummy sector
-.043
.049
-.043
.000
-.043
-.031
-.043
-.037
Control variables
Independent variables Consider and Connect
.656**
Develop and Inspire
.623**
Feed back and Acknowledge
.560**
Listen and Ask
.592**
R²
.064
.464
.064
.440
.064
.373
.064
.395
R² adjusted
.034
.444
.034
.419
.034
.350
.034
.373
R² change
.064
.400
.064
.376
.064
.309
.064
.331
F
2.144*
23.701**
2.144*
21.499**
2.144*
16.308**
2.144*
17.863**
F change
2.144*
163.507**
2.144*
147.017**
2.144*
108.410**
2.144*
119.790**
*p<0.5, one-tailed test, **p<0.01, one-tailed test, ***p<0.001, one-tailed test
24
Table 7: The influence of leadership coaching behaviours (subscales) on affective commitment to the organisation Affective Commitment to Organisation
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Gender
.112
.126
.112
.123
.112
.117
.112
.127
Age
.156
.148
.156
.142
.156
.148
.156
.141
Educational level
-.003
-.005
-.003
-.010
-.003
-.005
-.003
-.019
Tenure
.007
.007
.007
.004
.007
.007
.007
.001
Working hours
-.197*
-.208*
-.197*
-.206*
-.197*
-.209*
-.197*
-.217
Contact moments with leader
-.026
-.051
-.026
-.054
-.026
-.038
-.026
-.069
Dummy sector
-.122
-.105
-.122
-.110
-.122
-.119
-.122
-.120
Control variables
Independent variables Consider and Connect
.120
Develop and Inspire
.179**
Feed back and Acknowledge
.127
Listen and Ask
.182**
R²
.054
.067
.054
.085
.054
.070
.054
.085
R² adjusted
.024
.033
.024
.052
.024
.036
.024
.052
R² change
.054
.013
.054
.031
.054
.016
.054
.031
F
1.796
1.978
1.796
2.548*
1.796
2.062*
1.796
2.553*
F change
1.796
3.128
1.796
7.443**
1.796
3.768
1.796
7.484**
* p<0.5, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test ***p<0.001, one-tailed test
25
4.2.2 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Tables 8 to 11 show the results of the second and final regression analysis. This analysis included a test of the complete model, including the mediator affective commitment. With this analysis it was possible to test the direct effect of the leadership coaching behaviours on OCB. Moreover, the influence of mediator affective commitment could be analyzed. The VIF and Tolerances were within acceptable ranges. Model 1 included the control variables, model 2 the control variables and the subscale(s) of leadership coaching behaviour and in model 3 the mediator was added for an analysis of the total model. Tables 8 and 9 show the results, including mediator affective commitment to the leader. By adding the mediator the only significant contribution appeared when adding coaching behaviour ‘develop & inspire’. In this case, a significant association between affective commitment to the leader and OCB (β=.190, p<0.05) was found. Control variables age had an effect on OCB (β=.208, p<0.05) and contact moments with the leader (β=.161, p<0.5). Based on these results, hypothesis 3a can be confirmed. Table 10 and 11 show the results including mediator affective commitment to the organisation. The first three coaching behaviours subscales added a significant contribution to the model. For these three dimensions, significant beta coefficients were found between affective commitment to the organisation and OCB (β=.145, p<0.05). Hypothesis 3b can be confirmed. Age and contact moments had a positive influence on OCB. Based on the beta coefficients (β=1.90 for ACS and β=1.45 for ACO) hypothesis 3c can be confirmed, because the beta coefficient for ACS is stronger. With regard to the coaching behaviours, the results show that ‘consider and connect’ and ‘feed back and acknowledge’ add a significant contribution to the model. ‘Consider and connect’ shows a direct effect on OCB (β=.179, p<0.01) and a direct effect of ‘feed back and acknowledge’ (β=.161, p<0.05). Control variable age had a significant effect (β=.197 and β=1.99, p<0.05). Hypothesis 4a and 4c were confirmed. Hypothesis 4b and 4d were rejected.
26
Table 8: The influence of leadership coaching behaviours (consider & connect, develop & inspire) and affective commitment to leader on organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Gender
.062
.083
.098
.062
.070
.098
Age
.209*
.197*
.183*
.209*
.199*
.181*
Educational level
.100
.098
.094
.100
.095
.093
Tenure
-.035
-.035
-.027
-.035
-.037
-.024
Working hours
-.025
-.041
-.051
-0.25
-.031
-.051
Contact moments with leader
.161*
.124
.119
.161*
.142*
.128
Dummy sector
-.019
.076
.000
-.019
-.010
-.010
.179**
.088 .128
.009
Control variables
Independent variables Consider and Connect Develop and Inspire Affective Commitment to Leader
.139
.190*
R²
.051
.080
.091
.051
.066
.087
R² adjusted
.020
.047
.047
.020
.032
.049
R² change
.051
.030
.030
.051
.016
.020
F
1.675
2.390*
2.413*
1.675
1.947
2.295*
F change
1.675
7.066**
2.471
1.675
3.703
4.812*
* p<0.05, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test ***p<0.001, one-tailed test
27
Table 9: The influence of leadership coaching behaviours (feed back & acknowledge, listen & ask ) and affective commitment to leader on organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Gender
.062
.068
.093
.062
.083
.093
Age
.209*
.199*
.182*
.209*
.189*
.182*
Educational level
.100
.097
-.093
.100
.078
.079
Tenure
-.035
-.034
-.026
-.035
-.043
-.038
Working hours
-.025
-.039
-.052
-0.25
-.052
-.057
Contact moments with leader
.161*
.146*
-.128
.161*
.103
.101
Dummy sector
-.019
-.015
-.011
-.019
-.016
-.014
.161*
.076 .249***
.206*
Control variables
Independent variables Feed back and Acknowledge Listen and Ask Affective Commitment to Leader
.151
.073
R²
.051
.076
.090
.051
.109
.112
R² adjusted
.020
.042
.053
.020
.077
.076
R² change
.051
.025
.014
.051
.059
.003
F
1.675
1.675
2.405
1.675
3.357**
3.068*
F change
1.675
6.036*
3.418
1.675
14.412
.786
* p<0.05, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test
***p<0.001, one-tailed test
28
Table 10: The influence of leadership coaching behaviours (consider & connect, develop & inspire) and affective commitment to organisation on organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Consider and Connect
Develop and Inspire
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Gender
.062
.083
.065
.062
.070
.052
Age
.209*
.197*
.176*
.209*
.199*
.179*
Educational level
.100
.098
.098
.100
.095
.096
Tenure
-.035
-.035
-.036
-.035
-.037
-.038
Working hours
-.025
-.041
-.011
-0.25
-.031
-.001
Contact moments with leader
.161*
.124
.131
.161*
.142*
.149*
Dummy sector
-.019
.076
.022
-.019
-.010
.006
.179**
.161* .128
.102
Control variables
Independent variables Consider and Connect Develop and Inspire Affective Commitment to Organisation
.145*
.145*
R²
.051
.080
.100
.051
.066
.086
R² adjusted
.020
.047
.063
.020
.032
.048
R² change
.051
.030
.020
.051
.016
.019
F
1.675
2.390*
2.689**
1.675
1.947
2.272*
F change
1.675
7.066**
4.756*
1.675
3.703
4.615*
* p<00.5, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test ***p<0.001, one-tailed test
29
Table 11: The influence of leadership coaching behaviours (feed back & acknowledge, listen & ask ) and affective commitment to organisation on organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Feed back and Acknowledge
Listen and Ask
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Gender
.062
.068
.051
.062
.083
3.434.067
Age
.209*
.199*
.177*
.209*
.189*
.172*
Educational level
.100
.097
.098
.100
.078
.081
Tenure
-.035
-.034
-.035
-.035
-.043
-.043
Working hours
-.025
-.039
-.009
-0.25
-.052
-.025
Contact moments with leader
.161*
.146*
.152*
.161*
.103
.112
Dummy sector
-.019
-.015
.002
-.019
-.016
-.002
.161*
.142* .249***
.227***
Control variables
Independent variables Feed back and Acknowledge Listen and Ask Affective Commitment to Organisation
.145*
.123
R²
.051
.076
.096
.051
.109
.123
R² adjusted
.020
.042
.058
.020
.077
.087
R² change
.051
.025
.020
.051
.059
.014
F
1.675
1.675
2.563**
1.675
3.357**
3.399***
F change
1.675
6.036*
4.726*
1.675
14.412
3.434
* p<0.05, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test
***p<0.001, one-tailed test
30
4.3 Path analysis and sobel tests The mediation effect in this study was examined in hypotheses 5a and 5b. Based on the results of the regression analysis, the mediation path models are displayed in Figure 2 and Figure 3. To investigate the mediating effect, a procedure suggested by MacKinnon, Fairchild & Fritz(2007) is used. Based on these guidelines, a case of pure mediation is tested for coaching behaviours ‘develop & inspire’ and ‘listen & ask’ in the first path model. Partial mediation is tested for ‘consider & connect’ and ‘feed back & acknowledge’ because these have a significant effect on the dependent variable (in addition to the mediating variable). The Sobel test with affective commitment to leader as mediator confirms the expected mediation effect for all leadership coaching behaviours. For ‘develop & inspire’ and ‘listen & ask’ a z-value of .285 (p<0.05) was found. ‘Consider & connect’ (z-value=2.82, p<0.05) and ‘feed back & acknowledge’ (zvalue=2.83, p<0.05) confirmed a partial mediation effect of affective commitment. Therefore, hypothesis 5a is confirmed.
Consider & Connect
.179**
.656**
Develop &
. .623**
Inspire
Affective commitment to the
Feed back &
. .560**
leader
Organizational .196**
Citizenship Behaviour
Acknowledge Listen & Ask
.592** .161*
Figure 2 Path model for mediation effect of affective commitment to the leader on the relationship between leadership coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour. * p <0.5
** p<0.1
In the second path model pure mediation was tested for leadership coaching behaviours ‘develop & inspire’ and ‘listen and ask’. The Sobel test with affective commitment to organisation did not confirm the expected mediation effect. For ‘develop and inspire’ a z-value of 1.82 was found and for ‘listen and ask’ a z-value of 1.81 was found, which was not a significant effect. Therefore, hypothesis 5b is
31
rejected. Thus, there is no mediation effect of affective commitment to the organisation on the relationship between coaching behaviours and OCB.
Consider & Connect
.179**
Develop & Inspire
.179**
Affective commitment to the
Feed back &
Organizational .164*
organisation
Citizenship Behaviour
Acknowledge .182**
Listen & Ask
.161*
Figure 3 Path model for mediation effect of affective commitment to the organization on the relationship between leadership coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour. * p <0.5
** p<0.1
4.4 Differences leaders and employees Although the unit of analysis was the individual employee level; as an addition to the research the differences in mean scores on leadership coaching behaviours are compared for leader and employees of each participating team. Mean scores of the leader and employees on the coaching behaviour subscales were analyzed on significant differences by use of one-sample T tests. In appendix G, an extensive overview is given for each team that participated in this study. Leaders consistently evaluated themselves better on the degree of use of coaching behaviour. Employees tended to provide a consistently lower rating on coaching behaviours used by the leader. In some cases, employees gave a better evaluation on coaching aspects than the leader did. Positive evaluations were mostly given on the subscale ‘feed back & acknowledge’. This occurred in eight teams. Out of all cases in which employees gave a higher score than their leader, the assessment of behaviour was only significant in three cases: namely, for ‘feed back and acknowledge’ in team 10 (3.08 leader score and 3.33 employee score) and team 32 (3.46 leader and 4.27 employees score). In addition, a single significant better evaluation was found in team 32 on ‘develop and inspire’ (3.38 leader and 3.91 for employees). Moreover, the overall mean scores of the coaching behaviour scales (regardless of teams) were calculated. The results are stated in Table 4. Overall, regardless of the team,
32
employees gave a lower rating on the behavioural coaching characteristics. All mean scores significantly differ from each other.
Table 4 Overall mean scores leaders – employees on coaching behaviours subscales Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.84
3.49
.000*
Develop and Inspire
4.03
3.43
.000*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.74
3.37
.000*
Listen and Ask
3.96
3.29
.000*
An additional regression analysis was conducted, to measure the effect of (increased) discrepancy in scores between employees and leaders on the variables affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. The results of the regression analysis are shown in appendix H. It was expected that when there was more agreement in perception (i.e. low difference score) between employee and leader, this would lead to more positive effects on commitment and OCB. In other words, a low difference score would lead to more committed employees and engagement in OCB. The results confirmed the expectations for the variable affective commitment. The results showed negative Beta values, which indicates that when there is more discrepancy (higher difference score), employees will become less affective committed towards their leader and organisation. The effects were significant for all coaching behaviours on commitment towards the leader. The amount of contact with the leader had a significant effect on commitment towards the leader. Despite the negative beta values, the only significant effect was found on leadership coaching behaviour ‘listen & ask’ for commitment towards the organisation. With regard to the variable OCB, there were some unexpected results. Coaching behaviours ‘listen & ask’ and ‘consider & connect’ were the only one showing negative beta values. No significant effects were found on all coaching behaviours.
33
5. Conclusion and discussion
The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between the use of coaching behaviours by leaders and if these behaviours have an effect on organizational citizenship behaviour of employees. Moreover, a mediating role of affective commitment towards the leader and organisation was studied in this relationship. The primary research questions addressed in this paper were: Which aspect of coaching behaviour will lead to affective commitment of employees? And which aspect of coaching behaviour will lead employees to engage in organizational citizenship behaviour? And finally: to what extent does affective commitment mediate the relationship between coaching behaviours and employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour? The main conclusions of this research will be discussed per independent variable. 5.1 Affective commitment The first research question addressed which aspect of leadership coaching behaviour would lead to affective commitment of employees. Based on research that states that leaders can affect feelings about work and that efforts strengthen the psychological link with employees (Becker & Kernan, 2003) it was expected that coaching behaviours used by the leader would have a positive effect on affective commitment of employees towards the leader (Hypothesis 1a-d) and the organisation (Hypothesis 2a2d). Regression analysis proved that all coaching behaviours used by the leader have a positive influence on the affective commitment towards the leader. When there is more contact with the leader, employees become more commitment to their leader. Hypothesis 1a-d are confirmed. For affective commitment towards the organisation, direct links were only found for the subscales ‘develop and inspire’ and ‘listen and ask’. Therefore, only hypothesis 2b and 2d were accepted. Coaching behaviours used by the leader can be seen as types of trust-development behaviours. Of all four dimensions of coaching behaviours, leaders can show the most trust and confidence in employees capabilities by empowering them (Avoilio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia, 2004). Moreover, empowered employees derive greater sense of meaning from their work, which would create higher levels of commitment to their organisation and energy to perform (Kanter, 1983; Wiley, 1999). Supervisory communication has proven to influence employees’ feelings towards their job and workplace (Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010) and to be a good predictor of organisational commitment (Potvin, 1991; Downs, 1991; Downs et al. 1995). By communicating openly within the leader-employee relationship, trust can be built (Deluga, 1994). The amount of working hours positively influenced organisational commitment. When employees work more hours, they engage more time and effort in an organisation, which results in more commitment towards organisational goals (Steers, 1997).
34
5.2 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Based on literature, it was expected that when an employee is affectively committed, they would engage in organizational citizenship behaviour (hypothesis 3a-b). Both hypotheses were confirmed. The age of employees had a positive effect on OCB, which indicates that the older the employees, the more he/she engages in OCB. Younger employees also report lower OCB rates than older workers in other research (Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002; Wanxian & Weiwu, 2006). The amount of contact with the leader was also of influence on the OCB ratings of employees, with the more contact there is, the more engagement in OCB. The second research question examined which aspect of leadership coaching behaviour would lead employees to engage in OCB. It was expected that all behaviours would have a significant effect (hypothesis 4a-d). Leaders who engaged in behaviours associated with the subscales ‘consider and connect’ and ‘feed back and acknowledge’ leaded their employees to engage in OCB. For the other two subscales, no effects were found. This can be explained by the fact that rather than being associated with a particular leadership style (coaching), research finds that it is the quality of an employee’s relationship with his or her leader that counts if a employee is willing to perform extra-role behaviours (Podsakoff et al. 2000; Jahangir, Akbar & Haq, 2004). This perception of a high quality relationship between leader-employee, is closely related to fairness of treatment perceptions (Tansky, 2003). Coaching behaviour ‘consider & connect’ has a focus on building a strong leader-employee relationship and focuses on recognition of each other. This coaching leadership behaviour may have the largest impact on employees perceptions of fairness and the quality of the relationship between leader and employee (Tansky, 2003; Greenberg; 1990). In turn, the employee could be more willing to reciprocate this type of behaviour by engaging in extra-role behaviours. Podsakoff et al. (2000) also found that another leadership variable positively related to OCB is the leaders' contingent reward behaviours, such as expressing satisfaction or appreciation for good performance. Fairness perceptions of feedback have proven to be relevant for employees well-being at work (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008) and could therefore also influence engagement in OCBs. 5.3 Mediation effects The final research question and hypothesis 5a and 5b examined to what extent affective commitment mediated the relationship between leadership coaching behaviours and employees’ OCB. A mediating effect was only found for affective commitment towards the leader. Affective commitment to the organisation did not explain the relationship between coaching behaviours and OCB. As stated earlier, all coaching behaviours showed a direct positive effect on affective commitment towards the superior. Only two subscales were found to have an effect on commitment to the organisation. This result can
35
be explained according to the field theory (Lewin, 1943). This theory states that entities closer in proximity to an employee have the strongest immediate influence on their attitudes and behaviours. Leaders and employees work together on a regular basis and therefore it can be logically explained why an employee becomes more strongly attached to his/her leader than to the organisation (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In addition, research has confirmed other antecedents of organisational commitment that can have an influence on the commitment towards the organisation. Previous research by Lee (1971), Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982) and Steers (1997) reveals that organisational commitment is related to three antecedent categories: personal variables, job and role characteristics and structural factors. These factors, apart from coaching behaviour of the leader, are of significant importance for an employee to become committed to an organisation. 5.4 Differences scores leaders – employees As an addition to the research, differences in mean scores on coaching behaviours were compared for leader and employees. As well on team level as on an overall level. Based on this, it can be concluded that leaders consistently evaluated themselves better on the degree of use of coaching behaviour. Employees provided a consistent lower evaluation on behavioural characteristics. Positive evaluations by employees were mostly given on the subscale ‘feed back & acknowledge’. This could be caused by uncertainty of the leader. Giving feedback to employees is difficult for leaders, because evaluations can have a direct positive or negative influence on the well-being of the employee (Cooper & Cartwright, 2004). Especially fairness perceptions of feedback are relevant for employees well-being at work (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008). For this reason it could be that leaders evaluate themselves better to prevent loss of face. Previous research draws a general conclusion that self-ratings of leaders tend to be less accurate (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2007). While looking at the overall mean scores, the evaluations by employees were again significantly lower. From this we may concluded that leaders must be cautious when they assume that their use of coaching behaviour will be interpreted similarly by employees as perceived by themselves. Feedback from other sources, particularly from employees can alter selfevaluations of leadership (Yammarino & Atwater, 1993). An additional regression analysis tested the effects of (increased) discrepancy in evaluation scores of employees and leaders. It was expected that when there were low difference scores (more agreement) between the parties, this would lead to more commitment and OCB. With regard to affective commitment, expectations were met. Although commitment towards the organisation decreased when there was a higher difference score, significant effects were only found for coaching behaviour ‘listen and ask’. This may, as mentioned earlier, confirm that commitment to the organisation is not only
36
influenced by use of coaching behaviour by the leader. Personal, job and role and structural factors are also of significant importance for enlargement of organisational commitment (Lee, 1971; Steers, 1997). The results of organizational citizenship behaviour showed different effects. Only for coaching behaviours ‘consider & connect’ and ‘listen & ask’ discrepancy led to less engagement in OCB. Although these results were found, the effects were not significant and can therefore not be regarded as valid in nature. 5.5 Limitations Some limitations need to be taken into account while interpreting the results of this study. Data for this study was gathered from employees working in various organisational climates. Most participants worked in organisations and/or sectors subject to rapid change, which could have influenced the evaluations of certain individuals towards their leader and the organisation during the period of data collection. A second limitation includes the research design. The cross-sectional nature of the data precludes inference of cause-effects relations among coaching behaviours, commitment and OCB. A longitudinal design would be preferred in establishing the causal order of the relationships within this study. The measurement of coaching behaviours could be another concern of this study. The subscales of coaching behaviours showed signs of multicollinearity among each other, reporting mutual correlations above >.7. Factor analysis did not show four components. The reliability of the subscales separately was good, but this may be because the subscales consist of many items which could have enlarged the reliability ratings. Therefore, the subscales were entered in separate regression analyses to exclude possible influence. Nevertheless, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. Finally, several remarks were made during the data collection about the length and interpretation of the questionnaire. The questionnaire for employees consisted of 180 questions, which could have influenced the answers given at the end of the questionnaire. There is also a significant possibility that employees gave socially desirable answers because they thought to be judged on their evaluation about the behaviour of the leader. This may have caused that given evaluations are more positive than in reality. 5.6 Recommendations for future research Besides the results of this study, this research identifies an area rich in research possibilities. Because the model implies the existence of causal effects, future research with a longitudinal design would be particularly useful in establishing the causal orders of the relationships reported in this study and better comparison of leader-employee evaluations. Additional research is needed towards the subscales of coaching behaviours because of the clear signs of multicollinearity. It is possible that the coaching behaviours in this study are overlapping in nature. For example, for giving support and
37
building relationship (‘consider & connect’) intensive listening and questioning are needed and part of the process (‘listen & ask’). A way to research this is by having in-depth interviews with leaders and employees across organizations about conduct more information about commonly used combinations of coaching behaviours. Based on these results, perhaps the coaching subscales can be shortened and rearranged in the number of items, which could increase the reliability and show different effects in the factor analysis. Moreover, additional researchis needed to test the subscales of coaching behaviour more intensively. For example to examine whether the coaching behaviours are complementary in nature. The behaviour of leaders needs to be further and more intensively tested across different organisational contexts. The effects of coaching behaviour on other work related variables such as absenteeism and job satisfaction could be researched in the future. Finally, in follow-up studies more attention must be given on the discrepancy effects in evaluations between leader and employees. For example on processes on how discrepancy can be decreased or prevented. 5.7 Practical implications The most important result of this study from a leaderial perspective is that coaching behaviours can have a positive effect on employee behaviour and work outcomes. Although previous research has stated that leadership behaviours can impact important organisational outcomes, real leaders received few clues as to what type of behaviours they should use (Mathieu & Pousa, 2011). An obvious implication of the present research is the development of supervisory coaching skills and behaviours. Organisations can offer training to leaders in which they develop coaching skills and learn how to use these in practice. This will give a return of investment because employees perceptions will be influenced in a positive way by the use of these coaching behaviours. Moreover, leaders should be made aware of the fact that their daily interactions with employees affect their work behaviours. Leaders should be reminded that their coaching behaviours shape employees work perceptions. The more positive the perception, the more likely it is that a employee increases their affective commitment and OCBs, thus serving to increase overall organisational effectiveness. This study shows that organisations that develop their leaders’ coaching skills could potentially have an immediate return of their investment in the form of building high-quality, long-term, trustful relationships with their employees and reducing deviant behaviours. Daily contact between leader and employees is of significant importance. Through interaction in the workplace and the coaching process, positive perceptions and thus commitment of employees can be enlarged. This will ultimately intensify two processes. First, trustful and meaningful relationships between employees and leaders are established. And as a consequence, employees will intensify their efforts towards organizational goals and missions.
38
6. References
Agarwal, S., DeCarlo, T.E., & Vyas, S.B. (2009). Leadership behaviour and organizational commitment: A comparative study of American and Indian salespersons, Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (4), 727-743 Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 951–968. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1998). You can drag a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 1–17. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827– 832. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 232–244. Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14: 177-190. Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16, 327-348. Bennis, W. (2002), ‚Become a tomorrow leader‛, in Spears, L. (Ed.), Focus on Leadership: ServantLeadership for the Twenty-First Century, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 101-9. Bentein, K., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Organization-, Supervisor- , and Workgroupdirected commitments and citizenship behaviours: a comparison of models. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 341-362.
39
Bhatnagar, J. & Sandhu, S. (2005). Psychological Empowerment and Organisational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in ‘IT’ managers: A Talent Retention Tool. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(4), 449-469. Bhantumnavin, D. (2003). Perceived social support from supervisor and group members' psychological and situational characteristics as predictors of subordinate performance in Thai work units. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1), 79-97. Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (1997). Employee commitment and work team productivity. HR Magazine, 11: 107–111. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York. Bliese, P.D. (2000). Within- group agreement, non- independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K.J., & Kozlowski, S.W.J., Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions. (pp. 349- 381). San Francisco, US: Jossey-Bass. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, C.S, Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., Halpin, S.M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288-307. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’ (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of applied Psychology. 80(4), 468- 478. Cooper, C.L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind; healthy organization: A proactive approach to occupational stress. Human Relations, 47, 455-471.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2011). Beroepsbevolking; kerncijfers naar geslacht en andere persoonskenmerken. Retrieved from: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71958ned&LA=NL. Chen, Z.X., Tsui, A.S. & Farah, J.L. (2010). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339-356. Cianci, A.M., & Klein, H.J. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: the main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 , 618–630.
40
Clugston, M., Howell, J.P. & Dorfman, P.W. (2000). Does Cultural Socialization Predict Multiple Bases and Foci of Commitment? Journal of Management, 20(1), 5-30. Darwish, Y.A., (2000). Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Leaderial Psychology. 1 (15), 6-28. Deluga, R.J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 315-26. de Vocht, A. (2004). Basishandleiding SPSS 12 voor Windows. Utrecht: Bijleveld Press. Downs, A. (1991). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment in two Australian organizations. Unpublished master thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence,KS. Downs, C.W., Downs, A., Potvin, T., Varona, F., Gribas, J. S., & Ticehurst, W. (1995). A cross-cultural comparison of relationships between organizational commitment and organizational communication. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, Albuquerque, NM. Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger A.E., & Keller, S.B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behaviour, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458. Erben, G.S. & Güneşer, A.B. (2008). The relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational commitment: investigating the role of climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 955-968. Field, A. P. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: Advanced techniques for the beginner. London: Sage. Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management Executiv, (14), 67-80. Greenberg, J. (1990). Cultivating an image of justice: looking fair on the job. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 155-157.
