Assessing the Relationships Between Person-Organization Fit, Moral Philosophy, and the Motivation to Lead Dissertation Submitted to Northcentral University Graduate Faculty of the School of Psychology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by ELENA MARIE PAPAVERO Prescott Valley, Arizona January 2009
207
Embed
Assessing the Relationships Between Person …Assessing the Relationships Between Person-Organization Fit, Moral Philosophy, and the Motivation to Lead Dissertation Submitted to Northcentral
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Assessing the Relationships Between Person-Organization Fit,
Assessing the Relationships Between Person-Organization Fit,
Moral Philosophy, and the Motivation to Lead
by
Elena Marie Papavero
Approved by: Chair: William G. Shriner, PhD Date Member: Robert Haussmann, PhD Member: Nadira Tidwell Pardo, PhD Certified by: School Chair: Heather Frederick, PhD Date
iv
Abstract
Assessing the Relationships Between Person-Organization Fit,
Moral Philosophy, and the Motivation to Lead
by
Elena Marie Papavero
Northcentral University, January 2009
When individuals who perceive their values as different from those of their
organization (low PO fit) are less motivated to lead, values homogeneity in leadership
may occur, resulting in ethical dysfunction. Likewise, if idealists are less attracted to
leading, this may influence homogeneity towards pragmatism. The primary goal of this
research was to explore the prediction of three dimensions of motivation to lead (MTL)
from PO fit and idealism. The interaction of PO fit and relativism was also examined. An
online survey, including Cable and DeRue’s fit measure, Forsyth’s EPQ, and Chan’s
MTL scale, was completed by 1,024 working adults. Lower fit predicted lower MTL on
all dimensions, and higher idealism predicted lower MTL on all dimensions (with social-
normative MTL receiving limited support). No support was found for relativism as a
moderator of the fit to MTL relationship. These results suggest that low fit individuals are
self-selecting away from leadership positions. Practical recommendations include
considering fit in advancement processes and using fit as a gap-analysis diagnostic for
organizational values misalignment. Future research on a situational model of MTL
should consider situations that promote involvement or identification with organizations
v
and objectives, and those that create a lack of alternatives or a sense of obligation due to a
psychological contract.
vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to express great appreciation to my chairperson, Dr. William Shriner,
for his steady guidance and enthusiastic support of my ideas, and to my committee
members, Dr. Robert Haussmann and Dr. Nadira Pardo, for their patience and wisdom. I
would also like to thank my external reviewer, Dr. Jon Billsberry, for providing
inspiration, and for freely sharing his knowledge and insights. The support and
camaraderie of my school colleagues, especially Judy Kelly and Brian Cesario, made a
world of difference, not only instrumentally, but also in the inspiration provided by their
demonstrations of intellectual curiosity, will, and spirit. Finally, I would like to
acknowledge all family, friends, and work colleagues who supported this effort, with
special thanks to Marc Saxton for his interest and faith in my work, and for his special
talent for listening.
vii
Table of Contents
Copyright Notice ................................................................................................................. ii
Approval ............................................................................................................................ iii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 8
Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................... 9 Hypotheses for PO fit and motivation to lead. ........................................................ 9 Hypotheses for PO fit, relativism, and motivation to lead. ................................... 12 Hypotheses for idealism and motivation to lead. .................................................. 14
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 16
Conceptualizing Person-Organization Fit ..................................................................... 21 The person-organization fit focus. ........................................................................ 21 Choosing a PO fit interaction type. ....................................................................... 22 Operationalizing PO fit with values. ..................................................................... 27 Choosing a view of PO fit. .................................................................................... 28 PO misfit. .............................................................................................................. 32 Conceptualizing PO fit in the present study. ........................................................ 35
PO Fit and the Motivation to Lead ............................................................................... 37
viii
Individual outcomes of PO fit. .............................................................................. 37 Organizational outcomes of PO fit. ...................................................................... 39 How PO fit changes. ............................................................................................. 42 PO fit, individual characteristics, and situation. ................................................... 44 Ethical fit. .............................................................................................................. 45
Moral Philosophy and the Motivation to Lead ............................................................. 48 PO fit and moral philosophy. ................................................................................ 48 Moral philosophy overview. ................................................................................. 48 PO fit, ethical conflict, and relativism. ................................................................. 52 Ethical conflict, relativism, and the motivation to lead. ....................................... 54 Idealism and the motivation to lead. ..................................................................... 61
Conceptualizing and Studying Motivation to Lead ...................................................... 63 Theoretical model of the motivation to lead. ........................................................ 64 The motivation to lead construct........................................................................... 65 Relevant studies using Chan’s motivation to lead construct. ............................... 68 Studies on motivation to lead and situation. ......................................................... 70
Motivation to Lead Antecedents ................................................................................... 73 Personality trait antecedents and situation. ........................................................... 73 Values antecedents and situation. ......................................................................... 76 Leadership antecedents and situation. ................................................................... 78 Summary of motivation to lead antecedents and situation. .................................. 78
Summary of Literature Review ..................................................................................... 78
Sampling ....................................................................................................................... 85 A priori power calculations. .................................................................................. 85 Selection of participants. ....................................................................................... 89
Hypothesis Testing...................................................................................................... 105 Hypothesis testing for PO fit and motivation to lead. ......................................... 105 Hypothesis testing for PO fit, relativism, and motivation to lead. ...................... 108 Hypothesis testing for idealism and motivation to lead. ..................................... 110
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 112
Appendix B: Request for Participation ........................................................................... 161
Appendix C: Informed Consent, Survey, and Debriefing............................................... 162
Appendix D: Additional Statistical Tables and Figures ................................................. 171
x
List of Tables
Table 1. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: A priori Power Calculation ........................ 86
Table 2. Moderated Multiple Regression: A priori Power Calculation Not Considering Coefficient Differences .............................................................................................. 87
Table 3. Moderated Multiple Regression: A priori Power Calculation Considering Coefficient Differences .............................................................................................. 88
Table 4. Personal Characteristics .................................................................................... 98
Table 5. Job and Organization Characteristics ................................................................ 99
Table 6. Coefficient Alphas, Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Study Variables ................................................................................................................. 100
Table 7. Correlations of Characteristics and Study Variables ....................................... 115
Table 8. One-Way Analyses of Variance for Ethnicity on Study Variables .................... 116
Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Age ........................ 171
Table 10. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Gender ................. 171
Table 11. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Educational Level 172
Table 12. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Work Experience . 172
Table 13. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Leadership Experience ............................................................................................................... 173
Table 14. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Ethnicity .............. 173
Table 15. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Job Tenure........... 174
Table 16. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Job Level ............. 174
Table 17. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Employment Status ................................................................................................................................. 175
Table 18. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Organization Size 175
Table 19. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Organization Tenure ................................................................................................................................. 176
Table 20. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for PO Fit Predicting General Motivation to Lead .................................................................................................. 184
Table 21. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for PO Fit Predicting Affective-Identity Motivation to Lead ..................................................................................... 185
Table 22. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for PO Fit Predicting Non-Calculative Motivation to Lead .............................................................................. 186
Table 23. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for PO Fit Predicting Social-Normative Motivation to Lead ................................................................................ 188
