Predicting Professional Competencies Using Measures of Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership.
"Excellence is a better teacher than mediocrity. The lessons of the ordinary are everywhere. Truly profound and original insights are to be found only in studying the exemplary."--Warren G. Bennis
Study the exemplary--I always wanted to know the traits of and truth about 100 greatest leaders of all times in any generation. And, I have always wanted to do research on "American Exceptionalism." Where else will you find such leaders, except in the citadels and within the walls of great American universities? If at all they exist in modern times today, they must exist within the concrete walls or in campuses of American universities as living, breathing professors of repute, imbued with leadership par excellence, as history is the testimony of their greatness!
Exceptionalism, by its definition, is the perception that a country, individual, leader, institution, movement, species, society, or even a time period is considered as "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary) in some way.
In its classic form, American exceptionalism refers to the special character of the United States as a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberty. Because of this spirit, individuals exhibit unique behaviors in leadership styles.
Hence, the definition of exceptionalism derived from the above precept is the condition or conviction of being different from the norm- it is also basis of exemplifying personal behavior or style, pertaining to a nation, or in individuals.
We know that such leaders existed in history and the lofty ideals of a young American nation have always promoted the free spirit of being different.
French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville first defined American Exceptionalism as,
The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one. Their strictly Puritanical origin... have singularly concurred to fix the mind of the American upon purely practical objects. His passions, his wants, his education, and everything about him seem to unite... from time to time, a transient and distracted glance to heaven. (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1945, p.20)
As an example of above, for the pursuit of perfection, and in defense of it, global leadership and organizational behavior (GLOBE) research found in a global study of American CEO's, Leaders and Managers that,
In the United States, leaders are expected to show impeccable levels of integrity and performance orientation. They're expected to develop and communicate an inspirational vision. They're also expected to effectively manage team dynamics and be administratively competent. They need to be decisive while demonstrating high levels of participation and diplomacy. They need to avoid self-centered and self-protective actions and work effectively with others. (House, Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, & de Luque, 2014, p. 348)
"For leaders to get results they need all three kinds of focus. Inner focus attunes us to our intuitions, guiding values, and better decisions. Other focus smooths our connections to the people in our lives. And outer focus lets us navigate the larger world. A leader tuned out of his internal world will be a rudderless; one blind to the world of others will be clueless; those indifferent to the larger systems within which they operate will be blindsided" Goleman (2013). The Venn diagram below indicates the three intersecting constructs: inner psychological capital, outer psychological ownership, and the other--leadership style as the resultant behavior. The intersection is important for development of leadership with focus on excellence, which is the intended outcome (or American Exceptionalism.). Goleman has noted these intersections of competencies with focus on excellence. See figure 1.
Cognitive Input of Professionalism and Competence
Luthans (2002), a great American professor specializing first in Organizational Behavior and later on Positive Organizational Behavior, has contributed to the American passion for exceptionalism. He conducted research on emerging positive psychology for a span of five decades, pioneering in the spirit of American Exceptionalism through his work on Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) and its outcomes. His recent articles focus on the need for and meaning of a positive approach to organizational behavior. This focus has been instrumental for this research which gives motivation to the investigation of American Exceptionalism of university professors.
Much is expected and needed in the realization of American Exceptionalism in the world stage of teaching, research, service - whichever is needed to define scholarship in isolation or in combination thereof, about these three dimensions of scholarship bestowed upon us by the new dawn of American scholarship. Specifically, the argument is made that at this time, the Organizational Behavior field that applies Psychology and Organizational Commitment for excellence in performance needs a proactive approach to thinking. It also needs a positive approach to the application of psychological capital as well as psychological ownership of university professors in demonstrating outcomes of leadership. This outcome must emphasize increasing strengths and effectiveness in organizational behavior for positive outcomes in job performance using personal development and organizational commitment.
Hence, Luthans' invented paradigm of positive organizational behavior (POB) provides strength to organizational behavior using empirical research on theory and driven by modern research methodologies. In later advancements, as of today, additional criteria for new positive organizational behavior (POB) in the form of Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership have germinated the field with intense empirical research and application. Such POBs, Luthans asserts, "are to identify unique, state-like psychological capacities that can not only be validly measured, but also be open to development and performance management." Four distinct facets of Hope, Optimism, Resiliency, and Self-efficacy (or, horse) are integrated into one construct called Psychological Capital; and the other called Psychological Ownership is comprised of five facets: Territoriality, Ease of belonging, Accountability, Self-efficacy and Relational identity (or, teaser to spur the horse) (Avey & Avolio, 2007). The overall intent of this research is to prove that Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership can predict professors' Leadership styles.
