the relationship between leader’s perceived uncertainty

The Relationship between Leader’s Perceived Uncertainty and Team Performance:

The Mediating Role of Directive Leadership Style

Thesis for MSc HRM

University of Groningen

Date: June 13, 2021

Lieke Pouwels

S4364007

[email protected]

Supervisor: Wout de Vries, MSc.

[email protected]

Wordcount: 10877

2

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the results of a quantitative study on leadership during the COVID-19

crisis. Following the current literature, it is expected that a leader's perceived uncertainty

negatively influences team performance and that this relationship is mediated by a directive

leadership style. According to the current literature, team tenure will also negatively influence

the relationship between directive leadership and team performance. This study used the data

of leaders who participated in a questionnaire with several members of their team. Employees

rated their leaders on their leadership style, while leaders rated their employees on team

outcomes. Results showed that no significant evidence was found for the proposed moderated

mediation relationship. Also, no significant relationship was found between leader's perceived

uncertainty and team performance and leader's perceived uncertainty and directive leadership.

Results did show that directive leadership significant negatively related to employee

performance, however, this relationship was not moderated by team tenure. Those findings

show evidence for relationships that contradict the current literature.

Keywords: Uncertainty, leadership, team performance, directive leadership, team tenure,

crisis.

3

INTRODUCTION

During the global pandemic since the beginning of 2020, business is facing uncertainty

and the threat of losing their companies, and therefore, good leaders are needed during the crisis.

A lot of problems were caused in health care due to COVID-19 (Ceukelaire & Bodini, 2020),

but not only health care is affected. Pandey (2020) suggests that the whole financial sector will

face negative consequences witnessing this COVID-19 crisis. Pearson and Clair (1998) state

that a crisis is an event containing high ambiguity with unknown causes and effects, and

therefore it is a major threat for the organization. They suggest that to manage a crisis

effectively, leaders can make a difference in the survival of the organization. When leaders face

this threat during a crisis, they will feel low controllability of the organization because other

factors constrain the actions of the leaders (Jackson & Dutton, 1988). Vessey, Barrett and

Mumford (2011) argue that during these times of uncertainty, the cognition of a leader is an

important influence on team performance. This is described by Nguyen, Yandi and Mahaputra

(2020) who state that leadership is one of the factors that influence team performance.

O’Driscoll and Beehr (1994) also found that leaders can influence the amount of stress

employees perceive from the environmental crisis or threat and therefore leaders do have an

influence on team performance. Therefore, this paper will investigate the influence of the

leader’s perceived uncertainty on team performance. To research this subject, the question for

this research is: “To what extent does the leader’s perceived uncertainty influence team

performance?”

To research the influence of a leader's perceived uncertainty on team performance, a

proposed model will be developed with a mediating effect of directive leadership and a

moderating effect of team tenure. The threat-rigidity theory of Staw, Sandelands and Dutton

(1981) suggest that when leaders perceive uncertainty, their behaviour will change toward a

more dominant leadership style. Because this theory suggests that a leader's behaviour changes

4

during uncertainty and becomes more dominant, directive leadership will be used as a mediator.

This thesis will add to the current debate on participative versus directive leadership style and

its effectiveness on team outcomes (e.g. Bartsch, Weber, Büttgen & Huber, 2020). The current

literature shows that directive leadership, as well as participative leadership, do have a positive

influence on performance (Somech & Wenderow, 2006; Dolatabadi & Safa, 2010). Employees

have different needs of leaders and the situational leadership approach suggests that when

employees do have a lower tenure, they need more guidance and structure from the leader and

therefore a directive leader will enhance their performance (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969a). For

this reason, team tenure will be used as a moderator in the model for the relationship between

directive leadership and team performance.

Several researchers and theories already addressed the subject of leadership during a

crisis and its outcomes on teams. The contingency theory of Fiedler (1971b, 1978) suggests that

the effectiveness of leadership is depending on the situation the leader is in. In this theory, it is

stated that when the task structure for teams is low, so group tasks are ambiguous with no clear

goal, the directive leadership style is a more suitable approach to gain better team performance.

Carrington, Combe and Mumford (2019) showed that during a crisis, the leader influences

followers and not the other way around and therefore, the leadership style the leader uses is of

great importance for the outcomes of teams (Chiok Foong Loke, 2001; Rosen, Harris &

Kacmar, 2011).

Those variables will be researched using a questionnaire for leaders and their teams

which is conducted in times of uncertainty. In this questionnaire, the leader will answer

questions on the uncertainty they perceive and they will rate their employees on several

outcomes. The employees will rate their leader on their leadership style. The COVID-19 crisis

in which this research was done gave a unique opportunity to investigate the influence of

uncertainty on leadership and employee outcomes. Researchers often suggest that a crisis

5

automatically leads to perceived uncertainty and threat by leaders (Pearson & Clair, 1998;

Wang, Hutchins & Garavan, 2009). Reilly (1987) also states that a crisis situation will cause

uncertainty, since a crisis an unexpected and unfamiliar event. In this study, it will not be

assumed that leaders automatically perceive uncertainty but the perceived uncertainty of leaders

will be asked for straightforwardly to leaders in the questionnaire.

This study makes several contributions to the current literature. At first, this study will

research the uncertainty a leader perceives by asking the leaders about their perceived

uncertainty. Other studies often assume that a crisis leads to uncertainty for a leader, but the

current thesis will contribute to this literature by actually researching the amount of uncertainty

a leader perceives during this COVID-19 crisis. Secondly, the contingency theory of Fiedler

(1971a, 1978) and the threat-rigidity theory of Staw et al. (1981) suggest that the leader changes

their behaviour when he or she is facing a different situation or a threat. The current research

will contribute to this by also taking into account the perspective of the employee and the

influence of this perceived uncertainty on employees during the crisis.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Leader’s Perceived Uncertainty and Team Performance

During times of uncertainty, the perception of a leader is an important influence on

performance (Vessey et al., 2011). The perception of a leader is the way in which the leader

interprets their experiences and this perception can create the effectiveness and climate of the

working environment (Otara, 2011). The uncertainty a leader perceives differs across different

leaders as leaders in different organizations can interpret the same situation differently (Thomas

& McDaniel, 1990). A crisis is an unexpected and unfamiliar event (Reilly, 1987) with high

ambiguity and unknown causes and effects (Wang et al., 2009) that forms a major threat for the

6

organization (Pearson & Clair, 1998). Egelhoff (1982) suggests that a crisis often includes

strategic issues, which can include different threats and problems and are often ambiguous and

therefore require good interpretation effort (Mintzberg, Raisinghani & Theoret, 1976). Milliken

(1987) describes in his paper environmental uncertainty as consisting of three different types

of uncertainty, namely state uncertainty, effect uncertainty and response uncertainty. State

uncertainty is the uncertainty managers can have when they perceive the organizational

environment as unpredictable. Effect uncertainty is defined as the inability to predict what the

impact of the environmental change will be on the organization. Response uncertainty happens

when there is a lack of knowledge of response options for the managers and so there is an

inability to predict the consequences of a response. The current research will look to uncertainty

based on how leaders are capable of addressing and managing the situation. This is in line with

response uncertainty described by Milliken (1987) and so the response uncertainty will be taken

into consideration to form the definition of the perceived uncertainty of leaders in their

organization.

