International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman How is leadership related to employee self-concept? Zhenpeng Luo a , Youcheng Wang b,∗ , Einar Marnburg c , Torvald Øgaard d a Institute of Tourism, Beijing Union University, Bei Si Huan Dong Lu No. 99, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, 9907 Universal Blvd, Orlando, FL 32819, USA c Faculty of Social Science, University of Stavanger, NO-4036 Stavanger, Norway d Norwegian School of Hotel Management, University of Stavanger, NO-4036 Stavanger, Norway b a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 28 February 2014 Received in revised form 7 August 2015 Accepted 7 September 2015 Keywords: Transformational leadership Passive leadership LMX Self-concept Hotel industry China a b s t r a c t In the ﬁeld of leadership research, the relationship between leadership styles and follower self-concept was of great interests to researchers. The purpose of this study is to investigate how leadership styles such as transformational leadership, passive leadership and leader-member exchange (LMX) relate to employee self-concept. A total of 585 valid responses were collected from hotel front line employees in mainland China. The results showed that the effect of transformational leadership on self-concept was mainly mediated by LMX. The strong direct effects of LMX on levels of self-concept were also identiﬁed in this study. Theoretical and practical implications were provided based on the results of this study. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The role of follower self-concept has attracted much research attention in recent years (Hogg et al., 2003; Lord et al., 1999a,b; Lord and Hall, 2005; van Knippenberg et al., 2004), and its mediating role in the relationship between leadership and follower attitudes and behaviors is also attracting the interests of researchers (Chang and Johnson, 2010; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Internal to subordinates, self-concept is a robust construct that reﬂects leader’s inﬂuence on subordinate psychological, social, and cognitive outcomes (Lord and Brown, 2004). A key element to understanding effective leadership is to understand follower self-concept (Lord and Brown, 2004), which is important to shape employee behaviors, especially for services industry in which encounters between employee and customer are crucial (Parasuraman et al., 1988). As important as self-concept is to leadership, the theoretical integration of leadership and self-concept was constrained due to the extensive scientiﬁc treatment of each of the topics even though there were plethora of published papers on each topic (Lord and Brown, 2004). Furthermore, empirical studies on self-concept relating to leadership processes were limited, and valuable theoretical ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z. Luo), [email protected] (Y. Wang), [email protected] (E. Marnburg), [email protected] (T. Øgaard). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.09.003 0278-4319/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. and practical contributions to this ﬁeld are still in demand (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Limited research conducted on leadership and self-concept calls for empirical studies examining the general as well as nuanced relationship between the two concepts for both theory advancement and practical implementation. In the Chinese hotel industry, while many well-known international brands are expanding their presence as part of their globalization strategy, the effectiveness and appropriateness of their leadership styles substantiated mainly by Western leadership theories have to be examined and adjusted in this market. Furthermore, as hotel employees born after 1980s in China are becoming the main workforce (62.7%) and are regarded as more self-centered as a result of the single child family policy practiced in China for the last few decades (Su and Xiao, 2008), their self-concepts in the work environment will also be an interesting topic for investigation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to empirically investigate the relationships between leadership styles (i.e., transformational, passive leadership, and leader-member exchange (LMX)) and employee self-concept in the context of China’s hotel industry. More speciﬁcally, the objectives intended to achieve in this study were: (1) to formulate the theoretical integration of leadership and self-concept; (2) to examine how each of the three leadership styles is related to self-concept. The ﬁndings of this study not only provide empirical evidences on the relationships between leadership styles and subordinates’ self-concept, but also highlight the application and implication of western theories in the context of Chinese hospitality industry, a sector which is going through a fast paced globalization process. Z. Luo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 2. Literature review 2.1. Self-concept Self-concept is an overarching knowledge structure that helps organize one’s goals and behavior. It can help individuals understand the self and others, and regulate social interactions based on such an understanding (Lord and Brown, 2004). Putting it in a managerial context, it affects the interactions between the control of thoughts of executives and the resultant actions of subordinates. Therefore, employee self-concept plays a very important role in our understanding of the leadership concept. Self-concept consists of three alternative levels (Brewer and Gardner, 1996): the individual, relational, and collective. At the individual level, one’s sense of uniqueness and self-worth are derived from perceived similarities with and differences from other individuals by interpersonal comparisons. At the relational level, individuals deﬁne themselves in terms of dyadic connections and role relationships with others, which may encourage cooperation and/or shape behavior in relation to other individuals. The collective level involves self-deﬁnition based on one’s social group memberships, where favorable inter-group comparisons give rise to self-worth, which may motivate teamwork. Self-concept at different levels may cause different attitudes and varied behaviors of subordinates; it reﬂects not only inﬂuences of leadership on attitudes, but also behaviors of subordinates. Alternatively, the three levels of self-concept can also be recategorized into two groups: the social self-concept consisting of relational and collective self-concept, and the individual selfconcept which is more closely related to personal self-concept (Lord and Brown, 2004). The former level of self-concept is more favorable for leaders in service management since it stimulates cooperation and teamwork, while the latter should be avoided at work because it is self oriented and may cause unawareness of the interests of customers or coworkers in service deliveries. Therefore, how to inﬂuence employee’s self-concept is crucial in effective leadership implementation in management contexts. In the process of understanding how leadership can inﬂuence follower’s self-concept and behavior, working self-concept (WSC) is crucial. WSC is the activated, contextual sensitive portion of selfconcept that can guide actions on the cues of one’s current context and immediate past history (Lord and Brown, 2004). 