Avolio and Gardner (2005) also have addressed the present and future leadership needs and have developed a model of leader and follower paradigm and examined the process of leadership and followership with a keen eye on, what they call a veritable relationship for sustained follower performance. This is a developmental process of leader and follower self-awareness and self-regulation, they assert. The influence of the leader's and followers' personal histories and trigger events are considered as antecedents of leadership and followership, as well as the reciprocal effects with an inclusive, ethical, caring and strength-based organizational climate. This is probably a sort of leader-member exchange that keeps on growing and growing to a level of extreme symbiosis, yielding a very positive relationship that is viewed by them as a primary means of developing followers. They argue that such outcomes of leader--follower relationships include heightened levels of follower trust in the leader, engagement, workplace well-being that produces veritable, sustainable performance on the part of the leader and follower alike.
Rowland and Higgs (2008) in their Harvard Business Review article assert that it is better to influence leaders' 'being', and not just their 'doing'." They argue with strong evidence that leadership development isn't developing leaders, and "have found that leaders need to work on the quality of their inner game, or their capacity to tune into and regulate their emotional and mental states, before they can hope to develop their outer game, or what it is they need to actually do." So, leadership development should start by working on the inner game, which Luthans and Avolio (2007) also promote with Psychological Capital, and then use the outer game which is the Psychological Ownership. In the Venn diagram presented above, Goleman also uses the inner and outer concepts or states. Rowland and Higgs (2008) also lament that, "It's very hard for leaders to have courageous conversations about unhelpful reality until they can regulate their anxiety about appearing unpopular and until they've built their systemic capacity to view disturbance as transformational, not dysfunctional." This is what Lathans et al. (2004) have also professed with PsyCap and PsyGown as an alternative approach to leadership development.
Rowland and Higgs (2008) argue that this goal can be achieved by predicting capabilities of the leaders by using their Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership, to develop their transformational capabilities, but not dysfunctional capabilities.
This process of screening professors to succeed for future leadership positions have been examined by Luthans and Avolio (2007) using empirical research of the effect of Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership on Transformational Leadership.
It is believed that American University Professors will benefit from this paradigm of predictive relationships used in this research. This research is, but a small step toward identifying as to why such excellence of professors can perhaps be predicted.
What constitutes excellence in leadership? American Exceptionalism expects the American University Professors to be inherently bestowed with attributes and capabilities of excellent leaders. American universities have always treated high caliber human resources of professors as a capital investment for competitive advantage. But research has not yet explored the connection between psychological capital, and psychological ownership of university professors with American Exceptionalism reflected in their exceptional leadership styles in the job they are doing in the form of teaching, research and service. Luthans and Youssef (2004) have, however, extensively explored such a concept in human, social, and now positive psychological capital management which starts with inversing in people for exceptional leadership and competitive advantage.
Affective Outcomes of Professionalism and Competence
Effective leaders are transformational leaders. University professors should be transformational to leave a great impact on student learning outcomes. Meta-analyses have shown that Transformational Leadership is positively related to Student Learning and Satisfaction. Yet there is paucity of research in Professors' Competitiveness and Effectiveness, Gap between Performance and Potential. Emerging constructs by Luthans on (Trait like States called) Positive Organizational Behavior/Psychological Capital of (Hope, Optimism, Resilience and Self-Efficacy) and by Avolio on affective nature of Psychological Ownership (akin to OCEAN personality traits), have been used to demonstrate Effective Leadership and Outcomes (Performance and Satisfaction). Lately, some studies have also found that high score on Psychological Capital is related to Leadership Outcomes (employee Performance and Job Satisfaction). And some studies have found that high score on Psychological Ownership is also related to Leadership Outcomes (employee Trust and Engagement (Organizational Citizenship Behavior). In the university setting, much of the work that professors do encompasses aspects of Psychological Capital (Hope, Optimism, resilience, and sel- efficacy) as well as their Psychological Ownership (Territoriality, Ease of belonging, Accountability, self-efficacy and Relational Identity). While each variable--A professor's Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership may predict Professors' Job Satisfaction, there is a paucity of research that they address which of these two variables is the strongest predictor of their leadership style (Transformational, Transactional and Passive Avoidant). No studies have been found that simultaneously studied professors' self-rated Psychological Capital, Psychological Ownership, (as independent variables) and their impact on leadership style (Transformational, Transactional or Passive Avoidant Leadership) in the university setting. So the purpose of the research is to investigate if PsyCap and PsyGown may be a good measure of prediction for Leadership.
This research believes that Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership will predict leadership style of Full Range Model of Leadership (FRML).
Luthans (2007), in his articulation of positive organizational behavior, and Avolio (2007) in his enunciation of organizational effectiveness, have articulated different formats of leadership behavior. In the case of Luthans (2007) and his positive organizational behavior, and his later development of psychological capital, he promoted four facets of leadership constructs using hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy (horse) as the nascent building blocks of leadership to shape and mold followers.
Psychological capital and psychological ownership have been widely researched as a combinatorial influence of the leader on the follower, which has been elaborately researched by Luthans, Avey, Avolio, and Peterson (2010) and Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007). For instance, hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy of the Psychological Capital are easily applied for the leader effectiveness, and it was called the acceptance theory of authority for the leader attributed to as either a transformational leader, or transactional leader, or management by exception-active leader, management by exception-passive leader, or a laissez-faire leader. Barnard (1938), on the other hand, with a big broad brush had already spoken about them 80 years back, that such categorization of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, MBEA-leadership, passive avoidant leadership could be combined to only one simple outcome-whether the leader is effective or not. The leader is effective, according to Barnard, if the follower accepts the leader as effective. The leader is ineffective if the follower does not accept the leader as effective.
Background and Development of Leadership Excellence
In order to implement the above concept, and in order to remain viable and competitive, universities have continually invested in their faculty and staff hoping that such investments will produce excellent faculty members meeting the burden of American exceptionalism.
Psychological capital and psychological ownership of such university professors are related to their on-the-job performance because psychological capital has got four constructs that are connected with professors' motivation and performance and these are hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy. On the other hand, psychological ownership has five constructs that equip professors for their belongingness, efficacy, accountability, and territoriality or territorial ambitions for success. Researchers found that psychological capital, (positive psychological capital), and psychological ownership (positive psychological ownership) contribute to the motivation of professors to become exceptional in the pursuit of the three required areas of performance e.g. teaching, research, and service.
But in the present world of competitiveness, university professors' excellence is multi-faceted and depends on many factors. Some of the research universities have used management development for professorial success by bringing forth training and development programs as a way of coaching and intervention for the young faculty members.
By leveraging resources and drawing upon the expertise in the member institutions, some universities have been able to offer excellent professional development opportunities to their faculty members hoping that these interventions are relevant and effective. They have coined a new phrase called Academic Leadership Program (ALP).
Such leadership development programs for faculty deemed as one of the most successful ventures for developmental activities in prestigious universities are expensive traditions for engaging in competitive strategies when scarce resources are spent without commensurate return on investment. Projected return on investment for a long time faculty development which prepares faculty for teaching and research and service are unknown. So universities are prescreening prospects for such continuous development activities.
Such intensive professional development expenditures are contingent to pre-screening these faculty members who show real promise of such leadership potential and managerial skills. Demonstration of exceptional ability and academic promise through their psychological capital (PsyCap) and psychological ownership (PsyGown) are necessary as predictors of academic professional excellence that are scientifically grounded on transformational leadership behavior.
This partly justifies the statement of the problem-that there is persistent gap between faculty potential needed and faculty potential present in the modern setup of academic faculty in excellent universities. There must be a way to predict the leadership potential of such faculty members from the very beginning of entry to the university based on the psychological capital and psychological ownership, which will predict the success of academic faculty so that they can engage themselves in the three most required areas of professorial effectiveness: teaching, research, and service.
Psychological Capital and Leadership
Luthans (2007) originally developed Psychological Capital in organizational and human resource management context. Today, the concept of Psychological Capital has expanded its use empirical assertions and findings with its four stable pillars of Hope, Efficacy, Resilience and Optimism (HERO). The acronym for Hope, Optimism, Resilience and Self-Efficacy (HORSE) has been coined by this researcher to research it as a motive force that is linked to self-reported personal effectiveness, job satisfaction, and extra effort as well as for life satisfaction. Luthans (2007) asserts that, while every component has its own characteristics and interventions, the concept of PsyCap is greater than the sum of its parts.
Based on appreciation and positive emotions shown by participants in leadership and management development, PsyCap as a core construct for psychological well-being and coping with positivity, has found many empirical validity. Many research articles have used the four elements of PsyCap individually and also the total score of PsyCap as a whole. Such interventions have demonstrated positive results in management development of executives in industry, faculty development, leadership development, and effective coaching.
Luthans and Youssef-Moran (2017) have provided a final analysis of the effectiveness PsyCap for leadership and management development using Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) and Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) giving special attention to PsyCap development of individuals, and the role of positive leadership. The authors posit that PsyCap is an evidence-based core construct. Through its positive approach, scholars and practitioners can leverage to tap into still largely unchartered territories of human strengths, thriving, and excellence. Emphasis has been placed on the criteria of being positive and effective. PsyCap is theory- and research- based, validly measurable, developmental, and related to desirable work outcomes. Researchers have helped PsyCap to grow and maintain its scientific rigor and practical relevance. The solid foundation established over the past 15 years, and constantly reviewed and improved, supports PsyCap's positivity in general as a valuable capital resource for individuals, teams, and organizations.
Psychological Ownership and Leadership
Psychological Ownership (PgyGown) has been seen and researched as a positive resource for impacting human performance in organizations in the area of human resource management, and management development. PsyGown has five components of Territoriality, Ease of belonging, Accountability, Self-Efficacy, and Relational Identity (TEASER). Avey, Avolio, Crossley, and Luthans (2009) and other researchers have widely disseminated the empirical findings of confirmatory factor analyses that proposes effective measure of PsyGown. Two measures were uncovered by multiple researches, one that is positively-oriented, or "promotion-focused" aspect of psychological ownership comprised of four dimensions: ease of belonging, accountability, self-efficacy, and relational self-identity. The second component construct is territoriality, which is a unique "prevention-focused" form of ownership. Both Promotive and Preventive give an additive score that makes the total score of PsyGown. This PsyGown score has practical implications in training and development, and management development of leaders and managers and faculty members. Robust research results have shown that psychological ownership contributes to positive organizational behavior.
Recent research studies by Luthans, Avey, Avolio, and Peterson (2010) in connecting theory and research with psychological capital (PsyCap) and Psychological Ownership (PsyGown) of faculty members is an emerging core construct that is linked to positive outcomes at the individual and organizational level. However, to date, little attention had been given to PsyCap and PsyGown in the development of teaching professors through training interventions; and there had been no attempts to determine empirically if such PsyCap and PsyGown developments had any impact on participants' performance. To fill this gap, the Luthans et al. (2010) study conducted a pilot test of the Psychological Capital Intervention (PCI) with a randomized control group design. Next, the study conducted a follow-up study with a cross section of practicing managers to determine if following the training guidelines of the PCI caused the participants' performance to improve. Results provided beginning empirical evidence that short training interventions such as PCI not only may be used to develop participants' psychological capital, but can also lead to an improvement in their on-the-job performance. Such interventions may be used for faculty development for ensuring the growth of exceptionalism or exceptional performance. The implications of these findings have been found in human resource development, and performance management for the university faculty.
Other authors have suggested university faculty competency models by integration with strategic human resources practices (Rodriguez, Patel, Bright, Gregory, & Gowing, 2002). Krell (2001) suggests that the Society for Human Resource Development prescribe the use of competency model as a solution to promote the full range talent management process for the university professors. The creation and implementation of competency models for strategic talent management focuses on increasing university professors' capability rather than on providing training (Sullivan, 2005). Whiddett and Hollyforde (2003) also have studied the university professors' capabilities and suggest that competencies be used to create selection criteria, form the basis for reviewing performance, compensation and reward decisions, and identify development needs (the gap between expected and actual).
As a logical follow up to the above argument, Scott, Coates, and Anderson (2008) have proposed a model for academic leadership development (ALD) for increasing a professor's capability indicating that academic leadership development must begin with identifying the gaps in one's capability through a performance assessment process, and then addressing these gaps using a mixture of psychological development initiatives or approaches to leadership development.
Pierce (2011) has suggested a new paradigm of Leaders of Higher Education which has uncovered a gap between needs and capabilities. The CAO census of the chronicle of higher education shows that there is a looming crisis in top educational leadership.
However, alternatively, Luthans, Avolio, and Avey (2004) have used Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership and Transformational Leadership in predicting capabilities for future leadership development of faculty (Luthans et al., 2004).
Psychological Ownership and Leadership Outcomes
Avey, Avolio, Crossley, and Luthans (2009) study OF (N = 315) by the authors of Psychological Ownership (PO) found: Psychological Ownership and Transformational Leadership were moderately correlated; Relational Identity and Transformational Leadership were moderately correlated; Self-Efficacy and Transformational Leadership were moderately correlated; Ease of Belonging and Transformational Leadership were moderately correlated.
Judge and Bono (2004) related meta-analysis found (Openness) / Ease of Belonging and Transformational Leadership (k = 19, N = 3,887, [rho] = .15) (Conscientiousness) / Accountability and Transformational Leadership (k = 18 , N = 3,516, [rho] = .13) (Extraversion) / Self-Efficacy and Transformational Leadership (k = 20 , N = 3,692, [rho] = .24) (Agreeableness) / Relational Identity and Transformational Leadership (k = 20 , N = 3,916, [rho] = .14) (Neuroticism) / Territoriality and Transformational Leadership (k = 18 , N = 3,380, [rho] = -.17).
De Feyter, Caers, Vigna, and Berings (2012) study (N = 375) found (Openness) / Ease of Belonging and Academic Performance, weak correlation (Conscientiousness) / Accountability and Academic Performance, weak correlation (Extraversion) / Self-efficacy and Academic Performance, weak correlation (Agreeableness) / Relational Identity and Academic Performance, weak correlation (Neuroticism) / Territoriality and Academic Performance, weak correlation
Siebert, Wang, and Courtright, (2011) meta-Analysis found Psychological Ownership and Job satisfaction (k = 53, N = 17,875, [rho] = .64): Psychological Ownership Organizational commitment (k = 31, N =14,344, [rho] = .63); Psychological Ownership and Team Performance (k = 20, N = 1,854, [rho] = .51); Psychological Ownership and Turnover Intentions (k = 17, N = 8,384, [rho] = -.36); Psychological Ownership and Innovation at work (k = 9, N = 3,110, [rho] = .33).
Leadership as a Dependent Variable
There are two models of leadership and conceptual foundations with valid instruments exist to measure the various constructs of leadership models. This study proposes to use the most widely and validated leadership measure known as Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ-5 X. A variety of models of motivation and conceptual foundations exist and one of the latest and validated measures is called motivational sources inventory (Barbuto, 1998, 2009) addresses their motivational antecedents which precipitated scholarship success in these professors to be transformational in leadership and scholarship.
This study is based on transformational leadership theory, transactional leadership theory, and social learning theory to understand how instructor leadership behaviors affect student cognitive learning, affective learning, perceptions of instructor credibility, and communication satisfaction. The theoretical rationale supporting the proposed research design is based on transformational leadership theory research that has tested the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors (intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, idealized influence, and inspirational motivation) and follower outcomes of increased performance and satisfaction (Eom, 2009; Ruggieri, 2009). Various studies have empirically tested educational settings and positive learning outcomes (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2009; Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004). Instructors who display certain charismatic behaviors (idealized influence by student attribution and student admiration of teacher behavior), and teachers who give individualized consideration coupled with intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation are perceived as more effective Studies found that students are more satisfied with instructors displaying these above behaviors. Students learning outcomes from transformational teachers are better compared with those students learning outcomes from professors displaying purely transactional behaviors (Walumbwa et al.).
Statement of the Problem
So, in the present tumultuous times in the university's change management, the whole world needs truly inspiring American university professors as exemplary teachers and as leaders to rise to the top as teachers, researchers and administrators. They must possess the abilities to transform students into leaders; and they must be endowed with exceptional transformational leadership qualities which will bring about much needed change to the society through hope, optimism, resilience, and selfefficacy for a better tomorrow, which truly represents real American Dream--or American Exceptionalism.
