Sie sind auf Seite 1von 86

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ALETHEIA UNIVERSITY
MASTER THESIS

Advisor: Chi-Rong Chen, Ph.D.

The Mediating Effect of Employees Perceived


Organizational Politics on the Relationship between
Ethical Leadership and Work Engagement: Need
Satisfaction as Moderator

:
Graduate StudentSHERWYN A. OMPAD


May, 2015
Title of ThesisThe Mediating Effect of Employees Perceived Organizational

Politics on the Relationship between Ethical Leadership and

Work Engagement: Need Satisfaction as Moderator

Key wordsEthical Leadership; Perceived Organizational Politics; Work

Engagement

Name of InstituteDepartment of Business Administration, MBA Program,

Aletheia University

Graduate DateMay 2015 Degree ConferredMaster Degree

Name of StudentSherwyn Ompad AdvisorChen, Chi-Rong, PhD

Abstract
This study investigates how ethical leadership increases individuals work

engagement at work by reducing employees perceptions of politics in the

workplace. Specifically, perceptions of organizational politics serves as a

mediating factor which affects employees individual outcomes. This study

further investigates the moderating effect of employees need satisfaction on the

modeled relationships. The questionnaire used in this study was constructed from

previously validated instruments developed for the purpose of this study. SPSS

20 was used to code and analyze the collected data.

II
By means of data gathered through paired questionnaires from 92 supervisors

and 276 of their subordinates who are employed by four of the largest real estate

companies in the Philippines, we found support for our predictions. Specifically,

we found that employees perceptions of organizational politics partially

mediated the relationship between perceptions of ethical leadership and work

engagement. In addition, need satisfaction was found to moderate the relationship

between ethical leadership and perceptions of organizational politics.

Theoretical, practical and suggestions are discussed at the end of the research.

III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the assistance provided to me by my mentors, friends


and family because without their assistance, guidance, and understanding this
research would not have been possible. Firstly, I would like to express my
gratefulness to God that by his grace I am able to finish my research study.
Secondly, I would like to give my deepest appreciation to my advisor Dr.
Chen-Chi Rong for his patience, time, and constant encouragement, support, and
attention which were a major source of inspiration. Thank you for trusting me that
I can always improve for the better. The other members of my committee were
also great assets who offered their time to review my research article especially
to Dr. Chin-Yi Shu from Ming Chuan University who enlightened me in the
analysis and interpretation of my data results. Her assistance contributed to the
understanding of this research.
Thirdly, I also owe my deepest gratitude to the oral committee members,
Dr. Chih-Ping Lin and Dr. Hung-Hwei Liu who allocated their time and effort to
examine my paper and provided me with ideas for improvement.
Laslty, I also would like to send my sincerest gratitude to my loving family,
friends, and colleagues for their encouragement, and never-ending support
specifically Raymond Sarabosing, Swynrek Ompad, April Asufra, Carl Cane,
Kayne Melgazo and Charmaine Tiu for helping me distribute and collect data for
this research. I am also very grateful to those who agreed to participate in this
study. The generous involvement of their time, experience and sincerity in
answering the questionnaires contributed to the realism of this research. Words
are not enough how thankful I am for everything you have done for me. Thank
you from the bottom of my heart.

IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS V

LIST OF FIGURES . VIII

LIST OF TABLES .. IX

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background and Motivation .. 1

1.2 Purpose of the Study .. 5

1.3 Significance of the Study 5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Social Learning Theory... 8

2.1.1 Ethical Leadership towards Work Engagement 8

2.1.2 Ethical Leadership towards POP .. 10

2.2 Social Exchange Theory . 12

2.2.1 POP towards Work Engagement .. 14

2.2.2 Mediating Effect of POP on Ethical Leadership and Work

Engagement ... 15

2.3 Self-Determination Theory .. 16

2.3.1 Moderating Effect of Need Satisfaction on Ethical Leadership

And Perceived Organizational Politics . 19

V
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY . 21

3.1 Research Framework 21

3.2 Research Strategy 22

3.3 Methodological Approach ... 23

3.3.1 Deductive vs. Inductive Approach . 23

3.3.2 Qualitative vs. Quantitative Approach 23

3.3.3 Designing the Questionnaire ... 24

3.4 Data Collection . 24

3.5 Sample Selection .. 25

3.6 Participants ... 27

3.7 Operational Definition and Measurement Tools . 30

3.7.1 Ethical Leadership . 30

3.7.2 Perceived Organizational Politics . 33

3.7.3 Need Satisfaction .. 35

3.7.4 Work Engagement 37

3.8 Common Method Variance and Validity 39

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ... 41

4.1 Reliability and Validity ... 41

4.1.1 Reliability . 41

4.1.2 Validity . 41

4.1.3 Correlation of Variables 42

4.2 Hypothesis Testing . 44

VI
4.2.1 Mediating Effect .. 44

4.2.2 Moderating Effect 46

4.3 Summary of Hypothesis Results 49

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION .. 50

5.1 Conclusion 50

5.2 Discussion . 52

5.2.1 Theoretical Implication .. 52

5.2.2 Managerial Implication .. 54

5.3 Research Limitations and Further Suggestions .... 55

REFERENCES 57

APPENDIX .. 72

APPENDIX A ..... 72

APPENDIX B .. 76

VII
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1 Research Framework . 21

Figure 4-1 Interaction of Need Satisfaction on POP .. 48

VIII
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Descriptive Results ... 28

Table 3-2 Means and Standard Deviation for Ethical Leadership 32

Table 3-3 Means and Standard Deviation for POP 34

Table 3-4 Means and Standard Deviation for Need Satisfaction. 36

Table 3-6 Summary of Measurement Tools. 39

Table 4-1 Reliability and Correlation of all Factors .. 43

Table 4-2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediating Effect 45

Table 4-3 Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Moderating Effect .. 47

Table 4-4 Summary of Hypothesis Results . 49

IX
CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, background and motivation of this research will be

presented including the purposes for doing this research.

1.1 Background and Motivation of the Study

Business environment in the 21st century is characterized as highly

turbulent and unpredictable which has led to economic downturns that have

occurred over the past years. Much of the blame for these unfortunate events were

due to unethical acts of behavior and decision making (Kacmar, Andrews, Harris,

& Tepper, 2013). This has resulted into firms raising important questions about

the role of leadership in shaping ethical conduct since leaders decision making

are embedded on ethical principles (Yukl, 2002) and they usually set up group

norms which motivates work unit to avoid unethical behavior (Mayer, Aquino,

Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012; Brown and Trevino, 2006; Brown, Trevino, &

Harrison, 2005).

We conceptualize ethical leadership as Brown and colleagues' (2005)

definition which is the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct

through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of

such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and

1
decision-making (p. 120). Research on ethical leadership have demonstrated its

positive effects on employees organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB;

Kacmar et al., 2013) as well as other prosocial behaviors (Mayer, Kuenzi, &

Greenbaum, 2010; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010; Walumbwa

and Schaubroeck 2009) including the harmful effects that would occur if ethical

leadership is absent (Mayer et al. 2010). However, researchers have noted the

need to contribute to the paucity of empirical research explaining the underlying

process on how ethical leadership affects outcomes (Brown & Trevino, 2006;

Mayer et al. 2010; Kacmar et al. 2013). This research aims to fill in this gap and

study a key mediator affecting ethical leadership-outcome relationships.

Drawing from social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), we explain how

ethical leadership creates a work environment free of politics which suits well in

studying ethical leadership as individuals learn appropriate behaviors through

role-modeling processes (Bandura, 1986; Brown et. al, 2005). In business

organizations, employees pay attention to their supervisors who are legitimate

models for normative behavior since supervisors are appointed by the

organization to deal with reward-punishment systems which influences

employees to engage in desired behavior (Mayer et al., 2012). However when

supervisors fail to follow guidelines in reward-punishment systems (failing to

punish unethical behaviors, inconsistently giving rewards) (Kacmar et al., 2013)

may create and promote a work environment that induces employees to do

2
activities that are not approved by formal authority, thus interfering the goals of

the organization. In doing so, supervisors may promote an atmosphere conducive

for political behaviors.

In this research, we propose organizational politics as an underlying

mechanism that explains how ethical leadership affects outcomes. Organizational

Politics is the exercise of power for the purpose of acquiring ones intended

outcomes in pursuing their self-interest (Pfeffer 1992; Kacmar et al. 2013).

Recently, much attention has been given to the negative effects caused by

perceived organizational politics (POP) at work defined as the perceptions of an

individuals behavior not approved by the organization and the extent to which

employees view political activities as pervasive at work. Most of the research has

studied how POP affects employees prosocial behaviors such as OCB.

Particularly, results of empirical studies have found that POP is negatively

associated with OCB (e.g., Rosen, Chang, Johnson, Levy, 2009), whereas other

studies have found that POP is positively associated with OCB (e.g., Maslyn and

Fedor 1998) or unrelated to OCB (e.g., Cropanzano et al. 1997). Research done

by Kacmar et al. 2013 have suggested that perceived organizational politics (POP)

acts as a key mediator in ethical leadership-helping and promotability behavior.

However, no research has studied the underlying process of POP on ethical

leadership and employees work engagement. In response to this, this research

proposes that perceived organizational politics is a key mediator in the ethical

3
leadership-work engagement relationship. Since high levels of work engagement

can have positive outcomes for both employees and organizations (Kirkpatrick,

2007), it is important to determine factors which diminish employees work

engagement and understand how to bring out the best from organizations

employees.

While we believe that high (low) ethical leadership will lead to low (high)

perceived organizational politics, the strength of this effect will differ amongst

individuals. Recently, organizational scholars have begun to emphasize the

importance of an employees optimal functioning and well-being at work (Gagne

and Deci 2005; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). They

employ self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) to express an

individuals motivation through a multidimensional approach. SDT (Deci &

Ryan, 1985) postulates three innate psychological needs (needs for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness). These needs have to be satisfied for individuals to

flourish which energizes, directs, and sustains their behaviors (Gagne & Deci,

2005). They are assumed to directly enhance psychological and physical well-

being (Deci & Ryan, 2008); and the degree to which people are able to satisfy

their basic psychological needs as they pursue and attain their valued outcomes

will likely affect their work behavior. This research seeks to test how an

individuals need satisfaction acts as a buffer on the relationship between ethical

leadership and POP.