2.2. Full range leadership theory (FRLT) Full range leadership theory (FRLT) includes three types of leadership: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Transformational leadership includes ﬁve factors: (1) idealized inﬂuence (attribute) (IIA), which refers to the socialized charisma of the leader by which the leader is perceived as being conﬁdent and powerful, focusing on higher-order ideals and ethics; (2) idealized inﬂuence (behavior) (IIB), which refers to charismatic actions of the leader that embody values, beliefs, and mission; (3) inspirational motivation (IM), which refers to the ways in which leaders energize their followers with optimism, ambitious goals, and idealized achievable vision; (4) intellectual stimulation (IS), which refers to leader actions that appeal to followers’ sense of logic, challenge followers to think creatively and ﬁnd solutions to difﬁcult problems; and, (5) individualized consideration (IC), which refers to leader behaviors that contribute to follower satisfaction by advising, supporting, paying attention to individual needs of followers, and developing followers by allowing them to self-actualize. Transactional leadership comprises the following three factors: (1) contingent reward (CR) leadership that refers to leader behaviors focusing on clarifying role and task requirements and providing followers with material or 25 psychological rewards contingent on the fulﬁllment of contractual obligations; (2) management-by-exception active (MBEA) that refers to the active vigilance to ensure that standards are met; and, (3) management-by-exception passive (MBEP) in which leaders only intervene after incidences occurred or when mistakes have already been made. Laissez-faire leadership is generally considered the most ineffective style of leadership because leaders avoid making decisions and taking responsibility with their authorities. This study is based on leadership of hotel supervisors. Leadership styles are developed from the FRLT, which includes transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership with nine factors. According to a prior study (Luo et al., 2013), only two factors of leadership styles were embodied by hotel supervisors in China based on exploratory factor analysis and conﬁrmatory factor analysis with pretty good goodness-of-ﬁt indices; they are renamed as Transformational and Passive leadership. The new named Transformational leadership includes 12 items from IS, IM, IC of the original transformational leadership scale, and CR of the original transactional leadership scale. II(A), II (B), and MBEA were excluded in the new transformational leadership due to their low reliabilities, and this result was also supported by prior studies (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008; Yukl, 1999). It can also be argued that supervisors may lack the charismatic leadership compared to high level leaders, and the MBEA behavior such as “Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures” may not appropriate for supervisors due to Chinese culture such as mian zi (face; maintaining the respect from others as well as to respect others), ren qing (being kind or respecting the feeling of others), and wan zhuan (indirect, non-confrontational expression) (Shao and Webber, 2006). The new Passive leadership includes the four items of MBEP of the original transactional leadership scale, and the four items of Laissez-faire of FRLT (MLQ, Form 5X) (Avolio and Bass, 2004). That is, in the context of hotel industry in China, transactional leadership is not a unique factor, CR and MBEA fall into the category of transformational leadership, and MBEP was re-categorized as part of passive leadership. Similar ﬁndings were supported by other researchers (Schriesheim et al., 2009; Tejeda et al., 2001). As argued by Bycio et al. (1995), leaders are either active to develop followers, form relationships of exchange, stimulate their thinking and inspire them to high level performance, or they are passive or avoidant and only react to problems to be corrected or do not react at all. Therefore, this two-factor model of FRLT might not unique to Chinese supervisors, and investigation and veriﬁcation of this two factor model might be meaningful to not only the globalized Chinese hotel industry, but also in some other social and cultural contexts. Consequently, the two-factor construct of FRLT was used as main leadership constructs in this study. 2.3. Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) Leader-member exchange refers to the quality of the exchange relationship that exists between employees and their superiors. It describes the role-making processes between a leader and each individual subordinate and the exchange relationship over time (Yukl, 2005). It clearly incorporates an operationalization of a relationship-based approach into leadership. LMX theory was formerly called the vertical dyad linkage (VDL) theory because its focus is on reciprocal inﬂuence processes within vertical dyads between one leader and his/her direct reporters. Therefore, LMX is also considered an important type of leadership for supervisors because they interact with employees most frequently compared to higher level leaders (Lord and Brown, 2004). The essence of LMX is that effective leadership process is based on the development of a mature leader–subordinate relationship, and they gain many beneﬁts from the relationship (Graen and Uhlbien, 1995). Therefore, LMX has tremendous impact on 26 Z. Luo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 employee in-role and extra-role performance, work attitudes such as organizational commitment, and justice perceptions (Law et al., 2000). However, its effects on employee self-concept need more investigation in order to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between LMX and employee self-concept. 