xi
Table 24. Summary of Moderated Regression Analysis for PO Fit and Relativism Interacting to Predict General Motivation to Lead ................................................ 189
Table 25. Summary of Moderated Regression Analysis for PO Fit and Relativism Interacting to Predict Affective-Identity Motivation to Lead .................................. 190
Table 26. Summary of Moderated Regression Analysis for PO Fit and Relativism Interacting to Predict Non-Calculative Motivation to Lead ................................... 191
Table 27. Summary of Moderated Regression Analysis for PO Fit and Relativism Interacting to Predict Social-Normative Motivation to Lead ................................. 192
Table 28. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Idealism Predicting General Motivation to Lead .................................................................................................. 193
Table 29. Summary of Moderated Regression Analysis for Idealism Predicting Affective-Identity Motivation to Lead ..................................................................................... 194
Table 30. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Idealism Predicting Non-Calculative Motivation to Lead .............................................................................. 195
Table 31. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Idealism Predicting Social-Normative Motivation to Lead ................................................................................ 195
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Initial model: Person-organization fit predicting motivation to lead, and idealism predicting motivation to lead. .................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Initial Model: Person-organization fit, as moderated by relativism, predicting motivation to lead. .................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3. Revised model: Person-organization fit predicting motivation to lead, and idealism predicting motivation to lead. .................................................................. 113
Figure 4. Histogram of participants' reported person-organization fit scores with normality curve superimposed. ............................................................................... 177
Figure 5. Normal probability of participants’ reported person-organization fit scores. 177
Figure 6. Histogram of participants' reported idealism scores with normality curve superimposed. ......................................................................................................... 178
Figure 7. Normal probability of participants’ reported idealism scores. ...................... 178
Figure 8. Histogram of participants' reported relativism scores with normality curve superimposed. ......................................................................................................... 179
Figure 9. Normal probability of participants’ reported relativism scores. .................... 179
Figure 10. Histogram of participants' reported general motivation to lead scores with normality curve superimposed. ............................................................................... 180
Figure 11. Normal probability of participants’ reported general motivation to lead scores. ..................................................................................................................... 180
Figure 12. Histogram of participants' reported affective-identity motivation to lead scores with normality curve superimposed. ............................................................ 181
Figure 13. Normal probability of participants’ reported affective-identity motivation to lead scores. ............................................................................................................. 181
Figure 14. Histogram of participants' reported non-calculative motivation to lead scores with normality curve superimposed. ....................................................................... 182
Figure 15. Normal probability of participants’ reported non-calculative motivation to lead scores. ............................................................................................................. 182
Figure 16. Histogram of participants' reported social-normative motivation to lead scores with normality curve superimposed. ............................................................ 183
Figure 17. Normal probability of participants’ reported social-normative motivation to lead scores. ............................................................................................................. 183
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Organizations are thought to become more homogenous over time through
attraction, selection, attrition, and individual socialization (Schaubroeck, Ganster, &
McDonald, 2004). It appears that individual characteristics, such as gender and socio-
cultural group, serve to increase or decrease the salience of PO fit to magnify or diminish
its effect. Others factors, such as organizational support and tightness-looseness, change
PO fit based on the situation. It is possible that the relationship between needs and values
is circular, or at least multi-directional. Situation may reprioritize needs, which then
necessitates a change in individual values priorities.
Ethical fit.
Pierce and Snyder (in press) term ethical fit as compatibility in ethical values and
behavior. Ethical fit can be based on organizational norms that are ethical or unethical.
46
Pierce and Snyder point out that when ethical fit is defined by organizational norms that
include illegal behavior, the outcome can be very serious. Using behavioral data from
vehicle inspection stations to determine ethical fit, they found that ethical diversity
mitigated attrition due to ethical misfit. By measuring directional misfit they found that
unethical employees left ethical organizations, and ethical employees left unethical
organizations. Pierce and Snyder sensed that this effect would be stronger for ethical
employees, but they did not predict or test this. Their evidence suggests that vehicle
emissions testing is a market where ethics is unprofitable, meaning that some
organizations may suffer financially by hiring ethical employees when competitors do
not. This situation may be analogous to an arms race. Organizations may race to the
bottom to match the unethical behavior of their competition as a matter of survival.
Pierce and Snyder suggest monitoring and fining for unethical behavior in the
marketplace to counterbalance this impulse.
Ethical fit has been found to predict affective and continuance commitment (Sims
& Kroeck, 1994). Another more recent study (Ambrose, Arnaud, & Schminke, 2008) also
found that ethical fit (how well ethical climate matched individual moral development)
predicted higher levels of organizational commitment. In a study of 314 employees at 128
organizations, Sims and Keon (1997) used multiple regression analysis and found that fit
on individual business ethics and the organization’s ethical climate predicted lower intent
to leave. However, they did note that commitment or satisfaction could have also
contributed to lower intent to leave. Later, Valentine, Godkin, and Lucero (2002) found
that corporate ethical climate itself predicted fit on values, as well as predicting
commitment. Coldwell, Billsberry, van Meurs, and Marsh (2008) give an explanation for
47
these results. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become increasingly important to
the public and to employees. CSR and corporate reputation are linked, so ethically
oriented employees may be attracted and retained due to CSR. In fact, they note that it
has been shown that people would rather work for an ethical company for less pay, and
when employees observe ethical behavior by management, they are more satisfied.
Coldwell et al. also suggest that ethical fit could be an issue for retention when the public
face of the corporation does not match internal reality.
Coldwell et al. (2008) proposed that when misfit occurs between the
organization’s moral stage and the individual’s, negative attitudes and behavior can
result. This refers to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development: (a) post-conventional - a
level never attained by most adults, with social mutuality and genuine interest in welfare
of others, respect for universal principles, and the demands of individual conscience; (b)
conventional - where approval of others is paramount; and (c) pre-conventional - a level
reached by most at primary school, where obedience and punishment guide morality
centered on law and order. Ambivalence may also occur instead if the degree of misfit is
minor.
The actual impact of ethical fit on organizational performance is still unknown.
Peterson (2004) posited that corporate social performance could influence stakeholder
groups, in addition to financial performance. Based on social identity theory, he found
that, when employees believed social responsibility to be important, economic, legal, and
ethical corporate citizenship predicted commitment, with ethical corporate citizenship
being the best predictor. It is possible that lower ethical fit relates to lower motivation to
48
lead, which in itself is not a negative attitude, but may be an attitude that negatively
impacts the organization by limiting leadership resources.
Moral Philosophy and the Motivation to Lead
PO fit and moral philosophy.
PO fit is known to predict commitment, an attitude on which the motivation to
lead construct is based. In the present study PO fit is treated as an affective construct that
reflects perceptions of fit on values, or how what is important to the individual is
perceived as similar to what is important to the organization. However, as discussed
previously, PO fit can change for an individual. This could occur due to changes in the
organization. Additionally, the individual values on which PO fit is based can change
(Kristof-Brown & Jansen, 2007; Puente, 2004). It is possible that some individuals are
more willing to adjust their values or value priorities to meet the conditions of the
organization in which they are embedded. An individual’s ethical processing system, also
known as a moral philosophy, could be an individual difference that influences values
change. Further, openness to values adjustment may influence the relationship between
level of PO fit and an attitude such as motivation to lead, even if the need for values
change is anticipatory rather than immediate.
Moral philosophy overview.
While morality is a set of beliefs about what is right or wrong, ethics is a
conscious reflection on the adequacy of these beliefs (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2007). A moral
philosophy describes the process of how ethicality is decided, rather than morals
themselves (Dodig-Crnkovic). Schlenker and Forsyth (1977) developed a widely used
49
model of moral philosophy that is explored in the present study in relation to motivation
to lead.
There are a variety of ethical bases for moral philosophies. Schlenker and Forsyth
(1977) chose questions around teleology (also known as utilitarianism), deontology, and
skepticism to explore factors that could be used to measure moral philosophy. Teleology
minimizes self-interest to maximize utility using a cost to risk ratio. In teleology, intrinsic
values (pleasure, happiness, ideals, preferences, self-realization, and fulfillment) are
considered most important (Schlenker & Forsyth). Teleology has been criticized because
a person cannot be responsible for all consequences, as they cannot be foreseen. Further,
putting aside self-interest could include putting aside personal integrity. It is also unclear
as to who should be in the domain of concern (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2007). Finally, luck
contributes to consequences, making it even more difficult to predict outcomes.