4
1.2 Purposes of the Study

Basing from the above background and motivation, this study focuses on

the effects of ethical leadership, POP and need satisfaction in the workplace.

Particularly, the purposes of this study are as follows:

1. To investigate the impact of Ethical Leadership on Perceived

Organizational Politics in the workplace

2. To investigate the role of Ethical Leadership on employees Work

Engagement

3. To investigate the impact of Perceived Organizational Politics on

Work Engagement

4. To examine the mediating effect of Perceived Organizational

Politics in the relationship between Ethical Leadership and

employees work engagement

5. To investigate the moderating role of need satisfaction in the

relationship between ethical leadership and perceived

organizational politics.

1.3 Significance of the Study

There has been growing interest on studying the underlying processes on

how ethical leadership affect employees outcomes (Brown and Trevino 2006;

Mayer et al. 2010; Kacmar et al. 2013). But to date, only few empirical studies
5
have extended this concern. We propose that POP will serve as a potential

mechanism on how ethical leadership affects work engagement. This research will

add to a growing number of literatures studying the mediating effect of POP on

ethical leadership and work behavioral outcomes (Mayer et al., 2010; Kacmar et

al., 2013) as studies on POPs effects are limited.

This study also applies self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to

explain an underlying condition that will increase (decrease) perceived

organizational politics of employees. Specifically, we develop and test a

theoretical model that suggests need satisfaction as a coping mechanism in the

work environment which makes effects of ethical leadership towards POP

stronger due to an individuals need satisfaction. Wherein employees high (low)

in need satisfaction will less (more) likely experience POP in the organization. By

incorporating both a moderator and mediator in the ethical leadershipoutcomes

relationships, our model proposes a comprehensive depiction of how ethical

leadership affects the organization and its employees.

6
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory (Bandura 1977) posits that individuals learn through

role-modeling processes and conduct behavior based on the appropriate actions,

values, and attitudes displayed by the role model. In order for one to become an

eligible and effective role model, they should be legitimate, attractive and credible

(Brown et al. 2005). Specifically, social learning happens when people pay

attention to some of these role models and encode their behavior in such a way

which leads to the imitation of the behaviors they have observed. As people

respond to these behaviors either through reinforcement or punishment, the

persons behavior would likely continue if the consequences of such behavior are

rewarding. Thus, behavior has been reinforced (Bandura & Ross, 1961).

In the organization, supervisors are deemed legitimate models because of

the position they hold in the company and the power that comes with the position.

These include power to control the reward-punishment system, legitimate power

to assign work-related task and power of information that leaders hold about the

organization (Brown et al. 2005; Kacmar et al. 2013). Furthermore, much

attention has also been given towards a leaders ethical behavior because it is vital

for a leaders credibility and potential to meaningfully influence followers in the

7
organization (Piccolo et al. 2010, Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Wherein,

according to social learning perspective, followers imitate ethical leaders

behavior and values by integrating these into their own identity (Brown et al.

2005). Specifically, when leaders behave ethically, communicate the importance

of being ethical, use a punishment-reward system to foster ethical behavior, work

units standards for acceptable behavior are formed which makes them less likely

to engage in unethical behavior.

2.1.1 Ethical Leadership towards Work Engagement

Social learning theory suggests that favorable behaviors of ethical leaders

and their emphasis on integrity, trust and shared values are imitated by the

followers and reinforced into their own self-concept (Brown et al. 2005). To date,

numerous research has shown how ethical leadership affect followers attitudes

and work behaviors such as inspiring high levels of commitment and trust and

fostering desirable behaviors among followers (Brown et al. 2005; Den Hartog

and De Hoogh 2009; Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011(a) (b); Piccolo

et al. 2010). Empirical studies have also shown a positive relationship between

ethical leadership and employee job satisfaction and organizational citizenship

behaviors (Cyril & Girindra, 2009; Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris, & Zivnuska, 2011)

as well as psychological well-being (Avey, Wemsing, & Palanski, 2012).

Ethical Leadership is considered as a value-driven form (Den Hartog &

Belschak, 2012) of leadership style wherein leaders appropriate followers

behaviors by exemplifying ethical identity through personal actions and


8
interpersonal relationships (Brown et al. 2005). Value-driven leadership like

charismatic leadership affects the self-concept and beliefs of their subordinates

and in turn affect their motivation, attitudes and behaviors (Shamir, House, &

Arthur, 1993). Ethical leaders exude desirable behaviors which include acting

fairly, promoting and rewarding ethical behavior, showing concern towards their

subordinates, demonstrating consistency, and taking responsibility for ones

actions (Brown et al. 2005; De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008; Kalshoven et al.

2011; Trevino, Brown, & Hartman, 2003). By doing so, subordinates look up to

their leader as their role model who motivates them to go the extra mile and do

the job right (Brown et al., 2005).

According to Piccolo et al. 2010, ethical leaders help subordinates find

meaning and value in their job which transcends into an increase of productive

behaviors such as increased motivation, effort and productivity. With these ideas,

we propose that ethical leaders stimulate employee work engagement which is a

positive work-related state characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption

(Schaufeli, Salanova, & Gonzalez-Roma, 2002; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,

2006; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004). Vigor is defined as feeling high levels of

energy and resilience while working, putting effort to ones work and being

persistent even in difficult situations. Dedication is defined as having a sense of

meaning, finding inspiration and pride, and being strongly involved in one's work.

Lastly, absorption by being fully concentrated and happily immersed in ones

9
work, whereby time passes quickly and having difficulties detaching oneself from

work (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007).

Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012 have found evidence in this relationship and

suggested that when employees perceive their direct supervisors as ethical, they

tended to report enhanced work engagement in terms of feeling more vigor,

dedication and absorption at work. Since these elements of engagement are

relevant to the ethical leadership process (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012), leaders

are able enhance their dedication and willingness to invest effort even when things

are difficult (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2007; Piccolo et al. 2010). Thus,

we suggest that (at least part of) the impact of ethical leaders on followers comes

through by stressing values that enhance followers abilities to see the

meaningfulness of their work, sharing power, showing fairness, care, and concern

ethical leaders are likely to enhance followers work engagement.

H1: Ethical leadership is positively related with Employees Work Engagement

2.1.2 Ethical Leadership towards POP

Recently, scholars have noted the lack of research explaining the

underlying mechanisms that explain how ethical leadership affects outcomes

(Brown & Trevino, 2006; Mayer et al. 2010; Kacmar et al. 2013). Drawing from

social learning theory, this research explains how ethical leaders can encourage

and support work environments free of politics (Brown & Trevino, 2006).

Research regarding organizational politics primarily focused upon an individuals


10
perceptions of organizational politics (POP) due to Lewins (1936, Principles of

Topological Psychology) suggestion that individuals behave based on their

perceptions of reality rather than objective reality (Ferris, Perrewe, & Douglas,

2002). Indeed, there is empirical evidence suggesting that perceived reality is the

most important factor in determining workers attitudes and behavior (Breaux,

Munyon, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2009).

Although political behaviors is considered as an effective way for work to

be accomplished, most of the research has focused upon the dark side (Ferris

and King, 1991) of political behaviors, which are behaviors not approved by the

organization and aims to secure ones intended outcomes. Thus, this research

considers POP as a contextual factor which influences the transparency of the

work environment (Ferris, Frink, Gilmore & Kacmar, 1994).

In the work environment, leaders are considered ethical when decisions are

made for altruistic instead for selfish reasons (Brown et al. 2005). When leaders

are ethical, they make fair decisions and allocate resources objectively.

Particularly, ethical leaders feel uncomfortable when making decisions that are

not based on established policies since they are aware that making unethical

decisions may cause harm to those affected by it (Kacmar et al. 2013). In the same

way, they possess norms and policies that value and reward ethical conduct and

holds members accountable for their actions and uses punishments accordingly.

Thus, ethical leaders are likely to reduce POP.

11
In contrast, unethical leaders tend to circumvent established rules and

regulations as they pursue their own self-interest which violates the organizations

code of ethics. Particularly, when unethical behaviors are inconsistently punished

may promote an environment conducive for political behavior. When this

happens, leaders are conveying a message that political behaviors are acceptable

(Kacmar et al. 2013). Thus low levels of ethical leadership would lead to increased

levels of POP.

Furthermore, employees take cues from their leaders regarding appropriate

behavior in the workplace so when they recognize that leaders decide and behave

in such a way that benefits themselves over the organization and others,

employees construe these actions as political and thus influences them to also feel

comfortable making decisions politically than following appropriate rules in the

organization. Based from this understanding, we hypothesize that:

H2: Ethical Leadership is negatively related with POP.

2.2 Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory (SET) can be considered as among the most

influential conceptual paradigms for understanding workplace behavior

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Despite the diverse understanding regarding

social exchange, theorists agree that social exchange encompasses a series of

interactions that generate obligations (Emerson, 1976). Within SET, these

12
interactions are usually seen as interdependent and contingent on the actions of

another person (Blau, 1964).

In a work context, organizations are considered as markets where

bidirectional transaction happens. Specifically, employees provide time and effort

in exchange for organizational rewards (e.g promotion, bonus, job security). For

this reason, interdependence involving mutual and complementary arrangements

is considered a defining characteristic of social exchange which may involve

ones immediate supervisor (Kacmar et al. 2013), coworkers (Flynn, 2003),

employing organizations (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998), customers

(Sheth, 1996), and suppliers (Perrone, Zaheer, & McEvily, 2003). These distinct

relationships have effect on ones behavior.

Specifically, because individuals reciprocate the benefits they receive, they

are likely to match goodwill and helpfulness toward the party with whom they

have a social exchange relationship (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Although

this type of relationship is not clearly specified and remain informal. Under this

exchange, individuals reciprocate positive treatment by the organization through

task performance and extra role behaviors (Kacmar et al. 2013). Further, they trust

that their hard work and effort will remain reciprocated by the organization

(Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000; Moorman and Byrne 2005). With this

understanding, this research employs social exchange theory in explaining the

relationship between POP and employees work engagement.

