Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress

More documents

Recommendations

Info

378 J. J. SOSIK AND V. M. GODSHALK Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations Construct Indicators Mentoring level Correlations between constructs Low High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 M S.D. M S.D. 1. Laissez-faire 0.76 0.77 0.57 0.59 (0.80) 2. Transactional contingent reward 3.02 0.67 3.24 0.60 0.11 (0.75) 3. Transformational leadership Idealized in¯uence 2.89 0.68 3.08 0.72 0.05 0.59 (0.78) Inspirational motivation 3.05 0.62 3.13 0.55 Intellectual stimulation 3.12 0.61 3.20 0.56 Individualized consideration 3.31 0.48 3.47 0.50 4. Mentoring functions received Psychosocial support 3.74 0.54 4.59 0.97 0.15 0.02 0.06 (0.84) Career development 2.84 0.70 4.34 1.05 5. Job stress 2.73 0.82 2.78 1.39 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.14 (0.80) 6. Age 31.41 6.91 29.90 7.39 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.07 ± 7. Mentor gender 1.81 0.84 1.94 1.52 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.40 ± 8. Industry 6.81 3.55 6.28 3.46 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.18 ± 9. Education 5.98 0.72 5.79 1.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.07 0.04 ± 10. Job tenure 3.15 3.07 3.29 3.13 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.04 ± 11. Job level 2.03 1.44 2.32 2.17 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.17 ± Note. Gender coded: 1 ˆ female, 2 ˆ male. Industry coded: 1 ˆ accounting, 2 ˆ consulting, 3 ˆ ®nancial/insurance, 4 ˆ manufacturing, 5 ˆ pharmaceuticals, 6 ˆ public administration, 7 ˆ retailing/hospitality, 8 ˆ services (health, legal), 9 ˆ telecommunications, 10 ˆ utilities/transportation, 11 ˆ other. Education level ranged from 1 ˆ high school to 7 ˆ graduate degree. Job level coded: 1 ˆ non-supervisory, 2 ˆ ®rst line manager, 3 ˆ middle management, 4 ˆ upper management, 5 ˆ executive. Bold-faced elements on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. O€ diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. Signi®cant correlations (p 5 0.05) are underlined. Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
Table 3. Factor loadings, composite scale reliability, and average variance extracted to assess reliability of measures Construct Measures LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 379 Factor loading Weights of measures Composite scale reliability Average variance extracted 1. Laissez-faire LF 1 0.92 0.79 0.78 0.64 LF 2 0.68 0.45 2. Transactional contingent reward CR1 0.74 0.47 0.79 0.56 CR2 0.82 0.54 CR3 0.67 0.35 3. Transformational leadership II 0.81 0.36 0.86 0.62 IM 0.68 0.15 IS 0.76 0.20 IC 0.89 0.54 4. Mentoring functions received PSYCH 0.85 0.61 0.83 0.71 CARDEV 0.84 0.58 5. Job stress STRESS1 0.76 0.31 0.91 0.63 STRESS2 0.81 0.19 STRESS3 0.74 0.12 STRESS4 0.89 0.27 STRESS5 0.71 0.18 STRESS6 0.83 0.19 Note. LFˆ laissez-faire; CR ˆ contingent reward; II ˆ idealized in¯uence-behavior; IM ˆ inspirational motivation; IS ˆ intellectual stimulation; IC ˆ individualized consideration; PSYCH ˆ psychosocial support; CARDEV ˆ career development; STRESS ˆ job-related stress. Table 3 shows the factor loadings, weights, composite scale reliabilities, and average variance extracted based on PLS analysis of full sample data. With the exception of factor loadings of one indicator of laissez-faire, contingent reward, and transformational leadership constructs, which were slightly below the recommended criterion cut-o€, all reliability criteria were met by the study's constructs. In PLS, convergent and discriminant validity of indicators of re¯ective constructs is assessed using criteria similar to a multi-trait/multi-method analysis (Falk and Miller, 1992; Kahai et al., 1997). One criterion is that the construct representing the items should share more variance with its items than with other constructs in the model (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). A matrix is shown in Table 2, in which the diagonal elements show the square root of the average variance shared by a construct with its indicators. For adequate convergent and discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be greater than entries in the corresponding rows and columns. Results summarized in Table 2 indicate this criterion was met. Results of PLS analysis Results of PLS analysis to test the hypotheses are presented in Table 4. As predicted by Hypothesis 1a, there was a positive relationship between mentor transformational leadership behavior and proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. As predicted by Hypothesis 1b, there was a positive relationship between mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior and proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions. As expected, the positive in¯uence of mentor transactional contingent reward leadership behavior on proteÂ geÂ receipt of mentoring functions was not as strong as that of mentor transformational leadership behavior. As predicted by Hypothesis Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 365±390 (2000)
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Page 3 and 4: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 36
Page 13: LEADERSHIP, MENTORING AND STRESS 37

Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?