Deontology rejects the consequences of rules or actions as a basis for moral
evaluation (Schlenker & Forsyth, 1977). Deontology grounds decisions on rules and
universal laws of humanity (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2007). This philosophy appeals to natural
law and rationality to determine ethical judgments. Acts are judged as moral by
comparing them with universal moral rules, and there are no exceptions, regardless of
consequences. For example, it would be immoral to lie, even for benign motives. Like
teleology, deontology has difficulties with calculating and balancing rewards and risks
because future consequences are unknown (Schlenker & Forsyth).
Contrary to deontology, ethical skepticism, with many moral points of view (e.g.,
emotivism, cultural relativism, and ethical egoism), holds that inviolate moral codes
cannot be formulated (Schlenker & Forsyth, 1977). For example, emotivism says that a
50
person cannot decide what is moral unless they can see, touch, hear, or otherwise sense
its meaning. Cultural relativism ties morality to society. Egoism holds that there are no
moral standards, except in reference to what one feels is right, and further, everyone acts
to promote their own self-interest. Egoism, like teleology, considers consequences, but
only for the self.
The initial version of Schlenker and Forsyth’s (1977) Ethics Position
Questionnaire (EPQ) used 50 questions that tapped the common major dimensions of
ethical concern for teleology, deontology, and skepticism: (a) importance of
consequences, (b) consideration of consequences, and (c) feasibility of universal moral
codes. Two major distinctions were found among the moral philosophies: (a) relativism,
which is the extent to which one is willing to accept the existence of a universal moral
code, and (b) idealism, which is an endorsement of idealistic versus pragmatic beliefs and
actions. These two orthogonal dimensions represent individual differences that influence
actions, judgments, and emotions when dealing with moral issues (Forsyth, O’Boyle, &
McDaniel, 2008; Park, 2005).
Orienting the two dimensions around the original ethical bases helps to explain
their meaning. On the high end of the continuum of relativism, skeptics deny the
existence of universal ethical rules. On the low end, a deontologist would condemn an act
that fails to meet a rule, regardless of the amount of harm or benefit. Somewhere between
skeptics and deontologists on the relativism continuum, teleologists tolerate negative
consequences to the degree that positive consequences outweigh them, so they are more
pragmatic than idealistic. Skeptics are guided by consequences, but some may judge
consequences as idealists, where others would be more pragmatic. However, Schlenker
51
and Forsyth (1977) found that most skeptics are pragmatic. In either case, relativists
differ from both teleologists and deontologists by denying the applicability of universal
moral rules under any circumstances. Along the continuum of idealism, an underlying
calculation process is used to weigh decisions. However, at highest end, the idealist is far
more concerned with costs than benefits, whereas the pragmatist considers both. Finally,
deontology is most closely related to universalism (i.e., low relativism) and idealism in
Schlenker and Forsyth’s model.
Schlenker and Forsyth (1977) noted that science can provide answers to questions
concerned with the means used to obtain or implement particular values and goals, and
the consequences and affect of their implementation. The question of whether a value or
goal is moral is not a scientific question, but rather, morality is determined by moral
philosophy. Although Schlenker and Forsyth’s initial work grew out of an effort to
analyze ethics codes used in social science research, the resulting theory has been used
extensively in business research, especially in the area of business ethics (Forsyth et al.,
2008).
The EPQ can be viewed as a four-way classification of relativism and idealism, or
as two orthogonal dimensions. Davis, Andersen, and Curtis (2001) found discriminant
validity for idealism and relativism. They also found that idealism is stable for age and
gender, whereas relativism is not. In the present study, the role that universalism might
play in moderating the relationship between PO fit and motivation to lead is explored. It
is possible that individuals who make decisions based on strict moral rules might find low
PO fit to be more salient in this situation, whether they are pragmatic or idealistic. It
seems plausible that an intrapersonal conflict concerning immutable rules would override
52
any influence of pragmatism. In addition, universalists have been shown to experience
lower self-esteem when they succeed, whether the goal is selfish or selfless (Forsyth,
1992). This may depress the motivation to lead. As idealism is more stable than
relativism, it is considered a direct predictor of motivation to lead in the present study.
Whether based on universal rules or not, the tendency for some idealists to almost
exclusively calculate costs, with less consideration for benefits, drives the view in the
present study that idealism is a potential negative correlate of motivation to lead.
PO fit, ethical conflict, and relativism.
In the present study, PO fit describes the extent to which individual and
organizational values are perceived by the individual to be similar. An individual’s
decision-making process involves value judgments (Liedtka, 1989). These judgments are
produced by assessing the fit between the course of action proposed by the organization
(organizational values) and the individual’s self-image (personal values). Liedtka
observed that conflict occurred when individuals were unsure as to whether
organizational expectations were consistent with their personal values. Conflict between
personal values and the values held by the organization produces ethical conflict (Toffler,
1986).
Perceptions of ethical conflict have been shown to be based on comparisons
between personal values and the perceived values of direct management (Schwepker,
Ferrell, & Ingram, 1997; Soutar, McNeil, & Molster, 1994). However, the behavior of top
management is also considered by individuals (Soutar et al.). The influence of direct
management is especially strong when the ethical code of the organization is unclear.
Values are not always explicitly stated to employees. In fact, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005)
53
proposed that actual and perceived fit on ethical values might be distally related for this
reason. It appears that when the beliefs of top management are unclear, the values of
direct management have the greatest influence on the individual, and individual
perceptions of differences produce ethical conflict. As values influence the process of
determining what is ethical, PO fit could also be said to describe how well the individual
perceives that, when making ethical decisions, consulting their values will produce a
result similar to relying on the organization’s values. When personal and organizational
values are incongruent due to low PO fit, conflict may occur. However, relativism may
determine how this conflict is handled, or whether conflict is experienced at all.
Ethical conflict can occur for employees at any hierarchical level (Peterson,
2003). Further, employees who do not agree with the organization’s values, and who feel
pressured to compromise their own, may experience cognitive dissonance. This scenario
may be common, as employees almost always see themselves as more ethical than their
co-workers, supervisors, and top management (Brenner & Molander, 1977). Ethical
conflict occurs when employees feel pressured by their peers and management to
compromise their personal values in order to achieve organizational goals (Leicht &
Fennell, 1997). Employees have also been found to experience pressure to go against
formal organizational standards that they see as ethical (Goodell, 1994). This probably
reflects the influence of the informal organizational standards described by Quinn, Reed,
Browne, and Wesley (1997). In addition, a large majority (70%) of managers at all levels
were found to feel pressured to conform to ethical norms of their organizations with
which they disagreed (Posner & Schmidt, 1984). Upper managers and entrepreneurs were
also found to feel pressure to make business decisions that conflicted with their personal
54
moral values (Longenecker, McKinney, & Moore, 1988). Values compromise is not
limited to the private sector, as it was found to occur in the public sector by Bowman
(1976).
