Printer Friendly

Effect of leaders' implicit followership prototypes on employees' internal and external marketability.

In an ancient Chinese tale, Qianlima is a thoroughbred horse that can travel 1,000 li (400 kilometers) in 1 day, and Bole, who is renowned for his skilled judgment of horses, spots Qianlima's potential (Harrist, 1997). The moral of the story is that every talent requires its Bole to be recognized, and for talent to be taken seriously and become marketable, it must first be trusted in and developed. In modern business management, leaders have their own positive assumptions concerning the abilities of their employees (Sy, 2010). When employees fit these positive assumptions, leaders respond with high levels of trust, liking, performance expectations, resources, and opportunities; this, in turn, facilitates an increase in employees' competence and performance (Whiteley, Sy, & Johnson, 2012). In the case of Qianlima (i.e., talented) employees, their critical competence is marketability.

Implicit followership theory (IFT; Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2009; Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010) relates to an individual's assumptions concerning the traits and behaviors that characterize followers, which are abstract composites of a category of the most representative member or attributes. IFT comprises leaders' implicit followership theory and followers' implicit followership theory (Sy, 2010). On the basis of evidence of a perception--behavior link, a plausible hypothesis is that leaders' implicit followership prototypes will influence employee competences, which include internal and external marketability. Internal marketability refers to the state of being valuable to a current employer, whereas external marketability refers to the state of being valuable to other employers (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, 2003). Scholars have demonstrated that when social information from employees activates and fits leaders' followership prototypes, leaders display positive attitudes and behaviors toward these employees, which leads employees to experience increased psychological empowerment (Siegall & Gardner, 2000; Waheed, Abbas, & Malik, 2018), meaningfulness (Kong, Xu, Zhou, & Yuan, 2019), self-efficacy (Ng & Lucianetti, 2016), self-determination (Gilal, Zhang, Paul, & Gilal, 2019), and proactivity (Whiteley et al., 2012), along with forming more explicit career goals, job insight, and internal and external workplace networks (Eby et al., 2003).

We developed several research objectives that will have substantial theoretical and practical implications. First, we investigated the effects of leaders' implicit followership prototypes on employees' internal and external marketability. To explain this mechanism, we used the social information processing perspective, which has been applied in a limited number of previous empirical studies (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013; Knoll, Schyns, & Petersen, 2017). Our findings will enrich empirical evidence in the fields of IFT, individual marketability, and social information processing. Second, we investigated internal and external marketability as important individual competences, which keeps pace with the current transformational era and the unpredictable environment of the boundaryless career, and transfers the research focus from cognition--behavior relationships (e.g., between IFT and in-role behavior/performance/organizational citizenship behavior) to cognition--competence relationships (e.g., between IFT and marketability). Last, we examined in-role performance as a moderator, an innovative approach that may provide new insight into the main effect results (Park, Kim, & Song, 2015).

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Leaders' Implicit Followership Prototypes and Employees' Marketability

Implicit theories derive from the application of cognitive science to leadership research (Junker & van Dick, 2014). Using the social information processing perspective, which emphasizes the effects of context and the consequences of past choices, we considered both the effect of leaders' previously formed implicit followership prototypes and social information. According to the sensemaking function of leaders' IFT (Combe & Carrington, 2015), when leaders compare their prior assumptions with information obtained, prior prototypes or antiprototypes will be activated. Differing types of leaders' IFT lead to differing attitudes and behaviors toward employees (Alkahtani, 2016).

Leaders' assumptions about, and the reality of, how good employees are represent sources of social information that influence information processing (Zhou, Liu, Su, & Xu, 2019). When social information activates leaders' implicit followership prototypes through sensemaking (Derler & Weibler, 2014), leaders will give positive feedback information (e.g., trust, liking, and higher performance expectations) to employees who match their prototypes in terms of positive cognitions, affect, attitudes, and behaviors (Sy, 2010). Meanwhile, the social information context of employees consists of their leaders' attitudes and behaviors toward them, which enter the employee's sociocognitive process as input information and influence their perceptions of their job and context. The perception of positive feedback information from leaders results in employee psychological empowerment, which motivates employees to display positive attitudes and behaviors at work (Waheed et al., 2018).