2.4. Leadership and self-concept While propositions that leadership may affect follower selfconcept, and self-concept mediates effects of leadership on follower attitudes and behaviors were supported by previous research (van Knippenberg et al., 2004), different aspects of leadership from different perspectives make the relationships complex and introduce ambiguity on leadership theory. The three-domain of leader, follower, and LMX leadership model can help us understand and analyze leadership better (Graen and Uhlbien, 1995), address each domain singularly. From this point of view, LMX is one type of leadership between leaders and followers, and investigating how Transformational, Passive, and LMX are related to self-concept will contribute to understanding the effects of leadership more comprehensively. Lord and Brown (2004) believed that the three-level depiction of self-concept is a very useful framework to understand how self-concept relates to leadership, and they proposed that “leadership activities will be more effective when they are matched to appropriate self-concept levels of subordinates” (Lord and Brown, 2004, p. 53). Transformational leaders are proactive. They raise followers’ awareness of collective interests, and help followers achieve extraordinary goals. Bass (1985) suggested transformational leaders inﬂuence followers to transcend self-interest for the greater good of their organizations in order to achieve optimal levels of performance, which may foster the collective-level self-concept (Lord and Brown, 2004). It was also argued that some aspects of transformational leadership are associated with relational self-concept, whereas others are associated with collective self-concept (Kark and Shamir, 2002a,b; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003). Graen and Uhlbien (1995) and Tse and Wing (2008) argued that transformational leadership relates to LMX, and high-quality leader–follower relationships (LMX) may lead followers to incorporate organization–normative characteristics into their selfconception (i.e., relational and collective self-concept) (Engle and Lord, 1997; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Furthermore, just as transformational leadership, LMX also helps foster collective selfconcept, and the combination of these two leadership can present an alternative pathway to activating subordinate’s collective-selfconcept (Lord and Brown, 2004). Based on the above evaluations, we propose the following relationships: H1 . Transformational leadership is positively related to collective self-concept. H2 . LMX mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and collective self-concept. Kark and Shamir (2002a,b) proposed that transformational leadership behaviors may prime the relational self in personal identiﬁcation with the leader or the collective self in social identiﬁcation with an organization. They also contend that this conceptualization links transformational leadership theory to dyadic models of leadership (LMX). For instance, transformational leadership behaviors, such as individualized consideration that prime the relational self, are likely to operate primarily at the dyadic level. Furthermore, Lord and Brown (2004) and Lord et al. (1999a,b) propose that follower relational self-construal renders followers more sensitive to the relational–interactional aspects of leadership. Therefore, LMX is supposed to mediate the relationship between Transformational or Passive leadership and Self-concept. Investigation of the relationship between self-concept and LMX suggested that follower interpersonal self-concept renders followers more sensitive to the relational aspects of leadership such as LMX (Graen and Uhlbien, 1995). When interpersonal self-concept is salient, many dyadic processes, such as LMX and mentoring are likely to be more important in leadership (Lord and Brown, 2004). However, it is unclear to what extent LMX relates to follower relational self-concept (van Knippenberg et al., 2004), and empirical investigation of this issue would contribute to theory advancement (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). We propose that: H3 . LMX mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and relational self-concept. H4 . LMX is positively related to relational self-concept. While a hierarchical person-centered type of leadership such as transactional leadership may actively affect self-concept, LMX may contribute to activating individual self-concept (Lord and Brown, 2004). That is, LMX may play an important role in the development of Individual self-concept if the LMX quality is good. Furthermore, Passive leadership was proved to be negatively related to effectiveness of leadership, employee satisfaction with leaders, and employee extra role behavior (Luo et al., 2013), which may in turn adversely drive Individual self-concept. Combining the forgoing arguments, we propose that: H5 . Passive leadership is positively related to Individual self-concept. H6 . LMX mediates the relationship between Passive leadership and individual self-concept. 2.5. The conceptual model of the study A conceptual model (see Fig. 1) was developed based on the forgoing analysis and hypotheses, representing the causal relationships between the variables. Testing this model may extend Collective self -concept Transformational leadership LMX Relational self -concept Passive leadership Individual self -concept Fig. 1. The conceptual model of the study. Z. Luo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 previous research in this area in several ways. First, this is the ﬁrst study to address the relationship between leadership and selfconcept, while most studies have focused on the direct effects of leadership with self-concept being ignored. Second, Transformational, Passive leadership, and LMX were seldom studied together as different leadership styles. It can be argued that their effects should be differentiated when they are practiced in management. Third, the results of this study have the potential of being generalized to various management contexts in China thanks to its large sample from a representative service segment of the hospitality industry. 