Treviño, Weaver, and Reynolds (2006) proposed that professionals might become
morally compromised gradually over time. Individuals carve out private “identity spaces”
(or niches) and situationally defined organizational identifies (Weaver, 2006). As their
organizational identities become incorporated with the organization, the moral content of
this niche may become different from their individual identity. Differences in these
identities would probably vary given the norms of the organization. In addition, the
organization could be normless. Anomie (defined as a lack of purpose, identity, or values
in a person or society) can lead to a breakdown of the norms that rule the conduct of
people and assure the social order (Kuczmarski & Kuczmarski, 1995). This results in a
loss of meaning and a sense of injustice, and can affect moral thinking. Tsahuridu’s
(2006) findings showed that individuals view the work context as more normless than the
world outside of work. The process of values incorporation may be more apparent to low
relativists, as the content of the organizational niche becomes more different from the
inviolate rules that are part of their personal identity, and this may increase the salience of
low PO fit. For example, Tsai and Shih (2005) suggested that relativists are more likely
to excuse an unethical decision, and therefore experience less role conflict.
Ethical conflict, relativism, and the motivation to lead.
A review of the literature did not reveal any theories or empirical research directly
relating relativism and motivation to lead. However, it was found that when
organizational values were considered ethical, higher organizational commitment resulted
55
(Herndon, Fraedrich, & Yeh, 2001). Further, Schwepker (1999) found that when a
personal and organizational values mismatch was experienced by an individual, personal
ethical conflict resulted. This ethical conflict produced lower organizational commitment.
It has been shown that managers believe their jobs require them to compromise
their ethics (Moser, 1988). Moser points out that if this were not so, a code of ethical
conduct would be unnecessary. The tension created by the incongruence of what an
individual acting alone would do, versus actions as an agent of the organization, is the
source of ethical conflict (Fasching, 1981). As a coping mechanism, complete
detachment from ethical concerns and personal responsibility may result (Moser). To
eliminate or reduce ethical conflict, individuals may withdraw or resign. More subtle
effects of ethical conflict include whistle-blowing, poor morale, disloyalty, strained
personal relationships, uncooperativeness, reduced quality, and absenteeism, all of which
lead to lower productivity (Moser).
Prior research concerning the relationship between ethical conflict and outcomes
has produced mixed results (Peterson, 2003). Peterson sought to uncover the cause of
these inconclusive findings by examining possible moderators. Using regression analysis
with 161 responses, Peterson found that lower commitment and higher intention to leave
were each predicted from ethical conflict, over and above age, gender, and educational
level. Peterson then used moderated regression analysis to examine relativism as a
moderator of the relationship between ethical conflict and commitment, and as a
moderator of the relationship between ethical conflict and intention to leave. He chose
relativism because it influences the ethical decision-making process, specifically when
formulating an intention to act. As relativists would be more likely to consider the
56
situation when faced with an ethical dilemma, Peterson hypothesized that they would be
better able to cope with the pressure to engage in unethical behavior in an organization.
Peterson found a strong negative relationship between ethical conflict and organizational
commitment. However, when relativism was high, this relationship was no longer
present. When relativism was low and ethical conflict was high, organizational
commitment decreased. The effect on intention to leave was small, and Peterson
proposed any number of reasons for this. For example, even if someone is conflicted,
they may not have the option to leave their job due to monetary concerns. As the
relationship with commitment was especially strong for moral universalists, Peterson
suggested that they might experience much more stress when ethical conflict arises. No
interaction was found between ethical conflict and relativism for intention to leave.
Peterson notes that interaction detection in the field is known to be difficult, and that this
limitation might explain the absence of this interaction in his findings.
Relativists have been shown to be less ethically sensitive (Chan & Leung, 2006;
Sparks & Hunt, 1998). For example, in a study of 151 buying professionals at 52
companies, Park (2005) used hierarchical multiple regression and found that relativists
were less likely to consider socially responsible behavior, which could affect their
intentions when making an ethical decision. Park suggested that although the study was
limited due to a low response rate of 18.4%, this rate is comparable to other surveys on
business ethics and social responsibility.
Jackall (1988) studied the nature of moral behavior in organizations. He found
that the rules for success in an organization form a bureaucratic ethic that necessitates
separating personal morality from that of the organization. He further argued that
57
personal ethics might be sublimated to get ahead in the organization. As Senge (1990)
pointed out, “Only [when the organization fosters values in alignment with peoples' own
core] will it be possible for managers to stop living by two codes of behavior, and start
being one person" (p. 312). The sublimation of personal values seems related to
Goodpaster’s (2004) description of how teleopathy, or the unbalanced pursuit of
organizational purpose, is characterized by fixation, rationalization, and detachment. And
as commitment to those higher in the organization increases, the need to sublimate
personal moral codes increases. Ashforth and Vaidyanath (2002) likened this process to
experiencing faith in the organization as a secular religion, with normative controls
instilling a shared moral code. Jackall further describes how managers' moral
compromises preserve the organizational culture:
As it happens, given their pivotal institutional role in our epoch, they help create and re-create, as one unintended consequence of their personal striving, a society where morality becomes indistinguishable from the quest for one's own survival and advantage. (p. 204)
To advance in an organization, an individual must assimilate its rules (Quinn et
al., 1997). As Jackall (1988) observed, as well as Ford and Richardson (1994), when one
shifts into the management structure of a large organization more is involved than a
simple change in job description. The management context is a social and cultural
environment, with rules of behavior that differ from society at large (Quinn et al.). These
rules of behavior are generally unwritten and sometimes communicated using oral
tradition, and the new manager must be able to determine and assimilate these using
observation and discussion (Quinn et al.). This assimilation is required for advancement
in the bureaucratic hierarchy (O’Neil & Pienta, 1994). The ethical rules for advancement
are external to the manager. Those who hold moral concerns that conflict with what the
58
group collectively agrees to may be considered troublemakers, creating more pressure to
conform to move up (Quinn et al.). The assimilation process required for advancement
may be more difficult for low relativists who refuse to bend ethical rules. In contrast, the
moral anchor of the relativist is more likely to be attached to the anchor of the
organization’s culture (Quinn et al.). For this reason, the low relativist’s strict adherence
to a moral code could impact motivation to lead negatively. For example, describing a
foray into a management position, one individual said:
I do think it’s important to have some principles and that kind of thing. I actually feel good that I’ve been able to hang on to those. When you go through all this, especially if you try management. I’ll tell you the things… remarkable… people don’t realize. (Papavero, 1999, p. 57)
It is possible that, in addition to lower commitment to the organization, a universalist may
be less likely to imitate successful others who do not share their moral code. This could
also impact their motivation to lead.
Moore (2008) proposed that moral disengagement fosters organizational
corruption by rewarding decisions that advance organizational goals, whether or not these
decisions are ethical, and thereby dampening individual moral awareness. A talent in
prioritizing organizational goals above all else has been shown to be a top leadership
skill, especially valued in times of crisis or uncertainty (Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004).
It seems reasonable to expect that possession of this skill would affect advancement. For
example, Scott Sullivan advanced quickly at WorldCom in part because of his
willingness to misrepresent financial statements (Jeter, 2003). Andrew Fastow was
advanced by the leadership at Enron in part because it was understood that he would do
“whatever it took” to make Enron’s numbers (Mclean & Elkind, 2003). It is possible that
59
some organizations reward those most willing to collude in corrupt practices
(Eichenwald, 1995).
Ethics and advancement are rarely studied (Moore, 2008). The structures and
processes that support organizational survival and growth could influence unethical
behavior without direct intention on the part of the organization. Dominant groups align
their interests with the corporation (Cyert & March, 2002; Thompson, 1967).
Organizational norms will reflect the norms of these groups, even when they sanction
corrupt behavior (Moore). It is possible that strong performers who are less sensitive to
ethical issues advance more quickly into leadership positions (Moore). These same
individuals will then create a climate which models, rewards, or further embeds corrupt
practices into the social structure (Moore). This could create strong situation pressures
that cause perpetuation of corrupt actions throughout the organization (Sims & Brinkman,
2002). Moore proposes that individuals higher in moral disengagement will advance
more quickly through the organizational hierarchy than those low in moral
disengagement.
