2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Gedrag & Organisatie
  4. Volume 36, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 36, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0921-5077
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7235

Abstract

Samenvatting

Deze studie beoogt meer inzicht te geven in de relatie tussen empowerend leiderschap en proactief werkgedrag. Op basis van de empowerment- en telewerkliteratuur werd gehypothetiseerd dat empowerend leiderschap enerzijds mogelijkheden voor thuiswerkers schept, waarbij dezen meer zelf-effectiviteit ervaren en meer proactief werkgedrag vertonen. Anderzijds kan het een belastend proces in gang zetten, waarbij werknemers meer rolambiguïteit ervaren en minder proactief werkgedrag vertonen. Daarnaast werd verwacht dat professionele isolatie de verwachte positieve indirecte relatie tussen empowerend leiderschap en proactief werkgedrag via zelf-effectiviteit verzwakt en de verwachte negatieve indirecte relatie tussen empowerend leiderschap en proactief werkgedrag via rolambiguïteit versterkt. Op basis van data, verzameld onder 345 thuiswerkende werknemers tijdens de COVID-19-pandemie, bleek dat empowerend leiderschap een positieve indirecte relatie had met proactief werkgedrag via zelf-effectiviteit, en dat professionele isolatie deze relatie verzwakte. De indirecte relatie tussen empowerend leiderschap en proactief werkgedrag via rolambiguïteit was niet significant en werd niet gemodereerd door professionele isolatie. Er werd wel een onverwachte negatieve relatie gevonden tussen empowerend leiderschap en rolambiguïteit. Deze bevindingen dragen bij aan het debat rondom leiderschap in thuiswerkcontexten en hebben implicaties voor vervolgonderzoek en de managementpraktijk.

© Pascale Peters, Rob Blomme, Martine Coun, Yvette Abbing-Fokkert & Maikel Nijmeijer
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/GO2023.4.002.PETE
2023-11-01
2024-11-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945-955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:33.0.CO;2-#
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421-458. https://doi.10.2307/2393203
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modelling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285-309.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Baruch, Y., & Nicholson, N. (1997). Home, sweet work: Requirements for effective home working. Journal of General Management, 23(2), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630709702300202
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475-498. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X439208
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergum, S., Peters, P., & Vold, T. (Eds.). (2023). Virtual management and the new normal: New perspectives on HRM and leadership since the COVID-19 pandemic. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06813-3
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change oriented action in organizations. In S.Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 567-98). American Psychological Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, I. E. E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 31-39. PMID: 10118526
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chebat, J. C., & Kollias, P. (2000). The impact of empowerment on customer contact. Employees’ roles in service organizations. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050031005.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general selfefficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cheong, M., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Yun, S. (2016). Two faces of empowering leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 602-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.006
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cheong, M., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Spain, S. M., & Tsai, C.-Y. (2019). A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 34-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.005
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A.Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1988.4306983
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 511-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.145
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Coun, M. J., Edelbroek, R., Peters, P., & Blomme, R. J. (2021). Leading innovative workbehavior in times of COVID-19: Relationship between leadership style, innovative work-behavior, work-related flow, and IT-enabled presence awareness during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 717345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717345
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Coun, M., Peters, P., Blomme, R. J., & Schaveling, J. (2022). To empower or not to empower, that’s the question. Using an empowerment process approach to explain employees’ workplace proactivity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(14), 2829-2855. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1879204
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Decuypere, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2020). Leadership and work engagement: Exploring explanatory mechanisms. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002219892197
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Decuypere, A. & Schaufeli, W. (2021). Exploring the leadership-engagement nexus: A moderated meta-analysis and review of explaining mechanisms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 8592. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168592
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 81, 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2014.07.008
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Dirven, H. J. (2023). Statistieken over thuiswerken voor, tijdens en na corona. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 39(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.5117/TVA2023.2.002.DIRV
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069350
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of MarketingResearch, 18(3), 328-388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter?Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 14121421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327347. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2003). Adaptable behaviours for successful work and career adjustment. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(2), 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530412331312914
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile conceptual tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modelling. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Henseler, J. (2010). On the convergence of the partial least squares path modelling algorithm. Computational Statistics, 25(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-009-0164-x
     [Google Scholar]
  38. House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 7(3), 467-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90030-X
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453. https://doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. D.Dunnette & L. M.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd edition) (pp. 165-207). Consulting Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Inceoglu, I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D., & Gerbasi, A. (2018). Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 179-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.006
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/256874
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kurland, N. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2002). Manager control and employee isolation in telecommuting environments. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(1), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(01)00051-7
     [Google Scholar]
  44. LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Mann, S., Varey, R., & Button, W. (2000). An exploration of the emotional impact of tele-working via computer-mediated communication. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(7/8), 668. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940010378054
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1372-1395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0113
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hills.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Peijen, R., & Gerards, R. (2023). Thuiswerken en burn-outklachten: De rol van autonomie, werkdruk en leidinggevenden. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 39(2), 193-218. https://doi.org/10.5117/TVA2023.2.005.PEIJ
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS. Retrieved from https://www.smartpls.com
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Sardeshmukh, S. R., Sharma, D., & Golden, T. D. (2012). Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: A job demands and job resources model. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(3), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00284.x
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Schilpzand, P., Houston, L., & Cho, J. (2018). Not too tired to be proactive: Daily empowering leadership spurs next-morning employee proactivity as moderated by nightly sleep quality. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2367-2387. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0936
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sharma, P. N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2015). Leveraging leaders: A literature review and future lines of inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group& Organization Management, 40(2), 193-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115574906
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A.Wigfield & J. S.Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15-31). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611-625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In J.Barling & C. L.Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54-72). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200448
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Toe Laer, E. (2022, 14november). Werkgever wil werknemer terug op kantoor hebben. Financieel Dagblad. https://fd.nl/bedrijfsleven/1457130/werkgever-wilwerknemer-terug-op-kantoor-hebben
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhu, H., Lyu, Y., Deng, X. & Ye, Y. (2017). Workplace ostracism and proactive customer service performance: A conservation of resources perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 64, 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.04.004
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2023.4.002.PETE
Loading
De kracht van empowerend leiderschap voor proactiviteit bij thuiswerken: De rol van zelf-effectiviteit, rolambiguïteit en professionele isolatie
G&O 36, 308 (2023); https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2023.4.002.PETE
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2023.4.002.PETE
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2023.4.002.PETE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): COVID-19 pandemic; empowering leadership; proactive work behavior; self-efficacy; working from home

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error