13
2.2.1 POP towards Work Engagement
When work environments are highly political, leaders or organizations fail

to consistently merit employees performance since reward decisions are

sometimes based on non-merit factors such as group membership, power,

nepotism and retaliation motives (Rusbult, Campbell, & Price, 1990; Kacmar et

al. 2013). Thus, employees perceiving high politics in the organization tend to

weakly associate their effort and the job they put into their work with the

realization of desirable outcomes (pay, trust, promotion) (Rosen, Chang, Johnson,

& Levy, 2009). Higher politics in the organization will cause employees to feel

that their supervisor is not willing or incapable of conforming to exchange

obligations, and as a result, creates an imbalance in the employee-organization

exchange relationship (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009; Kacmar et al. 2013).

As suggested by social exchange theory, this imbalance will lead to

employees withdrawing their time and effort from their job. Since the

unpredictable nature of a political environment makes it difficult for employees

to determine if their performance will result in desirable outcomes (Chang et al.

2009; Kacmar et al. 2013). Thus, individuals working under these conditions tend

to reciprocate in a negative manner (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005) and are likely

to reduce performance or engagement in their work.

H3: POP is negatively related with employees work engagement.

14
2.2.2 Mediating Effect of POP

Basing from social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and social exchange

theory (Blau, 1964) as guides, this research suggest that employees seek an ethical

environment in their workplace. While research has suggested how ethical

leadership affects a wide variety of outcomes (Avey, Palanski, & Walumbwa,

2011; Dadhich and Bhal 2008; Mayer, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009;

Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, & Chonko, 2009; Kacmar et al., 2013), very little

research has examined the mechanism by which ethical leadership leads to

favorable outcomes such as work engagement. We suggest that POP may provide

an explanation for the relationships between ethical leadership and these

outcomes. POP has been found to mediate the relationship between

transformational leadership and OCB (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007), as well as between

organizational culture and additional employee effort and leader satisfaction

(Toor and Ofori, 2009) and ethical leadership to helping-promotability behaviors

(Kacmar et al., 2013).

Ethical leaders (Trevio et al., 2000), as a moral person treats their

employees in an open and just way, as well as having certain traits such as

integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness. Such actions provide a psychologically

secure environment for employees. If leaders fail to ethically lead their

subordinates, may induce a political work environment and causes risk of

decreasing the positive reciprocity obligation such as positive engagement in their

work due to an increase in POP. In a similar way, when leaders behave ethically,
15
act as role models may infuse a work environment with ethics and stable

principles. This would result to a decrease of POP in the organization since they

take responsibility in the management of their employees and as a result,

employees redefine their affiliation with the supervisors as a reciprocal exchange

relationship thereby increasing their engagement at work which serves as an

exchangeable resource (Moorman, 1991; Lu, 2014). Therefore, this research

propose that

H4: POP mediates the relationship between Ethical Leadership and Employees

Work Engagement

2.3 Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Self-determination theory is a well-supported theory that has been

pragmatic to numerous motivational settings, including the workplace (Gagn &

Deci, 2005; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). This theory

posits that individuals have three innate psychological needs; need for

competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,

2000). The need for competence relates to a persons need to successfully and

optimally meet challenging tasks and the capability to acquire desired outcomes;

the need for autonomy relates to a persons need to experience ones initiation of

own actions, freedom of choice and volition; the need for relatedness relates to

ones need for establishing a sense of mutual respect and reliance with others

(Deci & Ryan, 2000). This research leads not to the assessment of need strength

16
but instead to the assessment of need satisfaction. Baard, Deci & Ryan, (2004)

has suggested that the degree of a persons need satisfaction is hypothesized to

predict work-related outcomes. Specifically, satisfying the three intrinsic needs

will facilitate the internalization of extant values and regulatory processes as it

provides the necessary nutriments for human growth and development (Ryan,

1995) Just as plants need water and sunshine to grow and flower, the satisfaction

of the basic psychological needs is deemed essential to psychological thriving

(Ryan, 1995).

Research on the satisfaction of three innate needs have predicted its

relationship with security of attachment (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman & Deci,

2000) attendance, contributions, volunteerism (Baard & Aridas, 2001),

performance ratings and psychological well-being of employees (Baard et al.

2004). In the workplace, it is found that leaders are the most influential when it

comes to improving employees work-related behavior (Kovjanic et al 2012)

since they fulfill employees psychological needs through positive role modeling,

supporting, empowering and inspiring which are believed to be helpful in

satisfying employees needs. Thus, this research considers leaders as one of the

impetus which leads to employees need satisfaction. In the same way, the concept

of need satisfaction is particularly related with the social environment as well

(Schreurs & van Emmerik, Broeck & Guenter, 2014) such as their workplace.

Social environments differ in the extent to which they enable or aggravate

the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, which in turn affects employee

17
functioning (Gagn & Deci, 2005). In the workplace where employees socialize

and integrate with each other, are likely to engage in activities deemed capable

and imperative for them. As such, these would satisfy the needs for autonomy and

competence. It is also undeniable that employees not only align with oneself at

work but also align themselves with others which satisfies their need for

relatedness (Schreurs et al. 2014). Therefore, we can consider that there are

several interpersonal processes at play which satisfies employees need (Schreurs

et al. 2014) such as security, trust, learning, communicating, bonding and helping

(Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005) which are evident in a workplace

setting.

In SDT it is implicit that satisfying any need is likely to closely associate

with the satisfaction of the remaining other two needs, such that all three are

positively related (Schreurs et al. 2014). Accordingly, previous studies generally

used the three needs to form a composite score of general need satisfaction (Deci,

Ryan, Gagne, Leone, Usunov & Kornazheva, 2001; Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012;

Van den Broeck et al., 2008; Vansteenkiste, Neyrinck, Niemiec, Soenens, De

Witte, Van den Broeck, 2007). This research adheres to this approach and

understand the role of need satisfaction on the relationship between ethical

leadership and employees perceived organizational politics.

18
2.3.1 Moderating Effect of Need Satisfaction towards Ethical

Leadership and Perceived Organizational Politics

According to SDT, need satisfaction fosters immediate well-being and

strengthens inner resources contributing to subsequent resilience (Ryan & Deci,

2000; Vanstinkeeste & Ryan, 2013) which can be regarded as determinants of

individuals intention to act in a certain manner. Similarly, when employees attach

importance to intrinsic values, they emit a natural desire to actualize, develop and

grow in the workplace (self-development), build meaningful relationships with

colleagues (affiliation) and offer help to people in need (community contribution)

(Vansteenkiste et al., 2007; Vanstinkeeste & Ryan, 2013). If these factors are

realized at work, individuals psychological needs are met which promotes an

individuals healthy development which is important for individuals physical

functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). On the contrary

low satisfaction of any of the needs hamper growth (Vanstinkeeste & Ryan,

2013). This tells us that individuals who achieved more psychological need

satisfaction feel better about themselves (e.g., higher self-esteem) and their lives

in general (e.g., life satisfaction; Deci et al., 2001) (Vanstinkeeste & Ryan, 2013).

With this understanding, this research suggests that individuals level of

need satisfaction can improve the effects of ethical leadership towards POP in the

workplace. Specifically, we believe individuals with high need satisfaction

19
predisposes them to have a better appreciation of the effects of ethicality emitted

by their leaders compared to those who are low in need satisfaction.

Thus, we anticipate that the inverse effect of ethical leadership towards

POP will be affected when employees have varying levels of need satisfaction.

Specifically, when employees with high need satisfaction under the supervision

of ethical leaders will perceive a much more lower POP in the workplace

compared those having low need satisfaction. With this, this research

hypothesizes:

H5: Need Satisfaction moderates the relationship between ethical leadership

and employees perceived organizational politics.

20
CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

The research framework and hypotheses of this study will be described in

this chapter. Moreover, the participants and procedures, measures, and analysis

methods will be described in different sections.

3.1 Research Framework

This study aims to examine the relationship between ethical leadership and

work engagement, with perceived organizational politics as an underlying

mechanism which affects this relationship. In addition, this study proposes that

need satisfaction is a moderator which affects the relationship between ethical

leadership and perceived organizational politics.

H2 Perceived H3
Ethical Leadership Organizational Work Engagement
Politics
H5

Need Satisfaction

H1

Figure 3-1 Research Framework

21
As depicted in figure 3-1, the hypothesis of the study are as follows:

H1: Ethical Leadership is positively related with Work Engagement

H2: Ethical Leadership is negatively related to Perceived Organizational

Politics

H3: Perceived Organizational Politics is negatively related to Work

Engagement

H4: Perceived Organizational Politics mediates the relationship between

Ethical Leadership and Work Engagement

H5: Need Satisfaction moderates the relationship between Ethical

Leadership and Perceived Organizational Politics

3.2 Research Strategy

In this research, a survey questionnaire was formed to test the hypotheses

presented. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, A. (2000) suggested that in

administering questionnaires, self administered or interviewer administered can

either be done. Self- administered questionnaires may involve online, postal, and

delivery and collection while interviewer administered may be by telephone or

structured interview. In this study, delivery and collection questionnaire was used.

22
3.3 Methodological Approach

3.3.1 Deductive versus Inductive Research Approach

Deductive and inductive approach are two main methodological

approaches in determining the relationship between theory and empirical material.

Deductive approach studies existing theories that are later applied realistically

which may either be confirmed or rejected while inductive approach studies

reality without expectations or assumptions and subsequently finding or creating

new theories (Jacobsen, 2002).

This research used a deductive approach since research strategies were

designed to answer the research questions developed in this study basing from

existing theories in the literature.

3.3.2 Qualitative versus Quantitative Approach

Qualitative research gathers data in the form of words which provides a

better understanding of a subject and describes in detail the problem area of the

research. On the other hand, quantitative research gathers data in the form of

numbers which quantifies the data and generalizes results formed from the sample

to the population of interest. In this method, data collection is structured and

analysis is statistical.

In this research, quantitative approach is used wherein data were collected

in the form of numbers by administering questionnaires to respondents in the form

23
of a Likert scale. Data collected from the sample will be statistically analyzed

using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software which can

perform highly complex data manipulation and analysis.

3.3.3 Designing the Questionnaire

Questionnaires were based on surveys utilized by previous researchers.

Questionnaires were divided into two formats. Questionnaires for subordinates

asked them to answer items about ethical leadership, perceived organizational

politics and need satisfaction. Supervisors are asked to rate their subordinates

work engagement. There were 276 pairs of questionnaires returned, including 276

questionnaires from subordinates (return rate = 92%), and 92 of their immediate

supervisor (return rate = 92%).