It is possible that relativism makes it easier to sublimate personal ethics, which
could lead unintentionally to moral disengagement. For example, Cynthia Cooper, a
whistle-blower at WorldCom stated in retrospect that she was different than her
colleagues because she “refused to overlook actions that were contrary to her principles.
When evaluating her priorities, she would not succumb to the pressures placed by
superior figures” (Kumar, 2007, p. 5).
Ms. Cooper appears to have been able to maintain her moral congruence in this
case by whistle blowing. Moral congruence is defined as the condition and process of
60
achieving consistency between self-selected moral values and the manifest behaviors of
the individual. In a qualitative study, Rodriquez (2005) found that morally congruent
managers felt loyal to their internal convictions and had an internal locus of control.
These managers viewed being morally congruent as a life-long process of discovery,
sense making, alignment, critical self-reflection, and self-correction. They saw
incongruence as the door to congruence, such that a loss of inner peace was a wakeup call
to change, and they believed that leaders must be morally congruent to generate
congruence in others.
The cognitive dissonance produced by ethical conflict may be interpreted in a far
different way than as a call for personal growth and development. To eliminate the cause
of cognitive dissonance, the individual may leave the organization as a way to reduce
associated stress. Further, avoiding leadership roles could be considered as a parallel to
leaving the organization, insofar as this avoidance could be seen as a coping mechanism.
The ethical reasoning process could be influenced by moral philosophy. Ethical reasoning
is thought to occur in steps that include: (a) identifying the dilemma, (b) developing an
ideal solution, (c) formulating an intention to act, and (d) ethical action (Peterson, 2003).
Relativism may influence the formulation of intention to act based on potential outcomes.
The relativist may rationalize intentions to act in a way that is ethically acceptable based
on the situation: Organizational goals must be achieved at any cost. This rationalization
could also result in an increase of their perception of PO fit, removing any influence that
low PO fit may have had on motivation to lead. This adaptation process may take place
on a regular basis in many daily scenarios of potential ethical conflict in order to decrease
the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance. Further, the instances of adaptation
61
increase with hierarchical level, and those cognizant of this may experience lower
motivation to lead. Again, the low motivation to lead that may result from poor PO fit
could be likened to the intention to leave, where the hierarchical level is abandoned rather
than the organization. In an exploration of the individual decision to refuse an
advancement offer, it was found that anticipation of compromising values was a major
factor in the decision to turn down a promotion (Papavero, 1999). Relativists may
rationalize that ethics at work do not have to match ethics in personal life, as what is
ethical changes with the situation.
Idealism and the motivation to lead.
Aggressiveness, materialism, high achievement motivation, and traditional sex
role divisions are antiethical to the “person-centered, humble, nurturing, and
interpersonally sensitive orientation of high idealism” (Cui, Mitchell, Schlegelmilch, &
Cornwell, 2005, p. 26). This seems to indicate that idealism is negatively related to
motivation to lead.
Idealists have been found to be more ethically sensitive than those low in idealism
(Bass, Barnett, & Brown, 1999; Chan & Leung, 2006). Idealism has been found to be
positively related to ethical perceptions, judgments, intent, and behavior (Shaub et al.,
1993). Idealists are less likely to engage in organizational and interpersonal deviance
(Henle, Giacalone, & Jurkiewicz, 2005), and, in China, they were more likely to report
the unethical behavior of peers (Chiu & Erdener, 2003). The high ethical sensitivity of
idealists may occur because they place a greater importance on ethics and social
responsibility than those low in idealism (Tansey, Brown, Hyman, & Dawson, 1994).
62
The ethical sensitivity of idealists may be attributable in part to their almost
singular focus on costs for none when considering consequences (Forsyth, 1992).
Idealists have been found to be low in Machiavellianism, where manipulative, persuasive,
and deceitful behavior is used to achieve goals (Bass et al., 1999; Leary, Knight, &
Barnes, 1986). However, idealists are willing to be disloyal and they are more likely to lie
or engage in an immoral act if they perceive that human welfare will benefit (Byers &
Powers, 1997; Forsyth). On the other hand, Forsyth and Schlenker (1977) found that
idealists see obedience as positive behavior. This gives one explanation as to why
Chonko, Wotruba, and Loe (2003) discovered that idealists find ethics codes more useful
than pragmatists. This could also explain why idealists have been found to experience
higher levels of intrapersonal role conflict. It could be difficult to be simultaneously
obedient and cause no harm to others. Idealists are more likely to experience
incompatible expectations, especially when organizational values are not clear (Sims &
Keon, 2000; Tsai & Shih, 2005). In addition, due to low pragmatism, idealists can
become divorced from practice.
Organization-professional conflict can occur when professionals are forced to
focus on profit rather than professional goals, or when organizational demands diverge
from accepted professional behavior, especially when these demands are unethical. In a
cross-sectional study of 319 accountants at various organizations, Shafer et al. (2002b)
used structural equation modeling to examine the relationships among professionalism,
organization-professional conflict, and organizational commitment. Organization-
professional conflict was found to have a negative relationship with organizational
commitment. As the idealist is more committed to their profession, they may be more
63
likely to experience organization-professional conflict. They may therefore be less
committed to the organization.
The association of idealism with organization-professional conflict, and further,
the relationship of this conflict with lower organizational commitment, suggests that
highly idealistic individuals may be reticent to take a leadership role. Further, idealists
may be harder on themselves in regards to failure (Forsyth, 1992), which may lessen their
attraction to leadership situations that they may view as more risky. With their concern
for costs and protecting the general welfare, they may avoid leadership roles that require
decisions that harm other employees. This may be especially true if, given the idealist’s
higher ethical sensitivity, they are more likely to perceive unfair or unethical behavior
and sense that they would be required to impose the consequences of this behavior on
their subordinates. For example, when discussing the decision to leave a leadership
position, an individual stated:
You’re affecting people’s lives and their families with these things. That’s what I found offensive. You don’t really have the power to make things better for them but you have the responsibility for being the one that hits them with it, whether it’s a bad salary or whether it’s a layoff. (Papavero, 1999, p. 58)
Conceptualizing and Studying Motivation to Lead
Where leadership emergence describes the “what” of people who lead (that is,
their individual characteristics), motivation to lead answers the question of why they
want to lead. Before Chan’s (1999) proposal of the motivation to lead construct, some
work was done in this area, most notably that of House and Singh (1987). They proposed
three psychodynamic attributes of people who are motivated to lead: (a) high power
motive, (b) high activity inhibition, and (c) low affiliation need. Although power and
control may be important motivators for some, this cannot be assumed to be true for all
64
leaders. The individual differences of leaders seem a logical avenue to explore to
discover more about the diverse and complex motives that drive their attraction to
leading.
Theoretical model of the motivation to lead.
Chan (1999) recognized that a theoretical framework was needed to link
individual differences and various leadership behaviors. He noted that prior research
discredited the role of individual differences. Later, individual differences came back to
the fore, but much of the work used bivariate correlations rather than multivariate
models. Chan also agreed with Lord and Hall (1992) by identifying a criteria problem
affecting research in this area, in that leader perception, leader emergence, and leader
effectiveness were often treated as equivalent.
Chan’s (1999) intent was to differentiate leader emergence and performance. He
also suggested that the research focus should move in a different direction regarding
individual differences. Rather than measuring direct relationships between individual
differences and performance, we should consider that “non-cognitive constructs such as
personality and values may be linked to leadership performance through the process of
leadership development” (Chan, p. 86). It is important to recognize that Chan did not
suggest that motivation to lead predicts leader effectiveness. However, he did conjecture
that motivation to lead might relate to leader effectiveness indirectly by predicting morale
and job satisfaction.