In a limited number of empirical studies, researchers have confirmed that perceived support, a sense of being trusted, and higher performance expectations are positively correlated with employees' organizational commitment, job satisfaction, performance, and organizational citizenship behavior (Whiteley et al., 2012). This suggests that high levels of the four dimensions of psychological empowerment (i.e., meaningfulness, self-efficacy, self-determination, and sense of impact) will render employees more proactive and skillful at work, and will result in an increased likelihood of more explicit career goals and insight, and good internal and external networks (Eby et al., 2003). Thus, we formulated the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Leaders' implicit followership prototypes will be positively correlated with employees' internal marketability.

Hypothesis 1b: Leaders' implicit followership prototypes will be positively correlated with employees' external marketability.

The Mediating Effect of Psychological Empowerment

Psychological empowerment is the process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification and removal of conditions that foster powerlessness from both formal and informal organizational practices (Siegall & Gardner, 2000). According to the social information processing perspective, leaders' positive prototypical assumptions and their subsequent attitudes and behaviors toward employees will provide positive efficacy information. This is one way to enhance employees' feelings of self-efficacy and perceived psychological empowerment.

The cognitive model of empowerment comprises four elements (Waheed et al., 2018). The first element is meaning, which refers to the value of a work goal or purpose based on the individual's personal ideals and standards (Siegall & Gardner, 2000). The greater the perceived meaning of their work, the more specific career goals and greater career insight the individual is likely to have (Eby et al., 2003). The second element is self-efficacy, which refers to the individual's belief in their capability to perform work-related activities with skill (Waheed et al., 2018). The higher the level of self-efficacy, the more career-relevant skills and job-relevant knowledge the individual is likely to master and develop on a continuing basis. The third element is self-determination, which refers to the sense of having choice in terms of initiating and regulating actions (Gilal et al., 2019). The more autonomy an individual has in terms of work behaviors and processes, the more likely they are to look for support and developmental assistance within and outside the organization, as provided by internal and external networks. The fourth element is sense of impact, which refers to the degree to which an individual can influence strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work (Pitesa, Thau, & Pillutla, 2013). The more impact or potential impact an individual has on an organization, the more valuable they are likely to be to the organization (Kruse & Sy, 2011).

These empowerment components are consistent with the three categories of predictors of individual marketability: (a) "knowing why" variables, such as career insight, proactive personality, and openness to experience; (b) "knowing whom" variables, such as experience with a mentor, internal networks, and external networks; and (c) "knowing how" variables, such as career/job-related skills and career identity (Eby et al., 2003). This suggests that psychological empowerment may mediate the two effect mechanisms in the relationship between leaders' followership prototypes and employees' internal and external marketability. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Employees' psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between leaders' followership prototypes and employees' internal marketability.

Hypothesis 2b: Employees' psychological empowerment will mediate the relationship between leaders' followership prototypes and employees' external marketability.

The Moderating Effect of In-Role Performance

For organizational behavior researchers and management practitioners, ever-higher performance of employees represents a main goal. As a result, employee performance has been the subject of extensive research. With regard to the nature of subordinate behaviors and organizational outcomes, in-role performance describes the environmental information stimuli involved in the categorization of information into memory, which influence individual cognitive structures and processes. To be specific, employee performance can be a substitute for leadership. A plausible hypothesis, therefore, is that in-role performance will influence the effects of leaders' followership prototypes.

On the one hand, in-role performance influences leaders' cognitive structures and guides their behavioral response to their subordinates (Zhang & Han, 2019). This means that an employee's high in-role performance will lead directly to positive cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors of the leader, which weakens the effect of leaders' implicit followership prototypes on employees' psychological empowerment. On the other hand, in-role performance as environmental information influences employees' sociocognitive processing (Cohen & Liu, 2011), and disturbs the correct perception and understanding of leaders' positive attitudes and behaviors. Employees with high in-role performance may tend to attribute the trust, liking, and allocation of more resources and opportunities from leaders to their own performance, rather than to the coincidence with, and activation of, leaders' implicit followership prototypes; thus, these employees may have less intrinsic motivation (Gilal et al., 2019). All these conditions will weaken the effect mechanism, and vice versa.

In summary, we anticipated that employees' high in-role performance would be a substitute for leadership (Park et al., 2015) that would weaken the effects of leaders' followership prototypes on employees' perceived empowerment, whereas low in-role performance would make the relationship stronger because, in the absence of the substitution effect, leaders' followership prototypes would be the main source of employees' perceived psychological empowerment. Accordingly, we formed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Employees' in-role performance will negatively moderate the relationship between leaders' followership prototypes and employees' perceived psychological empowerment.

When the in-role performance of employees is high, the relationship between leaders' followership prototypes and employees' perceived empowerment will be weaker, whereas the opposite will apply when the in-role performance of employees is low. Furthermore, the mediating effect of psychological empowerment in the relationship between leaders' followership prototypes and employees' internal and external marketability will also be influenced by employees' in-role performance. To be specific, high in-role performance will have a substitution effect (Park et al., 2015) on leaders' prototypes, which will result in fewer perceived positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in leaders and a lower level of psychological empowerment in employees. According to the explanations above, lower psychological empowerment may lead to employees having less intrinsic motivation (Gilal et al., 2019) to be proactive and skillful in their own jobs, form explicit career goals and insight, or develop and maintain good internal and external networks, whereas low in-role performance without the substitution of leadership (Park et al., 2015) will intensify the impact of positive information from leaders' implicit followership prototypes on employees' motivation (Eby et al., 2003). This means that when employees' in-role performance is high, the mediating effect of psychological empowerment in the relationship between leaders' implicit followership prototypes and employees' internal and external marketability will be weaker. By contrast, when employees' in-role performance is low, the mediating effect of psychological empowerment will be stronger. Therefore, we formed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4a: Employees' in-role performance will negatively moderate the mediating effect of psychological empowerment from leaders' followership prototypes on employees' internal marketability.

Hypothesis 4b: Employees' in-role performance will negatively moderate the mediating effect of psychological empowerment from leaders' followership prototypes on employees' external marketability.

We used the above theoretical logic and hypotheses to formulate our research framework concerning the relationships between leaders' implicit followership prototypes and employees' internal and external marketability.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The study cohort comprised 500 employees and their immediate superiors from five companies in Peking, Wuhan, Xiamen, and Hangzhou in China. We made contact with the executives of these companies during an executive training program and asked them to arrange for participants to be selected randomly by the human resources department. There were 54 supervisors, each of whom oversaw an average of 5 or 6 employees. To eliminate common method variance, two successive surveys were conducted. For the first survey we focused on factors relating to supervisors and received 380 (76%) responses to items addressing leaders' implicit followership prototypes and employees' in-role performance. Two months later we conducted the second survey, which was focused on employee-related variables, and received 345 (69%) responses. The second survey comprised measures of psychological empowerment, and internal and external marketability. Thus, the sample comprised 345 matched employee--supervisor dyads. Following the exclusion of invalid responses, we obtained 331 (87.1%) valid surveys from employees and their immediate leaders. The final sample of employees included 194 (58.6%) men and 137 (41.4%) women. The average age of the employees was 28.77 years (SD = 4.67, range = 20-45), and their average duration of work experience was 5.39 years (SD = 3.96, range = 1-21).

Measures

All self-report scales we used have been examined in leading international journals and been shown to have high reliability and validity in multicultural contexts. Unless otherwise stated, items were rated using a 7-point Likert-type scale with response anchors of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Leaders' implicit followership prototypes. The implicit followership prototypes of immediate leaders were measured using a nine-item scale comprising the three dimensions of industry, enthusiasm, and good citizenship (Sy, 2010). A sample item is "Below are some words that describe the characteristics of followers. Please evaluate the extent to which these words conform to your followers (no one in particular) based on your actual experience and feelings." Sample responses include "Hardworking" and "Team player." Cronbach's alpha reliability in this study was .76.

Internal and external marketability. The internal marketability of employees was measured using three items: "My company views me as an asset to the organization," "Given my skills and experience, the company that I work for views me as a value-added resource," and "There are many opportunities available for me in my company." Similarly, external marketability was measured with three items: "I could easily obtain a comparable job with another employer," "There are many jobs available for me given my skills and experience," and "Given my skills and experience, other organizations view me as a value-added resource." Cronbach's alpha reliability of the internal and external marketability measures in this study was .76 and .85, respectively.

Psychological empowerment. Employees' psychological empowerment was measured using a 12-item scale comprising four dimensions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Examples are "The work I do is very important to me" (meaning), "I am very assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities" (competence), "I can decide on my own how I do my job" (self-determination), and "I have a great influence over what happens in my section of the department" (impact). Cronbach's alpha reliability in this study was .87.