Besides the perceptions of leaders, also the emotions they perceive during times of crisis

can predict the performance of teams. Employee performance means the "financial or non-

financial outcome of the employee that has a direct link with the performance of the

organization and its success" (Anitha, 2014: 313). During uncertainty and in crises, there is a

high probability that leaders of an organization and other professionals in that organization

experience more negative emotions such as stress and anxiety (Neck & Manz, 1996). The

negative emotional reactions are often caused by the pressure on leaders to deliver an immediate

and effective reaction to the crisis and therefore, the leader can perceive uncertainty through

their emotions (Pearson & Clair, 1998). Research from Eberly and Fong (2013) show that the

emotions of leaders can affect the emotions and perceptions of followers and therefore also can

affect follower's outcomes. Humphrey (2002) showed that those emotions of leaders

7

specifically can influence the performance of their followers, he states that leaders who are able

to manage their emotions can influence team and individual performance. So, it can be stated

that leaders perceive certain emotions during times of crisis, which influence how they perceive

uncertainty and so, the performance of a leader’s followers will be influenced.

Lastly, not only the leader can perceive uncertainty during a crisis but employees can

feel the same uncertainty too and this can influence their performance. Nelson, Cooper and

Jackson (1995) state that perceived uncertainty of employees themselves has a negative

relationship with many employee outcomes such as job performance. In their study, Cullen,

Edwards, Casper and Gue (2013) found that this negative relationship between perceived

uncertainty of employees and their job outcomes is mediated by the amount of support they

perceive to get from the organization they work for. This means that the employees need to be

guided through the uncertainty by their organization, which is also supported by O’Driscoll and

Beehr (1994) who state that supervisors can influence the uncertainty perceived by employees.

They found that supervisors can influence the amount of stress and uncertainty employees

experience and that this level of stress and uncertainty can, in turn, affect team performance.

So, the perception of the uncertainty of leaders is an important influence on team

performance. Leaders can have emotions that cause perceptions of uncertainty and this affects

team performance negatively. Also, employees can perceive some uncertainty themselves

during times of crisis, which also negatively affect their performance and call for leadership

and guidance of the organization. For those reasons the first hypothesis of the proposed model

in Appendix A is:

Hypothesis 1: There exists a negative relationship between the leader’s perceived

uncertainty and team performance.

8

Leader’s Perceived Uncertainty and Directive Leadership

The threat-rigidity theory of Staw et al. (1981) describes how individuals respond to a

threat. A threat involves that “feelings of control are likely to be low because others constrain

the actions of managers” (Jackson & Dutton, 1988: 375). Thomas, Clark and Gioia (1993)

found that the use and availability of information has a positive influence on controllability.

However, the definition of uncertainty of Milliken (1987) suggests that when managers

perceive uncertainty, there is a lack of information and knowledge on possible response options.

Therefore, it can be suggested that a threat, in which feelings of control are low, is a situation

in which a leader perceives uncertainty. The threat-rigidity theory (Staw et al., 1981) shows that

in situations of a threat, with restrictions in information, individuals put more emphasis on prior

experiences. In that way, when there is a lack of controllability of the situation, individuals tend

to behave in a more dominant and controlling way, which suggests that when organizations,

including top managers, experience a shock or threat, they will try to exercise more control.

Stoker, Garretsen and Soudis (2019) describe this with their study to the financial crisis of 2008

where they found that this financial crisis led to an increase in directive leadership. Therefore,

they stated that directive leadership behaviour increased with the magnitude of the crisis.

As the threat-rigidity theory suggested that there is a relationship between a perceived

threat and a changing leadership style towards a more dominant style, more studies are pointing

in this direction. Directive leadership "characterizes a leader who gives followers instructions

about their task, including what is expected of them, how it is to be done, and the timeline for

when it should be completed" (Northouse, 2019: 120). The contingency theory of Fiedler

(1971b, 1978) states that when tasks are ambiguous and there is no clear goal, a directive

leadership style is a more suitable approach. With the situational approach to leadership,

Blanchard (1985) suggests that there is no one best leadership style, but that leaders should

adapt their behaviour to meet the demands of that specific situation. Griffin, Neal and Parker

9

(2007) support this by showing that when the work context involves uncertainty and leaders

cannot behave in their normal roles, they need to be adaptive in their leadership style. The

situational approach to leadership suggests that leadership is composed of a supportive and a

directive dimension and that each dimension should be applied in the appropriate situation

(Northouse, 2019). To determine which leadership style is needed, the leader must evaluate her

or his followers and change their style to their needs in a given situation. Rast, Hogg and

Giessner (2012) found that employees who felt the uncertainty of the situation were more in

need of an autocratic or directive leader. Hogg and Adelman (2013) also found that perceived

uncertainty can make it difficult to plan action and therefore, the behaviour of a leader that takes

action and motivates to reduce uncertainty is needed. For those reasons, the second hypothesis

is:

Hypothesis 2: Leader’s perceived uncertainty is positively related to a directive

leadership style

Directive Leadership Style and Team Performance

The path-goal theory of House (1971) suggests that there are primary four leadership

behaviours identified that explain how leaders can help followers along their path towards

reaching their goals. It is suggested that when leaders clarify the goals for the subordinates, the

perception of the path will change and therefore the performance of employees in the team of

the leader will increase. Both the participative leadership style and the directive leadership style

are mentioned very often as comparison by different researchers (e.g. Li, Liu & Luo, 2018;

Arnold & Loughlin, 2013) and are also both associated with high levels of team outcomes such

as job performance (Sagie, Zaidman, Amichai-Hamburger, Te’eni, & Schwartz, 2002).

A directive leadership style and a participative leadership style were both found to

having a relationship with team performance. In their study of the directive and participative

10

leadership style on performance, Somech and Wenderow (2006) found that both a participative

leadership style and a directive leadership style have a positive influence on employee's

performance. Dolatabadi and Safa (2010) suggest that both the participative and directive

leadership style will help employees to get a better understanding of their roles and

responsibilities in the firm. Besides those findings that both participative and directive

leadership styles are positively related to performance, Li et al. (2018) found that participative

leadership can enable higher creativity in teams but lower efficiency, while directive leadership

will create higher efficiency of employees which is an important dimension of higher team

performance. Therefore, they suggest that leaders should pay more attention to behaving in

directive leadership. In a recent study of Bartsch et al. (2020) in service industries, they found

that during times of crisis, task-oriented, as well as relation-oriented leadership behaviours, are

needed to keep the good level of employee's work performance. Especially engaging in task-

oriented leadership behaviour that guides employees and sets a clear direction will improve

teamwork and team performance according to this research. Zheng, Gou, Wu, Zhao, Li and Liu

(2021) add to the mentioned theories that the influence on the performance of teams with a

directive leadership style is mediated by the leader-member exchange. Leader-member

exchange is the exchange relationship between leader and follower (Liden and Maslyn, 1998)

and this exchange quality can be improved by the leadership style the leader uses. Zheng et al.