Chan (1999) defines motivation to lead in terms of a definition of motivation
where internal processes determine direction (the decision to lead), intensity (effort given
to leading), and persistence (leading during adversity). The motivation to lead construct
65
represents individual differences that can affect these leadership behaviors. Individual
differences included in motivation to lead are considered relatively stable. However,
motivation to lead could interact with external factors such as domain and task. For
example, motivation to lead may change if one takes part in leadership training. Further,
motivation to lead integrates leader development and leader performance by including
past leadership experience in the framework. Learned knowledge and skills from
leadership experiences are also antecedents of motivation to lead. Leadership experiences
cause one to seek out more training and further development occurs. A feedback loop is
created where each experience interacts with motivation to lead to create different
performance outcomes.
The motivation to lead construct.
Chan (1999) based the dimensions of motivation to lead on Meyer and Allen’s
(1991) model of organizational commitment. Meyer and Allen identified a
multidimensional construct of commitment with affective, normative, and calculative
types. The sources of each type of commitment are different: affective commitment is
sourced in a need for achievement, calculative commitment in job investment, and social-
normative commitment in socialization in the organization. Affective commitment is
thought to be related to intrinsic motivation and relational psychological contracts,
whereas social-normative commitment is thought to be related to extrinsic motivation,
and both calculative and social-normative commitment are thought to be related to
Note. N = 1024. MTL = motivation to lead; Coefficient alphas are presented in boldface along the diagonal. *p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .01 (two-tailed).
101
Tests of Statistical Assumptions
All predictor and criterion correlations required for linear regression analysis were
present. As expected, lower levels of PO fit were statistically significantly related to
lower levels of each motivation to lead type. Also, as expected, higher levels of idealism
were statistically significantly related to lower levels of each motivation to lead type.
Idealism and relativism were found to be orthogonal, as expected given previous
findings (Davis et al., 2001; Forsyth, 1980). Although Forsyth et al. (2008) suggest that
predictions from either of these dimensions should consider the other, this study is
concerned with contributions of distinct aspects of each to motivation to lead, and
therefore, their discriminant validity was relevant. However, given Forsyth’s suggestion,
and although not formally hypothesized, each dimension was tested as a moderator of the
other for each hypothesized relationship to motivation to lead (tests of a three-way
interaction for PO fit, relativism, and idealism; and a two-way interaction for idealism
and relativism). These tests did not change the statistical significance level of any results
for tests not including the additional moderator.
The hierarchical multiple regression and moderated multiple regression tests used
to evaluate study hypotheses, and the t-tests used to compare residuals, require that
certain statistical assumptions be met. Univariate linear relationships between each
predictor and criterion are assumed (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). These relationships were
tested by examining scatter plots and correlations. All relationships appeared to be linear.
PO fit had a significant positive relationship with each motivation to lead criterion, and
idealism had a significant negative relationship with each motivation to lead criterion.
Therefore, the linearity assumption appeared to have been met.
102
The relativism moderator had a significant positive relationship with the non-
calculative and social-normative motivation to lead criteria, and a significant negative
relationship with the PO fit predictor and the affective-identity motivation to lead
criterion. Although it had been thought that a moderator and predictor should not be
related (Baron & Kenny, 1986), it was later found that this concern was unfounded
(Aguinis, 2004). Kenny (2004) also later stated that correlation between predictor and
moderator has no special interpretation.
Univariate normality for all predictor and criterion variables was examined using
histograms and normal probability plots (see Figure 4 through Figure 17 of Appendix D).
All skewness and kurtosis values were between -1 and 1. Because skewness for PO fit
approached -1 at -.95, a square root transformation was performed. However, although
there was some improvement in skewness, using the transformed variable did not change
the overall significance or direction of the effects for regression. Therefore, the
transformed variable was not used.
Examination of plots for residual versus predicted values, and histograms and
normal probability plots of the regression standardized residuals indicated that the
homoscedasticity (homogeneity of residual variance) assumption was not violated and
that the residuals were normally distributed.
Examination of the Durbin-Watson statistic for each regression performed
showed that the independence of residuals assumption was not violated. All statistics
were within the acceptable range of 1.50 to 2.50.
The homogeneity of error variance assumption, which requires that the
distribution of residuals remain constant across moderator groups, must be met for
103
moderated multiple regression using categorical moderators. Although the regressions in
the present study use continuous moderators, subgroups were created using a median split
to test this assumption with Aguinis’ (2008) ALTMMR tool. No violations of this
assumption were detected.
Multicollinearity between predictors and controls was checked by examining the
variance tolerance statistics for each regression coefficient. All predictors and controls,
with the exception of the professional job level (with a variance tolerance of .07), had a
variance tolerance larger then .10, indicating most predictors and controls were not highly
correlated (de Vaus, 2002).
Hypothesis Testing Procedure
All hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multiple regression or moderated
multiple regression. Predictors were mean centered before being entered. Backward
elimination was used to exclude redundant control variables for each regression equation.
The set of dummy-coded variables for each control variable was entered in a separate
step. When the R2 change value was significant (p < .05) for a step and the set had at least
one statistically significant regression coefficient (also at p < .05) in the final step, the set
of dummy-coded control variables was used in the next version of the regression (Hardy,
1993). This procedure was repeated until only dummy-coded control variable sets that
contributed significantly to the model were retained. Note that for each regression, the
backward elimination procedure was performed exactly twice. Also note that the some
high school educational level group was empty and was not included in this analysis.
After control variables were selected for each regression, new baseline
regressions were performed. Control variables were entered first to observe the predictor
104
or interaction effect after accounting for differences attributable to the control variables.
Each set of selected dummy-coded control variables was entered in a separate step. For
each hierarchical multiple regression the predictor variable was then entered in the final
step. For each moderated multiple regression the predictor variables were entered in the
next step, and the interaction term was entered in the final step.
The baseline regressions included all outliers. Outliers were then removed by
deleting cases with standardized residuals with absolute values greater than three.
Revised regressions were then performed. None of the revised regressions differed in
direction or significance level from the baseline, and the R2 values did not vary from the
baseline by more than 2%. Therefore, the results of the baseline models were used to
evaluate all hypotheses.
Effect size was calculated for each regression, and confidence intervals are given
in all regression tables (Soper, 2007b; Soper, 2008). Reported effect size magnitude is
characterized here as small at .01, medium at .09, and large at .25 (Cohen, 1988, pp. 75-
107). A posteriori power analysis was not performed, as power analysis is considered
appropriate for study design rather than data analysis (Hoenig & Heisey, 2001; Lenth,
2001; Zumbo & Hubley, 1998).
This study had a finite number of a priori inferences, which reduces concerns for
Type I errors (Hochberg & Tamhane, 1987). However, given that multiple comparisons
may have inflated Type I error, two methods were used as controls during hypothesis
testing. First, the experimentwise Type I error rate was controlled for multiple
comparisons by using a Bonferroni adjusted statistical significance level. Families were
defined by grouping hypotheses which were similar in content and use (Hochberg &
105
Tarhane). Each question (the relationship of PO fit and motivation to lead; the
relationship of PO fit, relativism, and motivation to lead; and the relationship of idealism
and motivation to lead) was considered an experimental family using this guideline,
giving a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .0167 (.05/3).