3. Methods 3.1. Sampling and procedures Building on an extensive literature review, particularly established measurement models tested in previous research in relation to the constructs and variables examined in the study, a survey questionnaire was created to serve as a data collection instrument for the study. A pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted in a hotel in Beijing for improvement before the survey was ﬁnalized. For data collection, a total of 43 hotels were selected ranging from three to ﬁve stars (24, 12, 8 hotels respectively), and the number in each category is roughly in proportion to the total number of hotels in that category according to China National Tourism Administration classiﬁcation (CNTA, 2013). Among which, the majority (74%) are state-owned, followed by private or public-owned (12%), and foreign or joint-venture properties (14%). Data from 23 hotels in Beijing were collected by one of the researchers, with the assistance of hotel managers. To avoid bias, conﬁdential policy was declared to the employees, and hotel managers were not allowed to administer the questionnaire ﬁlling process, nor were they granted access to the ﬁnished questionnaires. The researcher collected the questionnaires in person in all instances. Data from the other 20 hotels located in 12 provinces in China (3 in Shan Xi, 4 in Jinag Su, 1 in Guang Xi, 1 in Si Chuan, 2 in Chong Qing, 1 in Liao Ning, 1 in Inner Mongolia, 1 in He Nan, 2 in Gan Su, 1 in Hei Long Jiang, 1 in Shang Dong, and 2 in Guang Dong) were collected and administered by human resource managers of the hotels. Conﬁdential policy was also declared to the employees by HR managers, and respondents were asked to seal the questionnaires with envelopes provided to them, and the ﬁnished questionnaires were mailed to one of the author by HR managers. Although employees were selected using a convenience sampling method, in order to make the sample representative, every three employees in each department of a hotel were selected to participate in the survey. To achieve good inferential accuracy at a 95% conﬁdence level and a 5% conﬁdence interval, the sample size was determined at a minimum of 385. Based on past experiences of an average response rate of about 60% and a usable rate of around 80% for similar studies, a total of 1000 survey questionnaires were distributed to the HR managers of each of the hotels for data collection. These managers were also sent a letter describing the nature of the study, requesting their assistance and coordination in data collection efforts. With the strong support of hotel managers, 640 responses were collected indicating a response rate of 64%, and 585 of which were valid, generating a 58.5% valid response rate. A descriptive analysis of the employee demographic information shows that most of the respondents were from departments of food & beverage (21.9%), housekeeping (20.6%), front ofﬁce (19.2%), facility & engineering (17.5%), and sales/marketing (14.3%). The average age of respondents was 29 years old. Females accounted for 60.8%, and male accounted for 39.2%. Most of the employees obtained professional or high school education (45.6%), while 17.6% of the employees had bachelor degrees and only 1.1% of them had 27 master degrees. The average monthly income of employees was around US$220, ranking the lowest among varied industries based on the latest statistics in China (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2011). 3.2. Measures A 5-point Likert-type scale was used for all items in this study, ranging from 1 = “Completely disagree” to 5 = “Completely agree”, and the items were presented in Appendix A. Self-concept was measured with Levels of Self-Concept Scale (LSCS) (Johnson et al., 2006). The LSCS contains multiple subscales for each of the three levels of self-concept. The three levels of selfconcept include: Individual self-concept (˛ = .73; example item: “I feel best about myself when I perform better than others”); Relational self-concept (˛ = .79; example item: “I value friends who are caring, empathic individuals”); and Collective self-concept (˛ = .82; example item: “When I become involved in a group project, I do my best to ensure its success”). Although this scale was used by researchers (Chang and Johnson, 2010; Johnson et al., 2012), the LSCS scale was also tested in the context of China’s hotel industry, and the reliability and most of the validity indices of the LSCS were acceptable (Marnburg and Luo, 2014). Therefore, the LSCS was used in this study. Transformational leadership (˛ = .90) was measured with 12 items from IM, IS, IC, and CR in MLQ (Form 5X) (Avolio and Bass, 2004). An example item was “Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems”. Eight items were selected from MBEP and LF in MLQ (Form 5X) (Avolio and Bass, 2004) to measure passive leadership (˛ = .81). One example item was “Avoid getting involved when important issues arise”. LMX was measured with 7 items developed by Graen and Uhlbien (1995) (˛ = .85) which was widely used by researchers (Boies and Howell, 2006; Michael et al., 2006). An example item was “I know where I stand with my supervisor”. This study tests the effect of LMX from the perspective of employees’ perceptions, with no intention to measure difference or the congruence of LMX between supervisors and employees. Therefore, we used subordinate LMX to measure supervisor–subordinate relationship. 3.3. Data analysis Reliability tests were ﬁrst conducted for internal consistency for all the factors. Then correlation analysis was applied to examine the inter-relationships between factors and the face validity of the model that reﬂects the relationships among the factors (Hair et al., 2011b). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to test if common method bias problem of the data occurred, and conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the variables. Structural equation modeling analysis was conducted to further test how the model ﬁts the data using goodness-of-ﬁt indices such as 2 , RMSEA, SRMR, AGFI, and NNFI (Byrne, 1998; Hair et al., 2011a,b; Hu and Bentler, 1999). The loadings of the paths in the structural model were used to test the hypotheses. 4. Results 4.1. Correlations among factors To explore the relationships between leadership and selfconcept, correlation analysis was conducted and the results were reported in Table 1. The results showed that Transformational leadership and LMX were moderately related to Collective and Relational self-concept, and weakly related to Individual self-concept. Passive 28 Z. Luo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 Table 1 Mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefﬁcients between factors. Factor Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Transformational 2. Passive leadership 3. LMX 4. Collective self-concept 5. Relational self-concept 6. Individual self-concept 3.66 1.76 3.81 4.36 4.22 3.25 .77 .69 .71 .58 .57 .78 (0.90) −.50** .67** .45** .42** .13** (0.8) −.39** −.23** −.20** .02 (0.85) .44** .49** .21** (0.8) .65** .25** (0.7) .31** (0.73) Note: ** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); numbers in parentheses are reliability values Crobach’s alpha. Table 2 Construct reliability, squared correlations between factors and AVEs of factors. Factor Construct reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Transformational leadership 2. Passive leadership 3. LMX 4. Collective self-concept 5. Relational self-concept 6. Individual self-concept .90 .82 .85 .82 .80 .73 .44 .31 .58 .24 .20 .01 .37 .23 .09 .04 .01 .44 .27 .30 .04 .48 .62 .07 .45 .12 .36 Notes: 1. Values below the diagonal are squared correlation between factors. 