Ronald F. Piccolo, Rollins College Manuela Priesemuth, University of Central Florida Adam Grant, University of Pennsylvania 2010 SIOP Presentation Transformational leadership is related to employee perceptions of job characteristics. Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) Purvanova, Bono, and Dzieweczynski (2006) Thus, recent studies have reported effects of Leadership on subjective Job Perceptions, but failed to control for the job’s objective nature. To examine the influence of leadership on employees’ job perceptions, controlling for objective measures of job characteristics. This research extends previous work by Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger (2010) Transformational leaders… “concentrate their efforts on long term goals,” “place emphasis and value on developing a vision,” “Inspire followers to pursue the vision”, “change or align systems to accommodate their vision rather than work within existing systems,” and “coach followers to take greater responsibility toward their own development .”B B Howell & Avolio (1993) Followers rely on cues from the environment to form judgments about work.A As central in the work context, leaders foster job perceptions by sharing relevant info, role modeling, and directing follower attention to relevant information. B Often, judgment about work (i.e., job perceptions) diverge from the actual reality of work conditions Subjective Perceptions ≠ Objective Reality A Salancik & Pfeffer (1978); B Griffin (1981) This research is on Leadership and on Job Perceptions In the Job Design literature, there is subtle yet important distinction between objective properties of the job – and subjective perceptions. Objective ≠ Subjective Leaders have an influence on both! Objective Job Characteristics (Control) Leadership Employee Job Perceptions Employee Outcomes Transformational Leadership JCT Autonomy & Significance Performance Task & OCB Leadership Study 1 (JOB) Study 2 (SIOP) Study 3 (ongoing) Focal Focal Coworker Co-Worker Co-Worker O*Net Focal Focal Focal Focal Focal Co-Worker Supervisor Supervisor 181 126 155 Job Characteristics Objective Assessment Subjective Assessment Effort Performance & OCB n Snowball Sampling Design: Working undergrad and graduate students (with a coworker) were recruited to participate. Measures Transformational Leadership was assessed using the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1995). ▪ “ My supervisor talks enthusiastically about what needs to be done.” Task Significance was assessed using Grant’s (2008) measure of Prosocial Impact. ▪ “ My job frequently improves the lives of other people.” Job Autonomy was measured using Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) measure. ▪ “ This job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work.” Objective job characteristics ▪ Coworkers rated the task significance and job autonomy of the focal employee. Measures cont’d Dependent variables (Supervisor Rated) ▪ Taking Charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999) “This employee often tries to change how his/her job is executed in order to be more effective.” ▪ Voice (van Dyne & LePine,1998) “This employee speaks up in this department with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.” ▪ Organization Member Proficiency (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007) “ This employee talks about the organization in positive ways.” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TFL (.96) Autonomy .31** (.91) Task Significance .30** .44** (.95) Autonomy (c) .35** .51** .23** (.91) Task Significance (c) .35** .31** .47** .45** (.96) Taking Charge .20** .23** .23** .22* Voice .24** .35** .29** .27** .27** .72** Org. Member Proficiency .23** .34** .38** .48** .61** .38** .36** 8 .26** (.93) (.89) (.87) *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01 Task SignCOW .42* TAKING CHARGESUP .22* TASK SIGNIFICANCE .21* .20* .25* Transformational Leadership VOICESUP .14 † .19* AUTONOMY .52* .35** .35* ORG MEMBER PROFICIENCYSUP AutonomyCOW n = 126. *p ≤ .05. †p ≤ .10 Leaders shaped subjective job perceptions, even when controlling for an objective measure. Assessing the influence of leadership on an individual’s job perceptions controlling for objective measures of the job (O*Net) Measures Ethical leadership (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005) Task Significance and Job Autonomy (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) O*Net data JCT ~ Autonomy The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative and judgment in carrying out the work The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work O*Net ~ Structure versus Unstructured Work To what extent does this job allow the worker to determine tasks, priorities, and goals? r = .19* JCT ~ Task Significance The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things This job is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done O*Net ~ Impact of Decisions on Co-workers or Company Results How do the decisions an employee makes impact the results of co-workers, clients or the company? r = .22* 1 1. Ethical Leadership 2 3 4 -- 2. Autonomy .18* -- 3. Structured* .21* . 19* -- 4. Task Significance .37* .33* .21* 5. Impact* .27* .08 .40* .22* Structured versus Unstructured Work — To what extent does this job allow the worker to determine tasks, priorities, and goals? Impact of Decisions on Co-workers or Company Results — How do the decisions an employee makes impact the results of co-workers, clients or the company? n = 155. *p ≤ .05. Task SignO*Net .29* TASK SIGNIFICANCE .28* ETHICAL LEADERSHIP .06 AUTONOMY .40* AutonomyO*Net n = 159. *p ≤ .05. Leaders help shape meaning of peoples’ jobs. Here, we found a unique effect of leadership on subjective job assessments, controlling for objective features of the job. Employees rely on informational and behavioral cues in the environment to construct their work. In all, managers in organizations can enhance job perceptions of employees through persuasion, communication or behavioral patterns. This research created new insights for the job and work design literature as well as the leader’s role in shaping one’s work experience.