In-role performance. We measured supervisors' evaluation of employees' in-role performance with five items. An example of an item is "I meet the formal performance requirements of my job." Cronbach's alpha reliability in this study was .84.

Control variables. Consistent with previous research on employee marketability (Amdurer, Boyatzis, Saatcioglu, Smith, & Taylor, 2014), we controlled for employees' age, gender, educational status, and seniority.

Data Analysis

We analyzed the data with a regression analysis using SPSS version 23.0. To assess the hypothesized relationships, we followed previous recommendations to test moderating (Aguinis, Edwards, & Bradley, 2017) and mediating (Hayes, 2013) effects.

Results

Discriminant Validity

To establish the discriminant validity of the measures of leaders' implicit followership prototypes, internal marketability, external marketability, psychological empowerment, and in-role performance, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL 8.80. The five-factor model had the best fit to the data (see Table 1). This indicates that the five factors had satisfactory discriminant validity.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables are shown in Table 2. Leaders' implicit followership prototypes were positively and significantly correlated with employees' internal and external marketability, and with psychological empowerment. Employees' psychological empowerment was positively and significantly correlated with internal and external marketability.

Hypothesis Testing

To test the main effects, we calculated regression equations with leaders' implicit followership prototypes as an independent variable and employees' internal and external marketability as dependent variables. Control variables were also inputted. As shown in Table 3, leaders' implicit followership prototypes were positively and significantly correlated with employees' internal marketability (M2) and external marketability (M5). Therefore, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.

We tested the mediating effect of psychological empowerment using Hayes' (2013) method and the results are shown in Table 3. Leaders' implicit followership prototypes were positively and significantly correlated with psychological empowerment (M7), psychological empowerment was positively and significantly correlated with employees' internal marketability (M3), and the indirect effect of leaders' implicit followership prototypes on internal marketability was .34. The 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effect based on 1,000 bootstrapping resamples excluded zero [0.24, 0.46]. Thus, psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between leaders' implicit followership prototypes and employees' internal marketability, supporting Hypothesis 2a. Support was also found for Hypothesis 2b, indirect effect = .23, 95% CI [0.15, 0.34].

Results for the moderating effect of employees' in-role performance are presented in Table 3, Model 8. To eliminate collinearity, independent and dependent variables were standardized, and the moderating effect of employees' in-role performance was tested according to the procedure proposed by Cohen and Liu (2011). There was a significant correlation between employees' psychological empowerment and the interaction of leaders' implicit followership prototypes and employees' in-role performance (see Figure 2), supporting Hypothesis 3.

The results shown in Table 4 suggest that the indirect effect of leaders' followership prototypes on employees' internal marketability via psychological empowerment was significantly moderated by in-role performance, [DELTA][DELTA] = -.26, p < .05, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.11]. Support was, therefore, obtained for Hypothesis 4a.

The results shown in Table 5 suggest that the indirect effect of leaders' followership prototypes on employees' external marketability via psychological empowerment was significantly moderated by in-role performance, [DELTA][DELTA] = -.32, p < .05, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.20]. Support was, therefore, obtained for Hypothesis 4b.

Discussion

With the emergence of an ever more competitive career environment, individual marketability is becoming an increasingly important competence (Eby et al., 2003). Furthermore, IFT has gained popularity as a stream of research into leadership and followership processes (Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis, & Lord, 2017). In this study we linked these two important research areas and generated four key findings: (a) leaders' implicit followership prototypes were positively correlated with employees' internal and external marketability, (b) these two effect mechanisms were partly mediated by employees' psychological empowerment, (c) employees' in-role performance negatively moderated these two effect mechanisms as a leadership substitute, and (d) leaders' implicit followership prototype effects and the mediating effect of psychological empowerment were negatively mediated by employees' in-role performance. These findings suggest that when employees' in-role performance is high, the relationship between leaders' implicit followership prototypes and employees' individual marketability is weak, as is the mediating effect of psychological empowerment.

We have made three theoretical contributions to the field: First, we are the first to investigate the effect of leaders' implicit followership prototypes on employees' internal and external marketability, thus expanding empirical research on IFT and marketability. In addition, we divided marketability into two dimensions to reflect the current transformational era and increasingly unpredictable career environment (Amdurer et al., 2014), and transferred the research focus from cognition--behavior relationships (e.g., between IFT and in-role behavior/performance/organizational citizenship behavior) to cognition--competence relationships (e.g., between IFT and marketability). Second, we used a social information processing perspective (Knoll et al., 2017) to explain the IFT effect mechanism--in particular, the role of leaders' implicit followership prototypes (Epitropaki et al., 2017; Junker & van Dick, 2014; Whiteley et al., 2012)--to determine the impact of leaders' IFT on employees' behavior and competence outcomes. Third, we studied in-role performance as a potential moderator. This approach has rendered novel main effect results based on the substitution of in-role performance for leadership (Park et al., 2015).

Our results also have implications for management practice. First, we have obtained empirical evidence that verifies the importance of IFT and leaders' implicit followership prototypes. Given the positive cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of positive leaders' followership prototypes, managers and leaders should make more optimistic assumptions about their subordinates to inspire more desirable attitudes and behaviors at work, as in the Pygmalion effect (Whiteley et al., 2012). Second, the interaction between leaders' implicit followership prototypes and employees will influence the social information processing of leaders and employees, as well as employees' psychological empowerment. A positive social information context will promote the cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors of both leaders and employees in the work environment (Knoll et al., 2017). It is, therefore, necessary to enhance the positive interaction of their social information processing by identifying implicit prototypes, conducting appropriate empowerment, and improving communication. Last, our analysis of in-role performance as a substitute for leadership suggests that performance should not be the sole focus within organizations. Instead, appropriate attention should be paid to employees' individual development and competences (e.g., marketability).

A limitation in this study is that marketability was measured subjectively; thus, it may have been confused with employee confidence, and the outcomes for internal and external marketability overestimated. However, we applied the most reliable scales available to date, and conducted surveys at two different times to reduce common source bias. Future research into enhanced marketability should be focused on employees' turnover as a dependent variable. This will involve a shift in research focus from perception--competence relationships to perception--competence--behavior relationships. In addition, future researchers should consider the impact of the demographic characteristics of leaders on employee marketability.

Acknowledgements

Xin Su and Peng Gao contributed equally to this research as co-first authors.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61602048).

References

Aguinis, H., Edwards, J. R., & Bradley, K. J. (2017). Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 665-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115627498

Alkahtani, A. H. (2016). The influence of leadership styles on organizational commitment: The moderating effect of emotional intelligence. Business and Management Studies, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.11114/bms.v2i1.1091

Amdurer, E., Boyatzis0, R. E., Saatcioglu, A., Smith, M. L., & Taylor, S. N. (2014). Long term impact of emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies and GMAT on career and life satisfaction and career success. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01447

Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2009, October). Implicit followership theories (IFT): Developing and validating an IFT scale for the study of followership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management Association, Ashville, NC.

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015

Cohen, A., & Liu, Y. (2011). Relationships between in-role performance and individual values, commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior among Israeli teachers. International Journal of Psychology, 46, 271-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2010.539613

Combe, I. A., & Carrington, D. J. (2015). Leaders' sensemaking under crises: Emerging cognitive consensus over time within management teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.002

Derler, A., & Weibler, J. (2014). The ideal employee: Context and leaders' implicit follower theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35, 386-409. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2012-0158

Eby, L. T., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 689-708. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.214

Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 104-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003

Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories "in the wild": Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 858-881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005

Gilal, F. G., Zhang, J., Paul, J., & Gilal, N. G. (2019). The role of self-determination theory in marketing science: An integrative review and agenda for research, European Management Journal, 37, 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.10.004

Harrist, R. E., Jr. (1997). The legacy of Bole: Physiognomy and horses in Chinese painting. Artibus Asiae, 57, 135-156. https://doi.org/10.2307/3249953

Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories.The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 1154-1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002

Knoll, M., Schyns, B., & Petersen, L.-E. (2017). How the influence of unethical leaders on followers is affected by their implicit followership theories. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24, 450-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817705296

Kong, M., Xu, H., Zhou, A., & Yuan, Y. (2019). Implicit followership theory to employee creativity: The roles of leader--member exchange, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Management & Organization, 25, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.18

Kruse, E. T., & Sy, T. (2011). Manipulating implicit theories by inducing affect. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2011(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2011.65870487

Ng, T. W., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social--cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 14-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/ap10000029

Park, C. H., Kim, W., & Song, J. H. (2015). The impact of ethical leadership on employees' in-role performance: The mediating effect of employees' psychological ownership. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26, 385-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21217

Pitesa, M., Thau, S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2013). Cognitive control and socially desirable behavior: The role of interpersonal impact. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 232-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.08.003

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 29, 703-722. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480010296474

Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001

Waheed, A., Abbas, Q., & Malik, O. F. (2018). 'Perceptions of performance appraisal quality' and employee innovative behavior: Do psychological empowerment and 'perceptions of HRM system strength' matter? Behavioral Sciences, 8, 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8120114

Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders' conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 822-834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.006

Zhang, Y., & Han, Y.-L. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007

Zhou, A., Liu, Y., Su, X., & Xu, H. (2019). Gossip fiercer than a tiger: Effect of workplace negative gossip on targeted employees' innovative behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 47, e5727. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.5727

Xin Su (1) Peng Gao (2) Ying He (1) Xuzhen Zhu (3)

(1) School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, People's Republic of China

(2) School of Economics and Management, Communication University of China, People's Republic of China

(3) State Key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, People's Republic of China

CORRESPONDENCE Ying He, School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Jingguan Building, Room 209, No. 10 Xitucheng Road, Haidian, Beijing 100876, People's Republic of China. Email: heyingcn2001@126.com

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8470
Table 1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Model                                      [chi square]  df   RMSEA

Five-factor model                           408.54       125  .083
Four-factor model: leaders' followership    685.54       129  .114
prototypes, psychological empowerment
  + in-role performance, internal
  marketability, external marketability
Three-factor model: leaders' followership  1044.06       132  .145
prototypes, psychological empowerment
  + in-role performance, internal
  marketability + external marketability
Two-factor model: leaders' followership    1160.77       134  .152
prototypes + psychological empowerment
  + in-role performance, internal
  marketability + external marketability
One-factor model: leaders' followership    1658.82       135  .185
prototypes + psychological empowerment
  + in-role performance + internal
  marketability + external marketability

Model                                      SRMR  TLI  CFI

Five-factor model                          .063  .92  .94
Four-factor model: leaders' followership   .100  .85  .87
prototypes, psychological empowerment
  + in-role performance, internal
  marketability, external marketability
Three-factor model: leaders' followership  .120  .76  .79
prototypes, psychological empowerment
  + in-role performance, internal
  marketability + external marketability
Two-factor model: leaders' followership    .120  .74  .77
prototypes + psychological empowerment
  + in-role performance, internal
  marketability + external marketability
One-factor model: leaders' followership    .130  .61  .66
prototypes + psychological empowerment
  + in-role performance + internal
  marketability + external marketability

Note. N = 331. [chi square] = chi square, df = degrees of freedom,
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, SRMR = standardized
root mean square residual, TLI = Tucker--Lewis index, CFI = comparative
fit index.

Table 2. Correlations of All Variables

Variable                        M     SD     1        2         3

1. Gender                      0.41  0.49
2. Age                        28.77  4.68   .23 (**)
3. Education level             2.05  0.75   .00       .39 (**)
4. Seniority                   5.39  3.96   .24 (**)  .87 (**)  .13 (*)
5. LIFP                        5.59  0.59  -.04       .12 (*)   .17 (**)
6. Psychological empowerment   5.07  0.73   .08       .15 (**)  .12 (*)
7. In-role performance         5.64  0.63   .09       .03       .06
8. Internal marketability      4.88  0.88   .10       .15 (**)  .21 (**)
9. External marketability      4.94  0.91   .17 (**)  .07       .04

Variable                      4         5         6         7

1. Gender
2. Age
3. Education level
4. Seniority
5. LIFP                       .18 (**)
6. Psychological empowerment  .16 (**)  .52 (**)
7. In-role performance        .05       .41 (**)  .44 (**)
8. Internal marketability     .11 (*)   .37 (**)  .53 (**)  .18 (**)
9. External marketability     .09       .28 (**)  .37 (**)  .16 (**)

Variable                       8

1. Gender
2. Age
3. Education level
4. Seniority
5. LIFP
6. Psychological empowerment
7. In-role performance
8. Internal marketability
9. External marketability      .41 (**)

Note. N = 331. LIFP = leaders' implicit followership prototypes.
Boldface type indicates dependent variables and moderators.
(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01.

Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Modeling for Main,
Mediating, and Moderating Effects

Variable                    Internal marketability
                             M1            M2          M3

Gender                       .09         .11 (*)      .08
Age                         -.06         .09          .05
Education level              .24 (**)    .15 (*)      .15 (*)
Seniority                    .11        -.08         -.07
LIFP                                     .36 (**)     .13 (*)
Psychological empowerment                             .44 (**)
In-role performance
LIFP x In-role performance
[R.sup.2]                    .06         .17          .31
[DELTA][R.sup.2]             .07         .12          .14
F                           5.85 (**)  14.65 (**)   25.53 (**)
[DELTA]F                    5.85 (**)  46.57 (**)   65.42 (**)

Variable                    External marketability
                             M4          M5            M6

Gender                       .16 (**)    .18 (**)    .15 (**)
Age                         -.13         .00        -.03
Education level              .07        -.01        -.01
Seniority                    .16         .00         .01
LIFP                                     .29 (**)    .14 (*)
Psychological empowerment                            .29 (**)
In-role performance
LIFP x In-role performance
[R.sup.2]                    .02         .10         .16
[DELTA][R.sup.2]             .03         .08         .06
F                           2.94 (*)    8.26 (**)  11.25 (**)
[DELTA]F                    2.94 (*)   28.56 (**)  23.34 (**)

Variable                    Psychological empowerment
                                M7         M8

Gender                        .09         .05
Age                           .10         .10
Education level               .00         .00
Seniority                    -.04        -.02
LIFP                          .52 (**)    .37 (**)
Psychological empowerment
In-role performance                       .23 (**)
LIFP x In-role performance               -.17 (**)
[R.sup.2]                     .28         .36
[DELTA][R.sup.2]              .29         .08
F                           26.11 (**)  27.11 (**)
[DELTA]F                    26.11 (**)  21.42 (**)

Note. N = 331. LIFP = leaders' implicit followership prototypes.
(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01.

Table 4. Results of the Moderated Path Analysis of Leaders' Implicit
Followership Prototypes on Internal Marketability via Psychological
Empowerment

In-role performance               LIFP [right arrow] PE [right arrow]
                                        Internal marketability
                                              Stage
                                   Stage 1    Stage 2    Direct

Low in-role performance (-1 SD)     .64 (**)   .64 (**)  .12
High in-role performance (+1 SD)    .28 (**)   .53 (**)  .34 (**)
Difference between high and low    -.36 (**)  -.11       .22

In-role performance               LIFP [right arrow] PE [right arrow]
                                    Internal marketability
                                  Effect
                                  Indirect     Total

Low in-role performance (-1 SD)    .41 (**)   .53 (**)
High in-role performance (+1 SD)   .15 (**)   .49 (**)
Difference between high and low   -.26 (**)  -.04

Note. N = 331. LIFP = leaders' implicit followership prototypes, PE =
psychological empowerment.
(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01.

Table 5. Results of the Moderated Path Analysis of Leaders' Implicit
Followership Prototypes on External Marketability via Psychological
Empowerment

In-role performance               LIFP [right arrow] PE [right arrow]
                                         Internal marketability
                                    Stage
                                  Stage 1    Stage 2    Direct

Low in-role performance (-1 SD)    .64 (**)   .59 (**)  -.02
High in-role performance (+1 SD)   .28 (**)   .22 (**)   .40 (**)
Difference between high and low   -.36 (**)  -.37 (**)   .42 (**)

In-role performance               LIFP [right arrow] PE [right arrow]
                                   Internal marketability
                                  Effect
                                  Indirect   Total

Low in-role performance (-1 SD)    .38 (**)  .36 (**)
High in-role performance (+1 SD)   .06 (**)  .46 (**)
Difference between high and low   -.32 (**)  .10

Note. N = 331. LIFP = leaders' implicit followership prototypes, PE =
psychological empowerment.
(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01.
COPYRIGHT 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Su, Xin; Gao, Peng; He, Ying; Zhu, Xuzhen
Publication:Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Dec 1, 2019
Words:5423
Previous Article:Emotional intelligence of 3- to 6-year-olds and parenting style: Peer communication ability as a mediator.
Next Article:Sociotechnical fit and perceived usefulness of enterprise social networks.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters