Home Business & Finance Distance Leadership in International Corporations: Why Organizations Struggle when Distances Grow
Outcome Variables Self-leadership
In the first section of the questionnaire, followers were asked to provide a selfassessment of their self-leadership behavior. For this purpose, the recently created SLSI by Furtner and Rauthmann (in prep.) was deployed. The SLSI serves as a further improvement of the RSLQ. In comparison to the RSLQ, which also comprises three higher-order factors and nine subscales with 27 items in total, two subdimensions were removed and two others were added. The scales that were removed are self-punishment with four items and evaluating beliefs and assumptions with five items. These were substituted with group optimization (e.g., “I influence other group members to optimally achieve our goal”) and performance referencing (e.g., “I try to improve my performance compared with those of others”). Subscales of the SLSI comprise three items each.
Based on a sample of 270 students, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted by the authors. The SLSI demonstrated considerably enhanced reliability and factor stability compared to the RSLQ by Houghton and Neck (2002) with the exception of two subscales. For self-analysis and intrinsification, coefficients dropped from .82 to .79 and .93 to .90 respectively. Cronbach alphas of the RSLQ are illustrated in parentheses for comparison. Responses on the SLSI were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = completely disagree to 4 = completely agree. Table 4 shows the factor structure of the SLSI along with sample items.
Table 4. Factor Structure of the SLSI with Sample Items
Source: Furtner and Rauthmann (in prep.)
Table 5 illustrates respective scale statistics by Furtner and Rauthmann (in prep.). Table 5. Scale Statistics for the SLSI
Note. Standard error of skewness = .15. Standard error of kurtosis = .30. Source: Furtner and Rauthmann (in prep.)
Individual performance is probably one of the most frequently investigated work- related outcomes and represents a significant amount of measurement activity within an organizational context. Employee performance can strongly be influenced by leadership style which is in turn a predictor for the use of performance measurement systems (Abernathy, Bouwens & Van Lent, 2010). Evaluation is common at various levels. The smallest level represents the individual performance of a single employee as measured in studies by Hauschildt and Konradt (2012a, 2012b). Ahuja, Galletta and Carley (2003) define individual performance as “the output of an individual’s effort” (p. 30). The researchers declare performance to be largely dependent on role, status, and communication role within the group. Also, the degree to which information is circulated plays an important role as followers who contribute more information were likely to perform better. To achieve a repeatedly good performance, it is essential that managers provide timely and fair rewards, providing value for employees (Cascio, 2000). It was found that leaders criticizing followers without clarification might even hinder performance or leave negative traces (Howell & Avolio, 1993).
Assessing individual performance objectively may be done using organizational controlling tools. As performance is crucial to the success of a corporation, assessment tools are expected to exist in most large international corporations. Difficulties arose, however, when measurement tools were compared in order to find a common ground for objective valuation. Rather than relying on existent organizational feedback tools, a 5-item measure was used to evaluate employee performance in the different business units. Performance self-ratings are not free from criticism but earlier work has shown high reliability of job performance self-ratings (Luo & Cheng, 2014, p. 246). Two items were attained from Heilman, Block and Lucas (1992), in whose research leaders rated followers on a nine-point Likert scale from very competently to not at all competently (e.g., “How competently do you expect this individual to perform this job?”). The authors combined two items into one scale resulting in Cronbach’s alpha of .96. For the present work, statements were reformulated to fit self-assessments. Two items were adapted from Walumb- wa et al. (2008). A summarizing fifth item was added specifically for this study determining the overall quality of work. Application of different instruments is not unusual. For example, in a study by Pearce and Sims (2002) the researchers used a combination of scales by Ancona and Caldwell (1992), Manz and Sims (1987), and Cox (1994). However, due to potential criticism that could arise from using a combination of measures, reliability of the instrument is assessed carefully in the process of this work.
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of performance on a five-point scale (Table 6). Responses were allowed to range from 1 = I consistently perform way below expectation to 5 = I consistently perform way above expectation.
Table 6. Performance Measure
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >|