empowering leadership

The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate / l eaqua

Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating mechanisms within ahierarchical structure

Robert P. Vecchio a, Joseph E. Justin b, Craig L. Pearce b,⁎a University of Notre Dame, United Statesb Claremont Graduate University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author. Present address: Institute fE-mail address: [email protected] (C.L. Pea

1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.014

a b s t r a c t

Keywords:
Drawing from recent theory and research on empowerment and resistance, data on leaderbehaviors and follower responses were collected from superior–subordinate dyads in 179public high schools. Structural equation modeling revealed that empowering leadership wasassociated with higher employee performance and satisfaction, as well as reduceddysfunctional resistance. Also, employee dysfunctional resistance partially mediated therelationship of empowering leadership with (a) employee performance and (b) employeesatisfaction. These results are interpreted as supportive of a perspective that endorses theutility of empowering leadership at the dyadic level within a hierarchical power structure.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

LeadershipEmpowermentEmpowering leadershipPerformanceSatisfactionResistance

Recent decades have witnessed the rise of employee empowerment (Lawler, Mohrman, & Benson, 2001; Spreitzer, in press).This movement is based on the notion that employees who are given greater opportunities for self-directionwill manifest superioroutcomes, such as higher levels of job performance and job satisfaction. Along with efforts to infuse empowerment through thefundamental redesign of job attributes (i.e., by altering contextual features so as to provide for more self-pacing and independentdecision making, Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kirkman & Rosen, 1997; Spreitzer, 1996, in press; Stewart, 2006; Thomas & Velthouse,1990), it has been argued that the redesign of leader–subordinate power-relations can also achieveworkplace gains (Arnold, Arad,Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; Bennis & Townsend, 1997; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).

Within the field of leadership, this movement is also partiallymanifested in such notions as “SuperLeadership”where superiorsare encouraged to “lead others to lead themselves” (Manz & Sims, 1990, 1995, 2001), and “shared leadership”where superiors areencouraged to deliberately share or distribute responsibility among members of a workgroup (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Carson,Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Pearce and Conger (2003, p. 1) define shared leadership as an interactiveinfluence process among a set of individuals that reflects a broad distribution of influence among the group members. As such,shared leadership is arguably a matter of degree and can also be manifest in settings that are inherently hierarchical in nature.Whether shared leadership is demonstrably related to superior workplace outcomes is, however, still very much open to question,as (e.g.) theremay be settings wherein shared leadership is not the optimal approach (Locke, 2003). As observed by Locke (p. 273–276), successful organizational entities typically retain some elements of hierarchical control. Related research on “empoweringleadership” (Arnold et al., 2000; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006; Pearce et al., 2003; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006) hasdeliberately focused on teams and team environments. Yet, the content of scale items developed explicitly to measureempowering leadership and shared leadership are also relevant to leader–subordinate relations in more traditional hierarchicalwork settings (Arnold et al., 2000, pp. 268–269). And, as observed by Arnold et al. (2000, p. 351), considerable conceptual overlapexists among various scales that have been developed to assess aspects of leader behavior that relate to aspects of empowerment.

or Innovative Leadership, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588 United States. Tel.: +1 402 472 0291.rce).

All rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.014

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10489843

531R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

1. Empowering leadership and employee outcomes

As stated by Liu, Lepak, Takeuchi, and Sims (2003), empowering leadership is a style of leadership that targets employees todevelop self-control and to act on their own. Empowering leadership can be viewed, therefore, as essentially an approach that offersprescriptions to leaders for arranging the distribution and exercise of power. The historical and theoretical underpinnings of thisapproach are manifold. For example, one can identify notions of power sharing in behavioral self-management theory (Thorenson &Mahoney, 1974; Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978), social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1989), situational leadership theory (Hersey &Blanchard, 1969), distributed versus focused leadership (Gibb, 1954), leader–member exchange theory (Graen, 1976; Graen &Graen,2006), the normative participation models of Vroom–Yetton–Jago (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1995), Likert's systems ofparticipative management (Likert, 1961, 1967), and cognitive behavior modification research (Meichenbaum, 1977). A furthertheoretical vein that relates to empowering employees can be identified in the “substitutes for leadership” notions of Kerr and Jermier(1978), who argued that employeeswho subscribe to professional standards and values should have a reduced need for a supervisoryfigure (as such employees are essentially self-managed). More recent statements of “shared leadership” (cf. Avolio, Jung, Murry, &Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Carson et al., 2007; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2000; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi,2004) and “empowering leadership” (Arnold et al., 2000; Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005; Srivastava et al., 2006) posit the value offostering employee self-directedness. As noted by Spreitzer andDoneson (2008), these two research streams essentially complementone another. In accord with the definitions offered by Carson et al. (2007, p. 1218) and Srivastava et al. (2006, p. 1240), we presentlydefine empowering leadership as behaviors that share power with subordinates. The sharing of power such that self-directedness isenhanced should reasonably be expected to generate a higher level of subordinate performance. Also, greater self-directness resultingfrom empowerment should be associated with superior subordinate attitudinal response (i.e., higher job satisfaction).

While there has been substantial prior research on various aspects of power sharing (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, &Jennings, 1988; Ledford & Lawler, 1994; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Vandenberg, Richardson, & Eastman, 1999), empirical demonstrationsof the unique value of utilizing leader behaviors to foster empowermentwithin traditional work settings has been largely the focus ofmore contemporary research. Often, studies ofworkgroups or student groups (e.g., Avolio et al., 1996; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Srivastavaet al., 2006) have reported the superiority of empowerment (either as a direct or indirect effect). However, short of creating genuineteam structures (where positive process gains can be shown, Kauffeld, 2006), the notion that superiors can work toward sharingpower through the encouragement of self-direction with specific employees has not been as often the focus of more recent empiricalresearch. In a pioneering study in this area,Manz and Sims (1987) provided someof thefirst evidence on specific leader behaviors thatwere empowering in nature. However, the items in their measure of leader behavior (p. 127) asked respondents to describe thebehavior of their leader toward their entire group (i.e., in accordancewith an average-leadership-style approach, cf. Dansereau, Graen,& Haga, 1975; Dienesch & Liden, 1986) rather than toward each individual. Further important early research onwork teams by SusanCohen and her associates (Cohen& Ledford, 1994; Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Cohen&Bailey, 1997) has laid the foundation forexamining empowering leadershipwithin self-managed teams, aswell aswithinmore traditional workgroups. Also, good conceptualarguments for an individual-level dynamic have been offered (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kanter, 1989; Kirkman& Rosen, 1997, 1999;Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). The presently suggested alternative approach, that focuses on the impact of developing leader–subordinaterelations at the dyadic level (rather than on the impact of introducing a team structure) is of somepractical importance asmanyworksettings continue the tradition of relying on a hierarchical power structure and are not likely tomove in the relatively radical directionof creating a genuine self-managed team structure (i.e., where team leadership is rotated or elected, and job cross-training isencouraged). For example, it is important to recall that (a)most private-sector employees in North America and Great Britainwork insmall-business settings (Headd, 2000; National Federation of Independent Business, 2007; Royal Bank of Canada, 2005; Federation ofSmall Businesses, 2006) where the owner/operators are likely to be reluctant to adopt more radical forms of power sharing, and (b)employees in governmental positions are not likely to be offered opportunities to be a part of a team culture because of inherentbureaucratic controls. Therefore, the study of power sharingwithin leader–subordinate dyads locatedwithin a traditional hierarchicalstructure is of considerable practical interest and importance. More specifically, the present study sought to examine empiricallywhether leader efforts directed toward employee empowermentwithin a traditional hierarchical structure are linkedwith individualemployee performance and satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1. Empowering leadershipwill exhibit a positive relationshipwith employee (a) performance and (b) job satisfaction.

The present study also examined the role of employee resistance to a leader in conjunction with empowering leadership. Theimpact of empowerment on forms of employee resistance, be they dysfunctional or constructive in nature, represents a gap in thedomain of leadership research. Employee resistance may be defined as a set of responses to a supervisor's influence attempts thatincludesdegrees of both cooperativeness, i.e., constructive resistance, and opposition, i.e., dysfunctional resistance (cf. Tepper, Duffy, &Shaw, 2001, p. 975).While it is initially anticipated that empowering leadershipwould facilitate performance and satisfaction, aswellas impact both forms of employee resistance, it is not altogether a certainty that empowering leadership will have uniformly positiveeffects across a range of outcomes. Also, it is important to note that prior studies of employee resistance have generally focused onnegative features of leaders, where resistance is viewed as a likely response to aversive action by the leader (Ashforth, 1994; Pearce &Giacalone, 2003).While the study of employee resistance to aversive leadership is of importance, it does not in itself provide especiallyuseful insights on how tomanage employee resistance in a pro-activemanner (beyondmerely suggesting that a leader should be lessoppressive). An empowering style of leadership, where the leader seeks to develop the employee, has not been studied in connectionwith employee resistance. As a result, it is also one of our intended contributions to determine whether an empowering style of

532 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

leadership can help manage employee resistance. Therefore, the present study also offers an original investigation of the potentialinterplay of two contemporary streams of research: empowering leadership and employee resistance.

Hypothesis 2. Empowering leadership will be (a) positively related to functional employee resistance and (b) inversely related todysfunctional employee resistance.

2. Employee resistance as a mediating mechanism

Leadership in a hierarchical system involves, arguably, downward influence attempts that are intended to drive performance.Whileemployee responses to these attempts at social influence should ideally reflect greater commitment or at least compliance, theysometimes reflect resistance (Barry&Watson, 1996; Yukl, Fu, &McDonald, 2003). Asnoted above, Tepper et al. (2001) havedefined twosubdimensions of employee resistance: functional (or constructive) resistance that reflects efforts to openadialoguewith the supervisor(by requesting clarification and negotiation), and dysfunctional resistance that reflects defiance (by acting as if one did not hear therequest or acting as if one has forgotten the request). Dysfunctional employee resistance is particularly challenging for supervisors as ithas the potential to disrupt work flow, create more work for the more cooperative subordinates, and takes time, energy, and attentionfrom other issues (see Falbe & Yukl, 1992). Constructive employee resistance is presumed to be a preferred employee response as itoffers the chance to maintain and improve working relations, while keeping the focus on work accomplishment.

As noted earlier, empowering leadership should have particular relevance to employee resistance in that supervisors whofoster greater subordinate self-direction should see less dysfunctional, and more constructive, responses from their subordinates.Supervisors who encourage self-management should have employeeswho aremore open to dialogue and negotiation as this is thebasis of social interaction for such leaders when dealing with their followers. Similarly, such leaders should have less dysfunctionalresistance as the increased empowerment of employees does not relieve the employees of their responsibility to be positivecontributors. As a further consequence, lower dysfunctional employee resistance and higher constructive employee resistanceshould be positively related to employee performance and satisfaction. Although a number of correlates of employee resistancehave been identified (Tepper et al., 2001), the dependent variable of employee performance has not received substantial empiricalattention within this emerging literature (Tepper et al., 2006).

The predicted linkages between forms of employee resistance and such employee outcomes as performance and satisfaction,however, may only reflect a portion of a larger social dynamic, one that is driven initially by power sharing. Stated another way,empowering leader behavior will likely impact employee resistance (modifying both dysfunctional and constructive responses).Resistance, in turn, will be manifested in an employee's work contributions and should, subsequently, be reflected in differences insupervisor ratings or individual employee performance. We should, therefore, expect to find that the relationship of leadership andemployee performance is mediated by the nature of employee resistance. Similarly, resistance on the part of the employee should bemanifested in an employee's attitudes toward the job, as indexed by self-reports of satisfaction. Moreover, prior mediational researchonempowering leadershiphas reportedpartial (rather than full)mediation (Kirkman&Rosen,1999; Srivastava et al., 2006).Hence,wemay reasonably anticipate that evidence of mediation will be partial, rather than full (i.e., empowering leadership will manifest directassociations with performance and satisfaction, yet have a mediated impact on these outcomes via forms of employee resistance).

Hypothesis 3. The relationship between empowering leadership and employee performance will be partially mediated by (a)functional employee resistance and (b) dysfunctional employee resistance.

Hypothesis 4. The relationship between empowering leadership and employee satisfaction will be partially mediated by (a)functional employee resistance and (b) dysfunctional employee resistance.