As the whole world needs truly inspiring American university professors as exemplary teachers as leaders, only those who are endowed with the American Dream and those who aspire for the American Exceptionalism (AE) can be expected to lead with their Positive Organizational Leadership Behavior (POLB). This essential capital is called Psychological Capital (PsyCap) that consists of hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy (HORSE). They must also possess the Promotive Psychological Ownership Behavior (PPOB). This essential ownership is called PsycholoGical Ownership (PsyGown) that consists of Territoriality (negatively measured), Ease of belonging, Accountability, Self-Efficacy, and Relational identity (TEASER) for exceptionalism.
Great professors are greatly needed as leaders of the free world and free thinkers of all time that can inspire all of us. They must ignite our passion to learn and inculcate in us that spirit of imagination through their intellectual speech by invoking our best emotion within us.
An inspiring university education is of paramount importance for everybody's development today, professionally and psychologically. Education is a transformational intervention that changes the individual individually and the society collectively. The world has seen many transformational leaders before, but university professors and educators are the appropriate change agents for the modern society. The society has reposed such responsibilities on these university professors.
Transformational leaders as university educators are needed in to impart instruction to the young malleable minds. Transformational leaders/professors must possess the appropriate leadership styles necessary for imparting education to individuals and to transform societies. However, there's paucity of empirical research that exists in the area of transformational leadership of University professors who could exhibit such extraordinary leadership for themselves and inspire extraordinary achievement from their students. But there are limitations imposed on them.
College and university professors have witnessed a marked change in institutional climate. Competition has replaced collegiality. Faculty performance has become very stringent and is monitored very closely from inside and outside by all stakeholders of education. Promoting faculty productivity by enhancing faculty motivation for increased productivity is a key ingredient of social transformation through research, teaching and service, and to appreciate faculty member's contribution at work. So research, teaching, and service and scholarship of faculty being the key factors of faculty responsibility, they should be measurable for social change. There must be a connection between individual productivity of faculty and institutional characteristics that would allow such productivity to fulfill their full academic missions with eventual societal gain (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995).
College and University professors can be servant leaders or transformational leaders to meet the existing challenges being faced in the academia. Servant leadership of Greenleaf which has been tested in the highest echelon of Ivy League schools has not taken root yet in the citadels of American and Western higher education although the effects of transformational leadership in organizational settings is well known (Conger, 1999; Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 2001; Hackman & Johnson, 2004; Ravlin & Meglino, 1989). Research on the relationship between higher education professors' transformational leadership behaviors and effective research, teaching and service outcomes have been sporadically reported but such research is not replete with transformational outcomes (Blokan & Goodboy, 2009). The search found no persistent aim at research uncovering transformational leadership of college/university professors in the pattern it was undertaken by Greenleaf (2004) in experimenting or precipitating servant leadership within academia is certainly warranted. This research is a meager effort to uncover the problem stated, and to examine the relationship between professors' motivational profile and possible correlates of transformational leadership behaviors displayed in executing an effective job performance in education.
Hence summarizing the above, the following may be said:
* The majority of leadership research relating to executives' leadership development has been in the context of business and corporations.
* While the university's role as a change agent for the society is of paramount importance, it is vital to understand the impact of University Professors' leadership style has on producing students for the future leadership of a vibrant and modern society.
* Become aware of those factors that contribute to American Professors' positive leadership and organizational behavior that stem from (or are dependent on) their PsyCap and PsyGown.
Summarizing the above, the succinct statement of the problem is:
1. There is a gap in professors' competence and performance that must be bridged.
2. Universities must support those factors that contribute to Professors' excellence i.e., positive leadership behavior.
3. Professors' transformational leadership behavior leads to being exceptional (in their Positive Organizational Behavior, and Citizenship Behavior).
According to Cameron, Bright, and Caza, (2004), American Exceptionalism is evident in the authors' assertion which I would like to borrow: "In light of the current environment in which deteriorating confidence in business and attributions of corruption and negative deviance are widespread, it behooves scholars in organizational studies (and professors in the universities) to extend their reach into arenas that represent the highest human potential, ennobling qualities, and transcendent purposes. The rigorous investigation of virtuousness in organizations represents an important opportunity in that arena."