2. Diagonal values are AVE values. leadership had weak negative correlation with Collective and Relational self-concept, but was not signiﬁcantly related to Individual self-concept. In other words, while Transformational leadership and LMX were main determinants of employee Collective and Relational self-concept, there were weak or insigniﬁcant relationships between the three leadership styles and Individual self-concept. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to test if common method bias problem of the data occurred. Sample size of this study reached the ratio of 13 cases for each of the items (585/42 in this study). Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) has a value of .923, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level. Therefore, the data was qualiﬁed to conduct exploratory factor analysis (Hair et al., 2011a,b; Pallant, 2005). Harman’s one-factor test was used to analyze the presence of common method bias. All of the relevant items of the six factors in the conceptual model of this study were put together to conduct the un-rotated factor analysis. If a single factor emerges or one general factor explains most of the covariance in the independent and criterion variables, then substantial common method bias is present (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results showed that ten factors were identiﬁed (Eigenvalues are greater than 1) with un-rotated factor analysis, and a total variance of 64.81% was explained by the ten factors, in which the largest total variance explained by one factor being only 27.97%, representing no common method bias. We also conducted CFA to test the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the model. Goodness-of-ﬁt indices are as follows: Chi-Square = 1887.53 (p = 0.0), df = 804; Chi-Square/df = 2.35; RMSEA = 0.048; NNFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; Standardized RMR = 0.049; GFI = 0.87; AGFI = 0.85, representing good ﬁt to the data. The construct reliabilities of the factors are consistent with Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 2), representing good reliability of the factors. With regard to convergent validity, only three items have standardized loadings of less than 0.5 among the 42 items of the six factors, indicating that these items are qualiﬁed to be in the model. The AVE values of the six factors are less than 0.5 (see Table 2, the rule of thumb is 0.5 or higher). Therefore, the convergent validity of each factor is not ideal. On the other hand, not all the AVE values of the six factors are greater than the squared interconstruct correlations associated with corresponding factors (see Table 2). Therefore, the discriminant validity of the factors were not ideal (Hair et al., 2011a,b). The most signiﬁcant observation is that Transformational leadership and LMX are correlated at .67 (Table 1). These two constructs do not have adequate convergent and discriminant validity (Table 2), and a multicollinearity problem may be present (Grewal et al., 2004). Since the correlation is not too high (.67), the measurements are not too poor, and the sample size quite substantial, the multicollinearity problems are deemed not too severe (Grewal et al., 2004). The analysis results that include Transformational leadership and LMX simultaneously will however have to be interpreted with some caution. Although low convergent and discriminant validities of the factors were present from the above analyses, the factors of this study were based on former studies. For instance, the signiﬁcant difference between the concepts of Transformational leadership and Passive leadership was identiﬁed by Luo et al. (2013). In detail, the concepts of Transformational leadership and Passive leadership of hotel supervisors in this study were derived from FRLT through EFA analysis, and the results also show that a two-factor model has better model ﬁt indices than the traditional nine-factor model from FRLT (Form 5X) (Avolio and Bass, 2004) based on CFA, and good reliability and validity results. For the construct of LSCS, the validity and reliability of it were also tested by Marnburg and Luo (2014). Furthermore, LMX is a well developed measure, therefore, these variables can be considered different from each other. 4.2. Test of the model and hypotheses The relationships between the variables in the hypothesized model was identiﬁed through correlation analysis (see Table 1), but the causal relationships between them were examined using structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis with LISREL 8.80 program. To test the hypothesized model, the assumptions of SEM analysis such as sufﬁcient sample size, outliers, multicollinearity, normality, and parameter identiﬁcation were examined. Given sufﬁcient sample size for this study, normality, linearity, multicollinearity were tested after checking outliers of the data. The Normal Probability Plot and Scattered Plot of standardized residuals were tested to check the normality, linearity and independent of residuals of the data (Pallant, 2005), and no violation of these assumptions was identiﬁed. In addition, although two correlations were higher (.67 for Transformational leadership and LMX and .65 for Eollective self-concept and Relational self-concept) (Table 1), no serious multicollinearity was found in this study (Durbin–Watson statistic was 1.92, which was close to the expected value of 2, and VIF value was less than 10) (Pallant, 2005). Therefore, assumptions of the analysis are met. Z. Luo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 Transformational leadership Collective self-concept ns ns 0.74/13.56 LMX ns Passive leadership 29 0.54/6.62 0.65/7.31 Relational self-concept 0.36/5.73 Individual self-concept 0.25/4.04 Fig. 2. The testing model of the study. Table 3 Summary of SEM analysis and hypothesis test. Path Standardized estimate t value Result TR → LMX TR → CS PL → IS PL → LMX LMX → CS LMX → RS LMX → IS .73 .10 .25 −.06 .51 .60 .36 13.51 1.30 4.05 −1.34 6.36 10.26 5.69 Signiﬁcant H1 not supported H5 supported Not signiﬁcant Signiﬁcant H4 supported Signiﬁcant Goodness-of-ﬁt statistics: 2 (811, n = 585) = 1988.66, p = .00; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.07; GFI = 0.88; AGFI = 0.87; Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.96. Note: TR = transformational leadership; PL = passive leadership; CS = collective selfconcept; RS = relational l self-concept; IS = individual self-concept. Results showed that the goodness-of-ﬁt indices for the model were as follows: 2 = 1988.66; p < .001; CFI = 0.95; SRMR = .07; RMSEA = .05; GFI = .88; AGFI = .87; NNFI = 0.96. The speciﬁed paths from leadership styles to self-concept in the model presented a good ﬁt to the data (Byrne, 1998). In reviewing the structural parameter estimates for the model, two of them were found not signiﬁcant: the path from Transformational leadership to Collective self-concept, and the path from Passive leadership to LMX (t values were 1.30 and −1.34 respectively, representing insigniﬁcant relationships) (Byrne, 1998). The other parameter estimates in the model were signiﬁcant, and a ﬁnal model was built with these two paths deleted from the original model (see Fig. 2). For the six hypotheses, statistics showed that H1 was not supported ( = .10; t = 1.30), which means that Transformational leadership was not directly related to Collective self-concept. H4 was supported (ˇ = .60; t = 10.25), indicating that LMX was related to Relational self-concept. Passive leadership was directly related to Individual self-concept (ˇ = .25; t = 4.05), thus H5 was supported (see Table 3). With regard to the mediating role of LMX, three hypotheses were involved: H2 , H3 , and H6 . As depicted in Fig. 2, several observations can be made. First, it is noticeable that LMX was signiﬁcantly related to collective self-concept (ˇ = .51; t = 6.36) and relational selfconcept (ˇ = .60; t = 5.69). Second, Transformational leadership was strongly related to LMX ( = .73; t = 13.51), but was not directly related to Collective self-concept, which was supported by the test results of H1 and H2 . As a result, the hypothesized mediating role of LMX between Transformational leadership and Collective selfconcept was supported. Third, Passive leadership was not related to LMX (ˇ = −.06; t = −1.34), therefore, the hypothesis (H6 ) that LMX mediates the relationship between Passive leadership and Individual self-concept was not supported. However, Passive leadership was weakly related to Individual self-concept (standardized loading was .25). Regarding to H3 , signiﬁcant relationships between Transformational leadership and LMX (.74), and between LMX and Relational self-concept (.65) were identiﬁed, which implied potential mediated relationships among Transformational leadership, LMX, and Relational self-concept. To test the direct effect of Transformational leadership in the original model, the revised model with the path from Transformational leadership to Relational self-concept was assessed by SEM analysis to see if the model ﬁt was substantially changed (2 ) compared to the original one. Results of SEM analysis on the revised model showed a 2 = .33 (2151.99–2151.66) with one degree of freedom (p = .00), which is not a signiﬁcant change. There was no change in RMSEA (.05), which indicates no signiﬁcant direct effect of Transformational leadership on Relational self-concept (Hair et al., 2011a,b). Furthermore, the relationship between Transformational leadership and Relational self-concept in the revised model was not signiﬁcant ( = −.07; t = −.99), while the paths from Transformational leadership to LMX, and the path from LMX to Relational self-concept were still significant (see Fig. 2 with path coefﬁcients and associated t values). Therefore, H3 was supported which indicates that the relationship between Transformational leadership and Relational self-concept was fully mediated by LMX, and LMX is indispensable in the relationship. The ﬁnal results of this study show that the full mediating role of LMX on the relationship between Transformational leadership and self-concept at different levels is salient, while there is no mediating effect of LMX on the relationship between Passive leadership and individual self-concept. The direct effect of Passive leadership on individual self-concept is weak in the model (0.25). Though it is not signiﬁcant in terms of correlation, it has signiﬁcant but weak correlations with collective and interpersonal self-concept. Therefore, the direct effect of Passive leadership on self-concept can be neglected. However, there might be some indirect effect or moderating role of Passive leadership on self-concept. By integrating the above results of this study, it can be summarized that the effect of Transformational leadership on self-concept was fully mediated by LMX, while the effects of Passive leadership on self-concept were not supported, and the strong direct effects of LMX on Collective self-concept and Relational self-concep were identiﬁed in this study. 5. Conclusions Empirical studies on self-concept were limited (van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003). This study not only empirically investigated the antecedents of self-concept from the perspective of leadership, but also contextualized the investigation in a 30 Z. Luo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 different cultural context - the Chinese culture. More speciﬁcally, this study investigated the relations between leadership behaviors and subordinates’ self-concept at the supervisor level in the hospitality industry. Findings of this study provided valuable evidence for applications of Western theories as well as the associated managerial implications in China’s hospitality industry. In this study, the relationship between leadership and subordinates’ self-concept was investigated. In particular, the relationships among Transformational, Passive leadership, LMX and self-concept were tested based on six hypotheses in the model. Results showed that two of the hypotheses (H1 and H6 ) were not supported and four of them were supported. In summary, we found that ﬁrst, there was no direct effect of Transformational leadership on Collective and Interpersonal self-concept, but the relationships between Transformational leadership and the two levels of self-concept were mediated by LMX. Second, there were signiﬁcant relationships between LMX and the three levels of self-concept, in which the relationship between LMX and Relational self-concept was the strongest (0.65), while the relationship between LMX and Individual selfconcept was the weakest (.36) among the three relationships. Third, the impact of Passive leadership on Individual self-concept was weak (.25), and it was not mediated by LMX in the model. Based on the above ﬁndings of this study, the following theoretical contributions and practical implications can be drawn. 