41
Gregersen, H.B. (1993). Multiple commitments at work and extrarole behaviour during three stages of organizational tenure. Journal of Business Research, 26, 31-47. Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review (25), 161-178. Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1): 15–23. Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D., & Beattie, R.S. (2009). Toward a profession of coaching? A definitional examination of ‘coaching’, ‘organizational development’, and ‘human resource Development’. Coaching and Mentoring, 7(1), 13 Heslin, P.A,, Vanderwalle, D., & Lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 871-902. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Jahangir, N., Akbar, M.M, & Haq, M. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Its nature and antecedents. BRAC University Journal, 1(2), 75-85. John, G. (1984). An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(3), 278-289.
Ishak, N.A. & Alam, S.S. (2009). The effects of leader-member exchange on organizational justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Empirical study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 324. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., & Gibson, C.B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face interaction. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175-192. Klein, K.J., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2000). From micro to meso: Steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organisational Research Methods, 3(3), 211-236.
42
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C, & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group & Organization Management, 24, 71-91. Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M., & Terborg, J.R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 16, 319333. Krazmien, M., & Berger, F. (1997). Discussion paper. The coaching paradox. International journal hospitality management, 16(1), 3-10. Kuehn, K.W., & Al-Busaidi, Y. (2002). Citizenship behaviour in a non-western context: an examination of the role of satisfaction, commitment and job characteristics on self-reported OCB. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 12(2), 107-125.
Ladyshewsky, R.K. (2010). The leader as coach as a driver of organizational development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4),292 - 306 Lee, S.M. (1971). An Empirical Analysis of Organizational Identification. Academy of Management Journal, 14(2), 213–26. Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the ‘field at a given time.’ Psychological Review, 50: 292–310. Liao, H. & Rupp, D.E. (2005). The impact of Justice Climate and Justice Orientation on Work Outcomes: A Cross-Level Multifoci Framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242-256. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 87–98. MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J., & Fritz, M.S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review Psychology, 58, 593-614. Madlock, P., & Kennedy-Lightsey, C.D. (2010). The effects of supervisors' verbal aggressiveness and mentoring on their employees. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 42-62.
Malatesta, R. M. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment using a social exchange framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
43
Masterson, S.Z., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. & Taylor. S. (2000). Integrating Justice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships. The Academy Of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748.
Mathieu, A., & Pousa, C. (2011). Does supervisory coaching behaviour reduce salespeople’s lives? International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 9(1).
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M., (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194. Mayrhofer, W., Muller-Caman, M., Ledolter, J., Strunk, G., and Erten, C. (2004). Devolving Responsibilities for Human Resources to Line Management? An Empirical Study about Convergence in Europe. Journal for East European Management Studies, 9(2), 123-146.
McConville, T. (2006). Devolved HRM responsibilities, middle-managers and role dissonance. Personnel Review, 35(6), 637-653.
Meierhans, D., Rietmann, B. & Jonas, K. (2008). Influence of fair and supportive leadership behavior on commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67(3), 131141.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Theory, research and application. Londen: Sage.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovich, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 61, 20-52. Morris, J. H., & Sherman, J. D. (1981). Generalizibality of an organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 512-526.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
44
Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2007). Transformational leadership: The influence of culture on the leadership behaviours of expatriate leaders. International journal of business and information, 2(2), 265-283. Norris-Watts, C., & Levy, P.E. (2004). The mediating role of affective commitment in the relation of the feedback environment to work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 65, 351–365. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytical review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows version 15. England: open University Press. Park, S. (2011). Leaderial coaching skills questionnaire. Unpublished internal document. Tilburg University. Park, S., McLean, G.N., & Yang, B. (2008). Revision and validation of an instrument measuring leaderial coaching skills in organizations. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference, Panama City, America. Parnell, J. A., & Crandall, W. R. (2003). Propensity for participative decision-making, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, and intentions to leave among Egyptian leaders. Multinational Business Review, 11(1), 45-65. Pool, S.W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership behaviour, and work motivation. Journal of Psychology: Interdisplinary and Applied, 131(3), 271283. Podsakoff, P.M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behaviour on organizational performance: a review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133-151.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviours: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(5), 513-563.
45
Potvin, T. (1991). Employee organizational commitment: An examination of its relationship to communication satisfaction and an evaluation of questionnaires designed to measure the construct. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line Managers as Agents in the HRM-performance Causal Chain: Theory, Analysis and Evidence, Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3–20.
Ramaswami, S., Srinivasan, S., & Gorton, S. (1997). Information asymmetry between salesperson and supervisor: Postulates from agency theory and social exchange theory. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17(3), 29-50.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 465–476. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. Ribbers, A.P.C., Waringa, R.A., van Woerkom, M. & Poell, R.F. (2011). Leadership Coaching Behaviours Questionnaire (LCBQ). Unpublished internal document, Tilburg University. Richardson, L. (1996). Sales Coaching: Making the great leap from sales leader to sales coach. New York , NY: McGraw-Hill. Rowden, R.W. (2000). The relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and organizational commitment. The leadership & organizational development journal, 21(1), 30-35. Schappe, S.P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Psychology, 132(3), 277-290. Skarlicki, D.P., & Latham, G.P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behaviour within a labor union: a test of organizational justice theory. Journal of applied psychology, 81, 161-169. Schnake, M., Cochran, D., & Dumler, M. (1995). Encouraging organizational citizenship: the effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity and leadership. Journal of leaderial Issues, 7. Sparr, J.L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Feedback environment and well-being at work: The mediating role of personal control and feelings of helplessness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 388-412.
46
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Individual empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. Stanton, P., Young, S., Bartram, T. & Leggat, S.G. (2010). Singing the same song: translating HRM messages across management hierarchies in Australian hospitals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(4), 567-581. Steers, R.M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 46–56. Steijns, B. & Leisink, P. (2006). Organizational commitment among Dutch public sector employees. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2, 187-201. Stern, L.R. (2004). Executive coaching: A working definition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 154–162. Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 251−270.
Stober, D. R., Wildflower, L., & Drake, D. B. (2006). Evidence-based practice: A potential approach for effective coaching. International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 4(1), 1-8. Swift, C., & Levin, G. (1987). Empowerment: An emerging mental health technology. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 8(1), 71-94. Tansky, J. W. ( 2003) Justice and organizational citizenship behaviour: What is the relationship? Employees Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 195–207. Teo, S.T.T., & Rodwell, J.J. (2007). To Be Strategic in the New Public Sector, HR Must Remember its Operational Activities. Human Resource Management, 46( 2) 265–284.
Valverde, M., Ryan. G. & Soler, C. (2006). Distributing HRM responsibilities: a classification of organisations. Personnel Review, 35(6), 618-636. Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). ‘Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: antecedents and outcomes’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 64 47– 71.
47
Van Veldhoven, M., Taris, T.W., de Jonge, J., & Broersen, S. (2005). The relationship between work characteristics and employee health and well-being: How much complexity do we really need? International Journal of Stress Management, 12(1), 3-28. Wanxian, L. & Weiwu, W. (2006). A demographic study on citizenship behaviour as in-role orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(2), 225-234. Wales, S. (2003). Why coaching? Journal of Change Management, 3, 275–282. Wenzel, L. H. (2000). Understanding leaderial coaching: The role of leader attributes and skills in effective coaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University. Wiley, D. M. (1999). Impact of locus of control and empowerment on organizational commitment. Doctoral dissertation, United States International University. Williams, L.J. & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. Wilson, P.A. (1995). The effects of politics and power on the organizational commitment of federal executives. Journal of Management, 21(1), 101-118. Yammarino, F.J. & Atwater, L.E. (1993). Understanding self-perception accuracy: implications for human resources management. Human Resource Management, 32, 231-247. Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879−919.
Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1), 6-28.
Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D.D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3(2): 147197. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
48
Appendix A: Information about organisations
Name Organisation
Description
Qurius B.V.
Qurius is a leading software company headquartered in Zaltbommel, the Netherlands. The company serves customers across Europe by implementing Microsoft Dynamics ERP software. Qurius provides technology answers: design, architecture, infrastructure, deployment and systems management of Microsoft-based business and IT solutions. In 2010, Qurius openly declared a target of 100 per cent sustainability by 2014. A bold objective, designed to drive the company to European leadership in the field of sustainable ICT.
St. Elisabeth Hospital Tilburg
The St. Elisabeth Hospital is a large clinical training hospital in the region of north Brabant. A complete package from basic care to top clinical care is offered. It serves the Tilburg region, but also provides crossregional and clinical care. Important tasks of the St. Elisabeth Hospital are providing medical specialist, nursing and paramedical courses and conducting applied scientific research. Together with other top clinical training hospitals, the hospital provides an essential contribution to the renewal of health care. In collaboration with a number of university training centers, the hospital also provides training for 16 different specialties.
Bruna B.V.
Penske Logistics B.V.
Number of Employees (NL) 450 employees
2700 employees
Bruna is a nationwide retailer, which operates with 375 stores in the market for books, magazines, stationery and writing materials, newspapers, greeting cards and multimedia products. Bruna is sector leader in this industry and was founded in 1868.
Unknown (Franchise concept)
Penske Logistics is a global provider of logistics, transportation and distribution services. Ford, General Motors, Pepsi, Merck, Sony and Whirpool have team with them to reduce supply chain costs, increase market share and improve profitability. Moreover, Penske Logistics delivers innovative transportation and logistics solutions that are vital to the success of the companies and customers they serve. Their business is built on three core values: commitment to our customers, dedication to excellence and innovative thinking
500-1000 employees
49
Stichting de Wever
Thebe
Centraal Bureau Rijvaardigheid
Stichting de Wever is an organisation specialized in the field of elderly care in the regio of Tilburg. And whether it's care, treatment or services in our residential care or treatment or at home, this care is offered. Stichting de Wever consists of eleven care centers, a clinic, a hospice, a support centre, a department at the St. Elisabeth hospital and a small living habitat.
2700 employees
Thebe is a professional care and service organisation for all residents of Central and West Brabant in the Netherlands. Thebe is a merged organisation of various home care organisations.They offer a broad range of services for young and old including maternity care, child health care, home care and nutrition and dietary advice to care in residential care centers. The CBR is a private foundation. The Minister for Infrastructure and Environment charged the organisation with a traffic safety task: assessing the skills and medical fitness of drivers and the skills of professionals in transportation and logistics. Their duty is to admit persons to the roads and promoting road safety, including: 1. testing the driving skills and fitness to drive, driving test; 2. issuing of driving licenses and medical certificates; 3. the preparation of examination requirements and regulations; 4. to conduct theory examinations.
8000 employees
Unknown
50
Appendix B: Questionnaire Leaders
Geachte heer/ mevrouw, Met vier studenten zijn wij bezig met een afstudeeronderzoek voor de studie Human Resource Studies aan de Universiteit van Tilburg. Wij zijn bezig met een onderzoek naar coachingsgedrag van leidinggevenden en we willen ons toeleggen op hoe medewerkers dit gedrag interpreteren. In het kader van dit onderzoek hebben wij een enquête ontwikkeld, welke binnen meerdere organisaties in Nederland zal worden afgenomen. De enquête bestaat uit verschillende delen. In het eerste deel worden algemene vragen gesteld en het tweede gedeelte zal bestaan uit werkgerelateerde vragen. Lees per onderdeel goed de bijbehorende instructie: de antwoordmogelijkheden verschillen per onderdeel. Met klem willen wij erop wijzen dat wij geen enkel belang hebben om de gegevens te koppelen aan het functioneren van individuele medewerkers en/ of leidinggevenden. Er zal in dit onderzoek enkel worden gekeken naar welke coachingsgedragingen van invloed zijn op werkprestaties en werkbeleving van medewerkers. Alle gegevens worden vertrouwelijk behandeld en zullen alleen voor dit afstudeeronderzoek worden gebruikt. Na verwerking van de enquêtes, zullen deze vernietigd worden. Het invullen van de enquête zal ongeveer tien minuten in beslag nemen. Wij willen u bij voorbaat hartelijk bedanken voor uw medewerking!
Met vriendelijke groet, Yvonne Schlenter Lotte van de Zanden Lore Dortland Saskia Claassen
51
Onderzoek Coachingsgedrag
Algemene vragen 1. Wat is uw geslacht?
Man Vrouw
2. Wat is uw leeftijd? 3. Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?
jaar
Basisonderwijs Lager Beroepsonderwijs (VMBO, LTS, LEAO) MAVO, VMBO-T, MULO, MMS HAVO, VWO, Atheneum, Gymnasium, Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MTS, MEAO) Hoger Beroepsonderwijs (HTS, HEAO) Universiteit Anders namelijk,
4. Hoeveel jaar bent u werkzaam binnen deze organisatie?
5. Voor hoeveel uren in de week heeft u een contract getekend?
jaar
Full-time (vanaf 36 uur per week) Part-time:
uur per week
6. Aan welke afdeling geeft u leiding?
52
De volgende vragen zijn bedoeld om inzicht te verkrijgen in uw coachingsgedrag. Het gaat om uw gedrag zoals u vindt dat u gebruikt. Bepaal in welke mate elke stelling bij u past door het omcirkelen van één antwoordcategorie. Gebruik de volgende beoordelingsschaal: Nooit 1
Af en Toe 2
Soms 3
Regelmatig 4
Altijd 5
Ik.... 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
17.