Second, Benjamini and Hochberg’s (1995) false discovery rate (FDR) method,
which is considered liberal but suitable for a priori inference testing (Anderson,
Burnham, & Thompson, 2000), was used. This method controls the proportion of errors
among rejected null hypotheses. This preserves power by controlling the most relevant
errors. The significance level cutpoint found using this method was p <= .012, meaning
any null hypothesis with a statistical significance greater than .012 was accepted. The
experimentwise Bonferroni method and the FDR method produced the same set of
accepted null hypotheses. For familywise Type I error, all significance tests used this
same level by way of the Fisher method. Each test of significance for the R2 change of
each step is considered an omnibus test for significance that protects the tests for
coeffiecients within it. This is the suggested method for control of Type I error rates for
multiple regression due to multiple comparison given by Cohen and Cohen (1983, pp.
172-176) and is offered as a way to control Type I error rate without losing a great deal of
power by inflating the Type II error rate.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing for PO fit and motivation to lead.
The present study questioned the extent to which lower PO fit predicts lower
general, affective-identity, non-calculative, and social-normative motivation to lead. It
was hypothesized that lower PO fit would predict lower levels of each motivation to lead
106
type, over and above personal, job, and organization characteristics. A competing
hypothesis that PO fit would not relate to affective-identity motivation to lead was also
included. Details of the regression analyses used to test these hypotheses can be found in
Table 20 through Table 23 in Appendix D.
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict general
motivation to lead from PO fit, over and above the control variables leadership
experience and job level. PO fit demonstrated a significant effect on general motivation
to lead, β = .15, t[1013] = 4.96, p < .001, ƒ2 = .02. The results of the analysis indicated
that PO fit accounted for a small but significant proportion of general motivation to lead
variance after controlling for characteristics, R2 change = .02, F(1, 1013) = 24.60, p <
.001. In other words, employees with similar characteristics who are lower in PO fit are
more likely to be lower in general motivation to lead, making individuals with low PO fit
less likely to assume leadership roles. Hypothesis 1 was supported.
As PO fit was found to be related to affective-identity motivation to lead,
hypothesis 2a was not supported. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was
conducted to predict affective-identity motivation to lead from PO fit, over and above the
control variables leadership experience and job level. PO fit demonstrated a significant
effect on affective-identity motivation to lead, β = .08, t[1013] = 2.52, p = .007, ƒ2 = .01.
The results of the analysis indicated that PO fit accounted for a small but significant
proportion of affective-identity motivation to lead variance after controlling for
characteristics, R2 change = .01, F(1, 1013) = 7.34, p = .007. In other words, employees
with similar characteristics who are lower in PO fit are more likely to be lower in
107
affective-identity motivation to lead, making individuals with low PO fit less likely to
view themselves as having leadership ability. Hypothesis 2b was supported.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict non-
calculative motivation to lead from PO fit, over and above the control variables gender,
leadership experience, ethnicity, and job level. PO fit demonstrated a significant effect on
non-calculative motivation to lead, β = .12, t[1008] = 3.93, p < .001, ƒ2 = .02. The results
of the analysis indicated that PO fit accounted for a small but significant proportion of
non-calculative motivation to lead variance after controlling for characteristics, R2 change
= .01, F(1, 1008) = 15.41, p < .001. In other words, employees with similar
characteristics who are lower in PO fit are more likely to be lower in non-calculative
motivation to lead, making individuals with low PO fit more likely to calculate the costs
of leadership when deciding to take a leadership role. Hypothesis 3 was supported.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict social-
normative motivation to lead from PO fit, over and above the control variable gender. PO
fit demonstrated a significant effect on social-normative motivation to lead, β = .15,
t[1021] = 4.81, p < .001, ƒ2 = .02. The results of the analysis indicated that PO fit
accounted for a small but significant proportion of social-normative motivation to lead
variance after controlling for characteristics, R2 change = .02, F(1, 1021) = 23.14, p <
.001. In other words, employees with similar characteristics who are lower in PO fit are
more likely to be lower in social-normative motivation to lead, making individuals with
low PO fit less likely to lead due to a sense of obligation to the group. Hypothesis 4 was
supported.
108
Hypothesis testing for PO fit, relativism, and motivation to lead.
The present study questioned the extent to which lower PO fit predicts lower
general, affective-identity, non-calculative, and social-normative motivation to lead when
PO fit is moderated by relativism. It was hypothesized that lower PO fit would predict
lower levels of each motivation to lead type, over and above personal, job, and
organization characteristics, but only when relativism was low. That is, individuals who
believe in universal moral rules would be more likely to be influenced by lower PO fit.
Further, it was hypothesized that relativists would not be influenced by lower PO fit at
all. Details of the regression analyses used to test these hypotheses can be found in Table
24 through Table 27 in Appendix D.
A moderated multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict general
motivation to lead from the interaction of PO fit and relativism, over and above the
control variables leadership experience and job level. The interaction of PO fit and
relativism did not demonstrate a significant effect on general motivation to lead, β = .04,
t[1011] = 1.37, p = .17, ƒ2 = .14. The results of the analysis indicated that the interaction
of PO fit and relativism did not account for a significant proportion of general motivation
to lead variance after controlling for characteristics, R2 change = .002, F(1, 1011) = 1.81,
p = .17. The slopes for both high (+1 SD, β = .15, p < .001) and low (-1 SD, β = .09, p =
.005) relativism groups were significant and positive, but the interaction was not
statistically significant. In other words, employees with similar characteristics who are
lower in PO fit are more likely to be lower in general motivation to lead, whether or not
they believe in a universal moral code. Hypothesis 5 was not supported.
109
A moderated multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict affective-
identity motivation to lead from the interaction of PO fit and relativism, over and above
the control variables leadership experience and job level. The interaction of PO fit and
relativism did not demonstrate a significant effect on affective-identity motivation to
lead, β = .06, t[1011] = 1.95, p = .05, ƒ2 = .12. The results of the analysis indicated that
the interaction of PO fit and relativism did not account for a significant proportion of
affective-identity motivation to lead variance after controlling for characteristics, R2
change = .003, F(1, 1011) = 3.80, p = .05. The slope for the high relativism group was
significant and positive (+1 SD, β = .17, p < .001), the slope for the low relativism group
was not significant (-1 SD, β = .03, p = .259), and the interaction was not statistically
significant. In other words, employees with similar characteristics who are lower in PO
fit are more likely to be lower in affective-identity motivation to lead, whether or not they
believe in a universal moral code. Hypothesis 6 was not supported.
A moderated multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict non-
calculative motivation to lead from the interaction of PO fit and relativism, over and
above the control variables gender, leadership experience, ethnicity, and job level. The
interaction of PO fit and relativism did not demonstrate a significant effect on non-
calculative motivation to lead, β = .002, t[1006] = .539, p = .59, ƒ2 = .09. The results of
the analysis indicated that the interaction of PO fit and relativism did not account for a
significant proportion of non-calculative motivation to lead variance after controlling for
characteristics, R2 change < .001, F(1, 1006) = .29, p = .59. The slopes for both high (+1
SD, β = .16, p < .001) and low (-1 SD, β = .12, p = .015) relativism groups were
significant and positive, but the interaction was not statistically significant. In other
110
words, employees with similar characteristics who are lower in PO fit are more likely to
be lower in non-calculative motivation to lead, whether or not they believe in a universal
moral code. Hypothesis 7 was not supported.
A moderated multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict social-
normative motivation to lead from the interaction of PO fit and relativism, over and
above the control variable gender. The interaction of PO fit and relativism did not
demonstrate a significant effect on social-normative motivation to lead, β = .01, t[1019] =
.436, p = .66, ƒ2 = .06. The results of the analysis indicated that the interaction of PO fit
and relativism did not account for a significant proportion of social-normative motivation
to lead variance after controlling for characteristics, R2 change < .001, F(1, 1019) = .19, p
= .66. The slopes for both high (+1 SD, β = .16, p < .001) and low (-1 SD, β =.13, p =
.002) relativism groups were significant and positive, but the interaction was not
statistically significant. In other words, employees with similar characteristics who are
lower in PO fit are more likely to be lower in social-normative motivation to lead,
whether or not they believe in a universal moral code. Hypothesis 8 was not supported.