(2021) found that this quality of the exchange relationship between leader and follower is higher

when the leader uses a participative leadership style and so, also the performance of teams is

higher when the leader uses a participative leadership style rather than a directive leadership

style.

Even though there were positive relationships found for directive leadership and

participative leadership on team performance, some studies also show differences between the

styles. In an experimental study of leadership styles on team performance, Sanchez-

11

Manzanares, Rico, Antino and Uitdewilligen (2020) found that directive leadership had a more

positive influence on team performance than participative leadership had. In another

experimental study of Lorinkova, Pearsall and Sims (2013), they also found that directive

leadership has a more positive influence on performance rather than participative leadership.

However, Somech and Wenderow (2006) concluded their findings of a questionnaire study by

suggesting that, even though they found that both directive leadership, as well as participative

leadership, do have a positive influence on performance, the participative leadership style is

having a higher positive effect on performance than does directive leadership. In a questionnaire

study of Stoker (2008) she found that for teams with a longer tenure, the performance was

higher when the leader showed participative leadership behaviours rather than directive

leadership behaviours.

Nevertheless, it is assumed that a directive leadership style has a positive influence on

employee’s performance and so on the performance of the team. Therefore, the third hypothesis

is:

Hypothesis 3: A leader’s directive leadership style is positively related to team

performance

The Moderating Effect of Team’s Tenure in Current Position on the Relationship between

Leader’s Directive Leadership Style and Team Performance

The tenure of employees in their current position can influence how employees perceive

their leader because employees with different tenures do have different needs they expect from

their leader (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969a). Hersey and Blanchard came up with the situational

approach of leadership in which they state that different situations demand a different kind of

leadership. From this perspective, it is suggested that leaders should match their leadership style

to the commitment and competence of their followers and therefore change the degree to which

12

they are directive or supportive (Northouse, 2019). According to this situational approach,

followers are at a specific developmental level where their competence and commitment to the

organization differs over time. Followers that are new to the organization or team of the leader,

and so have a lower tenure, have been identified as followers with high levels of commitment,

but lower levels of competency. The situational approach of Hersey and Blanchard (1969a)

suggests that when a leader has followers at this developmental level, they should use more

directive and less supportive behaviours to create better employee outcomes. The path-goal

theory of House (1971) adds to this situational leadership approach by stating that follower

characteristics indeed play a role in interpreting a leader's behaviour. The low level of

competence in the situational leadership approach comes with a for employees ambiguous and

unclear work environment and the path-goal theory does also call for a directive leadership style

in which there is clear guidance in this low level of competence (Northouse, 2019).

Besides this theory on the situational approach, there is also empirical evidence in favour

of the statement of the situational approach that when followers do have a lower tenure, a more

directive leadership approach is more suitable. In a study of Stoker (2008) on self-managing

teams, she found that team tenure is a moderator for the relationship between initiating structure

and employee performance. Northouse (2019) states that the initiating structure concept is

similar to directive leadership because both styles give followers explicit expectations and

guidance and set goals for the employees. In her study, Stoker (2008) found that employees

with low team tenure, so employees with shorter tenure in their current position, had higher

levels of performance when their leader shows initiating structure behaviours. Team members

with longer team tenure show a negative relationship between initiating structure and

performance. Another study by Kim, Liu and Diefendorff (2014) found that the tenure of

employees in their organization moderated the relationship between directive leadership and

job performance, such that the positive effect of directive leadership on employee performance

13

becomes weaker when organizational tenure increased. For those reasons, the fourth hypothesis

is:

Hypothesis 4: Employee’s tenure in their current position in their team moderates the

relationship between leader’s directive leadership style and team performance, so that

the relationship between directiveness and performance is more strong when team

tenure is low than when team tenure is high.

Participative Leadership Style as a Control Mediator

The literature often compares the participative leadership style and the directive

leadership style (e.g. Li et al., 2018; Arnold & Loughlin, 2013; Somech & Wenderow, 2006).

Sagie et al. (2002) suggest that directive leadership and participative leadership both have a

positive relationship with high levels of team outcomes such as job performance and job

satisfaction. Somech and Wenderow (2006) found that both styles do have a positive

influence but that the participative leadership style is having a higher positive effect on

performance than does directive leadership. Zheng et al. (2021) describe this by also stating

that the performance of teams is higher with a participative leadership style rather than a

directive leadership style. The threat-rigidity theory of Staw et al. (1981) suggests that when

individuals experience a threat, they will fall back into their natural habits and therefore, their

usual behaviour will expect what their behaviour during a threat will be. Griffin et al. (2007)

show that when there is uncertainty, directive leaders are needed. Rast et al. (2012) also

suggest that employees are more in need of a directive leader during uncertainty. Therefore, it

is expected that leaders become more directive during the perception of uncertainty rather

than participative. For those reasons, an additional analysis will be run with participative

leadership as a mediator instead of a directive leadership style.

14

METHODS

In this paper, all the hypotheses have been tested by using survey data. For the data

collection, supervisors and their employees were asked to participate in the survey on

‘Leadership and work outcomes in times of COVID-19’. The supervisors were contacted by a

group of bachelor and master students, whom all informed their personal network to gather

supervisors for this research. The supervisors choose 3 to 10 team members to also fill in the

questionnaire. This study contained two different surveys, one for the supervisors and one for

the employees. Both the supervisor and employees were asked to fill in the surveys because

self-ratings and other-ratings tend to give the most unique insights into the normal behaviour

of a person (Vazire & Mehl, 2008). The supervisors were asked to describe their leadership

style and the employees had to rate this leadership style. The supervisors also rated their

employees on different outcomes and the employees rated their own outcomes. The survey

contains three online questionnaires, differing over time. The first questionnaire was sent to the

participants in March and this first survey data will be used for this particular study. The

duration of the questionnaires was on average 29.9 minutes when the cases where participants

started the questionnaire on one day and finished it on another day were excluded, with a

standard deviation of 30 minutes. The participants were informed about the content and purpose

of the study in a cover letter, in which also the confidentiality of this study is explained to the

participants.

For the questionnaire, 188 leaders with 847 of their employees were found to fill in the

survey. From this sample, 164 leaders filled in the survey and 593 employees did respond to

the questionnaire. This gives an overall response rate of 72%. After excluding the cases where

the questionnaire was not filled in completely, 157 complete questionnaires from the leaders

were left and from the employees, 555 completed the questionnaire. This gives a response rate

15

of 68% with only completed surveys included. Only work teams where the supervisor, as well

as at least one employee, filled in the survey will be included in the survey and after this, the

cases from the leader and their employees will be combined by calculating the means of the

employee's responses, which means that the employee’s responses were aggregated to the team

level. From 23 teams, there was no complete survey, which means that only 134 cases were

left. Also, the responses where the variables that are used in this study are not completed will

be excluded from this study, which gives a final sample of 128 valid cases for this thesis. Those

128 cases consist of 128 leaders and 432 of their employees. Because students used their

personal network, the sample of participants differs in their background in several aspects. From

the leaders who participated in the survey, 67.2% had a Dutch nationality, other nationalities

were mainly German, British, Italian and American. Of those different nationalities, 44.5% of

the companies have locations in multiple countries. The participants in this survey worked in

very different sectors, but most companies worked in consultancy (13.1%), retail trade (10.9%),

education (9.4%) and manufacturing (8.6%). From the sample of this survey, most leaders are

higher-educated. 37.5% of the leaders has a bachelor’s degree and 43.8% also has a master’s

degree. Of those leaders, 70.3% is male and 29.7% is female.