3.4 Data Collection

Data gathering is important in answering research questions. This can be

done in two ways with the use of primary data or secondary data. In this research,

primary data are collected using a questionnaire which collects information about

employees feelings towards supervisors and work as well as supervisors feeling

towards the subordinates. This research utilized paired questionnaires which

needs more attention to avoid bias. To do this, the researcher gathered the

organizations list of employees names and their respective sales team. Then,

24
researcher chose the first 4 to 6 subordinates and their immediate supervisor from

different sales team. Three hundred pairs of questionnaires were distributed to the

organization directly by researcher. Researcher delivered the questionnaires

enclosed in an envelope to each employee and supervisor in person. After

participants finish answering all of the questions, the participants put the

questionnaire back to the envelope, sealed it and given back to the researcher.

3.5 Sample Selection

The Philippines was chosen for gathering the sample selection. There are

at least 18 real estate industries in the Philippines whose projects range from

commercial to residential developments. In the last years, Philippines has

experienced a prolific year in the real estate industry. This has been connected

with the countrys stable economic growth, low interest rates and increasing home

investment of Overseas Filipino Workers which drove the steady demand in the

local property market. Along with the continuous growth of foreign investment,

expansion of the off-shoring and outsourcing industries, and the influx of

expatriate workers have combined to shape the property boom that is changing

the skyline not only in the metropolis but also in provincial cities as well.

The population of interest in this study are those real estate agents and their

corresponding supervisors who work in the top four real estate industries in the

25
Philippines. These industries were chosen based on their performance and total

investment on projects launched per year.

The first real estate developer in the country is Ayala Land Inc., which

launched 67 projects worth a total of P90-billion in 2012 and netted P6.6 billion

in profit last 2013. It is considered the largest property developer in the country.

With a portfolio spanning the full range of residential and commercial

development nationwide, ALI is also considered to be the most diversified

developer. The second largest real estate developer is SM Land, Inc. that gained

net profits totaling to P 3.3-billion in the third quarter of 2012. It is considered as

a fast-rising residential property developer in the country. In 2012, SMDC was

one of the only three Philippine corporations included in Forbes Asias 200 Best

under a Billion list which honored 200 exceptional small and mid-sized

companies with annual revenues between $5 million and $ 1 billion, have a

positive net income, and are publicly traded. The third largest real estate developer

in the Philippines is Megaworld Corporation which is recognized by two leading

global property consultants as the countrys top residential condominium

developer. The Colliers International research cited Megaworld as the largest

builder of residential condos in terms of units completed in 2010 and those that

will be completed between 2011 and 2016. Lastly, the fourth largest real estate

developer in the Philippines is Robinsons Land Corporation wherein Euromoney

Magazine cited Robinsons Land Corp. (RLC) as the best managed company in

Asia based on a 2012 real estate poll of 130 leading equity analysts from major
26
investment houses in the Asia Pacific region. Its property portfolio, its top

performance in last years Philippine Stock Exchange index, and P10.56-billion

revenue in the first half of 2012, the citation is well earned.

3.6 Participants

Participants in this research were conducted at real estate companies located

in Cebu City. Completed data were obtained from 276 subordinates and 92 their

immediate supervisor (an average of 3 subordinates per supervisor). According to

Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, and Sparrowe (2006), in order to perform cross-level

analysis, the number of members in a group should be more than four people, and

that 60% of the group members should answer the survey. In this research, an

individual analysis will be conducted since only three subordinates responded per

group. Secondly, only 33% of the members answered the survey thus, the

responses from the participants does not necessarily represent the group as a

whole. Lastly, employing contingency leadership theory, leaders do not

necessarily exhibit the same leadership style to all members of the group but

effectively applies their own style of leadership to the right situation (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1969) thus cross-level analysis wont be implemented in this research.

Subordinates data revealed that (N=276), 46% percent of the subordinates

are male; 93% had a bachelor degree, 7% percent had master degree. The average

age of subordinates is 27 years old (SD= 3.71); the average tenure of subordinates
27
in the organization is 23 months (SD=1.17), with the minimum tenure of 6 months

and maximum tenure of 96 months; and the average tenure of subordinates work

with their current immediate supervisor is 19 months (SD=0.98), with the min.

tenure of 6 months and the maximum tenure of 60 months.

Likewise, supervisors data revealed that (N=92), 55% percent of the

supervisors are male; 90% percent had a bachelor degree, 9% percent had master

degree, and 1% had a PhD degree. The average supervisors age is 31 years old

(SD=3.69); the average tenure of supervisors work in organization is 52 months

(SD=1.20), with 24 months and 84 months for minimum and maximum tenure,

respectively.

Table 3-1 Descriptive results

Employees Frequency Percentage


Male 128 46%
Gender Female 148 54%
Total 276 100%
21 - 26 years old 119 43%
27 - 32 years old 139 50%
Age 33 years old and
18 7%
up
Total 276 100%
Bachelors 257 93%
Masters 19 7%
Educational Degree
Others 0 0%
Total 276 100%
1 year and less 114 41%
2 to 3 years 131 47%
Tenure in Organization
4 years and more 31 11%
Total 276 100%

28
1 year and less 165 60%
Tenure with Immediate 2 - 3 years 92 33%
Supervisor 4 years and more 19 7%
Total 276 100%

Supervisors Frequency Percentage


Male 51 55%
Gender Female 41 45%
Total 92 100%
21 26 years
14 15%
old
27 32 years
Age 60 65%
old
33 and up 18 20%
Total 92 100%
Bachelors 83 90%
Masters 8 9%
Educational Degree
PhD 1 1%
Total 92 100%
1 to 4 years 53 58%
Tenure in Organization 5 years and more 39 42%
Total 92 100%

29
3.7 Operational Definition and Measurement Tools

This study examined four research variables namely ethical leadership,

perceived organizational politics, work engagement and need satisfaction.

3.7.1 Ethical Leadership

Definition. This research employs Brown, Trevio, and Harrison (2005)

definition of ethical leadership which combines values of integrity, ethical and

fairness on their treatment towards their employees which forms the cornerstones

of ethical leadership. In addition, Trevio and Brown (2004) proposed that ethical

leadership, in its true sense, promotes ethical conduct through practice and

management of ethics and holds every member accountable for it.

Measurement Tools. The Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) was

measured with 15 items developed by Yukl, Mahsud, Hassan, Prussia, 2011.

Subordinates answer items such as My supervisor shows a strong concern for

ethical and moral values, My supervisor communicates clear ethical standards

for members, My supervisor sets an example of ethical behavior in his/her

decisions and action.. The items describe several different aspects of ethical

leadership, including honesty, integrity, fairness, altruism, consistency of

behaviors with espoused values, communication of ethical values, and providing

ethical guidance. Participants were required to rate on a 6-point Likert-style

30
format (1= strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree) their degree of agreement to the

items. The higher the score means that subordinates rated their supervisors as

ethical. Cronbachs alpha for this variable is =.990. This variable has normal

distribution with skewness = -.192 and kurtosis =-1.52

31
Table 3-2 Means and standard deviation for ethical leadership

Standard
Variable Statements Mean
Deviation
He/ She shows a strong concern for ethical
3.8406 1.69168
and moral values

He/ She communicates clear ethical


3.8732 1.61421
standards for team members.

He/ She sets an example of ethical


3.7971 1.77317
behavior in his/ her decisions and actions

He/ She is honest and can be trusted to tell


3.9529 1.75850
the truth.
He/ She keeps his/ her actions consistent
with his/her stated values (walks the 3.8370 1.69455
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

talk)

He/ She is fair and unbiased when


3.7246 1.65921
assigning tasks to members.

He/ She can be trusted to carry out


3.7899 1.79475
promises and commitments.

He/ She insists on doing what is fair and


3.7536 1.72178
ethical even when it is not easy.

He/ She acknowledges mistakes and takes


3.7790 1.73469
responsibility for them.

He/ She regards honesty and integrity as


3.9783 1.70760
important personal values.

He/ She sets an example of dedication and


3.9130 1.74764
self-sacrifice for the organization.

He/ She opposes the use of unethical


3.7790 1.79040
practices to increase performance.

32
He/ She is fair and objective when
evaluating members performance and 3.7754 1.66250
providing rewards.

He/ She puts the needs of others above


3.8043 1.80044
his/her own self-interest.

He/ She holds members accountable for


3.8514 1.72775
using ethical practices in their work.
Source: Researcher

Table 3-2 depicts that generally respondents regard their leaders as being

ethical with means ranging from 3.7246 3.9783.

3.7.2 Perceived Organizational Politics

Definition. Perceptions of Organizational Politics (POP), is defined as an

individuals perceptions of behaviors that are not approved by formal authority

which tends to jeopardize the achievement of organizational goals. (Ferris et al.

2002).

Measurement Tools. The Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale

(POPS) was developed by Kacmar & Carlson, 1997. The scale consisted of 15

items hypothesized to measure 3 dimensions of perceptions of politics: General,

Go Along to Get Along, and Pay and Promotion/Rewards. Examples of an item

for each of these factors, respectively, are: People in this organization attempt to

build themselves up by tearing others down, Sometimes it is easier to remain

quiet than to fight the system, and When it comes to pay raise and promotion

33
decisions, policies are irrelevant. Participants were required to rate on a 5-point

Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree) their rate of agreement to

the items. The higher the score means that subordinates perception of politics is

high. Cronbachs alpha for this variable is =.867. This variable has normal

distribution with skewness = -.600 and kurtosis =-.309

Table 3-3 Means and standard deviation for perceived organizational politics

Standard
Variable Statements Mean
Deviation

People in this organization attempt to build


2.3406 1.15991
themselves up by tearing others down.

There has always been an influential group


2.9348 1.16748
PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

in this department that no one ever crosses.

Employees are encouraged to speak out


frankly even when they are critical of well- 2.9565 1.07107
established ideas

There is no place for yes-men around here;


good ideas are desired even if it means 3.0906 .98854
disagreeing with superiors.

Agreeing with powerful others is the best


2.8406 1.02511
alternative in this organization.

It is best not to rock the boat in this


2.8732 1.31365
organization.
Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet than
2.9710 1.02650
to fight the system.

Telling others what they want to hear is


2.9493 .99323
sometimes better than telling the truth.

34
It is safer to think what you are told than to
3.0580 .98916
make up your own mind.

Since I have worked in this department, I


have never seen the pay and promotion 2.5942 1.16705
policies applied politically.