5.1. Theoretical contributions The ﬁnding that Transformational leadership was strongly related to collective self-concept was consistent with Lord et al. (1999a,b)’s argument that transformational leadership ﬁts better with Collective self-concept. While not directly related, they were mediated by LMX according to the results of this study. This means that the nature of leader-member exchange will affect or guide individuals toward either collective- or Individual-level self-concept (Lord et al., 1999a,b). Therefore, we identiﬁed a causal relationship from Transformational leadership to LMX, and to Collective self-concept, which is a new ﬁnding compared to prior studies. LMX is indeed important in guiding behavior and attitudes when self-concept is deﬁned at a relational level (Lord et al., 1999a,b). High level LMX can develop Collective self-concept, which was supported by the strong positive relationships between LMX and relational and Collective self-concept. The weak signiﬁcant relationship between LMX and Individual self-concept indicated that low-quality supervisor–subordinate relationship may end in individual or self-oriented self-concept. In addition to the effect of transformational leadership, the ﬁndings of this study also provided insights in understanding the effects of Passive leadership (Laissez-faire leadership and MBEP) on selfconcept, which was normally ignored in leadership studies. For Passive leadership, its positive and signiﬁcant main effect on Individual self-concept was identiﬁed, while its effect on LMX was not signiﬁcant. Passive leadership does not contribute to either collective self-concept or relational concept. These ﬁndings provided new insights on the effects of Passive leadership (Laissez-faire leadership and MBEP) that were ignored by researchers. 5.2. Practical implications For supervisors in the hotel industry, it is crucial for them to motivate frontline employees in their encounters with guests. Since their self-concept can drive their behaviors, therefore, supervisors should focus on the development of employee self-concept, especially the collective level self-concept that drives teamwork and organizational achievement. To this end, supervisors should exercise their leadership through good relationship with employees in terms of work related relationship as well as non-work relationship rooted in Chinese culture (Littrell, 2002), with the latter demonstrating a strong direct and mediating effect of Transformational leadership on employee self-concept. It is also recommended that supervisors put more effort on their behaviors that embody transformational leadership, since supervisors at Chinese hotels appear to be weak in IIA and IIB of transformational leadership in MLQ (Form 5X) (Luo et al., 2013). We also suggest supervisors to develop related behaviors of IIA and IIB that can be learned, which are important to develop collective self-concept at organizational or group level (Shamir et al., 1993, Shamir, House, and Arthur, 1993). Other transformational leadership behaviors, such as individualized consideration that prime the relational self-concept in personal identiﬁcation with the leader should also be employed at work to achieve expected outcomes (Kark and Shamir, 2002a,b). 5.3. Limitations and directions for future research Like other studies, this study also has some limitations. First, the study was conducted in the hospitality industry in the context of Eastern culture. A comparative examination of the model in Western culture will contribute more to our understanding of the impact of cultural differences on leadership related issues (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Second, the questionnaires were self-reported by employees, which may introduce bias to the results even though the survey was well administered by the research team. As a result, caution is required in generalizing the ﬁndings of this study to practical applications. Third, to better understand the leadership effects, surveys on higher level leaders such as department managers or higher should also be conducted. Fourth, although effects of Transformational and Passive leadership for hotel supervisors were discussed in this study, effects of Transactional leadership for higher level leadership deserve more attention in future studies. Finally, we have to acknowledge that the convergent and discriminant validities of the constructs in the model of this study were not ideal. Since the problem may be caused by the high correlation between Transformational leadership and LMX, or the low convergent validity of LSCS, results should be interpreted with caution, and improvement of the validities of these constructs should be sought after in future studies. Appendix A. Construct measures Transformational leadership 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts (CR) Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems (IS) Talks optimistically about the future (IM) Discusses in speciﬁc terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets (CR) Spends time teaching and coaching (IC) Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group (IC) Articulates a compelling vision of the future (IM) Gets me to look at problems from many different angles (IS) Helps me to develop my strengths (IC) Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments (IS) Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations (CR) Expresses conﬁdence that goals will be achieved (IM) Passive leadership 1. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate (MBEP) 2. Avoid getting involved when important issues arise (LF) Z. Luo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 3. Is absent when needed (LF) 4. Waits for thing go wrong before taking action (MBEP) 5. Shows that he/she is a ﬁrm believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t ﬁx it” (MBEP) 6. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action (MBEP) 7. Avoids making decisions (LF) 8. Delays responding to urgent questions (LF) LMX My supervisor understands my job-related problems and needs. I know where I stand with my supervisor. My supervisor recognizes my potential. My supervisor would use his/her power to help me solve work related problems. 5. My supervisor would “bail me out” at his/her expense. 6. I defend and justify my supervisor’s decisions when he/she is not present to do so. 7. I have an effective working relationship with my supervisor. 1. 2. 3. 4. Individual self-concept 1 I thrive on opportunities to demonstrate that my abilities or talents are better than those of other people. 2 I have a strong need to know how I stand in comparison to my coworkers. 3 I often compete with my friends. 4 I feel best about myself when I perform better than others. 5 I often ﬁnd myself pondering over the ways that I am better or worse off than other people around me. Interpersonal self-concept 1. If a friend was having a personal problem, I would help him/her even if it meant sacriﬁcing my time or money. 2. I value friends who are caring, empathic individuals. 3. It is important to me that I uphold my commitments to signiﬁcant people in my life. 4. Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend or relative is important to me. 5. Knowing that a close other acknowledges and values the role that I play in their life makes me feel like a worthwhile person. Collective self-concept 1. Making a lasting contribution to groups that I belong to, such as my work organization, is very important to me. 2. When I become involved in a group project, I do my best to ensure its success. 