Measures

Leader’s uncertainty. The perceived uncertainty of leaders is rated by the supervisors.

The perceived uncertainty is measured with 5 items which are developed by Thomas, Clark and

Gioia (1993). Because the Cronbach’s Alpha of those 5 items was below 0.5, two items were

deleted to get a higher Cronbach’s Alpha (α = 0.602). The questions that were deleted are “Be

constrained in how you could interpret the situation?” and “Feel that how the situation is

resolved will be a matter of chance?” So only three questions from the five items of Thomas,

Clark and Gioia (1993) were used to measure a leader's perceived uncertainty. The items were

16

measured with a Likert scale, in which the score 1 represents ‘Not at all’ and 7 is ‘To a very

great extent’. A sample item of an included question includes: “Feel you can manage the

situation instead of the situation managing you?” This question is in line with the definition of

response uncertainty by Milliken (1987) which is used in the current study. In Appendix B all

items and the scale of the leader’s perceived uncertainty are shown. The mean of leader’s

perceived uncertainty is 3.58 with a standard deviation of 1.08.

Team performance. The performance of employees in the leader’s team is measured

with a 3-item scale (α = 0.868) adapted from Wayne, Shore and Liden (1997). The performance

of employees has been rated by the supervisors in their survey. The items are measured on a

Likert scale, in which the score 1 represents ‘Strongly disagree’ and 7 is ‘Strongly agree’. A

sample item includes “{Employee1} gets his/her work done in an effective manner”. In

Appendix C all items and the scale of the employee’s performance are included. The

performance of the employees will be aggregated to the team level so that for each team the

average performance is used in this study. The mean score on employee’s performance of the

teams rated by their supervisors is 5.90 with a standard deviation of 0.67.

Directive leadership. The directive leadership style of the supervisor is rated by the

employees. The employee’s ratings are measured with a 5-item scale (α = 0.83) adapted from

Stoker et al. (2019). This 5-item scale is also be rated on a Likert scale, in which a score of 1

represents ‘Strongly disagree’ and a score of 7 represents ‘Strongly agree’. An example item

is: “{Supervisor} makes most decisions for employees” and Appendix D includes all items and

the scale of the directive leadership. The mean score on the directive leadership style of the

leader rated by the employee is 3.73 with a standard deviation of 1.01.

Team tenure in current position. The measure tenure in current position is included in

the employee’s survey by the question “While working for {Organization}, how long have you

worked in your current position?” The answer has been given by the employees in years. The

17

question on employee’s tenure in current position is included in Appendix E. The positional

tenure of employees is aggregated on the team level so that for each team the average tenure is

used in this study. The mean of team tenure in years is 4.63 with a standard deviation of 3.74.

Control variables. In addition to the variables of the hypothetical model, also related

variables that are potentially correlated with these measures are included. This is done to control

whether the outcomes of the model change when controlled for these variables. The control

variables are included or excluded based on the criteria of Bernerth and Aguinis (2015). The

first control variable that is used is the gender of the leader (mean = 1.30, SD = 0.46), which

can have an influence on the relation between the leader's perceived uncertainty and a directive

leadership style. Han, Hellman, Lu, Zhou and Wang (2016) found that there is a difference in

how women and men express and handle uncertainty. According to a meta-analysis of Eagly

and Johnson (1990), men tend to lead more autocratically and directive and women have a more

democratic and participative leadership style. The empirical study of Arnold and Loughlin

(2013) found a difference in male and female leadership behaviours where men tend to have

more participative behaviour than women. Since this relationship is established empirically and

the control variable is reliable, the variable gender will be included in the study as a control

variable. There is a significant correlation between a leader's gender on a leader's perceived

uncertainty (r = 0.22**), but there is no significant correlation between a leader’s gender and a

directive leadership style (r = 0.04).

Secondly, the amount of time the leader is interacting with team members, measured in

percentages (mean = 48.84, SD = 22.12), can have an influence on the relationship between a

directive leadership style and team performance. Johlke and Duhan (2000) found that the

amount of communication of a leader positively influences employee's performance. Pincus

(1986) also found that a leader's communication influences job performance in a positive way

and therefore this control variable will be taken into account. The results show that there is no

18

correlation between the percentage of a leader interacting with team members and a directive

leadership style (r = 0.09) and team performance (r = -0.02).

At last, the third control variable is the positional tenure of the leader (mean = 5.89, SD

= 5.80). The threat-rigidity theory (Staw et al., 1981) suggests that when individuals experience

a threat, they will fall into old habits and rely on prior well-learned dominant responses.

Therefore, a leader's tenure influences the relationship between a leader's perceived uncertainty

and a leader's directiveness in a way that a leader's directiveness will be higher when the

positional tenure of the leader is higher. No significant correlations were found between leader’s

position tenure and leader’s perceived uncertainty (r = 0.10) and leader’s position tenure and

directive leadership (r = 0.15).

Besides those control variables, the model will also be checked with participative

leadership (mean = 5.51, SD = 0.54) as a mediator instead of directive leadership. The

participative leadership style is rated by employees. Participative leadership is measured with

a 6-item scale (α = 0.74) adapted from Kalshoven, Den Hartog and De Hoogh (2011). This 6-

item scale is rated on a Likert scale in which 1 means “Strongly disagree” and 7 is “Strongly

agree”. An example of a question is “{Supervisor} seeks advice from employees concerning

organizational strategy”. Appendix F includes all the items on participative leadership.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The descriptive statistics include the mean and standard deviation of each variable. After

standardizing the scores, the relationships between the variables that are used in this analysis

are tested using the Pearson correlation. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of each variable

and a correlation matrix of the correlations between the variables. Notable is the negative

19

correlation that can be seen between directive leadership and team performance (r = -0.21*)

because the literature found in this research assumed that there should be a positive relationship

between directive leadership and team performance (e.g. Somech & Wenderow, 2006;

Dolatabadi & Safa, 2010; Barsch et al., 2020). Also, the positive correlation between the control

variable leader's gender and the perceived uncertainty of the leader (r = 0.22**) is noteworthy

since the leader's gender is the control variable because evidence was found that leaders from

different genders perceive and handle uncertainty differently (Hellman et al., 2016; Eagly &

Johnson, 1990). It can also be seen that the leaders rate their employees quite high on their

performance since the mean of team performance which is rated by the leader is 5.90 with a

standard deviation of 0.67. An explanation for this high rating can be that leaders had to pick

their employees who participated in this study and in that way, leaders could pick the employees

who probably had the highest performance. Also notable is the lack of a correlation between

the team’s position tenure and the performance of the team (r = -0.03) because the team’s

position tenure is assumed to moderate in the model of this research (Hersey & Blanchard,

1969a; Stoker, 2008). Lastly, the results show a correlation between a leader's perceived

uncertainty and participative leadership (r = -0.18*) but they do not show a correlation between

a leader's perceived uncertainty and directive leadership (r = 0.10). This is remarkable since the

theory suggested leader’s perceived uncertainty would lead to a more directive leadership style

(Griffin et al., 2007; Hogg & Adelman, 2013).