3. Performance and satisfaction

Finally, there is good evidence that employee performance and satisfaction are linked, such that job performance more typicallydrives job satisfaction (rather than vice versa). Porter and Lawler's (1968) model of employee behavior was perhaps the first clearstatement of howperformancemay influence employee satisfaction reactions. In theirmodel, theymake a strong case for how it is likelythat performance (via rewards) canmoreeasilydrive satisfaction responses, thanemployee satisfaction candriveperformance. Althoughamechanism for performance being a function of satisfaction is still feasible, this alternative causal connection between these constructsismore circuitous, and less likely to be evidenced, than as originally proposed. Given prior evidence in support of this proposed dynamic(Greene, 1973; Kopelman, 1979; Iaffaldano&Muchinsky, 1985; Petty,McGee, & Cavender, 1984; Judge, Thoreson, Bono, & Patton, 2001),the present study offers the further hypothesis that employee job satisfaction will be a function of employee job performance.

Hypothesis 5. Employee satisfaction will be a consequence of employee performance.

4. Method

4.1. Sample and procedure

Leadership within public high schools was selected for study, as such locations meet the criteria of offering opportunities forleaders to empower employees as well as to be abusive (Blasé & Blasé, 2002). As argued by Liu et al. (2003), certain settings


(especially knowledge-based and professional in nature) may be more appropriate than others for revealing the true positivepotential of empowerment via leader behavior. In addition, a recent Academy of Management Journal Forum (2005) called forgreater research on public schools, with particular emphasis on the potential value of decentralizing authority within atraditionally hierarchical power structure. Moreover, public high schools are representative of the types of organizations that areneither capable of nor willing to (for a variety of reasons) transform themselves into a radical form of self-managed team structure,but that could potentially benefit from greater power sharing within their traditional structure. In this regard, public high schoolsare representative of many forms of work settings wherein power sharing is likely to be dyadic, but limited, in nature. While it isrecognized that teachers do perform some tasks in groups, their role is still fairly individualistic in nature, and the potential ofprincipals as leaders to provide a positive impact on teachers is of considerable interest in the education literature (Barnett,McCormick, & Conners, 2001; Eden, 1998; Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1997; Moye, Henkin, & Egley, 2005).

The specific method employed to conduct this research consisted of mailing questionnaires directly to high school principalsand to all department heads (a.k.a. “lead”) teachers at those schools whose principal returned a questionnaire.1 Starting randomly,every 10th high school of the California high school systemwas selected for surveying (California Department of Education, 2001),recycling through the list of schools until a minimum sample of 200 principals was attained. Of 491 questionnaire surveys thatwere ultimately mailed to principals, 223 (45.4%) were returned. A total of 1060 confidential questionnaires were mailed to thedepartment head (lead) teachers for those principals who had confidentially responded (the average high school normally has fivelead positions). Of these, a total of 342 teachers responded (32.3%). As the present analyses were at the dyadic level of interactionbetween a principal and a head/lead teacher, a sample of 179 principal–teacher dyads from 179 distinct schools was randomlyselected from dyads where complete data were available (via a sampling procedure based on a table of random numbers,Lindquist, 1940).2 The average ages for the principals and teachers in these dyads were 52.18 and 48.17 years, respectively, with anear equivalence of men and women among the teachers (51.4% male) and two-thirds of the principals being male (67.8% male).

4.2. Measures

The principal's questionnaire asked for ratings of the performance of each departmental head (or lead) teacher within the fivemandated instructional areas of English, History, Mathematics, Physical Education, and Science. Although the instructional areas ofthe lead teachers differed, it was believed (after interviewing a sample of eight school system administrators, principals, andteachers) that the overall job content and performance was sufficiently similar that a common metric could be used to assessindividual teacher performance. The specific items that were completed by the principal asked for ratings of each head/leadteacher on three issues that measured overall employee performance, adapted from a scale developed by MacKenzie, Podsakoff,and Fetter (1991) (“This person is one of my best teachers,” “All things considered, this teacher is outstanding,” and “All thingsconsidered, this teacher performs his/her job the way I like to see it performed,” response options, 1=Strongly Disagree,2=Disagree, 3=Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree; Cronbach alpha=0.93).

For each principal who responded to the survey, a separate personally-addressed questionnaire was subsequently maileddirectly to the department head/lead respondent. The questionnaire focused on the leadership style of the principal and the workreactions of the teacher. A ten-item scale, using modified items described by Manz and Sims (1987, 1990, 1995) and previouslyemployed in empirical research on empowering leadership by Pearce and Sims (2002), provided a measure of the construct ofempowering leadership from an individualized (i.e., dyadic, Dansereau, 1995; Mumford, Dansereau, & Yammarino, 2000)perspective (see Appendix A). These items were selected because they represent such critical and relevant elements as (a)encouragement of independent employee behavior (sample item: “Encourages me to find solutions to my problems without his/her direct input”), (b) the fostering of opportunistic thinking (sample item: “Urgesme to think of problems as opportunities ratherthan obstacles”), and (c) the promotion of cooperative action (sample item: “Urges me to work as a team with the other teacherswho work at the school”). Items for the leadership measure employed a 5-point response scale (1=Strongly Disagree,2=Disagree, 3=Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree; Cronbach alpha=0.90).3

Questions pertaining to employee resistance were taken from published works by Tepper et al. (1998, 2001). Tepper,Eisenbach, Kirby, and Porter (1998) reported supportive evidence of the construct validity of their measures of resistance (e.g.,high internal reliability, a two-factor confirmatory factor structure). In the present study, the teachers were asked to report howfrequently they did not comply with what their principal had requested. This technique of self-reporting has been usedsuccessfully in prior studies of incidences of resistance (Tepper et al., 2001). As mentioned earlier, employee resistance was

1 Lead teachers act as liaisons between the principals and the rank-and-file teachers, and typically oversee a broad range of assignments related to theeducational mission (e.g., curriculum development and delivery, and communication with students, parents, business partners, and other teachers). Commonly,release time and a modest stipend are provided for handling these added responsibilities.

2 One leader–subordinate dyad was also selected from the set of respondents at each institution in order to avoid potential problems associated withnonindependence of descriptions of a common leader. This sampling approach was employed because nested data structures can generate parameter estimatesthat are incorrect (Bliese, 2000; Bliese & Hanges, 2004; Hofmann, 1997; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

3 As the items in the empowering leadership scale incorporated an individualized format (where each respondent described how the leader acted toward him/her as an individual), it would not be expected that these responses would necessarily reflect a high degree of within-school agreement. To explore this issue,average deviation (AD) values were calculated for the entire sample of respondents. Because other agreement indices, e.g. rwg, may not be optimal for evaluatinginter-rater agreement with very small numbers per group and as directly interpretable, AD values provide unique advantages (see Burke & Dunlap, 2002; Burke,Finkelstein, & Dusig, 1999; Dunlap, Burke, & Smith-Crowe, 2003; Smith-Crowe & Burke, 2003). The resultant scale AD values, which are given in terms of theoriginal item metric, were 0.57 (for AD-means) and 0.48 (for AD-medians). These values suggest an acceptable, albeit not extremely high, level of within-schoolagreement in the descriptions of each principal.