I cant remember when a person received a


pay increase or promotion that was 3.0543 1.13808
inconsistent with the published policies.

None of the raises I have received are


consistent with the policies on how raises 2.4746 1.06314
should be determined.

The stated pay and promotion policies have


nothing to do with how pay raises and 2.6051 1.15358
promotions are determined.

When it comes to pay raise and promotion


2.7609 1.08245
decisions, policies are irrelevant.

Promotions around here are not valued


much because how they are determined is 2.7500 1.12452
so political.
Source: Researcher

Table 3-3 depicts that employees perceived organizational politics range

from 2.3406 3.0906. Generally, this suggests that respondents perceive less

organizational politics in the workplace.

3.7.3 Need Satisfaction

Definition. Self-determination theory conceptualizes the basic

psychological needs that are assumed to be innate and universal. According to the
35
theory, these needs--the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness-- must

be continuously satisfied in order for people to achieve their optimal function

(Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Measurement Tools. The Need Satisfaction Scale was developed by Deci,

Ryan, Gagne, Leone, Usunov, Kornazheva, 2001. The scale consisted of 21 items

concerning the three needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness.

Participants answered items such as I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to

deciding how my job gets done, I really like the people I work with, I feel very

competent when I am at work. Participants were required to rate on a 7-point

Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 7=Strongly Agree) their rate of agreement to

the items. High score means that subordinates have high need satisfaction at work.

Cronbachs alpha for this variable is =.901. This variable has normal distribution

with skewness = -.1.18 and kurtosis =1.73

Table 3-4 Mean and standard deviation for need satisfaction

Standard
Variable Statements Mean
Deviation
I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to
6.0145 .92233
deciding how my job gets done
NEED SATISFACTION

I really like the people I work with. 6.0435 .97511


I feel very competent when I am at work. 5.9058 .92156
People at work tell me I am good at what I
5.7101 1.06653
do.
I dont feel pressured at work. 3.7101 2.04922
I get along with people at work. 6.1775 .85344
I try pretty much not to keep to myself
5.7464 1.01309
when I am at work.
I am free to express my ideas and
5.9710 .92984
opinions on the job.

36
I consider the people I work with to be my
6.1014 .89272
friends.
I have been able to learn interesting new
6.3225 .92304
skills on my job.
When I am at work, I dont have to be
5.9130 1.17228
told what to do.
Most days I feel a sense of
6.0725 .86245
accomplishment from working.
My feelings are taken into consideration
5.8478 1.07129
at work.
On my job I get much of a chance to show
5.8152 .96780
how capable I am.
People at work care about me. 6.0000 .94580
There are many people at work that I am
5.9601 1.08303
close to.
I feel like I can pretty much be myself at
5.9565 1.05050
work.
The people I work with seem to like me
5.5761 1.06413
much.
When I am working I often feel very
5.8841 .83620
capable.
There is much opportunity for me to
decide for myself how to go about my 6.0109 .83768
work.
People at work are pretty friendly towards
6.1449 .93069
me.
Source: Researcher

Table 3-4 depicts that the need satisfaction of respondents range from 5.5761

6.3225. This suggests that generally, respondents needs (autonomy, competence

and relatedness) are satisfied at work.

3.7.4 Work Engagement

Definition. Work engagement is conceptualized as the positive antipode of

workplace burnout (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), a syndrome characterized by

mental or physical exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy

(Maslach, Jackson and Leiter, 1996).


37
Measurement Tools. Supervisors were asked to indicate their

subordinates job engagement which consisted of 8 items using The Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale & Well-Being Survey developed by Schaufeli and Bakker

(2004). Supervisor answered items such as He/she get carried away when he/she

is working, He/she feels happy when he/she is working intensely. One of the

items from this scale was removed with the reason that supervisors are unable to

rate about the feeling of subordinates when they get up in the morning. For

instance, When he/she gets up in the morning, he/she feels going to work.

Supervisors answered the items on a 6-point Likert scale (1=Never, 6=Always).

The higher the score indicates high work engagement of the employee rated by

his/her immediate supervisor. Cronbachs alpha for this variable is =.950. This

variable has normal distribution with skewness = -.919 and kurtosis =-.090.

Table 3-5 Means and standard deviation for work engagement

Standard
Variable Statements Mean
Deviation
I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to
4.6304 1.18828
deciding how my job gets done
WORK ENGAGEMENT

I really like the people I work with. 4.6775 1.19438


I feel very competent when I am at work. 4.6413 1.24388
People at work tell me I am good at what
4.5254 1.25455
I do.
I dont feel pressured at work. 4.5290 1.28030
I get along with people at work. 4.7029 1.32066
I try pretty much not to keep to myself
4.3913 1.28734
when I am at work.
I am free to express my ideas and
4.4964 1.35512
opinions on the job.
Source: Researcher

38
Table 3-5 suggests that employees work engagement range from 4.3913

4. 6775. This suggests that generally, supervisors rating of employees work

engagement are high.

Table 3-6 Summary of measurement tools

No. of
Variable Questionnaire Author
Items
Yukl, Mahsud,
Ethical Ethical Leadership
15 Hassan, Prussia,
Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)
2011
Perceived Perceptions of
Kacmar & Carlson,
Organizational Organizational Politics 15
1997
Politics Scale (POPS)
Deci, Ryan, Gagne,
Need Satisfaction Need Satisfaction Scale 21 Leone, Usunov,
Kornazheva, 2001
The Utrecht Work
Work Engagement Scale & Schaufeli and
8
Engagement Well-Being Survey Bakker, 2004
(UWES)

3.8 Common Method Variance (CMV) and Validity

CMV could happen which creates false internal consistency when answering

the questionnaires. Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) explored

some general sources of CMV, for example Common rate effects, Common scale

formats, Common scale anchors and so on. To avoid these biases, this research

used different scale formats (7 point scales, 6 points scales, and 5 points scales),

with different anchor points (extremely, always, never, not a bit, moderately,

fully, strong agree, agree, disagree, strong disagree...) on the questionnaire.

39
Furthermore, Harman's single factor were used to see the significance of CMV in

this research.

Harman's single factor test was conducted to see if the majority of the

variance can be explained by a single factor. In this research, factors account for

30.52% of total variance. Since the first factor does not account for the majority

of the variance, a substantial amount of common method variance does not appear

in this research (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).

40
CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

In this chapter, several types of reliability and validity tests were used and

followed by correlation and model fit test of variables. Furthermore, each of the

hypotheses was examined. Analysis table and figures are also shown in this

chapter.

4.1 Reliability and Validity

4.1.1 Reliability

Useful measurement for establishing reliability is using Cronbachs

coefficient alpha (Churchill, 1979; Nunnaly, 1978) which should be greater than

0.7 to examine the reliability of all factors. In this study Cronbachs coefficient

alpha of factors ranges from 0.867 to 0.990 which means all measurements have

significant reliability.

4.1.2 Validity

Validity refers to the degree to which a measuring instrument measures

what it intends to measure (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). It is concerned with

whether the findings are really about what they appear to be about. This involves

the appropriateness, meaningfulness and usefulness of the inferences made on the

basis of the data collected (Wallen & Fraenkel, 2001). Patten (2004) identifies

some principles to improve the validity. These are to use a broader sample of

41
content instead of a narrow one, to emphasize important material and lastly, to

write questions to measure the appropriate skill. These principles were applied

when writing the survey questionnaire. Validity was considered in this study by

utilizing questionnaires validated and tested by previous researchers.

4.1.3 Correlation of Variables

Table 4-1 illustrates mean, standard deviation, and correlations of all

variables. The result indicates significant correlations between dependent,

mediating, moderating and independent variables. More specifically, Ethical

Leadership is positively related with Work Engagement and negatively correlated

to Perceived Organizational Politics. Perceived Organizational Politics is

negatively related with Work Engagement and Need Satisfaction. Lastly, Need

Satisfaction is positively correlated with Work Engagement.

Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found that subordinates tenure work with

supervisor and organization affect the relationship between supervisors and

subordinates. Table 4-4 shows that subordinates tenure with organization is

significantly correlated with Ethical leadership and subordinates tenure with

supervisor is significantly correlated with ethical leadership and perceived

organizational politics, thus, there is a need to control these two variables during

the analysis.

42
Table 4-1 Reliability and correlation of all factors

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Control Variable
1. Tenure in Organization 1.98 1.17
2. Tenure with Supervisor 1.59 .981 .794**
Independent Variable
3. Ethical Leadership 3.83 1.61 .133* .215** (.990)
Dependent Variable
4. Work Engagement 4.57 1.09 .066 .101 .298** (.950)
Mediating Variable
5. Perceived Organizational Politics 2.82 .650 .017 -.119* -.703** -.317** (.867)
Moderating Variable
6. Need Satisfaction 5.85 .606 .018 .046 .008 .327** -.233** (.901)
Source: Researcher
Note: (1) Pearson Correlation (r)**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
(2) Pearson Correlation (r)*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
(3) Cronbachs alpha is shown in the parenthesis

43
4.2 Hypothesis Testing

In testing the hypothesis, we used hierarchical regression analysis

according to the suggestions of Baron and Kenny (1986). Mediating role of

POP and moderating role of Need are analyzed separately.

4.2.1 Mediating Effect

To test for mediating effect, four steps are needed. Step one, shows that

the causal variable Ethical Leadership is correlated with the outcome variable

Work Engagement. Step two, shows that the causal variable Ethical

Leadership is correlated with the mediator POP. Step three, shows that the

mediator POP affects the outcome variable Work Engagement. And step four,

shows the correlation between causal variable Ethical Leadership, mediator

POP, and the outcome Work Engagement.

Table 4-5 shows in model M1, that the relationship between Ethical

Leadership and Work Engagement is significant (0.195, p0.001). Thus,

hypothesis H1 is accepted.

In model M2, the relationship between Ethical Leadership and POP is

significant (-.302, p0.001). Thus, hypothesis H2 is accepted.

In model M3, the relationship between POP and Work Engagement is

significant (-0.454, p0.001). Thus, hypothesis H3 is accepted.

44
Lastly, in model M4, the regression analysis show us that through POP,

the relationship between Ethical Leadership and Work Engagement is still

significant (0.115 p0.05), so the effect of Ethical Leadership on Work

Engagement is partially mediated by POP. Thus, H4 is accepted.

Table 4-2 Hierarchical regression analysis for mediating effect


Dependent Variable
Variable Name M1 M2 M3 M4
WE POP WE WE
Control Variable
Tenure in Organization -0.008 .154*** .054 .033
Tenure with Supervisor 0.05 -.130** .019 .015
Independent Variable
Ethical Leadership .195*** -.302*** .115*
Mediating Variable
POP -.454*** -.267*
Adjusted R2 0.003*** .517*** .080*** .091*
R2 Change .079*** .466*** .079*** .014*
Source: Researcher
Note: Value shown in the table is -standardize with *p<0.05 **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Model M1 is the linear regression between ethical leadership as the independent variable
to work engagement as the dependent variable. Model M2 is the linear regression between
independent variables ethical leadership to the mediating variable POP. Model M3 is the
linear regression between mediating variable POP to dependent variable work
engagement. Lastly, Model M4 is where we put all the variables together (independent,
mediating, and dependent) in one model which will explain about the relationship between
ethical leadership, POP and work engagement.

45
4.2.2 Moderating Effect

To determine the moderating effect of Need Satisfaction, this research

has taken suggestions from Baron and Kenny (1986) hierarchical regression

analysis. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), in testing moderation effects

(a) predictors should have a unique effect on the dependent variable, (b) both

predictors and moderators should be mean-centered, (c) an interaction effect

should be computed between each predictor and each moderator, and (d) the

interaction effect on the dependent variable should be computed. To enable

the exploration of moderation effects all variables were mean-centered, and a

hierarchical regression analyses was performed. A simple moderated effect

emerges when the incremental variance explained by the interaction term is

statistically significant, over and above the variance explained by the main

effects of the predictor variables, or alternatively, if the B value of the

interaction term is significant. The regression analysis therefore examines the

hypothesis that the predictive effect of the interaction term will differ

significantly from zero (null effect).

Table 4-3, illustrates the hierarchical regression analysis. Model M1 is

used to determine the relationship between Ethical Leadership and POP. The

relationship between Ethical leadership and POP is significantly negative (b

= -700, p < 0.001). In the second model, M2, we put ethical leadership and

need satisfaction to determine POP. The relationship between Ethical

leadership and Need Satisfaction towards POP is negatively related and


46
significant (b = -.701, p < 0.001) (b = -.239, p < 0.001). Lastly in model M3,

we put the interaction between ethical leadership and need satisfaction to

determine POP. The interaction value is significantly negative (b = -.174, p <

0.001) Thus, H5 is accepted.

Table 4-3 Hierarchical regression analysis for moderating effect


Dependent Variable
Variable Name Perceived Organizational Politics
M1 M2 M3
Adjusting Variables:
Ethical Leadership -.700*** -.701*** -.664***
Need Satisfaction -.239*** -.203***
Ethical Leadership x
Need Satisfaction -.174***

Adjust R2 .517*** .573*** .599***


2
R Change .466*** .057*** .027***
Source: Researcher
Note: Value shown in the table is -standardize with ***p<0.001
Regression analysis model M1 to M3: M1 represents the hierarchal regression analysis
between ethical leadership and POP. M2 represents the hierarchical regression analysis,
where ethical leadership and need satisfaction are placed to determine POP. And the last
model M3 represents the hierarchical regression analysis, where we ethical leadership,
need satisfaction and the interaction of ethical leadership and need satisfaction to
determine POP.

47
Source: Researcher
Figure 4-1 Interaction of Ethical Leadership and Need Satisfaction

Figure 4-1 suggests that low ethical leadership will still experience high levels

of POP whether employees have low or high need satisfaction. Secondly

when employees are under the supervision of ethical leaders, they experience

less POP compared to unethical leaders. Lastly, the effects of ethical

leadership towards POP are greater when employees are high in need

satisfaction compared to those who are low in need satisfaction.

48
4.3 Summary of Hypothesis Result

Basing from the above results of mediating and moderating tests, we

conclude the following:

Table 4-4 Summary of Hypothesis result

No. Hypothesis Result

Ethical Leadership is positively related with Work


1 Accepted
Engagement

Ethical Leadership is negatively related with Perceived


2 Accepted
Organizational Politics

Perceived Organizational Politics is negatively related


3 Accepted
with Work Engagement.

Perceived Organizational Politics mediates the

4 relationship between Ethical leadership and Work Accepted

Engagement

Need Satisfaction moderates the relationship between


5 Accepted
Ethical leadership and POP.

49
CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, conclusion, theoretical and managerial implications of

this study will be presented. In addition, we will discuss the limitations of this

study and provide suggestions for future research.

5.1 Conclusion

In this research, we contended that POP acts as one of the underlying

mechanisms through which ethical leadership affects outcomes, similar to

results found by Kacmar et al., 2013. Grounding from the suggestions of

social learning theory (Bandura 1977) and social exchange theory (Blau

1964), this research suggests that employees implicitly expect an ethical

environment where ethical leaders are a vital impetus in inducing a work

environment free of politics. Specifically, when subordinates view their

leaders as unethical may lead them to decrease their engagement at work due

to high perceptions of organizational politics. In a similar way, employees

perceiving their leaders as acting ethically also tended to report enhanced

engagement at their work in terms of feeling more vigor, dedication and

absorption due to low perceptions of organizational politics. Thus, leaders

who are viewed as ethical (unethical) may enhance (jeopardize) employees

positive reciprocity obligation (e.g., work engagement) due to a decrease

50
(increase) perceptions of organizational politics. Finally, ethical leadership

has been found to yield positive outcomes for organizations (Brown and

Trevino 2006; Kacmar et al., 2013). However, our study also supports finding

by Kacmar et al., 2013 which indicated that these outcomes occur by reducing

POP. Conversely, a lack of ethical leadership increases POP which

undermines the positive effects.

The results of the study also demonstrated the positive impact that an

employees need satisfaction have on ethical leadership POP relationship.

Specifically, the level of an employees need satisfaction helps in decreasing

ones perception of organizational politics in the workplace. Subordinates

who have high levels of need satisfaction view much more lower political

environments when faced with ethical leaders compared those with low need

satisfaction since the satisfaction of basic needs fosters a sense of wellness

(Schreurs et al., 2014). Thus, the positive effects of ethical leadership will be

strengthened if employees psychological need satisfaction are satisfied in

their work which in turn decreases further their perceptions of organizational

politics. Satisfying these basic psychological needs is highly correlated with

well-being and behavioral adjustment (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe & Ryan,

2000; Sheldon, Ryan & Reis, 1996; Veronneau, Koestner, & Abela, 2005)

and accompanied with the experience of positive emotions states (Reis et al.

2000; Sheldon et al. 1996) explains its moderating effect towards ethical

leadership and POP relationship. This finding underscores the importance of

51
need satisfaction in aiding employees to achieve optimal function in their

workplace.

This study also provides theoretical and empirical support for POP as

a mediator of the ethical leadershipoutcomes relationships and political skill

as a moderator of these relationships. Ethical leadership goes hand in hand

with reducing POP in the workplace. Ethical leaders serve as important role

models who set and reinforce the behavioral norms that help to establish and

guide corporate cultures. By focusing on enhancing workplace ethics,

organizations can make improvements in important outcomes that benefit

both the organization and the individual.

5.2 Discussion

5.2.1 Theoretical Implications

Our study highlights the underlying mechanism explaining the

relationship between ethical leadership and work engagement. We extend

previous theoretical and empirical research efforts and found that when

employees view their leaders as unethical are likely to perceive organizational

politics in their workplace (Kacmar et al., 2013) which in turn negatively

affect their engagement at work. We added insights to the findings by Kacmar

et al., 2013 that POP not only serves as an explanatory mechanism between

ethical leadership and helping-promotability behaviors but also to work

52
engagement. In doing so, we can contend that work engagement may also be

influenced by the wider environment (Van den Broeck, Van Ruysseveldt,

Vanbelle, De Witte, 2013) and not just on individual-level predictors (job

personal resources; Bakker et al., 2008; Van den Broeck et al., 2013).

Secondly, the results of this research demonstrated the importance of

employees need satisfaction in the workplace in strengthening the effect of

ethical leadership in creating a work environment free of politics. Such that

the satisfaction of employees psychological needs lessens their perceptions

of organizational politics in the workplace. Results also underline the

propositions of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) that high need

satisfaction which associates with positive affective states improves the

effects of ethical leadership towards POP.

Thirdly, our study contributes to the literature by integrating social

learning theory and self-determination theory. While this research based

social learning theory in explaining main effects of ethical leadership towards

POP, we also added self-determination theory in explaining the moderating

effect of need satisfaction. SDT assumes that satisfaction of basic

psychological needs is needed for individuals to realize their full potential

(Schreurs et al., 2014). Thus, when employees who have higher need

satisfaction focus on their well-being and optimal functioning at work and

appreciates ethical leadership by their direct supervisor which therefore

reduces further their perception of organizational politics in the workplace.

53
However, when employees who have low need satisfaction can lead to an

increase of detrimental effects of unethical leadership towards POP. Thus, the

tenets of SDT can be utilized in explaining the effects of ethical leadership

towards employees perception of organizational politics in the workplace.

5.2.2 Management Implications

Our findings suggest possible implications for organizations to

consider. First, organizations may want to focus their attention towards

employees basic need satisfaction for employees functioning. Good job

design (Van den Broeck et al., 2008), supervisory support (Deci et al., 2001;

Lian et al., 2012), and HR-practices such as training, mentoring, and

developing practices (Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2013) among others,

foster need satisfaction which can improve the effects of ethical leadership

towards POP which in turn impacts their engagement at work. This can be

achieved also by supervisors employing an autonomy-supportive leadership

style, by investing in positive relations between colleagues (e.g., collective

lunch breaks), and by giving positive feedback about employees

performance (van Hoof & Geurts, 2015).

Managers must practice a constant self-reflection and self-regulation,

have a clear view of themselves, and create a culture in the group which is

deemed best for everyone. They must behave and exude reliability by holding

54
themselves to a high ethical standard. Thus, monitoring the ethical and

political perceptions of employees in the organization and encouraging

leaders to be ethical sets the tone which help minimizes POP in their

workplaces and employee work engagement.

Lastly, organizations should choose carefully the direct supervisors

who manage their employees by examining how relevant they regard ethics

in the workplace to ensure that employees are guided by individuals with right

principles and consistency in order to bring about their optimal function at

work.