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variables M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Leader’s perceived uncertainty 3.58 (1.08) 1.00

2. Team’s performance 5.90 (0.67) -0.05 1.00

3. Directive leadership 3.73 (1.01) 0.10 -0.21* 1.00

4. Team’s position tenure 4.63 (3.74) 0.10 -0.03 0.02 1.00

5. Leader’s gender 1.30 (0.46) 0.22** 0.13 0.04 -0.02 1.00

6. % of interacting with team 48.84 (22.12) -0.04 -0.02 0.09 -0.08 0.12 1.00

7. Leader’s position tenure 5.89 (5.80) 0.10 -0.14 0.15 0.40** -0.08 -0.23* 1.00

8. Participative leadership 5.51 (0.54) -0.18* 0.13 -0.24** -0.20* 0.04 0.04 -0.17 1.00

Notes. N = 128. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. For gender, 1 = male and 2 = female.

20

Hypotheses Tests

To test all four hypotheses, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted using the

SPSS Macro PROCESS by Hayes (2018). For this moderated mediation, PROCESS model 14

was used, Appendix G shows a figure of this model. For the X variable, the leader's perceived

uncertainty is used. The Y variable is the performance of the teams. The M variable is the

mediator in this model, which is the directive leadership style and the W variable is the

moderator in this model which is the team's position tenure. Also, the control variables of

leader's gender, leader's percentage of interacting with employees and the leader's position

tenure are added.

Table 2

Results for Moderation Mediation Analysis

B (SE) 95% CI p-value R2

Outcome variable: Directive leadership 0.009

Leader’s perceived uncertainty 0.10 (0.09) -0.08, 0.27 0.29

Outcome variable: Team performance 0.05

Leader’s perceived uncertainty -0.02 (0.09) -0.19, 0.16 0.86

Directive leadership -0.21 (0.09) -0.38, -0.03 0.02

Team’s position tenure 0.02 (0.09) -0.19, 0.16 0.85

Directive leadership x Team’s position tenure 0.05 (0.09) -0.12, 0.23 0.60

Index of moderated mediation 0.01 (0.01) -0.02, 0.04

Notes. N = 128. Results based on 10,000 bootstrap samples. Based on PROCESS model 14 of Hayes

(2018).

Table 2 shows the outcomes of the SPSS PROCESS model 14 to test the moderated

mediation hypotheses (Hayes, 2018). It can be seen that there is one statistically significant

relationship in this model between directive leadership and team performance (B = -0.21, SE =

0.09, p = 0.02). However, as also can be seen in table 2, this relationship between directive

leadership and team performance is a negative relationship, which is against the hypothesized

positive relationship that was suggested in hypothesis 3. As shown in Table 2, there is no

statistically significant relationship between a leader's perceived uncertainty and directive

leadership (B = 0.10, SE = 0.09, p = 0.29). Also, there is no significant evidence for a

moderating effect of a team’s position tenure on the relationship between directive leadership

and team performance (B = 0.05, SE = 0.09, p = 0.60). Lastly, the index of the moderated

21

mediation model (B = 0.01, SE = 0.01) is 0.01 which suggests that there is an insignificant

effect on the moderated mediation model supposed in this paper. This means that the

moderation mediation model as proposed in this paper should be rejected.

Three control variables as proposed in the methods will be used to control if those

variables would influence the outcomes of the study. We will control for all of the control

variables in the model, which are the leader's gender, the leader's percentage of time interacting

with employees and the leader's position tenure because the literature suggests that those have

an influence on this model. PROCESS model 14 from Hayes (2018) is run again but now with

all of the control variables. Table 3 shows the results of this moderation mediation analysis.

Table 3

Results for Moderation Mediation Analysis with Control Variables




Leader’s gender 0.02 (0.09) -0.16, 0.20 0.81

Leader’s % interacting with employees 0.13 (0.09) -0.05, 0.31 0.17

Leader’s position tenure 0.18 (0.09) -0.01, 0.36 0.06



Directive leadership -0.19 (0.09) -0.37, -0.01 0.04


Directive leadership x Team’s position tenure 0.02 (0.09) -0.16, 0.20 0.80

Leader’s gender 0.14 (0.09) -0.04, 0.32 0.12

Leader’s % interacting with employees -0.05 (0.09) -0.23, 0.13 0.60

Leader’s position tenure -0.11 (0.10) -0.31, 0.09 0.26



(2018).

After including the control variables in the model, no significant changes were seen in

the outcomes and so, the results were not meaningfully affected by the control variables of

leader’s gender, leader’s percentage of work interacting with their employees and a leader’s

position tenure.

22

Also, some robustness checks were done to check the sensitivity of the results. At first,

only teams in which 3 or more employees participated in the survey were included in the

sample, which led to an exclusion of 40 teams, so 88 leaders with their employees were left.

The results of this moderation mediation analysis are shown in Table 4 and most importantly

show a difference in the relationship between directive leadership and team performance.

Whereas the results without this robustness check showed a significant negative relationship

between the two, the results with only teams consisting of three employees or more showed no

significance (B = -0.20, SE = 0.11, p = 0.07). However, this difference in results might be due

to the decrease in sample size because a lower sample size can lead to inconclusive results

(Aron & Aron, 1994) and a decrease in sample size can affect significance levels in that there

is less significance when the sample size is lower than with a higher sample size (Royal, 1986;

Spencer, 1995; Lee & Lings, 2008).

Table 4

Results for Moderation Mediation Analysis with Robustness Check for Teams with Three or more

Employees






Directive leadership -0.20 (0.11) -0.42, 0.01 0.07

Team’s position tenure -0.10 (0.11) -0.31, 0.12 0.38

Directive leadership x Team’s position tenure -0.01 (0.12) -0.25, 0.24 0.95


Notes. N = 88. Results based on 10,000 bootstrap samples. Based on PROCESS model 14 of Hayes (2018).

Table 5

Results for Moderation Mediation Analysis with Robustness Check Excluding Surveys Time Longer than

One Day






Directive leadership -0.20 (0.10) -0.39, 0.01 0.04

Team’s position tenure -0.07 (0.10) -0.27, 0.11 0.42

Directive leadership x Team’s position tenure -0.01 (0.09) -0.18, 0.17 0.96



(2018).