Can "Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership serve as predictors of university professors' leadership excellence" provide that answer to the authors? Yes, they can.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was
* To examine the relationship between professors' self-perception of their Psychological Capital and Leadership Style
* To examine the relationship between professors' self-perception of their Psychological Ownership and Leadership Style
Is there a predictive relationship between Professor's Psychological Capital Score (PCQMEAN = X1) (Hope, Optimism, Resiliency, and Self-efficacy) and Psychological Ownership Score (POQMEAN of X2) (Territoriality, Ease of Belonging, Accountability, Selfefficacy, and relational identity) with Transformational Leadership Score.
* A research sample of (N = 300) university professors was collected.
* Participants in this study were recruited at the unit level or individual professor/person level from American universities.
* A convenience sample was used.
* Individuals were contacted through their personal emails.
* Participants were invited to visit a SurveyMonkey [R] URL.
1. Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PsyCap) was used
PsyCap is a measurable higher-order construct indicated by the components of:
* Hope (6 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
* Optimism (6 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
* Resilience (6 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
* Self-efficacy (6 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
2. Psychological Ownership Questionnaire (PsyGown) was used
PsyGown is a measurable higher-order construct indicated by the components of:
* Territoriality (4 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
* Ease of Belonging (3 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
* Accountability (3 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
* Self-efficacy (3 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
* Relational Identity (3 items) Measured by six point Likert scale ranging from 1-6
3. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was used
* Transformational Leadership: Measured by twenty items with five point Likert scale ranging from 0-4
* Transactional Leadership: Measured by eight items with five point Likert scale ranging from 0-4
* Passive Avoidant Leadership: Measured by eight items with five point Likert scale ranging from 0-4
Significance of the Study
* The significance of the study rests on the purpose of the study: To examine the relationship between professors' self-perception of their Psychological Capital (independent variable) and Leadership Style (dependent variable). If the study finds a strong correlation, then it will underscore an important point that Psychological Capital Score obtained from professors' degree of Hope, Optimism, Resilience and Self-efficacy does motivate or provoke them to be transformational.
* The significance of the study rests on the purpose of the study: To examine the relationship between professors' self-perception of their Psychological Ownership (independent variable) and Leadership Style (dependent variable). If the study finds a correlation, then it will underscore an important point that Psychological Ownership Score obtained from professors' degree of Territoriality, Ease of belonging, Accountability, Self-Efficacy, and Relational identity does motivate or provoke them to be transformational.
* The findings of this study would hopefully deliver benefits to the academic community in a way that professors will be able to contribute to the professions according to their predictable leadership style. Such determination of professors' leadership style will reinforce the effective teaching, research and service style. This will also provide a distinctive professional development needs analysis and intervention strategy from an early stage by using their PsyCap and PsyGown. The schools which will apply this prediction model of university professors' future success may be considered as early adopters. This method may be considered as an alternative form of academic leadership development.
Avey, J., Avolio, B., Crossley, C., & Luthans, F., (2009) Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement, and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 173-191.
Avolio, B., Gardner W., Walumbwa F., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-823.
Barnard, C. I. (1975). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. (2009). Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36 (4), 296-306.
Bono J. E., & Judge T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 5, 901-910.
Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. ( 2004). Exploring the relationships between organizational virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766-790.
De Feyter, T., Caers, R., Vigna, C., & Berings, D. (2012). Unraveling the impact of big five personality traits on academic performance: The moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation. Learning & Individual Differences, 22(4), 439-448.
Krell, E. (2001). Competency modeling meets talent management. Society for Human Resource Development Online. Retrieved May 2016, from http://www.shrm.org
Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J., & Norman, S. (2007). Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 143-160.
Luthans, F., Avey, J., Avolio, B., & Peterson, S. (2010). The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2(1), 41- 67.
Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D., & Gowing, M. K. (2002). Developing competency models to promote integrated human resource practices. Human Resource Management, 41(3), 309-324.
Rowland, D., & Higgs, M. (2008). Sustaining change: Leadership that works. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Whiddett, S., & Hollyforde, S. (2003). A practical guide to competencies--contexts, issues and prospects. London: CIPD
Hamid Khan, Our Lady of the Lake University
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2018|
|Previous Article:||Patent Infringement: Defensive Strategies for IP Violators.|
|Next Article:||Subjective Norms and Demographic Background on E-payment Behavior in Cote d'Ivoire.|