Table 1Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables.

Variable Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Empowering leadership 37.94 6.18 (0.90)2. Performance 12.59 2.78 0.33** (0.93)3. Job satisfaction 13.44 2.06 0.28** 0.26** (0.78)4. Dysfunctional resistance 8.71 3.34 −0.40** −0.27** −0.37** (0.83)5. Functional resistance 12.25 3.82 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.09 (0.77)

Note: Internal reliabilities are listed on the primary diagonal.**pb0.01.

Fig. 1. Initial hypothesized model relating empowering leadership, employee resistance, performance, and satisfaction (nine paths).


measured on two separate scales, a 6-item scale for dysfunctional resistance (sample items: “I ignore the person and do what Iwant to do anyway,” “I act like I don't know about it;” Cronbach alpha=0.83) and a 4-item scale for functional (or constructive)resistance (sample items: “I explain that it should be done a different way,” and “I present logical reasons for doing the taskdifferently or at a different time;” Cronbach alpha=0.77). Response options included: 1=I cannot remember using this tactic,2=I very seldomuse this tactic, 3=I occasionally use this tactic, 4=I use this tacticmoderately often, and 5=I use this tactic veryoften.

All teachers were also asked to respond to a three-item measure of job satisfaction developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins,and Klesh (1983) (sample item: “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”). The response options for this measure were: 1=VeryInaccurate, 2=Moderately Inaccurate, 3=Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate, 4=Moderately Accurate, 5=Very Accurate(Cronbach alpha=0.78).

The factor structure of the empowering leadership scale was examined to determine whether a single factor underlies the tenitems (as, e.g., Ahearne et al., 2005, used a multi-dimensional measure of empowering leadership, but found that a singleunderlying dimension was a more appropriate representation of the construct). For the present data, a principal axis factoringanalysis (using SPSS, version 14.0) yielded a single major factor, accounting for 47.43% of the variance. Parallel analysis (Horn,1965; Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004) and a scree plot of the eigenvalues identified only a single factor. Therefore, a singlecomposite score was created for the construct of empowering leadership by summing over all items.

Because of Tepper et al.'s (2001) contention that resistance is essentially two-dimensional, a confirmatory factor analysis wasconducted to test the proposed two-factor view of resistance. Specifically, the results for a single-factor model (in which all tenresistance items loaded on a single, common factor) were contrasted with the results for a two-factor model (in which the sixdesignated dysfunctional resistance items loaded on one factor and the four functional resistance items loaded on a second factor).The contrasting results (obtained via the AMOS package, Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999; Bryne, 2001) revealed a superior fit for thetwo-factor model versus the single-factor model (Single-factor Model: χ2=385.88, pb0.01, normed fit index=0.89, relative fitindex=0.83, Tucker–Lewis index=0.85, comparative fit index=0.90 , root mean square error of approximation=0.24; Two-


factor Model: χ2=72.69, pb0.01, normed fit index=0.98, relative fit index=0.97, Tucker–Lewis index=0.98, comparative fitindex=0.99, rmsea=0.08; Δ χ2=313.19, pb0.01). Also, the lambda parameters for the two-factor model were all significant(pb0.01) and ranged from 0.40 to 0.87.

5. Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and internal reliabilities (Cronbach, 1951) for the variables ofinterest. Significant correlations were identified for empowering leadership with leader ratings of employee performance(r=0.33, pb0.01), job satisfaction (r=0.28, pb0.01), and dysfunctional resistance (r=−0.40, pb0.01). However, functionalresistance was not related to empowering leadership (r=0.08, n.s.). Also, ratings of employee performance were significantlycorrelated with reports of job satisfaction (r=0.26, pb0.01).

Structural equation modeling was used to test the model that is implicit in the five hypotheses. Specifically, nine pathways, orlinks, were identified that connected: (1) empowering leadership to satisfaction; (2) empowering leadership to performance; (3)empowering leadership to functional resistance; (4) empowering leadership to dysfunctional resistance; (5) functional resistanceto satisfaction; (6) functional resistance to performance; (7) dysfunctional resistance to satisfaction; (8) dysfunctional resistanceto performance; and (9) performance to satisfaction. These nine paths, which represent the full set of hypotheses, are portrayed inFig. 1. Fig. 1, therefore, may be labeled the initial hypothesized model.

Structural equation modeling is divided into two parts: the estimation of a measurement model and the estimation of astructural model. The measurement model examines the relationships between the measured variables and the latent variables,while the structural model examines the relationships among the latent variables. In the present study, the items of the respectivescales were taken as indicators of each latent variable. Following a successful demonstration that the items load on their respectivelatent variable, the parameters of the pathways are tested for statistical significance, and the overall structural model is evaluated

Table 2Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates, and significance levels for model in Fig. 1 (N=179).

Pathways Structural model estimates

Unstandardized SE Standardized Critical ratio p≤

Empowering→satisfaction 0.075 0.028 0.073 2.641 0.008Empowering→ functional 0.060 0.043 0.060 1.417 0.156Empowering→dysfunctional −0.164 0.049 −0.162 −3.349 0.001Empowering→performance 0.196 0.057 0.189 3.466 0.001Functional→satisfaction 0.025 0.022 0.025 1.160 0.246Functional→performance 0.016 0.030 0.015 0.532 0.595Dysfunctional→satisfaction −0.103 0.035 −0.102 −2.980 0.003Dysfunctional→performance −0.166 0.054 −0.162 −3.073 0.002Performance→satisfaction 0.109 0.040 0.111 2.696 0.007

Construct Items Measurement model estimates

Empowering leadership Emp. 1 1.000Emp. 2 0.489 0.163 2.998 0.003Emp. 3 1.008 0.238 4.239 0.001Emp. 4 1.183 0.264 4.484 0.001Emp. 5 1.194 0.252 4.734 0.001Emp. 6 0.638 0.202 3.159 0.002Emp. 7 0.952 0.228 4.176 0.001Emp. 8 1.162 0.277 4.191 0.001Emp. 9 0.615 0.193 3.186 0.001Emp. 10 1.354 0.293 4.616 0.001

Dysfunctional resistance Dys. 1 1.000Dys. 2 0.455 0.141 3.216 0.001Dys. 3 0.937 0.164 5.722 0.001Dys. 4 1.197 0.211 5.666 0.001Dys. 5 0.456 0.145 3.142 0.002Dys. 6 0.584 0.151 3.873 0.001

Functional resistance Funct. 1 1.000Funct. 2 1.887 1.006 1.875 0.061Funct. 3 −0.107 0.600 −0.178 0.086Funct. 4 0.584 0.151 3.873 0.001

Performance Perf. 1 1.000Perf. 2 0.727 0.099 7.333 0.001Perf. 3 0.842 0.087 9.672 0.001

Satisfaction Sat. 1 1.000Sat. 2 1.039 0.239 4.343 0.001Sat. 3 1.517 0.303 5.010 0.001

Note: χ2=280.04, df=223, p=0.006; RMSEA=0.038.

Fig. 2. Trimmed model with standardized parameter estimates: six paths (**denotes pb0.01).

Table 3Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates and significance levels for trimmed model in Fig. 2 (N=179).



Empowering→satisfaction 0.100 0.032 0.098 3.120 0.002Empowering→dysfunctional −0.220 0.050 −0.215 −4.374 0.001Empowering→performance 0.255 0.055 0.243 4.632 0.001Dysfunctional→satisfaction −0.084 0.030 −0.085 −2.794 0.005Dysfunctional→performance −0.134 0.047 −0.131 −2.821 0.005Performance→satisfaction 0.098 0.038 0.100 2.573 0.010

Note: χ2=172.60, df=142, p=.012; RMSEA=.040.


for degree of fit. Finally, modifications in the model may be made based on the available evidence of parameter significance anddegree of model fit.

The results of the test of the initial hypothesized model for the sample of 179 respondents are given in Table 2. As all of theitemswere associatedwith their respective latent variables, the parameter estimates for the pathwayswere then examined. Of thenine hypothesized links, six were statistically significant. All of the three non-significant pathways pertained to the functionalemployee resistance variable as either an antecedent or outcome.

Because the latent variable of functional resistance did not demonstrate significant associations in the test of the initial model, atrimmed model was then created and tested (see Fig. 2). In the trimmed model, six pathways were tested (along with themeasurement model for the relevant scales items, the results of which are not displayed here but are available upon requestauthor). The resulting parameter estimates are given in Table 3. For all six pathways, the parameter estimates were statisticallysignificant. Moreover, the model's fit was found to be somewhat improved (as indicated by a significant reduction in chi-square;change in chi-square of=280.04−172.60=107.44, exceeding the critical chi-square of 103.01 for degrees of freedom for thedifference=223−142=81). Although there was a significant reduction in chi-square, it is important to note that the trimmedmodel, like the initial model, also had a significant overall chi-square (suggesting poorness-of-fit, and that the initial model couldpossibly be improved, Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The root mean square error of approximation for both the initialand trimmed model were acceptable (RMSEA initial=0.038, lower bound=0.022, upper bound=0.051; RMSEAtrimmed=0.040, lower bound=0.020, upper bound=0.056). The normed fit index, the incremental fit index, and theTucker–Lewis fit index for both models similarly suggested acceptable fit (NFI, IFI, and TLI, initial=0.980, 0.996, and 0.993;trimmed=0.985, 0.997, and 0.997). In sum, the SEM analysis indicated support for Hypothesis 1a (empowering leadership wasassociated with satisfaction); Hypothesis 1b (empowering leadership was associated with performance); Hypothesis 2b(empowering leadership was inversely associated with dysfunctional resistance); Hypothesis 3b (dysfunctional resistance was

Table 4Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates and significance levels for model in Fig. 1 with hold-out sample (N=110).



Empowering→satisfaction 0.230 0.061 0.219 3.786 0.001Empowering→ functional −0.021 0.052 −0.021 −0.407 0.684Empowering→dysfunctional −0.373 0.083 −0.349 −4.495 0.001Empowering→performance 0.214 0.077 0.209 2.785 0.005Functional→satisfaction −0.020 0.049 −0.019 −0.408 0.683Functional→performance −0.007 0.019 −0.007 −0.375 0.708Dysfunctional→satisfaction −0.100 0.048 −0.101 −2.093 0.036Dysfunctional→performance 0.019 0.046 0.020 0.419 0.675Performance→satisfaction 0.090 0.045 0.087 2.005 0.045

Note: χ2=274.30, df=223, p=0.011; RMSEA=0.046.

Fig. 3. Trimmed model with standardized parameter estimates for hold-out sample: six paths (*denotes pb0.05, **denotes pb0.01).


inversely associated with performance); Hypothesis 4b (dysfunctional resistance was inversely associated with job satisfaction);and Hypothesis 5 (job performance was associated with job satisfaction). Fig. 2 portrays the pathways of the trimmedmodel withthe obtained standardized parameters estimates.

As a further check on the reliability of the present findings, a hold-out sample was tested with the same structural equationprocedures. Specifically, 110 teacher-principal dyads were selected from among those not included in the initial analyses. These110 dyads were again selected so as to be unique members of their respective institutions (i.e., each teacher was associated with asingle principal). The same initial hypothesized model, consisting of nine pathways, was again tested with a SEM approach (i.e.,Fig. 1). Table 4 summarizes the results from the structural model estimation (the measurement model item estimates were againall significant and associated with their respective scales). The pattern of significant parameter estimates essentially replicatedthat found for the original sample, with the notable exception that the pathway from dysfunctional resistance to performance wasno longer significant. The overall model had reasonable fit, as indicated by a RMSEA of 0.046, with a lower bound of 0.023 and anupper bound of 0.063. Plus, the NFI, IFI, and TLI were 0.968, 0.994, and 0.990, respectively. The overall chi-square was 274.28, withdf=223, p=0.011.