23

Secondly, as shown in Table 5, a robustness check was done using only the data from

participants who filled in the survey within one day. By doing this, the results of the moderated

mediation analysis slightly changed but no significant differences were found.

Lastly, there will be controlled for the effect of participative leadership as a mediator in

the moderated mediation model. For this test, PROCESS model 14 from Hayes (2018) is used

again (Appendix G). The X variable is the leader's perceived uncertainty, the Y variable is team

performance, the moderator W is team's tenure and now the mediator M is participative

leadership. Results of this analysis showed that there is a statistically significant negative

relationship between a leader's perceived uncertainty and participative leadership (B = -0.17,

SE = 0.09, p = 0.05). However, no significant relationship was found in the relationship between

participative leadership and team performance (B = 0.15, SE = 0.09, p = 0.11) as was assumed

by the theory on directive and participative leadership. Moreover, this nonsignificant

relationship is slightly positive, which differs from the relationship between directive leadership

and team performance, which is shown to be significantly negative. Overall, the moderated

mediation model including participative leadership as a mediator also did not show a significant

effect.

Table 6

Results for Moderation Mediation Analysis with Participative Leadership as Mediator


Outcome variable: Participative leadership 0.03

Leader’s perceived uncertainty - 0.17(0.09) -0.39, -0.00 0.05



Participative leadership 0.15 (0.09) -0.04, 0.34 0.11


Participative leadership x Team’s position tenure 0.10 (0.09) -0.26, 0.07 0.25



(2018).

24

DISCUSSION

The current study aimed to answer the research question ´To what extent does the

leader´s perceived uncertainty influence team performance?’ This study was aiming to

contribute to the literature by researching the uncertainty the leader perceives during times of

crisis, rated by the leader itself. Results showed that leaders did perceive a moderate amount of

uncertainty during the COVID-19 crisis in which the study was conducted. Secondly, also the

employee outcomes during a crisis were taken into account and this study showed that there

was no significant relationship between a leader's perceived uncertainty and team performance.

Overall, this study did not find evidence for the proposed moderated mediation model as shown

in Appendix A. Only hypothesis 3 showed a significant relationship, however, this relationship

is a negative relationship instead of the positive relationship that was expected between

directive leadership and team performance. Since there were no relationships found in the other

hypothesized relationships, it can be concluded that there is no evidence for the influence of a

leader's perceived uncertainty on team performance.

The first finding that the perceived uncertainty of a leader does have no significant

relationship to team performance contradicts the findings in the literature review (Vessey et al.,

2011; Boxall & Purcell, 2016). It was expected that leadership would influence team

performance (Nguyen et al., 2020) and that leader’s perception during a crisis is an important

influence on this performance (Vessey et al., 2011). Besides, building on the contingency theory

of Fielder (1971b, 1978), the effectiveness, and so the performance of its followers, would

depend on the situation the leader is in. The current research does not show evidence that the

situation of the leader influences team performance.

25

Theoretical Implications

The current study builds on existing literature and made some theoretical implications.

At first, drawing on the threat-rigidity theory of Staw et al. (1981) and the research of Stoker et

al. (2019), this paper found no support for the proposed relationship between leader’s perceived

uncertainty and directive leadership. However, when the model was tested with participative

leadership as a mediator instead, a significant relationship was found. This finding is actually

in line with the threat-rigidity theory of Staw et al. (1981). The difference in the findings

between participative leadership and directive leadership can be explained by cultural power

distance. Power distance refers to how social relationships in society take form and whether

they are perceived to be hierarchical and unequal (Hofstede, 1980). The Netherlands and

Germany are countries with low power distance, China and Brazil are countries with higher

power distance. Stoker et al. (2019) found in their research that there is a difference in countries

with more power distance compared to countries with less power distance in the increase in

directive leadership during a threat. Staw et al. (1981) suggest that leaders fall back into their

well-known behaviour when confronted with a threat and for cultures with lower power

distance, this well-known behaviour will be less directive than for cultures with higher power

distance. Since most of the participants in this research are Dutch (67.2%), the expected

increase in directive leadership coming with a threat is expected to be lower according to the

study of Stoker et al. (2019). So, the threat-rigidity theory of Staw et al. (1981) is still supported

by the results found in the current research.

Secondly, this study has implications for the ongoing debate about the directive

leadership style and the participative leadership style building on the path-goal theory of House

(1971). The current study did find evidence for a negative correlation to exist between directive

leadership and team performance, which is opposing the theory found in the literature review

(Somech & Wenderow, 2006; Li et al., 2018). When the model was tested with participative

26

leadership, the relationship now was insignificant and slightly positive. The negative effect that

has been shown of directive leadership on team performance can be explained by the difference

in methodology of several studies. Researchers that used an experimental setting for their study

found a positive relationship between directive leadership and team performance (Sanchez-

Manzanares et al., 2020; Lorinkova et al., 2013). However, studies that used a questionnaire

did find a negative correlation (Somech and Wenderow, 2006; Stoker et al., 2019; Stoker,

2008). Questionnaires do research the variables in real-life settings while experimental studies

do simulate real-life settings. A common criticism of experimental studies is that the results

often do have low external validity and so it is questionable whether the results are generalizable

to other situations in real life (Lee & Lings, 2008). This difference between questionnaire

studies and experimental studies can be an explanation for the negative relation found in the

current study.

Another explanation for the finding that directive leadership has a negative influence on

team performance, whereas participative leadership does not have this negative relationship,

can be found in the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980). Wang and Guan (2018) found in

their study that the positive relationship between directive leadership and employee

performance is enhanced with higher levels of power distance. Newman and Nollen (1996)

found in their study to work units in European and Asian countries that in cultures with low

power distance, performance was higher when employees could participate in the decision-

making process, whereas in cultures with high power distance less participation in the decision-

making process was increasing the performance. Studies to directive leadership and

performance in the current literature review were mostly conducted in countries with higher

power distance (e.g. Li et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2021), while studies that found a negative

relationship were conducted in lower power distance countries (Stoker et al., 2019). So, the

27

results of the current research could be due to the fact that this study mostly contained Dutch

participants which is a lower power distance culture.

A third implication for the current literature is that the current findings contradict the

situational leadership approach of Hersey and Blanchard (1969a). The suggestion of this

situational leadership approach that employees with less positional tenure need more guidance

through directive leadership to get better performance is not supported by the current research.

It also contradicts the findings of Stoker (2008) but an explanation for that can be that her study

was conducted in self-managing teams whereas the current research is conducted in teams that

do have a leader. So, this difference in setting can be an explanation for the lack of a moderating

effect in this model.

Practical Implications

The findings of this research also have some implications for practitioners, especially

leaders and their teams. At first, this study showed that the perceived uncertainty of a leader

during crises does not necessarily have a negative influence on team performance. In practice,

this means that for employees, the work environment and perceptions of the leader are not of

great importance and therefore, management does not need to emphasize this. Secondly, this

study showed that when leaders have a directive leadership style, this can have a negative

influence on the performance of teams, whereas participative leadership did not have this

negative relationship with team performance. Leaders should be aware of this finding and top

management should take care of the coaching of leaders in their leadership behaviours. At third,

this implication is not only found in teams with a longer tenure but also in teams with a lower

tenure and therefore leaders should not distinguish their leadership style based on the tenure of

teams, which was suggested by the situational leadership approach (Hersey & Blanchard,

28

1969a). This study shows that leaders should reconsider using a leadership style based on the

tenure of the team.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study also has some limitations. At first, the leaders who participated in this study

could choose 3 to 10 employees from their team to also fill in the questionnaire. Because leaders

could choose the employees themselves, they were able to choose the best performing

employees or the employees with whom they have a better relationship and would probably

give them better ratings on the questionnaire. This could influence the credibility of the current

study, which is also seen in the results where the teams score an average of 5.90 on a scale from

1 to 7 on team performance. Therefore, it is suggested that future research should include the

whole team of the leader in their research and then take a random sample from the employees

of this team to participate in the research.

Secondly, this study used a 5-item scale for the measurement of uncertainty which had

a low internal consistency. To better study the effects of uncertainty during a crisis on

leadership, it is recommended for future research to use another questionnaire for uncertainty

based on the 3 items that were used in this study, which are the three items based on the response

uncertainty definition of Milliken (1987). In this way, the internal consistency will be enhanced

and the research will become more reliable.

At third, the sample that was used in this study is mostly European teams. This can be a

limitation but it is also a strength that this study contains participants from multiple countries.

However, to be able to generalize the results of this research, the study should be repeated in

different countries in other continents of the world.

29

Conclusion

This thesis aimed to research the influence that a leader's perceived uncertainty has on

team performance. The theory suggested that a directive leadership style would mediate the

relationship between a leader's perceived uncertainty and team performance and that team

tenure would moderate the relationship between a directive leadership style and team

performance. However, the results of this study did not find evidence for the proposed

moderated mediation model as shown in Appendix A. One significant negative relationship was

found between directive leadership and team performance, whereas the literature has suggested

that this would be positive. A positive relationship was found between a leader's perceived

uncertainty and participative leadership. The current research did not find evidence for the

expected relation between a leader's perceived uncertainty and team performance. These

findings support the threat-rigidity theory of Staw et al. (1981), but they have not found support

for the situational leadership approach of Hersey and Blanchard (1969a). Leaders should be

aware of the finding that a directive leadership style has a negative influence on team

performance. Building on these findings, a possible explanation for the difference in the study

results and the existing literature could be that the sample size mostly contains countries with

low power distance and so directive leadership is not the well-known behaviour leaders fall

back to when facing a threat.

30

REFERENCES

Anitha, J. 2014. Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee

performance. International journal of productivity and performance management,

63.3: 308-323.

Arnold, K.A., & Loughlin, C. 2013. Integrating transformational and participative versus

directive leadership theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2013.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. 1994. Statistics for psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bartsch, S., Weber, E., Büttgen, M., & Huber, A. 2020. Leadership matters in crisis-induced

digital transformation: how to lead service employees effectively during the COVID-19

pandemic. Journal of Service Management, 32.1: 71-85.

Bernerth, J.B., & Aguinis, H. 2015. A critical review and best-practice recommendations for

control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69.1: 229-283.

Blanchard, K.H. 1985. A situational approach to managing people. Escondido, CA: Blanchard

Training and Development.

Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. 2016. Strategy and human resource management. London, UK:

Palgrave.

Carrington, D.J., Combe, I.A., & Mumford, M.D. 2019. Cognitive shifts within leader and

follower teams: Where consensus develops mental models during an organizational

crisis. The Leadership Quarterly, 30.3: 335-350.

Ceukelaire, de W. & Bodini, C. 2020. We need strong public health care to contain the global

corona pandemic. International Journal of Health Services.

Chiok Foong Loke, J. 2001. Leadership behaviours: effects on job satisfaction, productivity and

organizational commitment. Journal of nursing management, 9.4: 191-204.

Cullen, K.L., Edwards, B.D., Casper, W.C. & Gue, K.R. 2013. Employees’ adaptability and

perceptions of change-related uncertainty: Implications for perceived organizational

31

support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29:

269-280.

Dolatabadi, H.R. & Safa, M. 2010. The effect of directive and participative leadership style on

employees’ commitment to service quality. International Bulletin of Business

Administration, 9.1:31-42.

Eagly, A.H. & Johnson, B.T. 1990. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 108.2: 233-256.

Eberly, M.B. & Fong, C.T. 2013. Leading via the heart and mind: The roles of leader and

follower emotions, attributions and interdependence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24.5:

696-711.

Egelhoff, W.G. 1982. Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: An information-

processing approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 435-458.

Fiedler, F. 1971b. Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership

effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76: 128-148.

Fiedler, F. 1978. The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L.

Berkowitz, Advances in experimental social psychology, p. 59-112. New York,

Academic Press.

Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., & Parker, S.K. 2007. A new model of work role performance: Positive

behaviour in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal,

50.2: 327-347.

Hayes, A.F. 2018. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.

New York: The Guilford Press.

Han, W., Hellman, A., Lu, M., Zhou, H., & Wang, T. 2016. The impact of gender difference

on the interpretation of uncertainty expressions. Asian Review of Accounting, 24.2: 1-

31.

32

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. 1969a. Life-cycle theory of leadership. Training and

Development Journal, 23: 26-34

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hogg, M.A. & Adelman, J. 2013. Uncertainty-identity theory: extreme groups, radical

behaviour, and authoritarian leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 69.3: 436-454.

House, R.J. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 321-339.

Humphrey, R.H. 2002. The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,

13: 493-504.

Jackson, S.E. & Dutton, J.E. 1988. Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative

Quarterly, 33.3: 370-387.

Johlke, M.C., & Duhan, D.F. 2000. Supervisor communication practices and service employee

job outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 3.2: 154-165.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D.N., & De Hoogh, A.H.B. 2011. Ethical leadership at work

questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The

Leadership Quarterly, 22.1: 51-69.

Kim, T.Y., Liu, Z., & Diefendorff, J.M. 2015. Leader-member exchange and job performance:

The effects of taking charge and organizational tenure. Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 36.2: 216-231.

Lee, N. & Lings, E. 2008. Doing business research: A guide to theory and practice. London:

SAGE publications.

Li, G., Liu, H., & Luo, Y. 2018. Directive versus participative leadership: Dispositional

antecedents and team consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 91.3: 645-664.

33

Liden, R.C., & Maslyn, J.M. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An

empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24.1: 43-

72.

Lorinkova, N.M., Pearsall, M.J., & Sims, H.P. 2013. Examining the differential longitudinal

performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. The Academy of

Management Journal, 56.2: 573-596.

Milliken, F.J. 1987. Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: state, effect,

and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review, 12.1: 133-143.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. 1976. The structure of unstructured decisions.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 246-275.

Neck, C.P., & Manz, C.C. 1996. Thought self-leadership: The impact of mental strategies

training on employee cognition, behaviour and affect. Journal of Organizational

Behaviour 17: 445-467.

Nelson, A., Cooper, C.L., & Jackson, P.R. 1995. Uncertainty amidst change: The impact of

privatisation on employee job satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 68: 57-71.

Newman, K.L., & Nollen, S.D. 1996. Culture and congruence: The fit between management

practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27: 753-

779.

Nguyen, P.T., Yandi, A., & Mahaputra, M.R. 2020. Factors that influence employee

performance: motivation, leadership, environment, culture organization, work

achievement, competence and compensation (A study of human resource management

literature studies). Dinasti International Journal of Digital Business Management,

1.4: 645-662.

Northouse, P.G. 2019. Leadership: theory and practice. London: SAGE publications.

34

O’Driscoll, M.P. & Beehr, T.A. 1994. Supervisor behaviours, role stressors and uncertainty as

predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 15.2: 141-155.

Otara, A. 2011. Perception: A guide for managers and leaders. Journal of Management and

Strategy, 2.3: 21-24.

Pandey, A. 2020. Coronavirus shock vs. global financial crisis – the worse economic disaster?

Deutsche Welle.

Pearson, C.M., & Clair, J.A. 1998. Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management

Review, 23: 59-76.

Pincus, J.D. 1986. Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human

communication research, 12.3: 395-419.

Rast, D.E., Hogg, M.A., & Giessner, S.R. 2012. Self-uncertainty and support for autocratic

leadership. Self and Identity, 12.6: 635-649.

Reilly, A.H. 1987. Are organizations ready for crisis? A managerial scorecard. Columbia

Journal of World Business, 22.1: 79-88.

Rosen, C.C., Harris, K.J. & Kacmar, K.M. 2011. LMX, context perceptions and performance:

an uncertainty management perspective. Journal of Management, 37.3: 819-838.

Royal, R.M. 1986. The effect of sample size on the meaning of significance tests. The

American Statistician, 40.4: 313-315.

Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Te’eni, D., & Schwartz, D.G. 2002. An

empirical assessment of the loose-tight leadership model: Quantitative and qualitative

analyses. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23: 303-320.

Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Rico, R., Antino, M., & Uitdewilligen, S. 2020. The joint effects of

leadership style and magnitude of the disruption on team adaptation: A longitudinal

experiment. Group & Organization Management, 45.6: 836-864.

35

Somech, A., & Wenderow, M. 2006. The impact of participative and directive leadership on

teachers’ performance: The intervening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and

leader-member-exchange. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42.5: 746-772.

Spencer, B. 1995. Correlations, sample size and practical significance: A comparison of

selected psychological and medical investigations. The Journal of Psychology, 129.4:

469-475.

Staw, B.M. Sandelands, L.E., & Dutton, J.E. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in organizational

behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 501-524.

Stoker, J.I. 2008. Effects of team tenure and leadership in self-managing teams. Personnel

Review, 37.5: 564-582.

Stoker, J.I., Garretsen, H., & Soudis, D. 2019. Tightening the leash after a threat: A multi-level

event study on leadership behaviour following the financial crisis. The Leadership

Quarterly, 30: 199-214.

Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M., & Gioia, D.A. 1993. Strategic sensemaking and organizational

performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy

of Management Journal, 36.2: 239-270.

Thomas, J.B., & McDaniel, R.R. 1990. Interpreting strategic issues: effects of strategy and the

information-processing structure of top management teams. Academy of Management

Journal, 33.2: 286-306.

Vazire, S., & Mehl, M.R. 2008. Knowing me, knowing you: the accuracy and unique

predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behaviour. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 95.5: 1202.

Vessey, W.B., Barrett, J. & Mumford, M.D. 2011. Leader cognition under threat: “Just the

facts”. The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 710-728.

36

Wang, H., & Guan, B. 2018. The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee

performance: The moderating role of power distance. Frontiers in psychology, 9: 357-

368

Wang, J., Hutchins, H.M., & Garavan, T.N. 2009. Exploring the strategic role of human

resource development in organizational crisis management. Human Resource

Development Review, 8.1: 22-53.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-

member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal,

40.1: 82-111.

Zheng, J., Gou, X., Wu, G., Zhao, X, Li, H., & Liu, B. 2021. The ambidextrous and

differential effects of directive versus empowering leadership: a study from project

context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

37

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Hypothesized Model

Appendix B: Leader’s Perceived Uncertainty

Perceived controllability/uncertainty regarding COVID-19 (Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993)

Take a moment to think about COVID-19, and how this crisis has affected your work at

{Organization}. Looking at the future, how do you think COVID-19 will affect you and your

work within your organization? Please indicate the extent of your agreement with the

following statements.

To which extent do you…

1

Not at all

2

To a small

extent

3

To some

extent

4

To a

moderate

extent

5

To a good

extent

6

To a great

extent

7

To a very

great

extent

o Have a choice about whether or not to address the situation?

o Feel you have the capability to address the situation?

o Feel you can manage the situation instead of the situation managing you?

o Be constrained in how you could interpret the situation?

o Feel that how the situation is resolved will be a matter of chance?

38

Appendix C: Employee’s Performance

We now ask you some questions about the employees in your team. Again, we would like to

stress that your answers to these questions will be treated with confidentiality.

Performance (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997)

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement about {Employee}.

1

Strongly

disagree

2

Disagree

3

Somewhat

disagree

4

Neither

agree or

disagree

5

Somewhat

agree

6

Agree

7

Strongly

agree

o {Employee} performs his/her job as I like to see it performed

o {Employee} gets his/her work done in an effective manner

o {Employee} generally performs well in his/her job

Appendix D: Directive Leadership Style

Directive leadership style (Stoker, Garretsen, & Soudis, 2019)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

1

Strongly

disagree

2

Disagree

3

Somewhat

disagree

4

Neither

agree or

disagree

5

Somewhat

agree

6

Agree

7

Strongly

agree

o {Supervisor} expects employees to follow his/her instructions precisely.

o {Supervisor} requires employees to submit detailed reports of their activities.

o {Supervisor} makes most decisions for employees.

o {Supervisor} supervises employees very closely.

o {Supervisor} expects employees to carry out instructions immediately.

39

Appendix E: Employee’s Tenure in Current Position

Tenure in current position

While working for {Organization}, how long have you worked in your current position? (in

years)

Appendix F: Participative Leadership Style

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

1

Strongly

disagree

2

Disagree

3

Somewhat

disagree

4

Neither

agree or

disagree

5

Somewhat

agree

6

Agree

7

Strongly

agree

o {Supervisor} allows employees to influence critical decisions.

o {Supervisor} does not allow others to participate in decision making.

o {Supervisor} seeks advice from employees concerning organizational strategy.

o {Supervisor} will reconsider decisions on the basis of recommendations by those who

report to him/her.

o {Supervisor} delegates challenging responsibilities to employees.

o {Supervisor} allows me to play a key role in setting my own performance.

Appendix G: PROCESS model 14 (Hayes, 2018)

the relationship between leader’s perceived uncertainty

Documents