3. I feel great pride when my team or group does well, even if I’m not the main reason for its success. 4. I would be honored if I were chosen by an organization or club that I belong to, to represent them at a conference or meeting. 5. When I’m part of a team, I am concerned about the group as a whole instead of whether individual team members like me or whether I like them. References Avolio, Bass, Retrieved April 30 2007, from Mind Garden Inc. 2004. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. Free Press, New York. Boies, K., Howell, J.A., 2006. Leader–member exchange in teams: an examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadersh. Q. 17 (3), 246–257. Brewer, M.B., Gardner, W., 1996. Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 71, 83–93. 31 Bycio, R., Hackett, R.D., Allen, J.S., 1995. Further assessments of Bass’ conceptulization of transactional and transformational leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 80, 468–478. Byrne, B.M., 1998. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Chang, C.-H.D., Johnson, R.E., 2010. Not all leader–member exchanges are created equal: importance of leader relational identity. Leadersh. Q. 21, 796–808. CNTA, 2013. China Tourism Industrial Statistics Annual Report 2013–2014. http:// www.cnta.gov.cn/html/2014-9/2014-9-24-%[email protected]%7D-47-90095.html. Engle, E.M., Lord, R.G., 1997. Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 40 (4), 988–1010. Graen, G.B., Uhlbien, M., 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership – development of leader-member exchange (Lmx) theory of leadership over 25 years – applying a multilevel multidomain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 6 (2), 219–247. Grewal, R., Cote, J.A., Baumgartner, H., 2004. Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: implications for theory testing. Mark. Sci. 23 (4), 519–529. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Abderson, R.E., 2011a. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. China Machine Press, Beijing. Hair, J.F., William, B.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2011b. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Beijing, China Machine Press. Hinkin, T.R., Schriesheim, C.A., 2008. A theoretical and empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Leadersh. Q. 19 (5), 501–513. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., 2005. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York. . Hogg, M.A., Knippenberg, D.V. (Eds.), 2003. Social Identity and Leadership Processes in Groups, 35. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for ﬁt indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Eq. Model. 6, 1–55. Johnson, R.E., Veuns, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., 2012. The leader identity as an antecedent as the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 97 (6), 1262–1272. Kark, R., Shamir, B., 2002a. The dual effect of transformational leadership: priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In: Avolio, J.Y.F.J. (Ed.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, vol. 2. JAI Press, Amsterdam, pp. 67–91. Kark, R., Shamir, B. (Eds.), 2002b. Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 2002. Academy of Management. Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S., Wang, D., Wang, L., 2000. Effect of supervisor–subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Hum. Resourc. Manag. 11 (4), 751–765. Littrell, R.F., 2002. Desirable leadership behaviours of multi-cultural managers in China. J. Manag. Dev. 21 (1), 5–74. Lord, R.G., Brown, D.G., 2004. Leadership Process and Follower Self-identity. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, Mahwah, NJ. Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J., Freiberg, S.J., 1999a. Understanding the dynamics of leadership: the role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 78, 1–37. Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J., Freiberg, S.J., 1999b. Understanding the dynamics of leadership: the role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 78 (3), 167–203. Lord, R.G., Hall, R.J., 2005. Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. Leadersh. Q. 16 (4), 591–615. Luo, Z., Wang, Y., Marnburg, E., 2013. Testing the structure and effects of full range leadership theory in the context of China’s hotel industry. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 22 (6), 656–677. Marnburg, E., Luo, Z., 2014. Testing the validity and reliability of the levels of self-concept scale in the hospitality industry. J. Tour. Recreat. 1 (1), 37–50. Michael, J.H., Guo, Z.G., Wiedenbeck, J.K., Ray, C.D., 2006. Production supervisor impacts on subordinates’ safety outcomes: an investigation of leader-member exchange and safety communication. J. Saf. Res. 37 (5), 469–477. National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2011. Average Wage of Employed Persons in Urban Units by Sector in Detail (2010) [Electronic Version], Retrieved http:// www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2011/indexch.htm. Pallant, J., 2005. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows (Version 12). Open University Press, Maidenhead. Parasuraman, A., Zeithmal, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64 (1). Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903. Schriesheim, C.A., Wu, J.B., Scandura, T.A., 2009. A meso measure? Examination of the levels of analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Leadersh. Q. Shamir, B., House, R.J., Arthur, M.B., 1993. The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory, vol. 4., pp. 577–594. Shao, L., Webber, S., 2006. A cross-cultural test of the ‘ﬁve-factor model of personality and transformational leadership’. J. Bus. Res. 59 (8), 936–944. Su, H., Xiao, K., 2008. An analysis on characteristics and management of employees born after 1908’s contemporary. Young Res. 4, 54–58. 32 Z. Luo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 52 (2016) 24–32 Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., Pillai, R., 2001. The MLQ revisited – psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 12 (1), 31–52. Tse, H.H.M., Wing, L.A.M., 2008. Transformational leadership and turnover: the roles of LMX and organizational commitment. Acad. Manag. Annu. Meet. Proc., 1–6. van Knippenberg, D., Hogg, M.A., 2003. A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 25., pp. 243–295. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., Hogg, M.A., 2004. Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 15 (6), 825–856. Yukl., 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadersh. Q. 10 (2), 285–305. Yukl., 2005. Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.