To test whether the results of the earlier trimmedmodel could be replicated, the hold-out samplewas tested for fit with the six-pathwaymodel presented in Fig. 3. The results for a test of the trimmedmodel are given in Table 5. For this analysis, five of the sixpathways were found to be significant (with the pathway from dysfunctional resistance to performance being non-significant inthe hold-out sample, see Fig. 3 for a portrayal of the pathways and the obtained standardized estimates). The overall fit of thistrimmed model for the hold-out sample, however, was relatively superior. For example, the overall chi-square was no longerstatistically significant (chi-square=167.99, df=141, p=0.060, indicating a good fit) and the RMSEA was .042 (lower

Table 5Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates and significance levels for trimmed model in Fig. 2 with hold-out sample (N=110).



Empowering→satisfaction 0.234 0.062 0.233 3.787 0.001Empowering→dysfunctional −0.379 0.084 −0.355 −4.538 0.001Empowering→performance 0.215 0.078 0.211 2.773 0.006Dysfunctional→satisfaction −0.106 0.050 −0.108 −2.141 0.032Dysfunctional→performance 0.025 0.046 0.026 0.531 0.596Performance→satisfaction 0.089 0.045 0.223 1.993 0.046

Note: χ2=167.99, df=141, p=0.060; RMSEA=0.042.

4 Intriguingly, recent research by Goncalo and Staw (2006) also suggests further limits to a collectivist approach in that creativity has been found to be greaterin individualistically-oriented groups.


bound=0.000, upper bound=0.064). Also, the NFI, IFI, and TLI were .977, .996, and .993, respectively. Further, the reduction inchi-square from the initial model to the trimmed model was significant (274.28−167.99=106.29, exceeding the critical chi-square value of 103.01 for df for the difference=223−142=81). Hence, we can conclude that five of the six pathways identifiedas significant in the test of the initial hypothesized model could be replicated with a hold-out sample.

6. Discussion

Locke et al. (2001) have argued that management is presently operating in an age of “groupism,” where the contemporaryfocus on leadership and motivation endorses the value of group processes (with a concomitant reduced emphasis on theimportance of the individual). Similarly, Goncalo and Staw (2006) identified a widespread enthusiasm for collectivistmanagement techniques (versus individualistic techniques). Despite the popularity of this emerging perspective, many worksettings have not adopted a full-blown team structure, but instead have tried to incorporate power sharing in a manner that seeksto motivate employees to strive for higher levels of accomplishment within a hierarchical system. Interestingly, Locke (2003) hassuggested that leaders should not totally abdicate their responsibility for providing vision and strategic direction, but insteadshould develop a two-way social influence dynamic with their subordinates while also promoting greater subordinate-to-subordinate sharing of job knowledge, power, resources, and information (Ilgen, 1995; Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1999).4 Inessence, Locke's “integrative model” reflects a hybrid view of leadership that incorporates both top-down and bottom-up socialinfluence processes, as well as lateral (team) influence. While Locke acknowledges the potential value of a pure lateral influencemodel, this completely “flat” scheme may not truly represent leadership, per se, as it is a system composed of genuine equals.Therefore, Locke's integrative model, further explicated in a theoretical letter exchange in Leadership Quarterly with Pearce andConger (Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2007), more closely represents the circumstances of many modern workplaces, wherein anominal head is seeking to incorporate principles of shared leadership while still maintaining control within an essentiallyhierarchical structure. The results of the present study are, as a consequence, particularly relevant and informative for these typesof work settings as they suggest important benefits of engaging in empowering leadership.

Evaluated in their totality, the present findings are supportive of the suggested value of empowering leadership in that leaderswho encouraged greater independence from authority and greater lateral cooperation had subordinates who reported higherlevels of satisfaction. This is not a trivial finding as other research on empowering leadership (using Arnold et al.'s EmpoweringLeadership Questionnaire) has suggested that the association of empowering leadership and employee satisfaction may actuallybe inverse in some settings (Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler, 2000). A further challenge, therefore, lies in thespecification of the situational attributes that invert this association. But of perhaps equal or greater importance is the presentfinding that the performance of employees who experienced empowering leadership was also higher. Furthermore, employeeswho experienced empowering leadership also reported engaging in less dysfunctional resistance. However, constructive (orfunctional) resistance was not found to be associated with empowering leadership. Perhaps it is too simplistic to equateconstructive employee resistance with a positive, or supportive, demeanor. In the eyes of some leaders, constructive resistance isstill basically resistance. Also, for some leaders, constructive employee resistance may be viewed as a “cover” for a deeper desire tonot be cooperative (for either selfish reasons on the part of the employee or because of a masked desire to undermine the leader).For some leaders, resistance of all types is seen as a potential source of problems, relative to the possibly preferred response ofsimple compliance.

Further evidence that leaders may view all forms of resistance in negative terms is available in the present finding that leaderratings of employee performance were inversely associated with subordinate reports of dysfunctional resistance. The near-zeroassociation of employee performance with constructive resistance suggests that some leaders may not be sure how to read theirsubordinates’ behaviors (i.e., they may be suspicious as to the underlying motives of “functional” resistance). This raises aninteresting question for future research: Does a leader's interpretation of a subordinate's possible disloyalty and lack of motivationinfluence whether the leader regards a constructive resistance response in positive or negative terms (i.e., perceived disloyalty orperceived low motivation by a subordinate may moderate the association of employee constructive resistance and rated


performance). From a practical standpoint, the present findings suggest that subordinates need to be cautious when usingconstructive resistance, so as to avoid having their actions interpreted as being driven by disloyalty to the leader or lack ofmotivation to perform. Further, the present findings, in conjunction with the findings in the literature on task-based conflict,suggest that the relationship between constructive forms of disagreement and performance is highly complex (cf. De Dreu &Weingart, 2003).

The results of the present analyses also offer some interesting insights in that the advocates of greater levels of empoweringleadership have sought to specify the mechanisms by which power sharing might impact employees. The present results are ofspecial interest because they also highlight dysfunctional social dynamics (a side of the social equation that is typically neglectedby research that focuses on the hoped-for positive dynamics of empowering leadership prompting social reciprocity and self-efficacy motives). From the present analysis, it appears that both performance and satisfaction may be impacted by empoweringleadership through the potential linkage of reduced dysfunctional resistance. Satisfaction may also be influenced by empoweringleadership through the pathway of increased performance. Empowering leadership may help to overcome dysfunctionalresistance because it places greater responsibility on the employee and raises an employee's sense of self-worth through offeringgreater personal and professional challenges.

6.1. Limitations and further questions

Because this study was essentially cross-sectional in nature and SEM-based results do not justify claims of causal direction, onecannot easily invoke causal dynamics (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Spector, 1987,2006). However, the independence of the sources of the key variables (i.e., the obtainment of employee performance ratings fromsuperiors, the obtainment of descriptions of leader behavior from subordinates, and the self-reporting by employees of theirresistance behaviors) is a positive feature of this study's design. Also, it seems unlikely that employee reports of their leader'sbehavior drove leader evaluations of employee performance (although it is, of course, plausible that prior performance evaluationscould influence employee reports of their leader's behavior).5

Similarly, the identified linkage between empowering leadership and dysfunctional employee resistance offers a perspectivefor further insights. While the demonstration of mediation of these relationships is valuable, we do not have a completeunderstanding of how empowering leadership might be employed to overcome resistance, or what precise leader behaviors aremore likely to induce resistance. Does social reciprocity underlie the relationship between empowering leadership and lowerdysfunctional resistance, while an attempt to re-establish one's sense of social status underlies the relationship between employeeperformance and greater dysfunctional resistance? Perhaps multiple perspectives for assessing employee resistance, as well asreplications in the for-profit sector, may further illuminate our understanding of employee response to leader behaviors. Certainly,questions remain as to the generalizability of the observed effects of empowering leadership for other organizational settings. Inaddition, it would be valuable to see future research on empowering leadership that spanned a fuller range of employee responses(from greater commitment, which is presumed the target of empowering leadership, to mere compliance, to forms of resistance).

A further topic for future research pertains to determining whether empowering leadership might be especially valuable inreducing rivalry among peers. Competition among coworkers in the workplace is often lamented as placing a brake on unitperformance and limiting unit morale. Empowering leadership, through the leader's active emphasis on mutual support amongunit members, may help to boost member contributions by spotlighting such forms of subtle resistance as the withholding of bothinformation and effort. Therefore, empowering leadership may be shown to have its beneficial impact through discouraging andeliminating certain types of employee behavior that are tied to competitiveness among coworkers. One beneficial side-effect ofthis social dynamic is that we should expect to find less employee envy (i.e., coworker resentment) in workgroups that haveleaders who engage in empowering leadership (Vecchio, 1995, 2007). Employee envy should be reduced as a result of a leader'semphasis on coworker collaboration and cooperation. By having subordinates focus on superordinate goals and mutual support,leaders should find less in-fighting among their subordinates.

It is important to note that the present study employed a measure of empowering leadership that was derived from the Manzand Sims (1995) and Pearce and Sims (2002) stream of leadership research. Future research may be better informed by utilizing awider range of alternative measures of empowering leadership. For example, the Arnold et al. (2000) Empowering LeadershipQuestionnaire (ELQ) offers a multi-dimensional measure of the empowering leadership construct. The factorial structure of theELQ could offer additional insights on the role of leader empowerment. Research that seeks to contrast and integrate alternativeindices of empowering leadership would be a welcome addition to this literature.

6.2. Summary

A common theme contained in recent efforts to connect empowerment and leadership is that key leader behaviors can enhancean employee's job satisfaction (Arnold et al., 2000; Aryee & Chen, 2006; Carless, 2004; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999;Kirkman & Rosen, 1999) and job performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Koberg et al., 1999; Spreitzer, 1995). However, the

5 It should be noted that although a pilot sample of administrators, principals, and teachers endorsed the performance scale items as relevant to theperformance appraisal task (i.e., the job descriptions for the lead teachers did not differ so greatly that a common metric could not be used), the presentperformance results may be limited by additional uncontrolled variance. As a consequence, it should have been more difficult to identify significant associations(as the present statistical tests were, therefore, relatively conservative or less likely to detect effects).


mediating mechanisms by which empowering leadership may be linked to employee attitudes and performance are not wellspecified. The present study, while building on the original work of Tepper et al. (2001) on employee resistance, incorporated thedependent variables of employee performance and satisfaction, and examined empowering leadership in an attempt to more fullyexplain the possible connections among leader behavior, employee resistance, and employee performance and satisfaction. Ofspecial note, empowering leadership was found to be associated (inversely) with dysfunctional (but not associated withfunctional) employee resistance. Moreover, it was found that the linkage between both performance and satisfaction withempowering leadership involves the mediation of employee dysfunctional resistance. As noted by Stewart (2006), empoweringleadership has been identified as a factor that may help to improveworkgroup dynamics. Because we expect that leaders may varythe extent to which they empower individual subordinates, the present results further show that empowering leadership can alsobe examined at the dyadic level within a traditional, hierarchical structure.

Appendix A

Empowering leadershipIndependent action

1. Encourages me to find solutions to my problems without his/her direct input.2. Urges me to assume responsibilities on my own.3. Advises me to solve problems when they pop up without always getting a stamp of approval.4. Encourages me to search for solutions without supervision.

Opportunistic thinking

5. Urges me to think of problems as opportunities rather than obstacles.6. Advises me to look for the opportunities in the problems I face.7. Encourages me to view unsuccessful performance as a chance to learn.

Cooperative action

8. Urges me to work as a team with the other teachers who work at the school.9. Encourages me to work together with other teachers who work at the school.10. Advises me to coordinate my efforts with the other teachers who work at the school.

References

Academy of Management Journal Public Affairs Forum (2005). Making public schools work: Management reform is the key. Academy of Management Journal, 48,929−940.

Ahearne, J. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of influence of leadershipempowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945−955.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Arnold, J., Arad, S., Rhoades, J., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring

leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249−269.Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes.

Journal of Business Research, 59, 793−801.Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755−777.Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and

performance. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 3, 173−209.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175−1184.Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in schools—Panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39,

24−46.Barry, B., & Watson, M. R. (1996). Communication aspects of dyadic social influence in organizations: A review and integration of conceptual and empirical

developments. In B. R. Burleson & A. W. Kunkel (Eds.), Communication yearbook, 19 (pp. 269−317). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Bennis, W. G., & Townsend, R. (1997). Reinventing leadership: Strategies to empower the organization. New York, NY: Morrow/Avon.Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238−246.Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 671−727.Bliese, P. D. (2000). Multilevel random coefficient modeling in organizational research. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in

organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 401−445). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational

Research Methods, 7, 400−417.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136−162).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Bryne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Burke, M. J., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the Average Deviation Index: A user's guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5,

159−172.Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating inter-rater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49−68.California Department of Education (2001). California public school directory 2001. Sacramento: CDE Press.Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organization members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. Mirvis,

& C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change (pp. 71−138). New York, NY: Wiley.Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and

Psychology, 18, 405−425.


Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 50, 1217−1234.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23,239−290.

Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasiexperiment. Human Relations, 47, 13−43.Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643−676.Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471−482.Cotton, J., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. I., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of

Management Review, 13, 8−22.Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297−334.Dansereau, F. (1995). A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 479−490.Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the

role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46−78.De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and teammember satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 741−749.Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11,

618−634.Dunlap, W. P., Burke, M. J., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2003). Accurate tests of statistical significance for Rwg and average deviation interrater agreement indexes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88, 356−362.Eden, D. (1998). The paradox of school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 249−261.Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications

for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217−231.Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638−653.Federation of Small Businesses (2006). Small Business Stats. Available online http://www.fsb.org.uk/data/default.asp?id=64&loc=policyGibb, C. A. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 877−917). Reading, MA: Addeson-Wesley.Goncalo, S. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96−109.Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology

(pp. 1201−1245). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (2006). Sharing network leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Greene, C. N. (1973). Causal connections among managers merit pay, job-satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 95−100.Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research

Methods, 7, 191−205.Headd, B. (2000). The characteristics of small-business employees. Monthly Labor Review, 123, 13−18.Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23, 26−34.Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24,

623−641.Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 179−185.Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job-satisfaction and job-performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251−273.Ilgen, D. (1995). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129−139.Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological

Bulletin, 127, 376−407.Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 67, 85−92.Kauffeld, S. (2006). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 1−21.Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375−403.Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and

development (pp. 131−167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58−74.Koberg, C. S., Boss, W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry.

Group and Organization Management, 34, 71−91.Kopelman, R. E. (1979). A causal-correlational test of the Porter and Lawler Framework. Human Relations, 32, 545−556.Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology:

Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333−375). New York, NY: Wiley.Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Benson, G. (2001). Organizing for high performance: Employment involvement, TQM, reengineering, and knowledge management in the

Fortune 1000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ledford, G. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1994). Research on employee participation: Beating a dead horse. Academy of Management Review, 19, 633−636.Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 498−518.Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1997). Explaining variation in teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership: A replication. Journal of Educational Administration, 35,

312−331.Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Lindquist, E. F. (1940). Statistical analysis in educational research. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Liu, W., Lepak, D. P., Takeuchi, R., & Sims, H. P. (2003). Matching leadership styles with employment modes: Strategic HRM perspective. Human Management

Resource Review, 13, 127−152.Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Sharing leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 271−284).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Locke, E. A., Tirauer, D., Roberson, Q., Goldman, B., Latham, M., & Welden, E. (2001). The importance of the individual in an age of groupism. In M. Turner (Ed.),

Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of

salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 1−28.Mahoney, M., & Arnkoff, D. (1978). Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. Garfield & A. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavioral change. New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,

106−128.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1990). Superleadership. New York, NY: Berkeley Books.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1995). Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader's companion (pp. 212−221). New York, NY:

Free Press.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2001). The new superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356−376.Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Mohrman, S., Cohen, S., & Mohrman, A. (1999). Designing team-based organizations: New forms of knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.fsb.org.uk/data/default.asp?id=64&loc=policy


Moye, M. J., Henkin, A. B., & Egley, R. J. (2005). Teacher–principal relationships: Exploring linkages between empowerment and interpersonal trust. Journal ofEducational Administration, 43, 260−277.

Mumford, M. D., Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Followers, motivations, and levels of analysis on the case of individualized leadership. LeadershipQuarterly, 11, 313−340.

National Federation of Independent Business (2007). Small business facts. Available online www.nfib.com/object/smallBusinessFactsPearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Sharing leadership: the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2007). Shared leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 281−288.Pearce, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2003). Teams behaving badly: Counterproductive behavior at the team level of analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33,

58−75.Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances

in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 115−139). Amsterdam: JAI.Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,

directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172−197.Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., et al. (2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical

typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 273−307.Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social work and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In

R. E. Riggio & S. Smith-Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. 180−203). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job-satisfaction and individual-performance.

Academy of Management Review, 9, 712−721.Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organization research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531−544.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, 879−903.Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey Press.Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Robert, C., Probst, J. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and

India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 643−658.Royal Bank of Canada (2005). Current and future small business owners provide insights. Available online www.rbc.com/newsroom/20051003smallbus.htmlSmith-Crowe, K., & Burke, M. J. (2003). Interpreting the statistical significance of observed AD interrater agreement values: Correction to Burke and Dunlap (2002).

Organizational Research Methods, 6, 129−131.Spector, G. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,

438−443.Spector, G. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Myth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221−232.Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442−1465.Spreitzer, G. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483−504.Spreitzer, G. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment. In C. Cooper, & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational

Behavior (pp. 54−72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Spreitzer, G., & Doneson, D. (2008). Musings on the past and future of employee empowerment. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organizational development

(pp. 311−324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239−1251.Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29−54.Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 974−983.Tepper, B. J., Eisenbach, R. J., Kirby, S. L., & Porter, P.W. (1998). Test of a justice-based model of subordinates’ resistance to downward influence attempts. Group and

Organization Management, 23, 144−160.Tepper, B. J., Uhl-Bien, M., Kohut, G. F., Rogelberg, S. G., Lockhart, D. E., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Subordinates’ resistance and managers’ evaluations of subordinates’

performance. Journal of Management, 32, 185−209.Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management

Review, 15, 666−681.Thorenson, E. E., & Mahoney, M. J. (1974). Behavioral self-control. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. (1999). The impact of high involvement work processes upon organizational effectiveness: A 2nd-order latent

variable approach. Group and Organizational Management, 24, 300−339.Vecchio, R. P. (1995). It's not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management

(pp. 201−244). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Vecchio, R. P. (2007). Cinderella and Salieri in the workplace: The envied and the envier. In S. W. Gilliland, D. W. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social

issues in management (pp. 109−134). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1995). Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leader participation. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 169−181.Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Yukl, G., Fu, P. P., & McDonald, R. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for initiating or resisting change. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 52, 68−82.

http://www.nfib.com/object/smallBusinessFacts

http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/20051003smallbus.html

empowering leadership

Documents

dene shared leadership

teamempowering leadership

eld of leadership

sign otownovemthe leadership

pearce b

workgroup pearce conger

b s t r

justin b