5.3 Research Limitations and Further Suggestions

Findings of this study highlight a variety of future possibilities for

research. First, as POP has been proven to be a mediator in our model

explaining work engagement, as well as those of Kacmar et al., 2013 for

promotability and helping behavior, other constructs could be studied which

could explain the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates

outcomes. Future researchers could examine these relationships from a team

perspective, especially given the increasing role of teams in the workplace.

Second, all of our respondents worked for a private sector. There is

evidence that expectations differ regarding the way managers in the public

versus private sector should perform their jobs. Thus, it is unclear whether

these results are generalizable to the public sector. Future research exploring
55
gender differences and the role of politics perceptions in the public sector is

needed to determine the degree of generalizability of our findings.

Finally, a new path for researchers is to consider incorporating

additional moderators. An employees perception of leaders

Machiavellianism trait may reduce the positive effects of ethical leadership

towards POP since, employees might later on in the long run employees may

consciously realize that Machiavellian leaders fake their ethical values and

behaviors. Thus, both experimental as well as longitudinal work is needed to

strengthen our conclusions and understand how these processes unfold.

56
References

Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When leadership

goes unnoticed: The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the

relationship between ethical leadership and follower behavior. Journal

of Business Ethics, 98, 573-582. http://doi.org/dth6sp

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. (2012). Exploring the process

of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and

psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 21-34.

http://doi.org/nbm

Baard, P., & Aridas, C. (2001). Motivating your church: How any leader can

ignite intrinsic motivation and growth. New York, NY: Crossroad

Baard, P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A

motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 20452068.

doi:10.1111/j .1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x

Bakker A., Hakanen J., Demerouti E. & Xanthopoulou D. (2007) Job

resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are

high. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (2), 274284.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work

engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology.

Work & Stress, 22, 187200. doi:10.1080/02678370802393649

57
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, Sh., Transmission and Agression through

Imitation of Aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal Social

Psychology. 1961, 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baron R.M. & Kenny D.A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable

distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and

statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 51, 11731182.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life.New York:Wiley.

Breaux, D. M., T. P. Munyon, W. A. Hochwarter, and G. R. Ferris. 2009.

Politics as a Moderator of the Accountability-Job Satisfaction

Relationship: Evidence across Three Studies. Journal of Management

35: 307-26.

Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006a). Ethical leadership: A review and

future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595616.

Brown, M., & Trevino, L. (2006b). Socialized charismatic leadership, values

congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91(4), 954962.

58
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership:

A social learning perspective for construct development and testing.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117

134.

Brown, M. E., Trevio, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership:

A social learning perspective for construct development and testing.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.

http://doi.org/bkgm7b

Carmines, Edward G., and Richard A. Zeller (1979). Reliability and Validity

Assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

Chang, C., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between

perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain,

and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management

Journal, 52(4), 779801.

Churchill, G. A., Jr, N, M, Ford, and O, C, Walker, Jr. (1976). Organizational

climate and job satisfaction in the sales force. Journal of Marketing

Research, 13(4), 323-332.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An

interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874900."

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A.,&Toth, P. 1997. The

relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors,

attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 159-180.

59
Cyril, P. H., & Girindra, T. (2009). The association between ethical leadership

and employee outcomesthe Malaysian case. Electronic Journal of

Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 14 (1), 21-32.

Dadhich, A., & Bhal, K. T. (2008). Ethical leader behaviour and leader

member exchange as predictors of subordinate behaviours. Vikalpa:

The Journal for Decision Makers, 33(4), 1525.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic

leadership, relationships with leaders social responsibility, top

management team effectiveness and subordinates optimism: A multi-

method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297-311.

http://doi.org/c23hpw

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-

determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits:

Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological

Inquiry, 11, 227268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory

of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/

Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 182185. doi:10.1037/a0012801

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagn, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva,

B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work

60
organizations of a former Eastern bloc country. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930 942. doi:10.1177/ 0146167201278002

Den Hartog D., & Belschak F., (2012). Work Engagement and

Machiavellianism in the Ethical Leadership Process. Journal of

Business Ethics 107 (1):35-47.

Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2009). Empowerment and leader

fairness and integrity: Studying ethical leader behavior from a levels-

of-analysis perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 18(2), 199230.

Emerson, R. (1976). Social Exchange Theory. Annual Review of Sociology

2, 335-262.

Ferris GR, King TR. Politics in human resources decisions: a walk on the

dark side. Organ Dyn 1991;20:59 71.

Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L.,&Douglas, C. (2002). Social effectiveness in

organizations: Construct validity and research directions. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 4963.

Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Gilmore, D.C. and Kacmar, K.M. (1994).

Understanding as an antidote for the dysfunctional consequences of

organizational politics as a stressor. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 24, 1204-20.

61
Flynn, F. J. 2003. How much should I give and how often? The effects of

generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and

productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 539-553.

Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work

motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331362. doi:

10.1002/job.322

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in

organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. In S. Fiske, D. L.

Schacter, & A. Kasdin (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: 517543.

Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Jacobsen D. (2002) Vad, hur och varfr? 1st edition. Studentlitteratur AB,

Lund

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions

of Politics Scale (POPS): A multi sample approach. Journal of

Management, 23, 627658.

Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Harris, K. J., & Tepper, B. J. (2013). Ethical

leadership and subordinate outcomes: The mediating role of

organizational politics and the moderating role of political skill.

Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 33-44. http://doi.org/qsw"

Kacmar, K.M., Bachrach D., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011). Fostering

Good Citizenship Through Ethical Leadership: Exploring the

62
Moderating Role of Gender and Organizational Politics. Journal of

Applied Psychology. 96, 633-642. DOI: 10.1037/a0021872

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011a). Ethical

leadership at work questionnaire (ELW):Development and validation

of a multidimensional measure. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 5169.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011b). Ethical

leader behavior and big five factors of personality. Journal of Business

Ethics, 100(2), 349366.

Kirkpatrick, C. L. (2007, April). To invest, coast or idle: Second-state

teachers enact their job engagement. Paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association annual conference, Chicago, IL.

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., & van Dick, R.

(2012). How do transformational leaders foster positive employee

outcomes? A self-determination based analysis of employees needs as

mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1031-1052.

doi:10.1002/job.1771

La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000).

Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination

theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384.

Lewin K. Principles of topological psychology New York: McGraw-Hill,

1936.

63
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the

bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leadermember

exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational

deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

117, 4152. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.003

Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader

member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence:

Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27, 723746

Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2013). HR practices and HRM

outcomes: The role of basic need satisfaction. Personnel Review, 42,

427. doi:10.1108/00483481311285200

Maslach C., Jackson S. & Leiter M. (1996) Masclach Burnout Inventory

Manual, 3rd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Maslyn, J. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1998). Perceptions of politics: Does measuring

different foci matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 645653.

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and

resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(1), 149171.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R.

(2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of trickle-down

64
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108,

113.

Mayer, D., Kuenzi, M., & Greenbaum, R. (2010). Examining the link between

ethical leadership and employee misconduct: The mediating role of

ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 716.

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who

displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of

antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of

Management Journal, 55, 151-171. http://doi.org/qsz

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and

workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity

beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 11591168.

Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social

exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American

Journal of Sociology, 105, 13961427.

Moorman, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). What is the Role of Justice in Promoting

Organizational Citizenship Behavior? In J. Greenberg and J. A.

Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice: Fundamental

Questions about Fairness in the Workplace (pp. 355-382). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

65
Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and

organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence

employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845855.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L.,&Niehoff, B. P. 1998. Does perceived

organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural

justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of

Management Journal, 41: 351-357.

Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B.

(2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence

from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 157170.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Patten, M.L. 2004. Understanding Research Methods. 4th ed. Los Angeles:

Pyrczak

Perrone,V., Zaheer, A.,&McEvily, B. 2003. Free to be trusted?

Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization

Science, 14: 422-439.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California

Management Review, 34, 2950.

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). The

relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259278.

66
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational

research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 6982.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the

literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88, 879903.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000).

Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419435. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002

Rosen, C., Chang, C., Johnson, R., & Levy, P. (2009). Perceptions of the

organizational context and psychological contract breach: Assessing

competing perspectives. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 108(2), 202217.

Rusbult, C., Campbell, M., & Price, M. (1990). Rational selective exploitation

and distress: Employee reactions to performance based and mobility-

based reward allocations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 487500.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic

definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 25, 5467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

67
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative

processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397 427. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1995.tb00501.x

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2000). Research Methods for

Business Students (2nd Ed.), Essex: Pearson Educations.

Schaufeli W. & Bakker A. (2004) Job demands, job resources and their

relationship with burnout and engagement: a multisample study.

Journal of Organizational Behaviour 25, 293 315.

Schaufeli W., Salanova M., Gonzalez-Roma V. & Bakker A. (2002) The

measurement of engagement and burnout: a confirmatory analytic

approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3, 7192.

Schaufeli W., Bakker A. & Salanova M. (2006). The measurement of work

engagement with a short questionnaire: a crossnational study.

Educational and Psychological Measurement 66 (4), 701716.

Schreurs, B., van Emmerik, IJ.H., Van den Broeck, A., & Guenter, H. (2014).

Work values and engagement within teams: The mediating role of need

satisfaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(4):

267-281.

Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of

charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational

Science, 4(4), 577591.

68
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day?

Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 12701279. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1177/01461672962212007

Sheth, J. N. 1996. Organizational buying behavior: Past performance and

future expectations Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 11: 7-

24.

Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships

with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and

organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533547.

Trevio, L.K. & Brown, M. 2004. Managing to be ethical: Debunking five

business ethics myth. Academy of Management Executive, 18: 69-81.

Trevio, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative

investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions

from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 5-

37. http://doi.org/btbj3p

Trevio, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral

manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership.

California Management Review, 42, 128-142

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008).

The role of basic need satisfaction in explaining the relation between

69
demands, resources, well-being and engagement. Work & Stress, 22,

277294. doi:10.1080/02678370802393672

Van den Broeck, A., Van Ruysseveldt, J., Vanbelle, E., & De Witte, H.