18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
hou in het dagelijks werk rekening met de behoefte van mensen buiten het werk. richt me in gesprekken met mijn medewerkers op hun persoonlijke behoeften. geef als taken en individuele behoeften botsen prioriteit aan de behoeften van mensen. begeleid medewerkers bij het duidelijk krijgen van de performance verwachtingen. steun medewerkers bij het aangaan van nieuwe uitdagingen. begin een praatje met mijn medewerkers.
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd
maak tijdens zakelijke bijeenkomsten ruimte voor het opbouwen van relaties. besteed tijd aan medewerkers dingen leren en coachen. behandel mijn medewerkers als individuen, in plaats van leden van de groep. hou er rekening mee dat medewerkers mogelijk behoeften, bekwaamheden en ambities heb die anders zijn dan die van anderen. hou rekening met de belangen van mijn medewerkers bij het nemen van beslissingen die hen aangaan. geef werkelijk om de welzijn van mijn medewerkers. bekommer me sterk om mijn medewerkers.
1----2----3----4----5
hou veel rekening met de doelen en waarden van mijn medewerkers. vind het belangrijk dat medewerkers over het algemeen tevreden zijn op het werk. waardeer de bijdrage van mijn medewerkers aan het welzijn van onze afdeling. gebruik humor om tijdens stressvolle periodes de scherpe kantjes eraf te halen. gebruik een grappig verhaal om een discussie in eigen voordeel te wenden. laat ons om onszelf lachen als we te serieus zijn. gebruik geestige verhalen om conflicten te bezweren.
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
53
27.
gebruik humor om tegenstanders tot vriend te maken. zet mijn medewerkers wel eens voor gek.
1----2----3----4----5
maak goedmoedige grappen met medewerkers. zou medewerkers vervangen door iemand met een lager salaris als dat kon. zou misbruik van medewerkers maken als de gelegenheid zich zou voordoen. biedt hulp als medewerkers een probleem hebben.
1----2----3----4----5
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd
44.
zie leren en ontwikkeling als één van mijn belangrijkste verantwoordelijkheden. moedig medewerkers aan om henzelf voortdurend te ontwikkelen en te verbeteren. hou medewerkers op de hoogte van wat er speelt binnen het bedrijf. fungeer als rolmodel voor het verbeteren van de performance van medewerkers. bied medewerkers kansen om meer verantwoordelijkheid te nemen. moedig medewerkers aan om nieuwe alternatieven te verkennen en uit te proberen. stel medewerkers in staat om creatief na te denken voor het oplossen van problemen. stel nuttige doelen waaraan medewerkers moeten voldoen. help bij het ontwikkelen van de sterke kanten van mijn medewerkers. probeer functies zo interessant mogelijk te maken voor mijn medewerkers. ben bereid medewerkers te helpen als zij om een gunst verlegen zitten. ben trots op de prestaties van medewerkers.
45.
praat optimistisch over de toekomst.
1----2----3----4----5
46.
praat enthousiast over wat bereikt moet worden. draag een uitdagende visie over de toekomst uit. uit vertrouwen dat werkdoelen bereikt zullen worden.
1----2----3----4----5
28. 29. 30. 31. 32.
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
Ik... 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.
47. 48.
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
54
Ik... 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.
60. 61. 62. 63. 64.
geef constructieve feedback op verbeterpunten. geef bruikbare suggesties hoe medewerkers hun performance kunnen verbeteren. help medewerkers hun performance te analyseren. spreek vertrouwen uit dat medewerkers zich kunnen ontwikkelen en verbeteren. ben kritisch over medewerkers als persoon.
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd
geef medewerkers erkenning voor goed werk. hou medewerkers op de hoogte van regelgeving en beleidsmaatregelen. bekritiseer het werk van medewerkers in het bijzijn van anderen. prijs goed werk.
1----2----3----4----5
laat medewerkers weten wanneer zij goed werk hebben verricht. laat medewerkers weten waarom er veranderingen plaatsvinden in werkopdrachten. leg uit wat de reden is van werkplanningen.
1----2----3----4----5
hou medewerkers op de hoogte van toekomstplannen voor hun team. leg uit wat de reden is voor regelgeving en beleidsmaatregelen. zou het zeker opmerken als een medewerker het best mogelijke werk levert. waardeer het als medewerkers zich extra inzetten.
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
Ik... 65.
66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.
wil liever eerst de mening van mijn medewerkers horen als zich nieuwe problemen voordoen. hecht waarde aan de mening van mijn medewerkers. wil weten of medewerkers klachten hebben.
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd
Fungeer als klankbord bij het uitwerken van ideeën van medewerkers. vraag naar de interesses van mijn medewerkers buiten het werk. vraag naar suggesties van medewerkers hoe elke werktaak kan worden uitgevoerd. vraag medewerkers dingen te doen in plaats van ze op te dragen.
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
55
72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.
■
zoek inbreng van mijn medewerkers bij belangrijke beslissingen. geef medewerkers duidelijke instructies. vraag medewerkers om suggesties voor verbeteringen binnen de afdeling. geef verduidelijking wanneer medewerkers de instructies niet begrijpen. luister naar medewerkers wanneer zij denken dat dingen verkeerd aangepakt worden. bespreek met medewerkers mijn instructies als zij denken dat deze verkeerd zijn.
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
Einde vragenlijst
Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van deze vragenlijst! Mocht u vragen en/of opmerkingen hebben naar aanleiding van deze vragenlijst, dan kunt u altijd contact opnemen.
56
Appendix C: E-mail employees
Beste medewerkers van (naam afdeling), Binnen Qurius zijn we geïnteresseerd in nieuwe vormen van leiderschap. Een van deze vormen is ‘coachend leiderschap’, waarbij de leidinggevende een belangrijke rol speelt in de ontwikkeling en het verbeteren van werkprestaties van medewerkers. Jouw leidinggevende, (naam leidinggevende), werkt mee aan het onderzoek en is geïnteresseerd naar de toegevoegde waarde van coachend leiderschap voor de afdeling (naam afdeling). We zijn benieuwd naar hoe jij, als medewerker van Qurius, coachend gedrag van de leidinggevende interpreteert. Met behulp van deze vragenlijst kunnen we leiderschapsgedrag in kaart brengen en verbeteren waar mogelijk. Hopelijk kunnen we op deze manier werkprestaties, werkbeleving en de werksfeer binnen Qurius verbeteren. Jouw mening is dus zeer belangrijk! Graag wil ik je vragen om jouw mening te delen via een digitale vragenlijst. Deze is te vinden via de volgende link: www.thesistools.com/web/?id=196913. Om de vragenlijsten te koppelen aan de leidinggevende heeft iedere vragenlijst een afdelingscode. Jouw code is: (afdelingscode). Vul deze code in bij vraag 1 van de vragenlijst. Alle antwoorden zullen volledig vertrouwelijk en anoniem worden behandeld. Na afloop van het onderzoek worden de resultaten gepresenteerd aan medewerkers en leidinggevenden van Qurius. Een datum en locatie worden nog bekend gemaakt. Zou u de vragenlijst vóór 1 juni a.s. willen invullen? Bedankt voor je medewerking! Met vriendelijke groet, Lotte van de Zanden Stagiaire HR
57
Appendix D: Questionnaire Employees
Geachte heer/ mevrouw, Met vier studenten zijn wij bezig met een afstudeeronderzoek voor de studie Human Resource Studies aan de Universiteit van Tilburg. Wij zijn bezig met een onderzoek naar coachingsgedrag van leidinggevenden en we willen ons toeleggen op hoe medewerkers dit gedrag interpreteren. In het kader van dit onderzoek hebben wij een enquête ontwikkeld, welke binnen meerdere organisaties in Nederland zal worden afgenomen. De enquête bestaat uit verschillende delen. In het eerste deel worden algemene vragen gesteld en het tweede gedeelte zal bestaan uit werkgerelateerde vragen. Lees per onderdeel goed de bijbehorende instructie: de antwoordmogelijkheden verschillen per onderdeel. Met klem willen wij erop wijzen dat wij geen enkel belang hebben om de gegevens te koppelen aan het functioneren van individuele medewerkers en/ of leidinggevenden. Er zal in dit onderzoek enkel worden gekeken naar welke coachingsgedragingen van leidinggevenden van invloed zijn op werkprestaties en werkbeleving van medewerkers. Alle gegevens worden vertrouwelijk behandeld en zullen alleen voor dit afstudeeronderzoek worden gebruikt. Na verwerking van de enquêtes, zullen deze vernietigd worden. Het invullen van de enquête zal ongeveer een kwartier in beslag nemen. Wij willen u bij voorbaat hartelijk bedanken voor uw medewerking!
Met vriendelijke groet, Lotte van de Zanden Lore Dortland Yvonne Schlenter Saskia Claassen
58
Onderzoek Coachingsgedrag
Algemene vragen 1. Wat is uw geslacht?
Man Vrouw
2. Wat is uw leeftijd? 3. Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?
jaar
Basisonderwijs Lager Beroepsonderwijs (VMBO, LTS, LEAO) MAVO, VMBO-T, MULO, MMS HAVO, VWO, Atheneum, Gymnasium, Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MTS, MEAO) Hoger Beroepsonderwijs (HTS, HEAO) Universiteit Anders namelijk,
4. Hoeveel jaar bent u werkzaam binnen deze organisatie?
5. Voor hoeveel uren in de week heeft u een contract getekend?
jaar
Full-time (vanaf 36 uur per week) Part-time:
uur per week
6. Binnen welke afdeling bent u werkzaam?
7. Heeft u een leidinggevende functie binnnen uw afdeling?
Ja
(sla vraag 8 over)
Nee (beantwoord vraag 8) 8. Hoe vaak spreekt u uw leidingevende per week?
0-1 dag per week 2-3 dagen per week 4-5 dagen per week
59
De volgende vragen zijn bedoeld om inzicht te verkrijgen in het coachingsgedrag van uw leidinggevende. Het gaat om het gedrag van uw leidinggevende zoals u dat ervaart. Bepaal in welke mate elke stelling bij uw leidinggevende past door het omcirkelen van één antwoordcategorie. Gebruik de volgende beoordelingsschaal: Nooit 1
Af en toe 2
Soms 3
Regelmatig 4
Altijd 5
Mijn leidinggevende... 9.
20.
houdt in het dagelijks werk rekening met de behoefte van mensen buiten het werk. richt zich in gesprekken met mij op mijn persoonlijke behoeften. in geval van conflict tussen taken en individuele behoeften, geeft mijn leidinggevende prioriteit aan de behoeften van de mensen. geeft sturing wat betreft de verwachtingen rondom performance. steunt mij bij het aangaan van nieuwe uitdagingen. Mijn leidinggevende heeft wel eens informele gesprekken met me. maakt tijdens zakelijke bijeenkomsten ruimte voor het opbouwen van relaties. besteedt tijd aan mensen dingen leren en coachen. behandelt mij als een individu, in plaats van zomaar een lid van de groep. houdt er rekening mee dat ik mogelijk behoeften, bekwaamheden en ambities heb die anders zijn dan die van anderen. houdt rekening met mijn belangen bij het nemen van beslissingen die mij aangaan. geeft werkelijk om mijn welzijn.
21.
bekommert zich sterk om mij.
1----2----3----4----5
22.
houdt veel rekening met mijn doelen en waarden. vindt het belangrijk dat ik over het algemeen tevreden ben op het werk. waardeert mijn bijdrage aan het welzijn van onze afdeling. gebruikt humor om tijdens stressvolle periodes de scherpe kantjes eraf te halen. gebruikt een grappig verhaal om een discussie in eigen voordeel te wenden. laat ons om onszelf lachen als we te serieus zijn. gebruikt geestige verhalen om conflicten te bezweren. gebruikt humor om tegenstanders tot vriend te
1----2----3----4----5
10. 11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
19.
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
60
30.
maken. zet me voor gek.
1----2----3----4----5
31.
maakt goedmoedige grappen met me.
1----2----3----4----5
32.
zou mijn vervangen door iemand met een lager salaris als dat kon. zou misbruik van mij maken als de gelegenheid zich zou voordoen. biedt hulp als ik een probleem heb.
1----2----3----4----5
33. 34.
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
Mijn leidinggevende... 35.
lijkt leren en ontwikkeling te zien als één van zijn/haar belangrijkste verantwoordelijkheden. moedigt me aan om mezelf voortdurend te ontwikkelen en te verbeteren. houdt me op de hoogte van wat er speelt binnen het bedrijf. fungeert als rolmodel voor het verbeteren van mijn eigen performance. biedt mij kansen om meer verantwoordelijkheid te nemen. moedigt me aan om nieuwe alternatieven te verkennen en uit te proberen. stelt me in staat om creatief na te denken voor het oplossen van problemen. stelt nuttige doelen waaraan ik moet voldoen.