(2013). The job demands resources model: Overview and suggestions

for future research. Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology,

1, 83105. doi:10.1108/S2046- 410X(2013)0000001007

van Hooff, M. L. M., & Geurts, S. A. E. (2015, February 23). Need

Satisfaction and Employees Recovery State at Work: A Daily Diary

Study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online

publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038761

Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H.,

& Van den Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value

orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A

selfdetermination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 80, 251277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/

096317906X111024

Vaansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R., (2013). On Psychological Growth and

Vulnerability: Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Need

Frustration as a Unifying Principle. Journal of Psychotherapy

Integration, vol. 23, no. 3, 263-280. DOI: 10.1037/a0032359

Vronneau, M.-H., Koestner, R. F., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2005). Intrinsic need

satisfaction and wellbeing in children and adolescents: An application

70
of the self-determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 24, 280-292. doi: 10.1521/jscp.24.2.280.62277

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and

employees performance. Personnel Review, 36(5), 661683.

Wallen, N. E., & Fraenkel, J. R. (2001). Educational research: A guide to the

process. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Yukl, G. (2002). Ethical leadership and diversity. In G. Yukl (Ed.),

Leadership in organizations (5th ed., pp. 401-420). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2011). An improved

measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 20, 1-11.

71
APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EMPLOYEES

To whom it may concern:


Thank you for spending your time in answering this questionnaire. Generally, the
questionnaire contains subjects which concern your supervisor and your behavior towards work.
Your assistance in completing this survey is completely voluntary and the time and effort
spent on answering the questionnaire will be highly appreciated. There are no wrong answers in
answering this questionnaire. Thus, you are given utmost freedom to provide thoughtful and
honest answers.
This survey will take around 15 minutes to complete. Once received, all responses are
completely confidential, used for academic purposes only and will be reported only in summary
format. Thank you so much!

PART 1: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA


Gender: 1. Male 2. Female
Highest Level of Education: 1. Bachelor 2. Master 3. PhD 4. Others _________

Year of Birth: Year __________ Place of Birth: ____________________


When did you start to work for current organization? Year _____________
How long have you worked with this immediate supervisor? Year ___________
Your current position in this organization is _____________________________

PART 2: MY BEHAVIOR TOWARDS WORK

Very Often
Sometimes

Always
Rarely
Never

Encircle the number that best represents your Often


behavior towards work.

1. a
At my work, I am bursting with energy. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
2. b
At my job, I am strong and vigorous. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
3. c
I feel happy when I am working intensely. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
4. d
My job inspires me. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
5. e
I am enthusiastic about my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
6. f
I am proud on the work that I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
7. g
I get carried away when I am working. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
8. h
I am immersed in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
9. When
i I wake up in the morning, I feel like
1 2 3 4 5 6
going
. to work.

72
PART 3: SITUATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE

Mildly Agree
Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Encircle the number to which you think the item is true for you.

Neutral
Mildly

Agree
People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by
1. 1 2 3 4 5
tearing others down.

There has always been an influential group in this department


2. 1 2 3 4 5
that no one ever crosses.

Employees are encouraged to speak out frankly even when they


3. 1 2 3 4 5
are critical of well-established ideas

There is no place for yes-men around here; good ideas are


4. 1 2 3 4 5
desired even if it means disagreeing with superiors.

Agreeing with powerful others is the best alternative in this


5. 1 2 3 4 5
organization.

6. It is best not to rock the boat in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet than to fight the system. 1 2 3 4 5

Telling others what they want to hear is sometimes better than


8. 1 2 3 4 5
telling the truth.

It is safer to think what you are told than to make up your own
9. 1 2 3 4 5
mind.

Since I have worked in this department, I have never seen the


10. 1 2 3 4 5
pay and promotion policies applied politically.

I cant remember when a person received a pay increase or


11. 1 2 3 4 5
promotion that was inconsistent with the published policies.

None of the raises I have received are consistent with the


12. 1 2 3 4 5
policies on how raises should be determined.

The stated pay and promotion policies have nothing to do with


13. 1 2 3 4 5
how pay raises and promotions are determined.

When it comes to pay raise and promotion decisions, policies


14. 1 2 3 4 5
are irrelevant.

Promotions around here are not valued much because how they
15. 1 2 3 4 5
are determined is so political.

73
PART 4: MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR

Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Moderately

Moderately
Encircle the number that best represents the behavior that

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Slightly
your immediate supervisor is most likely to exhibit

Agree
1. He/a She shows a strong concern for ethical and moral
1 2 3 4 5 6
values
.
2. He/b She communicates clear ethical standards for team
1 2 3 4 5 6
members.
.
3. He/c She sets an example of ethical behavior in his/ her
1 2 3 4 5 6
decisions
. and actions
4. d
He/ She is honest and can be trusted to tell the truth. 1 2 3 4 5 6
.
5. He/e She keeps his/ her actions consistent with his/her
1 2 3 4 5 6
stated
. values (walks the talk)
6. He/f She is fair and unbiased when assigning tasks to
1 2 3 4 5 6
members.
.
7. He/g She can be trusted to carry out promises and
1 2 3 4 5 6
commitments.
.
8. He/h She insists on doing what is fair and ethical even
1 2 3 4 5 6
when
. it is not easy.
9. He/i She acknowledges mistakes and takes responsibility
1 2 3 4 5 6
for
. them.
10. He/
j She regards honesty and integrity as important
1 2 3 4 5 6
personal
. values.
11. He/
k She sets an example of dedication and self-sacrifice
1 2 3 4 5 6
for
. the organization.
12. He/
l She opposes the use of unethical practices to
1 2 3 4 5 6
increase
. performance.
13. He/
m She is fair and objective when evaluating members
1 2 3 4 5 6
performance
. and providing rewards.
14. He/
n She puts the needs of others above his/her own self-
1 2 3 4 5 6
interest.
.
15. He/
o She holds members accountable for using ethical
1 2 3 4 5 6
practices
. in their work.

74
PART 5: WHEN I AM AT WORK

Strongly Agree
Encircle the number that best represents your feelings

Undecided
Somewhat

Somewhat
towards work.

Disagree
Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Agree
Agree
1. I feel
a like I can make a lot of inputs to deciding how my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
job
. gets done.
2. b
I really like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
3. c
I feel very competent when I am at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
4. d
People at work tell me I am good at what I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
5. e
I dont feel pressured at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
6. f
I get along with people at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
7. I try
g pretty much not to keep to myself when I am at
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
work.
.
8. h
I am free to express my ideas and opinions on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
9. i
I consider the people I work with to be my friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
10. I have
j been able to learn interesting new skills on my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
job.
.
11. k
When I am at work, I dont have to be told what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
12. Most
l days I feel a sense of accomplishment from
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
working.
.
13. m
My feelings are taken into consideration at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
14. Onn my job I get much of a chance to show how capable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am.
.
15. o
People at work care about me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
16. p
There are many people at work that I am close to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
17. q
I feel like I can pretty much be myself at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
18. r
The people I work with seem to like me much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
19. s
When I am working I often feel very capable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
20. There
t is much opportunity for me to decide for myself
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
how
. to go about my work.
21. u
People at work are pretty friendly towards me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

75
APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SUPERVISORS


To whom it may concern:
Thank you for spending your time in answering this questionnaire. Generally, the
questionnaire contains subjects which concerns about your subordinates behavior at work.
Your assistance in completing this survey is completely voluntary and the time and effort
spent on answering the questionnaire will be highly appreciated. There are no wrong answers in
answering this questionnaire. Thus, you are given utmost freedom to provide thoughtful and
honest answers.
This survey will take around 15 minutes to complete. Once received, all responses are
completely confidential, used for academic purposes only and will be reported only in summary
format. Thank you!

PART 1: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS


Gender: O Male O Female
Highest Level of Education: O Bachelor O Master O PhD O Others
_________
Year of Birth: Year __________ Place of Birth: ____________________
When did you start to work for current organization? Year _____________
How long have you worked with this immediate supervisor? Year ___________
Your current position in this organization is _____________________________

PART 2: YOUR EMPLOYEES BEHAVIOR TOWARDS WORK


Instruction: This questionnaire contains items that ask you to describe what do you see and feel
about this employees working behavior.
Subordinate 1: __________
Encircle the number that best represents

Always
Rarely
Never

Often

Often
Some
times

subordinates behavior towards his/ her


Very

work.

At his/her work, he/she is bursting


a. 1 2 3 4 5 6
with energy
At his/her job he/she is strong and
b. 1 2 3 4 5 6
vigorous
He/she feels happy when he/she is
c. 1 2 3 4 5 6
working intensely
d. His/her job inspires himself/herself 1 2 3 4 5 6
He/she is enthusiastic about his/her
e. 1 2 3 4 5 6
job
He/she is proud on the work that
f. 1 2 3 4 5 6
he/she does
He/she gets carried away when he/she
g. 1 2 3 4 5 6
is working
h. He/she is immersed in his/her work 1 2 3 4 5 6

76
Subordinate 2: _____________

Encircle the number that best represents

Always
Rarely
Never

Often

Often
Some
times
subordinates behavior towards his/ her

Very
work.

At his/her work, he/she is bursting


a. 1 2 3 4 5 6
with energy
At his/her job he/she is strong and
b. 1 2 3 4 5 6
vigorous
He/she feels happy when he/she is
c. 1 2 3 4 5 6
working intensely
d. His/her job inspires himself/herself 1 2 3 4 5 6
He/she is enthusiastic about his/her
e. 1 2 3 4 5 6
job
He/she is proud on the work that
f. 1 2 3 4 5 6
he/she does
He/she gets carried away when he/she
g. 1 2 3 4 5 6
is working
h. He/she is immersed in his/her work 1 2 3 4 5 6

Subordinate 3: _____________

Encircle the number that best represents

Always
Rarely
Never

Often

Often
Some
times

subordinates behavior towards his/ her


work. Very

At his/her work, he/she is bursting


a. 1 2 3 4 5 6
with energy
At his/her job he/she is strong and
b. 1 2 3 4 5 6
vigorous
He/she feels happy when he/she is
c. 1 2 3 4 5 6
working intensely
d. His/her job inspires himself/herself 1 2 3 4 5 6
He/she is enthusiastic about his/her
e. 1 2 3 4 5 6
job
He/she is proud on the work that
f. 1 2 3 4 5 6
he/she does
He/she gets carried away when he/she
g. 1 2 3 4 5 6
is working
h. He/she is immersed in his/her work 1 2 3 4 5 6

77