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd
1----2----3----4----5
46.
helpt bij het ontwikkelen van mijn sterke kanten. probeert mijn functie zo interessant mogelijk te maken. is bereidt mij te helpen als ik om een gunst verlegen zit. is trots op mijn prestaties.
47.
praat optimistisch over de toekomst.
1----2----3----4----5
48.
praat enthousiast over wat bereikt moet worden. draagt een uitdagende visie over de toekomst uit. uit vertrouwen dat werkdoelen bereikt zullen worden.
1----2----3----4----5
36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
49. 50.
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
61
51.
geeft constructieve feedback op verbeterpunten. geeft bruikbare suggesties hoe ik mijn performance kan verbeteren. helpt me mijn performance te analyseren.
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd
1----2----3----4----5
55.
spreekt vertrouwen uit dat ik mij kan ontwikkelen en verbeteren. is kritisch over mij als persoon.
56.
geeft mij erkenning voor goed werk.
1----2----3----4----5
57.
houdt me op de hoogte van regelgeving en beleidsmaatregelen. bekritiseert mijn werk in het bijzijn van anderen. prijst goed werk.
1----2----3----4----5
laat me weten wanneer ik goed werk heb verricht. laat me weten waarom er veranderingen plaatsvinden in werkopdrachten. legt me uit wat de reden is van werkplanningen. houdt me op de hoogte van toekomstplannen voor mijn team. legt me uit wat de reden is voor regelgeving en beleidsmaatregelen. zou het zeker opmerken als ik het best mogelijke werk lever. waardeert het als ik mij extra inzet.
1----2----3----4----5
52. 53. 54.
58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
Mijn leidinggevende... 67. 68.
wil liever eerst mijn mening horen als zich nieuwe problemen voordoen. hecht waarde aan mijn mening.
69.
wil weten of ik klachten heb.
1----2----3----4----5
70.
fungeert als klankbord bij het uitwerken van mijn ideeën. vraagt naar mijn interesses buiten het werk.
1----2----3----4----5
vraagt naar mijn suggesties hoe elke werktaak kan worden uitgevoerd. vraagt me dingen te doen in plaats van ze op te dragen.
1----2----3----4----5
71. 72. 73.
Nooit 1----2----3----4----5 Altijd 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
62
74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.
zoekt mijn inbreng bij belangrijke beslissingen. geeft me duidelijke instructies.
1----2----3----4----5
vraagt me om suggesties voor verbeteringen binnen mijn afdeling. geeft verduidelijking wanneer ik de instructies niet begrijp. luistert naar me wanneer ik denk dat dingen verkeerd aangepakt worden. bespreekt met me zijn/haar instructies als ik denk dat deze verkeerd zijn.
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
De volgende vragen zijn bedoeld om inzicht te verkrijgen in de relatie tussen u en uw leidinggevende. Gebruik de volgende beoordelingsschaal: Helemaal mee oneens 1
80. 81. 82. 83.
84. 85.
86.
87. 88. 89. 90.
91.
Mee oneens 2
Neutraal 3
ik vind mijn leidinggevende als persoon erg leuk. mijn leidinggevende is het soort mens dat men graag als vriend heeft. Het is erg leuk om met mijn leidinggevende te werken. mijn leidinggevende verdedigt mijn acties, tegenover een hogere leidinggevende, zelfs zonder complete kennis te hebben van de betreffende kwestie. mijn leidinggevende zal me verdedigen wanneer ik door anderen word aangevallen. mijn leidinggevende zal me verdedigen tegenover anderen in de organisatie als ik een echte fout heb begaan. Ik doe werkzaamheden voor mijn leidinggevende, die verder gaan dan in mijn functie omschrijving zijn opgenomen. ik ben bereid om extra moeite te doen om de belangen van mijn afdeling te behartigen. Ik vind het niet erg om zo hard mogelijk te werken voor mijn leidinggevende. Ik ben onder de indruk van de kennis die mijn leidinggevende heeft van zijn/haar taken. Ik heb respect voor de kennis en competenties van mijn leidinggevende met betrekken tot zijn of haar taken. Ik bewonder de professionele vaardigheden van mijn leidinggevende.
Mee eens 4
Helemaal mee eens 5
Helemaal mee oneens 1--2--3--4--5 Helemaal mee eens
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
63
92. 93. 94.
Ik ben niet echt gehecht aan mijn leidinggevende. Ik waardeer mijn leidinggevende.
Helemaal mee oneens 1--2--3--4--5 Helemaal mee eens
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
95.
Ik voel me trots om te werken mijn leidinggevende. Mijn leidinggevende betekent veel voor mij.
96.
Ik heb respect voor mijn leidinggevende.
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
97.
Ik voel weinig bewondering voor mijn leiding1----2----3----4----5 gevende. De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op hoe u uw werk beleeft en hoe u zich daarbij voelt. Geef aan in hoeverre deze stellingen op u van toepassing zijn door het omcirkelen van één antwoordcategorie. De antwoordcategorieën variëren van 1 (helemaal mee oneens) tot en met 5 (helemaal mee eens).
98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103.
Deze organisatie heeft persoonlijke betekenis voor mij. Ik voel een sterke behoefte om bij mijn organisatie te horen. Ik voel me trots dat ik bij deze organisatie mag werken. Ik voel me emotioneel verbonden met deze organisatie. Ik heb het gevoel dat de problemen van de organisatie ook mijn problemen zijn. Ik voel me onderdeel van de ‘familie’ van mijn organisatie.
Helemaal mee oneens 1--2--3--4--5 Helemaal mee eens
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op uw dagelijkse bezigheden op het werk. Geef aan in hoeverre deze stellingen op u van toepassing zijn door het omcirkelen van één antwoordcategorie. De antwoordcategorieën variëren van 1 (helemaal mee oneens) tot en met 5 (helemaal mee eens).
104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110.
Ik voer alle taken uit die in mijn functiebeschrijving staan. Ik voer nauwgezet taken uit die van me verwacht worden. Soms blijf ik in gebreke bij het uitvoeren van essentiële taken van mijn baan. Ik voldoe consistent aan de formele prestatie eisen van mijn baan. Ik veronachtzaam soms het gedrag dat verplicht is voor mijn beroep. Ik voltooi adequaat al mijn voorgeschreven taken.
Helemaal mee oneens 1--2--3--4--5 Helemaal mee eens
Mijn aanwezigheid op het werk is boven de vastgestelde norm.
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
64
111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122.
Ik geef het op tijd aan wanneer ik niet aanwezig kan zijn op het werk. In neem onverdiende of verlengde pauzes.
Helemaal mee oneens 1--2--3--4--5 Helemaal mee eens
Ik besteed veel tijd aan persoonlijke telefoongesprekken tijdens het werk. Ik klaag over onbelangrijke zaken op het werk. Ik houd me aan informele regels om de orde te bewaren. Ik help collega’s die afwezig zijn geweest.
1----2----3----4----5
Ik assisteer mijn leidinggevende met zijn/haar werk (ook wanneer het niet wordt gevraagd) Ik neem de tijd om te luisteren naar de problemen en zorgen van mijn collega’s. Ik help collega’s die een zware werklast hebben. Ik doe moeite om nieuwe collega’s op weg te helpen. Ik heb persoonlijke interesse in mijn collega’s.
1----2----3----4----5
Ik geef werkgerelateerde informatie door aan mijn collega’s.
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5 1----2----3----4----5
De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op hoe u uw werk beleeft en hoe u zich daarbij voelt. Wilt u aangeven hoe vaak iedere uitspraak voor u van toepassing is door steeds het best passende cijfer (van 0 tot 6) te omcirkelen?
0 Nooit
1 Sporadisch (Een keer per jaar of minder)
2 Af en toe (Eens per maand of minder)
3 Regelmatig (Een paar keer per maand)
4 Dikwijls (Eens per week)
5 Zeer Dikwijls (Een paar keer per week)
6 Altijd (Dagelijks)
123.
Op mijn werk bruis ik van energie.
Nooit 0---1----2----3----4----5---6 Altijd
124.
Ik vind het werk dat ik doe nuttig en zinvol.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
125.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
126.
Als ik aan het werk ben dan vliegt de tijd voorbij. Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk.
127.
Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan.
128.
Als ik werk vergeet ik alle andere dingen om me heen. Mijn werk inspireert mij.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
129.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
65
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
130.
132.
Als ik s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan. Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, voel ik mij gelukkig. Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe.
133.
Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
134.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
135.
Als ik aan het werk ben, dan kan ik heel lang doorgaan. Mijn werk is voor mij een uitdaging.
136.
Mijn werk brengt mij in vervoering.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
137
Op mijn werk beschik ik over een grote mentale (geestelijke) veerkracht. Ik kan me moeilijk van mijn werk losmaken.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
139.
Op mijn werk zet ik altijd door, ook als het tegenzit.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
140.
Ik voel mij mentaal uitgeput door mijn werk.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
141.
Ik twijfel aan het nut van mijn werk
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
142.
Een hele dag werken vormt een zware belasting voor mij. Ik weet de problemen in mijn werk adequaat op te lossen. Ik voel mij ‘opgebrand’ door mijn werk.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
Ik heb het gevoel dat ik met mijn werk een positieve bijdrage lever aan het functioneren van de organisatie. Ik merk dat ik teveel afstand heb gekregen van mijn werk. Ik ben niet meer zo enthousiast als vroeger over mijn werk. Ik vind dat ik mijn werk goed doe.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
Als ik op mijn werk iets afrond vrolijkt me dat op. Aan het einde van een werkdag voel ik me leeg.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
Ik heb in deze baan veel waardevolle dingen bereikt. Ik wil gewoon mijn werk doen en verder niet worden lastig gevallen. Ik voel me vermoeid als ik s 'morgens opsta en weer een werkdag voor me ligt
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
131.
138.
143. 144. 145.
146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153.
Nooit 0---1----2----3----4----5---6 Altijd 0---1----2----3----4----5---6 0---1----2----3----4----5---6
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
0---1----2----3----4----5---6 0---1----2----3----4----5---6
0---1----2----3----4----5---6 0---1----2----3----4----5---6 0---1----2----3----4----5---6
0---1----2----3----4----5---6
0---1----2----3----4----5---6 0---1----2----3----4----5---6
66
154. 155.
Ik ben cynischer geworden over de effecten van mijn werk. Op mijn werk blaak ik van zelfvertrouwen.
0---1----2----3----4----5---6 0---1----2----3----4----5---6
De volgende stellingen gaan over de procedures voorafgaande aan de feedback die u heeft ontvangen. Wilt u aangeven in welke mate de stellingen van toepassing zijn door het best passende cijfer te omcirkelen? 0 Nooit
1 Nauwelijks
2 In enige mate
3 In sterke mate
4 In zeer sterke mate
In welke mate...
156.
157. 158.
159.
160. 161.
162.
Was het mogelijk om uw standpunten en gevoelens duidelijk te maken tijdens het ontvangen van feedback? Had u inspraak op de procedures voor het verstrekken van feedback? Werden de procedures voor de aanpassing van de arbeidsvoorwaarden voor iedereen op dezelfde manier toegepast? Speelden partijdigheid en persoonlijke voorkeuren een rol tijdens het aanpassen van de arbeidsvoorwaarden? Waren de procedures voor de aanpassingen gebaseerd op de juiste informatie? Was het voor u mogelijk om tegen de beslissingen over deze feedback in beroep te gaan? Waren de gebruikte procedures ethisch en moreel verantwoord?
Niet 0---1---2---3---4 In zeer sterke mate
0---1---2---3---4 0---1---2---3---4
0---1---2---3---4
0---1---2---3---4 0---1---2---3---4
0---1---2---3---4
De volgende stellingen gaan over de door u ontvangen feedback. Wilt u aangeven in welke mate u het eens bent met de stellingen door het best passende cijfer te omcirkelen?
0 Helemaal mee oneens
1 Oneens
2 Neutraal
3 Mee eens
4 Helemaal mee eens
67
163.
De feedback die ik ontvang, zijn passend voor de inspanningen die ik lever op mijn werk.
Niet 0---1---2---3---4 In zeer sterke mate
164.
De feedback die ik ontvang, doen recht aan het werk dat ik heb verzet.
0---1---2---3---4
165.
De feedback die ik ontvang, weerspiegelen de verantwoordelijheden die ik heb.
0---1---2---3---4
166.
De feedback die ik ontvang, zijn gerechtvaardigd gezien mijn werkprestaties.
0---1---2---3---4
De volgende stellingen gaan over uw leidinggevende. Wilt u aangeven in welke mate de stellingen van toepassing zijn door het best passende cijfer te omcirkelen? 0 Niet
1 Nauwelijks
2 In enige mate
3 In sterke mate
4 In zeer sterke mate
In welke mate... 167. 168. 169. 170.
171. 172. 173.
174. 175.
■
Heeft uw leidinggevende u op een beleefde manier behandeld? Heeft uw leidinggevende u in uw waarde gelaten? Heeft uw leidinggevende u met respect behandeld? Heeft uw leidinggevende geen ongepaste/misplaatste opmerkingen gemaakt of ongepast/misplaatst commentaar gegeven? Communiceert hij/zij open met u?
Niet 0—1---2---3---4 In zeer sterke mate
Heeft uw leidinggevende de feedback procedures duidelijk uitgelegd? Waren de onderbouwingen van uw leidinggevende, ten op zichten van de feedback, redelijk/schappelijk? Heeft uw leidinggevende de details van de feedback tijdig aan u kenbaar gemaakt? Lijkt het er op dat uw leidinggevende zijn/haar communicatie aanpast aan uw individuele behoeften?
0---1---2---3---4
0---1---2---3---4 0---1---2---3---4 0---1---2---3---4
0---1---2---3---4
0---1---2---3---4
0---1---2---3---4 0---1---2---3---4
Einde vragenlijst
Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van deze vragenlijst! U kunt de vragenlijst in de bijgevoegde retourenveloppe stoppen en retourneren aan uw leidinggevende. Mocht u vragen en/of opmerkingen hebben naar aanleiding van deze vragenlijst, dan kunt u altijd contact opnemen.
68
Appendix E: Overview composition coaching behaviours questionnaire Theme 1: Consider and Connect Item
Dutch item Mijn direct leidinggevende<..
2. In discussions with me, my leader focuses on my individual needs (PARK) 3. In facing conflict between individual needs and tasks, my leader puts priority on meeting people’s needs (PARK)
houdt in het dagelijks werk rekening met de behoeften van mensen buiten het werk richt zich in gesprekken met mij op mijn persoonlijke behoeften geeft als taken en individuele behoeften botsen prioriteit aan de behoeften van mensen
4. Provide guidance regarding performance expectations (HESLIN)
begeleidt mij bij het duidelijk krijgen van de performance verwachtingen
5. Support you in taking on new challenges (HESLIN)
steunt mij bij het aangaan van nieuwe uitdagingen
1. In daily work, my leader considers people’s needs outside the workplace (PARK)
6. My supervisor strikes up casual conversations with me (MILES)
begint een praatje met mij
7. When facilitating business meetings, my leader agenda leaves time for relationship building (PARK)
maakt tijdens zakelijke bijeenkomsten ruimte voor het opbouwen van relaties
8. Spends time teaching and coaching (BASS & AVOLIO)
besteedt tijd aan mensen dingen leren en coachen
Scale
Value People over task Leaderial Coaching Skils Value People over task Leaderial Coaching Skils Value People over task Leaderial Coaching Skils Guidance - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB) Inspiration - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB) CWSS - Poisitive relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale) Value People over task Leaderial Coaching Skils
MLQ- Individual Considartion (1/4/)
Source
Park (not published yet) Park (not published yet)
Park (not published yet) Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction.
Park (not published yet) Bass, b. & Avolio, b. (2002). Context and leadership: an examination of the ninefactor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
69
9. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group (BASS & AVOLIO)
behandelt mij als een individu, in plaats van zomaar een lid van de groep
10. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others (BASS & AVOLIO)
houdt er rekening mee dat ik mogelijk behoeften, bekwaamheden en ambities heb die anders zijn dan die van anderen
11. My supervisor takes my best interests into account when he/she makes decisions that affect me (KOTTKE)
houdt rekening met mijn belangen bij het nemen van beslissingen die mij aangaan
12. My supervisor really cares about my well being (KOTTKE)
geeft werkelijk om mijn welzijn
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
13. My supervisor shows a lot of concern for me (KOTTKE)
bekommert zich sterk om mij
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
14. My supervisor strongly considers my goals and values (KOTTKE)
houdt veel rekening met mijn doelen en waarden
15. My supervisor cares about my general satisfaction at work (KOTTKE)
vindt het belangrijk dat ik over het algemeen tevreden ben op het werk
16. My supervisor values my contribution to the well being of our department (KOTTKE) 17. Uses humor to take the edge off during stressful periods (AVOLIO)
waardeert mijn bijdrage aan het welzijn van onze afdeling
MLQ- Individual Considartion (2/4/)
MLQ- Individual Considartion (3/4/) Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS) Perceived supervisory support (SPSS) Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
gebruikt humor om tijdens stressvolle periodes de scherpe kantjes eraf te halen Humor
18. Uses a funny story to turn an argument in his or her favor (AVOLIO)
gebruikt een grappig verhaal om een discussie in eigen voordeel te beslechten Humor
Bass, b. & Avolio, b. (2002). Context and leadership: an examination of the ninefactor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Bass, b. & Avolio, b. (2002). Context and leadership: an examination of the ninefactor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. B.J. Avioli,J.M.Howell, J.J. Sosik (1999). A funny thing happend on the way to the bottom line_Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects_Avioli1999_AoMJ_IF6-4 B.J. Avioli,J.M.Howell, J.J. Sosik (1999). A funny thing happend on the way to the bottom line_Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects_Avioli1999_AoMJ_IF6-4
70
19. Makes us laugh at ourselves when we are too serious (AVOLIO)
laat ons om onszelf lachen als we te serieus zijn Humor
20. Uses amusing stories to defuse conflicts (AVOLIO)
gebruikt geestige verhalen om conflicten te bezweren Humor
21. Uses wit to make friends of the opposition (AVOLIO)
gebruikt humor om de tegenstanders tot vriend te maken Humor
zet me voor gek
CWSS - Negative relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
23. My supervisor jokes good-naturedly with me (MILES)
maakt goedmoedige grappen met me
CWSS - Poisitive relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
24. If my supervisor could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary he-she would do so (KOTTKE)
zou mij vervangen voor iemand met een lager salaris als dat kon.
22. My supervisor ridicules or makes fun of me (MILES)
25. If given the opportunity my supervisor would take advantage of me (KOTTKE) 26. Help is available from my supervisor when I have a problem(KOTTKE)
zou misbruik van mij maken als de gelegenheid zich zou voordoen biedt hulp als ik een probeem heb
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS) Perceived supervisory support (SPSS) Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
B.J. Avioli,J.M.Howell, J.J. Sosik (1999). A funny thing happend on the way to the bottom line_Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects_Avioli1999_AoMJ_IF6-4 B.J. Avioli,J.M.Howell, J.J. Sosik (1999). A funny thing happend on the way to the bottom line_Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects_Avioli1999_AoMJ_IF6-4 B.J. Avioli,J.M.Howell, J.J. Sosik (1999). A funny thing happend on the way to the bottom line_Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects_Avioli1999_AoMJ_IF6-4 Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support.
71
Theme 2: Develop and Inspire Item
Dutch item
Scale
1. My leader appears to view learning and development as one of his/her major responsibilities (PARK)
Mijn direct leidinggevende< lijkt leren en ontwikkeling te zien als een van zijn/haar belangrijkste verantwoordelijkheden
2. Encourage you to continuously develop and improve (HESLIN)
moedigt me aan om mezelf voortdurend te ontwikkelen en te verbeteren
3. My supervisor keeps me informed about what’s happening in the company (MILES)
houdt me op de hoogte van wat er speelt binnen het bedrijf
4. In order to improve my performance, my leader serves as a role model (PARK) 5. Provide opportunities for employees to take more responsibility (PARK)
fungeert als rolmodel voor het verbeteren van mijn eigen performance biedt mij kansen om meer verantwoordelijkheid te nemen
6. Encourage you to explore and try out new alternatives (HESLIN)
moedigt me aan om nieuwe alternatieven te verkennen en uit te proberen
7. Facilitate creative thinking to help solve problems (HESLIN)
stelt me in staat om creatief na te denken voor het oplossen van problemen
8. My supervisor sets useful goals for me to meet (MILES)
stelt nuttige doelen waaraan ik moet voldoen
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
9. Helps others to develop their strengths (BASS & AVOLIO)
helpt bij het ontwikkelen van mijn sterke kanten
MLQ- Individual Consideration (4/4/)
Facilitate Development Leaderial Coaching Skils Inspiration - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB) CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale) Facilitate Development Leaderial Coaching Skils Facilitate Development Leaderial Coaching Skils Facilitation - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB) Facilitation - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB)
Source
Park is nog niet gepubliceerd Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Park is nog niet gepubliceerd Park is nog niet gepubliceerd Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Bass, b. & Avolio, b. (2002). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-
72
10. My supervisor tries to make my job as interesting as possible (KOTTKE)
probeert mijn functie zo interessant mogelijk te maken
11. My supervisor is willing to help me when I need a special favor (KOTTKE)
is bereid mij te helpen als ik om een gunst verlegen zit
12. My supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments (KOTTKE)
is trots op mijn prestaties
13. Talk optimistically about the future (BASS & AVOLIO)
praat optimistisch over de toekomst
14. Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished (BASS & AVOLIO)
praat enthousiast over wat bereikt moet worden
15. Articulate a compelling vision of the future (BASS & AVOLIO)
draagt een uitdagende visie op de toekomst uit
16. Express confidence that goals will be achieved (BASS & AVOLIO)
uit vertrouwen dat werkdoelen bereikt zullen worden
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS) Perceived supervisory support (SPSS) Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
MLQ- Inspiration Motivation (1/4)
MLQ- Inspiration Motivation (2/4)
MLQ- Inspiration Motivation (3/4)
MLQ- Inspiration Motivation (4/4)
factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Bass, b. & Avolio, b. (2002). Context and leadership: an examination of the ninefactor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Bass, b. & Avolio, b. (2002). Context and leadership: an examination of the ninefactor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Bass, b. & Avolio, b. (2002). Context and leadership: an examination of the ninefactor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Bass, b. & Avolio, b. (2002). Context and leadership: an examination of the ninefactor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
73
Theme 3: Feedback and Acknowledge Item
Dutch item
Scale
Source
Guidance - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB) Guidance - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB) Guidance - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB) Inspiration - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB)
Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction.
Mijn direct leidinggevende< 1. Provide constructive feedback regarding areas for improvement (HESLIN)
geeft constructieve feedback op verbeterpunten
2. Offer useful suggestions regarding how you can improve your performance (HESLIN)
geeft bruikbare suggesties hoe ik mijn performance kan verbeteren
3. Help you to analyze your performance (HESLIN)
helpt me mijn performance te analyseren
4. Express confidence that you can develop and improve (HESLIN)
spreekt vertrouwen uit dat ik mij kan ontwikkelen en verbeteren
is kritisch over mij als persoon
CWSS - Negative relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
6. My supervisor gives me recognition for good work (MILES)
geeft mij erkenning voor goed werk
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
7. My supervisor keeps me informed about rules and policies (MILES)
houdt me op de hoogte van regelgeving en beleidsmaatregelen
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
5. My supervisor is critical of me as a person (MILES)
74
bekritiseert mijn werk in het bijzijn van anderen
CWSS - Negative relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
9. My supervisor praises good work (MILES)
prijst goed werk
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
10. My supervisor lets me know when I have done a good job (MILES)
laat me weten wanneer ik goed werk heb verricht
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
11. My supervisor lets me know why changes are made in work assignments (MILES)
laat me weten waarom er veranderingen plaatsvinden in werkopdrachten
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
12. My supervisor tells me the reasons for work schedules (MILES)
legt me uit wat de reden is van werkplanningen
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
13. My supervisor informs me about future plans for my work group (MILES)
houdt me op de hoogte van toekomstplannen voor mijn team
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
14. My supervisor tells me the reasons for rules and policies (MILES)
legt me uit wat de reden is voor regelgeving en beleidsmaatregelen
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
15. If I did the best job possible, my supervisor would be sure to notice (KOTTKE)
zou het zeker opmerken als ik het best mogelijke werk lever
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
8. My supervisor critizes my work in front of others (MILES)
Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and
75
organizational support. waardeert het als ik mij extra inzet
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support.
Item
Dutch item
Scale
Source
1. In facing new problems, my leader would rather listen to my opinion first (PARK)
Mijn direct leidinggevende< wil liever eerst mijn mening horen als zich nieuwe problemen voordoen
Open Communication Leaderial Coaching Skils
16. My supervisor appreciates extra effort from me (KOTTKE)
Theme 4: Listen and Ask
2. My supervisor cares about my opinions (KOTTKE)
hecht waarde aan mijn mening
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS)
3. My supervisor wants to know if I have any complaints (KOTTKE)
wil weten of ik klachten heb
4. Act as a sounding board for you to develop your ideas (HESLIN)
fungeert als klankbord bij het uitwerken van mijn ideeën
Perceived supervisory support (SPSS) Facilitation - Behavioural Obeservation Scale of Coaching Behaviours (BOSCB)
5. My supervisor asks me about my interests outside of work (MILES)
vraagt naar mijn interesses buiten het werk
CWSS - Poisitive relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
6. My supervisor asks for my suggestions about how each work task could be done (MILES)
vraagt naar mijn suggesties hoe elke werktaak kan worden uitgevoerd
CWSS - Poisitive relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
7. My supervisor asks me to do things rather than tells me (MILES)
vraagt me dingen te doen in plaats van ze op te dragen
CWSS - Upwards openess communication (Communication with
Park (not published yet) Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Heslin, P.A, Vanderwalle, D. lathen, G.P. (2006) . Keen to help? Leaders' Implicit Person theories and their Subsequent employee coaching Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between
76
supervisor scale)
zoekt mijn inbreng bij belangrijke beslissingen
CWSS - Poisitive relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
9. My supervisor gives clear instructions to me (MILES)
geeft mij duidelijke instructies
CWSS - Job relevant communicatie (Communication with supervisor scale)
10. My supervisor asks me for suggestions for improvements in my departement(MILES)
vraagt mij om suggesties voor verbeteringen binnen mijn afdeling
CWSS - Poisitive relationship communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
11. I question my leader’s instructions when I don’t understand them (MILES) *
Ik vraag om verduidelijking wanneer ik de instructies van mijn leidinggevende niet begrijp *
CWSS - Upwards openness communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
12. I tell my leader when I think things are being done wrong (MILES)*
Ik vertel het mijn leidinggevende wanneer ik denk dat dingen verkeerd aangepakt worden*
CWSS - Upwards openness communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
13. I question my leader’s instructions when I think they are wrong (MILES)*
Ik bespreek met mijn leidinggevende zijn/ haar instructies als ik denk dat deze verkeerd zijn*
CWSS - Upwards openness communication (Communication with supervisor scale)
8. My supervisor seeks my input on important decisions (MILES)
supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as systematic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction.
77
Appendix F: Factor loadings
(1) Factor Analysis Coaching Behaviours (Forced: One Factor )
Table 2: Results factor analysis ‘Consider and Connect’ 1
22: Mijn leidinggevende houdt veel rekening met mijn doelen en waarden. 20: Mijn leidinggevende geeft werkelijk om mijn welzijn. 21: Mijn leidinggevende bekommert zich sterk om mij. 18: Mijn leidinggevende houdt er rekening mee dat ik mogelijk behoeften, bekwaamheden en ambities heb die anders zijn dan die van anderen. 23: Mijn leidinggevende vindt het belangrijk dat ik over het algemeen tevreden ben op het werk. 24: Mijn leidinggevende waardeert mijn bijdrage aan het welzijn van onze afdeling. 17: Mijn leidinggevende behandelt mij als een individu, in plaats van zomaar een lid van de groep. 19: Mijn leidinggevende houdt rekening met mijn belangen bij het nemen van beslissingen die mij aangaan. 10: Mijn leidinggevende richt zich in gesprekken met mij op mijn persoonlijke behoeften. 13: Mijn leidinggevende steunt mij bij het aangaan van nieuwe uitdagingen. 25: Mijn leidinggevende gebruikt humor om tijdens stressvolle periodes de scherpe kantjes eraf te halen. 34: Mijn leidinggevende biedt hulp als ik een probleem heb. 9: Mijn leidinggevende houdt in het dagelijks werk rekening met de behoefte van mensen buiten het werk. 11: Mijn leidinggevende in geval van conflict tussen taken en individuele behoeften, geeft mijn leidinggevende prioriteit aan de behoeften van de mensen. 16: Mijn leidinggevende besteedt tijd aan mensen dingen leren en coachen. 15: Mijn leidinggevende maakt tijdens zakelijke bijeenkomsten ruimte voor het opbouwen van relaties. 12: Mijn leidinggevende geeft sturing wat betreft de verwachtingen rondom performance 14: Mijn leidinggevende heeft wel eens informele gesprekken met me. 27: Mijn leidinggevende laat ons om onszelf lachen als we te serieus zijn. 28: Mijn leidinggevende gebruikt geestige verhalen om conflicten te bezweren. 33: Mijn leidinggevende zou misbruik van mij maken als de gelegenheid zich zou voordoen.(r) 29: Mijn leidinggevende gebruikt humor om tegenstanders tot vriend te maken. 32: Mijn leidinggevende zou mijn vervangen door iemand met een lager salaris als dat kon. (r) 31: Mijn leidinggevende maakt goedmoedige grappen met me. 26: Mijn leidinggevende gebruikt een grappig verhaal om een discussie in eigen voordeel te wenden 30: Mijn leidinggevende zet me voor gek. (r)
.828 .804 .795 .791
Cronbach’s Alpha
.943
.781 .774 .771 .770 .765 .737 .685 .684 .682 .659 .646 .618 .602 .597 .521 .494 .489 .474 .441 .408 .377
Principal Component Analysis - Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Italic Items were removed from the scale (r) = item is formulated negatively and therefore mirrored
78
Table 3: Results factor analysis ‘Develop and Inspire’ 1 43: Mijn leidinggevende helpt bij het ontwikkelen van mijn sterke kanten. 44: Mijn leidinggevende probeert mijn functie zo interessant mogelijk te maken. 40: Mijn leidinggevende moedigt me aan om nieuwe alternatieven te verkennen en uit te proberen. 39: Mijn leidinggevende biedt mij kansen om meer verantwoordelijkheid te nemen. 42: Mijn leidinggevende stelt nuttige doelen waaraan ik moet voldoen. 49: Mijn leidinggevende draagt een uitdagende visie over de toekomst uit. 50: Mijn leidinggevende uit vertrouwen dat werkdoelen bereikt zullen worden. 41: Mijn leidinggevende stelt me in staat om creatief na te denken voor het oplossen van problemen 38: Mijn leidinggevende fungeert als rolmodel voor het verbeteren van mijn eigen performance. 36: Mijn leidinggevende moedigt me aan om mezelf voortdurend te ontwikkelen en te verbeteren. 48: Mijn leidinggevende praat enthousiast over wat bereikt moet worden 37: Mijn leidinggevende houdt me op de hoogte van wat er speelt binnen het bedrijf. 46: Mijn leidinggevende is trots op mijn prestaties. 45: Mijn leidinggevende is bereidt mij te helpen als ik om een gunst verlegen zit. 35: Mijn leidinggevende lijkt leren en ontwikkeling te zien als één van zijn/haar belangrijkste verantwoordelijkheden. 47: Mijn leidinggevende praat optimistisch over de toekomst.
.815 .809 .794
Cronbach’s Alpha
.941
.792 .782 .738 .737 .737 .716 .713 .704 .681 .662 .660 .643 .626
Principal Component Analysis - Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Italic Items were removed from the scale (r) = item is formulated negatively and therefore mirrored
79
Table 4: Results factor analysis ‘Feed back and Acknowledge’
1 66: Mijn leidinggevende waardeert het als ik mij extra inzet. 59: Mijn leidinggevende prijst goed werk. 51: Mijn leidinggevende geeft constructieve feedback op verbeter- punten. 56: Mijn leidinggevende geeft mij erkenning voor goed werk. 52: Mijn leidinggevende geeft bruikbare suggesties hoe ik mijn performance kan verbeteren. 61: Mijn leidinggevende laat me weten waarom er veranderingen plaatsvinden in werkopdrachten. 64: Mijn leidinggevende legt me uit wat de reden is voor regelgeving en beleidsmaatregelen. 60: Mijn leidinggevende laat me weten wanneer ik goed werk heb verricht. 63: Mijn leidinggevende houdt me op de hoogte van toekomst- plannen voor mijn team. 62: Mijn leidinggevende legt me uit wat de reden is van werk- planningen. 53: Mijn leidinggevende helpt me mijn performance te analyseren. 65: Mijn leidinggevende zou het zeker opmerken als ik het best mogelijke werk lever 57: Mijn leidinggevende houdt me op de hoogte van regelgeving en beleidsmaatregelen. 54: Mijn leidinggevende spreekt vertrouwen uit dat ik mij kan ontwikkelen en verbeteren. 55: Mijn leidinggevende is kritisch over mij als persoon. (r) 58: Mijn leidinggevende geeft mij erkenning voor goed werk. (r)
.807 .794 .789 .787 .779
Cronbach’s Alpha
.946
.774 .767 .761 .761 .760 .758 .754 .720 .710
Principal Component Analysis - Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Italic Items were removed from the scale (r) = item is formulated negatively and therefore mirrored
80
Table 5: Results factor analysis ‘Listen and Ask’
78: Mijn leidinggevende luistert naar me wanneer ik denk dat dingen verkeerd aangepakt worden. 68: Mijn leidinggevende hecht waarde aan mijn mening. 79: Mijn leidinggevende bespreekt met me zijn/haar instructies als ik denk dat deze verkeerd zijn. 72: Mijn leidinggevende vraagt naar mijn suggesties hoe elke werktaak kan worden uitgevoerd. 70: Mijn leidinggevende fungeert als klankbord bij het uitwerken van mijn ideeën. 69: Mijn leidinggevende wil weten of ik klachten heb. 67: Mijn leidinggevende wil liever eerst mijn mening horen als zich nieuwe problemen voordoen. 74: Mijn leidinggevende zoekt mijn inbreng bij belangrijke beslissingen. 77: Mijn leidinggevende geeft verduidelijking wanneer ik de instructies niet begrijp. 75: Mijn leidinggevende geeft me duidelijke instructies. 76: Mijn leidinggevende vraagt me om suggesties voor verbeteringen binnen mijn afdeling. 73: Mijn leidinggevende vraagt me dingen te doen in plaats van ze op te dragen. 71: Mijn leidinggevende vraagt naar mijn interesses buiten het werk. Cronbach’s Alpha
1 .786 .763 .762 .758 .754 .747 .741 .730 .727 .720 .685 .673 .582 .946
Principal Component Analysis - Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Italic Items were removed from the scale (r) = item is formulated negatively and therefore mirrored
(2) Factor Analysis Affective Commitment Table 6: Results factor analysis ‘Affective Commitment’
99: Ik voel een sterke behoefte om bij mijn organisatie te horen. 103: Ik voel me onderdeel van de ‘familie’ van mijn organisatie. 98: Deze organisatie heeft persoonlijke betekenis voor mij. 101: Ik voel me emotioneel verbonden met deze organisatie. 100: Ik voel me trots dat ik bij deze organisatie mag werken. 102: Ik heb het gevoel dat de problemen van de organisatie ook mijn problemen zijn. 93: Ik waardeer mijn leidinggevende. 96: Ik heb respect voor mijn leidinggevende. 95: Mijn leidinggevende betekent veel voor mij. 97: Ik voel weinig bewondering voor mijn leidinggevende. (r) 94: Ik voel me trots om te werken mijn leidinggevende. 92: Ik ben niet echt gehecht aan mijn leidinggevende. (r) Eigen value Variance Cronbach’s Alpha
1 .867 .867 .847 .839 .767 .688
2
.822 .798 .740 .723 .700 .665 4.873 40.62 .899
2.640 22 .839
Principal Component Analysis - Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Italic Items were removed from the scale (r) = item is formulated negatively and therefore mirrored
81
(3) Factor Analysis Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Forced: One Factor)
Table 7: Results factor analysis ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviour’
119: Ik help collega’s die een zware werklast hebben. 118: Ik neem de tijd om te luisteren naar de problemen en zorgen van mijn collega’s. 120: Ik doe moeite om nieuwe collega’s op weg te helpen. 121: Ik heb persoonlijke interesse in mijn collega’s. 122: Ik geef werkgerelateerde informatie door aan mijn collega’s. 116: Ik help collega’s die afwezig zijn geweest. 117: Ik assisteer mijn leidinggevende met zijn/haar werk (ook wanneer het niet wordt gevraagd) 111: Ik geef het op tijd aan wanneer ik niet aanwezig kan zijn op het werk. 113: Ik besteed veel tijd aan persoonlijke telefoongesprekken tijdens het werk. (r) 112: In neem onverdiende of verlengde pauzes. (r) 115: Ik houd me aan informele regels om de orde te bewaren. 114: Ik klaag over onbelangrijke zaken op het werk. (r) Cronbach’s Alpha
1 .733 .720 .713 .707 .687 .610 .379 .372
.706
Principal Component Analysis - Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. talic Items were removed from the scale (r) = item is formulated negatively and therefore mirrored
82
Appendix G: Mean scores leaders – employees per team Team 1: Finance Team 3 Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.73
3.37
.040*
Develop and Inspire
4.81
3.01
.000*
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.31
3.04
.006*
Listen and Ask
4.62
2.89
.001*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.35
3.06
.497
Develop and Inspire
4.38
3.06
.024*
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.08
2.39
.016*
Listen and Ask
2.77
2.69
.847
Team 2: Operations
83
Team 3: TMS Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.38
3.80
.051
Develop and Inspire
4.63
3.57
.006*
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.69
3.62
.033*
Listen and Ask
4.23
3.70
.264
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.88
3.73
.643
Develop and Inspire
4.13
3.76
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.54
3.51
.940
Listen and Ask
3.46
3.55
.619
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.62
3.38
.368
Develop and Inspire
4.00
3.27
.043*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.38
3.41
.912
Listen and Ask
3.69
3.15
.052
Team 4: HR
.257
Team 5: Restaurant
84
Team 6: Industry Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.73
3.72
.978
Develop and Inspire
4.00
3.69
.023*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.92
3.84
.523
Listen and Ask
3.85
3.65
.200
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.00
3.34
.000*
Develop and Inspire
3.19
3.19
.001*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.00
3.24
Listen and Ask
3.62
2.88
Team 7: Maatwerk
.285 .001*
85
Team 8: Wholesale Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.08
3.70
.089
Develop and Inspire
3.75
3.35
.149
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.62
3.50
.697
Listen and Ask
3.77
3.41
.229
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.77
3.34
Develop and Inspire
3.75
3.43
.148
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.38
3.50
.918
Listen and Ask
4.31
3.21
.020*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.42
3.46
.690
Develop and Inspire
3.63
3.57
.722
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.08
3.33
.032*
Listen and Ask
3.62
3.06
.002*
Team 9: Operations
.123
Team 10: NAV Innovations
86
Team 11: NAV Development Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.92
3.98
.739
Develop and Inspire
4.13
3.70
.045*
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.00
3.40
.028*
Listen and Ask
4.38
3.26
.004*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.19
3.94
Develop and Inspire
4.19
3.66
.038*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.92
3.29
.042*
Listen and Ask
4.23
3.38
.015*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.15
3.79
.031*
Develop and Inspire
3.94
3.95
.942
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.54
3.43
.643
Listen and Ask
4.23
3.51
.001*
Team 12: NAV Projects
.160
Team 13: Support
87
Team 14: Thuiszorg Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.77
3.46
.057
Develop and Inspire
3.88
3.45
.055
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.92
3.54
.130
Listen and Ask
3.85
3.33
.036*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.81
3.16
.036*
Develop and Inspire
3.50
3.13
.265
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.15
3.20
.016*
Listen and Ask
3.77
3.16
.065
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.00
3.67
.110
Develop and Inspire
3.63
3.18
.058
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.62
3.00
.010*.
Listen and Ask
3.85
3.07
.019*
Team 15: Service Desk
Team 16: Customer Care
88
Team 17: Service Level Management Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.69
3.22
.150
Develop and Inspire
3.88
3.53
.149
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.54
3.37
.583
Listen and Ask
3.69
3.35
.127
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.19
3.33
.047*
Develop and Inspire
4.19
3.37
.093
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.08
3.18
.020*
Listen and Ask
4.15
2.81
.011*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.88
3.78
.641
Develop and Inspire
4.86
3.73
.000*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.62
3.72
.645
Listen and Ask
4.08
3.62
.040*
Team 18: Sales Team 1
Team 19: Sales Team 2
89
Team 20: Sales Team 3 Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.31
3.69
.034*
Develop and Inspire
4.63
3.87
.019*
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.23
3.63
.059
Listen and Ask
4.31
3.60
.022*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.58
2.61
.091
Develop and Inspire
3.88
2.56
.043*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.46
2.26
.065
Listen and Ask
4.15
2.47
.029*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.04
3.85
.572
Develop and Inspire
3.75
3.80
.821
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.54
3.77
.369
Listen and Ask
4.38
3.83
.136
Team 21: Finance Team 2
Team 22: Finance Team 1
90
Team 23: Prefab Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.73
2.90
.060
Develop and Inspire
4.00
2.96
.043*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.54
2.71
.046*
Listen and Ask
4.15
2.86
.038*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.65
3.90
.422
Develop and Inspire
4.13
3.73
.400
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.00
3.87
.759
Listen and Ask
3.92
3.74
.722
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.77
3.53
.470
Develop and Inspire
4.00
3.85
.622
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.85
3.74
.774
Listen and Ask
4.08
3.76
.247
Team 24: Secretariaat
Team 25: Personeel & Organisatie Team 1
91
Team 26: Bruna Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.77
3.65
.590
Develop and Inspire
4.69
3.42
.004*
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.23
3.45
.089
Listen and Ask
4.38
3.39
.007*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.54
3.29
.143
Develop and Inspire
3.81
3.61
.370
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.38
3.52
.531
Listen and Ask
3.54
3.38
.391
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.08
3.42
.000*
Develop and Inspire
3.56
3.17
.018*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.85
3.24
.001*
Listen and Ask
4.15
3.12
.000*
Team 27: Zorgadministratie
Team 28: Interne Geneeskunde
92
Team 29: OK Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.00
3.07
.001*
Develop and Inspire
3.94
2.71
.001*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.46
2.49
.004*
Listen and Ask
4.00
2.80
.001*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
4.23
3.47
.006
Develop and Inspire
4.63
3.61
.010*
Feedback and Acknowledge
4.15
3.73
.123
Listen and Ask
4.31
3.53
.015*
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.15
3.18
.902
Develop and Inspire
3.69
3.13
.094
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.31
3.31
.974
Listen and Ask
3.69
3.25
.109
Team 30: Endoscopie
Team 31: Salarisadministratie
93
Team 32: Bloedafname Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.50
3.74
.098
Develop and Inspire
3.38
3.91
.039*
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.46
4.27
.001*
Listen and Ask
4.00
4.07
.686
Mean score leader
Mean score employees
Significance (2-tailed)
Consider and Connect
3.81
3.30
.337
Develop and Inspire
3.81
3.63
.696
Feedback and Acknowledge
3.46
3.31
.770
Listen and Ask
3.54
3.41
.755
Team 33: Personeel en organisatie
94
Appendix H: Overview results
Hypothesis Hypothesis 1a-d: Coaching behaviours will be positively related to the affective commitment of employees towards the leader Hypothesis 1a: Consider and Connect Hypothesis 1b: Develop and Inspire Hypothesis 1c: Feed back and Acknowledge Hypothesis 1d: Listen and Ask
Confirmed/Not Confirmed
Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed Confirmed
Hypothesis 2 a-d: Coaching behaviours will be positively related to affective commitment of employees towards the organisation. Hypothesis 2a: Consider and Connect Hypothesis 2b: Develop and Inspire Hypothesis 2c: Feed back and Acknowledge Hypothesis 2d: Listen and Ask
Not confirmed Confirmed Not confirmed Confirmed
Hypothesis 3a-b: The higher the level of affective commitment, the more employees’ will engage in organizational citizenship behaviour. Hypothesis 3a: Affective commitment to leader Hypothesis 3b: Affective commitment to organisation
Confirmed Confirmed
Hypothesis 4a-4d: coaching behaviours are positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour. Hypothesis 4a: Consider and Connect Hypothesis 4b: Develop and Inspire Hypothesis 4c: Feed back and Acknowledge Hypothesis 4d: Listen and Ask
Confirmed Not confirmed Confirmed Not confirmed
Hypothesis 5a-b: Affective commitment will mediate the relationship between coaching behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour. Hypothesis 5a: Affective commitment to leader Hypothesis 5b: Affective commitment to organisation
Confirmed Not confirmed
95
Appendix I: Results regression analysis subtracted scores leader - employees Table 13: The influence of subtracted scores coaching behaviour scales on affective commitment to the leader Affective Commitment to Leader
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
-.226*
-.160
-.226*
-.126
-.226*
-.172
-.226*
-.187*
Age
.128
.121
.128
.188*
.128
.161*
.128
.118
Educational level
.002
.024
.002
.045
.002
.008
.002
-.048
Tenure
-.055
-.035
-.055
-.047
-.055
-.068
-.055
-.068
Working hours
.149
.102
.149
.109
.149
.135
.149
.096
Contact moments with leader
.204**
.137*
.204**
.201**
.204**
.199**
.204**
.149*
Dummy sector
-.056
-.036
-.056
-.097
-.056
-.045
-.056
-.089
Control variables Gender
Independent variables Consider and Connect
-.477***
Develop and Inspire
-.439***
Feed back and Acknowledge
-.385***
Listen and Ask
-.496***
R²
.081
.300
.081
.267
.081
.226
.081
.321
R² adjusted
.051
.274
.051
.239
.051
.197
.051
.295
R² change
.081
.220
.081
.186
.081
.145
.081
.240
F
2.691**
11.434***
2.691**
9.674***
2.691**
7.762***
2.691**
12.579***
F change
2.691**
66.836***
2.691**
53.900***
2.691**
39.838***
2.691**
75.254***
* p<0.5, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test ***p<0.001, one-tailed test
96
Table 14: The influence of subtracted scores coaching behaviour scales on affective commitment to the organisation Affective Commitment to Organisation
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Gender
.144
.153
.144
.165
.144
.155
.144
.160
Age
.152
.151
.152
.164*
.152
.158
.152
.147
Educational level
-.007
-.005
-.007
.002
-.007
-.006
-.007
-.028
Tenure
.046
.048
.046
.047
.046
.043
.046
.040
Working hours
-.169
-.175*
-.169
-.177*
-.169
-.171
-.169
-.190*
Contact moments with leader
.014
-.005
.014
.013
.014
.013
.014
-.009
-.207*
-.204*
-.207*
-.216*
-.207*
-.205*
-.207*
-.221*
Control variables
Dummy sector
Independent variables Consider and Connect
-.066
Develop and Inspire
-.093
Feed back and Acknowledge
-.075
Listen and Ask
-.202***
R²
.069
.073
.069
.077
.069
.074
.069
.108
R² adjusted
.038
.038
.038
.042
.038
.039
.038
.075
R² change
.069
.004
.069
.008
.069
.006
.069
.040
F
2.250*
2.089*
2.250*
2.216*
2.250*
2.130*
2.250*
3.236**
F change
2.250*
.966
2.250*
1.912
2.250*
1.273
2.250*
9.515**
* p<0.5, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test ***p<0.001, one-tailed test
97
Table 15: The influence of subtracted scores coaching behaviour scales on organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Gender
.025
.038
.065
.025
.024
.052
Age
.207**
.206*
.185*
.207**
.207*
.165*
Educational level
.080
.084
.080
.080
.080
.070
Tenure
-.036
-.032
-.026
-.036
-.036
-.026
Working hours
-.030
-.039
-.056
-.030
-.029
-.054
Contact moments with leader
.160**
.147*
.123
.160**
.160*
.116
.001
.006
.012
.001
.002
.023
-.098
-.017 .002
.100
Control variables
Dummy sector
Independent variables Consider and Connect Develop and Inspire Affective Commitment to Leader
.169*
.224*
R²
.049
.059
.079
.049
.049
.086
R² adjusted
.018
.023
.039
.018
.014
.047
R² change
.049
.009
.020
.049
.000
.037
F
1.587
1.657
2.008*
1.587
1.382
2.216*
F change
1.587
2.093
4.594*
1.587
.001
8.503*
* p<0.05, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test ***p<0.001, one-tailed test
98
Table 16: The influence of subtracted scores coaching behaviour scales on organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Gender
.025
.017
.058
.025
.034
.064
Age
.207**
.203*
.165*
.207**
.205*
.186*
Educational level
.080
.079
.077
.080
.069
.076
Tenure
-.036
-.034
-.018
-.036
-.039
-.028
Working hours
-.030
-.028
-.060
-.030
-.042
-.057
Contact moments with leader
.160**
.161*
.114
.160**
.148
.124
.001
.000
.011
.001
-.006
.008
.052
.143* -.113
-.034
Control variables
Dummy sector
Independent variables Feed back and Acknowledge Listen and Ask Affective Commitment to Leader
.236*
.160*
R²
.049
.052
.095
.049
.062
.079
R² adjusted
.018
.016
.057
.018
.027
.040
R² change
.049
.003
.043
.049
.012
.017
F
1.587
1.461
2.480*
1.587
1.754
2.025*
F change
1.587
.603
10.131**
1.587
2.828
3.997*
* p<0.05, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test
***p<0.001, one-tailed test
99
Table 17: The influence of subtracted scores coaching behaviour scales on organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Gender
.025
.038
.010
.025
.024
-.007
Age
.207**
.206*
.178*
.207**
.207*
.176*
Educational level
.080
.084
.085
.080
.080
.079
Tenure
-.036
-.032
-.041
-.036
-.036
-.045
Working hours
-.030
-.039
-.007
-.030
-.029
.004
Contact moments with leader
.160**
.147*
.146*
.160**
.160*
.158*
.001
.006
.043
.001
.002
.043
-.098
-.086 .002
.019
Control variables
Dummy sector
Independent variables Consider and Connect Develop and Inspire Affective Commitment to Organisation
.182**
.190**
R²
.049
.059
.089
.049
.049
.083
R² adjusted
.018
.023
.051
.018
.014
.044
R² change
.049
.009
.031
.049
.000
.033
F
1.587
1.657
2.309*
1.587
1.382
2.119*
F change
1.587
2.093
7.145**
1.587
6.001
7.674**
* p<00.5, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test ***p<0.001, one-tailed test
100
Table 18: The influence of subtracted scores coaching behaviour scales on organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Gender
.025
.017
-.012
.025
.034
.006
Age
.207**
.203*
.172*
.207**
.205*
.180*
Educational level
.080
.079
.080
.080
.069
.073
Tenure
-.036
-.034
-.043
-.036
-.039
-.046
Working hours
-.030
-.028
.005
-.030
-.042
-.009
Contact moments with leader
.160**
.161*
.159*
.160**
.148*
.149
.001
.000
.040
.001
-.006
.032
.052
.067 -.113
-.078
Control variables
Dummy sector
Independent variables Feed back and Acknowledge Listen and Ask Affective Commitment to Organisation
.193**
.171*
R²
.049
.052
.087
.049
.062
.088
R² adjusted
.018
.016
.048
.018
.027
.049
R² change
.049
.003
.035
.049
.012
.026
F
1.587
1.461
2.232*
1.587
1.754
2.271*
F change
1.587
.603
8.012**
1.587
2.828
6.076*
* p<0.05, one-tailed test
** p<0.01, one-tailed test
***p<0.001, one-tailed test
101