Hypothesis testing for idealism and motivation to lead.
The present study questioned the extent to which higher idealism predicts lower
general, affective-identity, non-calculative, and social-normative motivation to lead. It
was hypothesized that higher idealism would predict lower levels of each motivation to
lead type, over and above personal, job, and organization characteristics. A competing
hypothesis that idealism would not relate to affective-identity motivation to lead was also
included. Details of the regression analyses used to test these hypotheses can be found in
Table 28 through Table 31 in Appendix D.
111
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict general
motivation to lead from idealism, over and above the control variables leadership
experience and job level. Idealism demonstrated a significant effect on general
motivation to lead, β = -.13, t[1013] = - 4.26, p < .001, ƒ2 = .02. The results of the
analysis indicated that idealism accounted for a small but significant proportion of
general motivation to lead variance after controlling for characteristics, R2 change = .02,
F(1, 1013) = 18.12, p < .001. In other words, employees with similar characteristics who
are idealistic are more likely to be lower in general motivation to lead, making idealists
less likely to assume leadership roles. Hypothesis 9 was supported.
As idealism was found to be related to affective-identity motivation to lead,
hypothesis 10a was not supported. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was
conducted to predict affective-identity motivation to lead from idealism, over and above
the control variables leadership experience and job level. Idealism demonstrated a
significant effect on affective-identity motivation to lead, β = -.09, t[1013] = -2.86, p =
.004, ƒ2 = .01. The results of the analysis indicated that idealism accounted for a small but
significant proportion of affective-identity motivation to lead variance after controlling
for characteristics, R2 change = .01, F(1, 1013) = 8.16, p = .004. In other words,
employees with similar characteristics who are idealistic are more likely to be lower in
affective-identity motivation to lead, making idealists less likely to view themselves as
having leadership ability. Hypothesis 10b was supported.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict non-
calculative motivation to lead from idealism, over and above the control variables gender,
leadership experience, ethnicity, and job level. Idealism demonstrated a significant effect
112
on non-calculative motivation to lead, β = -12, t[1008] = -3.93, p < .001, ƒ2 = .02. The
results of the analysis indicated that idealism accounted for a small but significant
proportion of non-calculative motivation to lead variance after controlling for
characteristics, R2 change = .01, F(1, 1008) = 15.45, p < .001. In other words, employees
with similar characteristics who are idealistic are more likely to be lower in non-
calculative motivation to lead, making idealists more likely to calculate the costs of
leadership when deciding to take a leadership role. Hypothesis 11 was supported.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict social-
normative motivation to lead from idealism, over and above the control variable gender.
Idealism did not demonstrate a significant effect on social-normative motivation to lead,
β = -.07, t[1021] = -2.21, p = .027, ƒ2 = .01. The results indicated that idealism did not
account for a significant proportion of social-normative motivation to lead variance after
controlling for characteristics, R2 change = .01, F(1, 1021) = 4.89, p = .027. In other
words, employees with similar characteristics who are idealistic are not more likely to be
lower in social-normative motivation to lead. Although hypothesis 12 was not supported,
it should be noted that if a non-adjusted significance level (p = .05) were used, hypothesis
12 would be supported. This suggests that weak or tentative support for this hypothesis
could be considered.
Summary of Findings
The study results are depicted in Figure 3. Support was found for all hypothesized
predictions of lower motivation to lead from lower PO fit, over and above personal, job,
and organization characteristics. No support was found for any of the hypotheses
proposing that the interaction of PO fit and relativism would predict motivation to lead.
113
-
- - -
+ +
+ +
General Motivation to Lead
Affective - Identity Motivation to Lead
Non-Calculative Motivation to Lead
Social - Normative Motivation to Lead
Person - Organization Fit
Idealism
Figure 3. Revised model: Person-organization fit predicting motivation to lead, and idealism predicting motivation to lead.
Support was found for hypothesized predictions of lower general, affective-
identity, and non-calculative motivation to lead from higher idealism. Although not
statistically significant under the Bonferroni adjusted alpha level (.0167), prediction of
social-normative motivation to lead from idealism was significant, at p = .027, under the
non-adjusted alpha level (p = .05). Given this borderline statistical significance,
hypothesis 12 concerning the relationship between higher idealism and lower social-
normative motivation to lead will be considered to have received limited support, and this
support will be interpreted with caution when discussed.
114
Supplemental Analysis
Although examining relationships between characteristics and study variables was
not a goal for this study, it has been suggested that PO fit research has neglected group
differences (Arthur et al., 2006), and that moral philosophy research could also benefit
from a better understanding of group differences (Forsyth et al., 2008). Further,
motivation to lead is a new construct that would benefit from additional findings
regarding group differences. Therefore, supplemental analysis was preformed to explore
differences based on personal, job, and organization characteristics.
Spearman rank order correlation tests found several relationships of note (see
Table 7 for details). Older workers with more education, work experience, and
organization tenure were less idealistic, and therefore more pragmatic. Individuals at
higher job levels, and with more leadership experience at larger organizations, were
found to have a stronger belief in universal moral codes, and would therefore be less
likely to consider context when making ethical decisions.
Individuals with more education and leadership experience, and a higher position
in the organization, were more likely to perceive that the values of the organization fit
their own. However, the perception of PO fit decreased for employees of larger
organizations.
More educated individuals viewed themselves as leaders and were more likely to
enjoy leading. Further, older participants, with more experience and time with the
organization, were less likely to calculate the costs of leadership when deciding to take a
leadership role.
115
Point biserial correlation tests found several significant relationships with study
variables for gender and employment status (details appear in Table 7). In general,
women were less motivated to lead, but they were also less likely to calculate the costs of
leading. Women did not see themselves as leaders, and they were less likely to lead due
to a sense of duty. Women were also more likely to consider situation when making
ethical decisions. Part timers were significantly more idealistic, and less motivated to
lead.
Relationships were explored among study variables and ethnicity using one-way
ANOVA (details are shown in Table 8). Significant differences were revealed across
ethnic groups on idealism, relativism, and non-calculative motivation to lead. Post-hoc
Table 7. Correlations of Characteristics and Study Variables
Characteristic PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead. *p < .05 (two-tailed). **p < .01 (two-tailed).
116
Tukey’s HSD tests were used to compare the five ethnic groups on each of these
variables at a significance level of .05. The Asian group was more likely to calculate the
costs of leading than the White group, the Black group, and the Other group. The Asian
group was also more idealistic and less pragmatic than the White group and the Other
group. However, the White group was more likely to believe in universal moral codes
than the Hispanic group and the Black group. Further, the Other group was more likely to
depend on universal moral codes than the Hispanic group.
Table 8. One-Way Analyses of Variance for Ethnicity on Study Variables
Study Variable SS MS F (4, 1019)
PO fit Between groups 31.17 7.79 .34
Within groups 23,615.57 23.18
Idealism Between groups 669.89 167.47 3.41**
Within groups 50,093.20 52.92
Relativism Between groups 2052.48 513.12 9.70***
Within groups 53,920.40 49.16
AIMTL Between groups 53.08 13.27 .36
Within groups 37,386.55 36.69
NCMTL Between groups 552.50 138.13 4.28**
Within groups 32,924.42 32.31
SNMTL Between groups 145.72 36.43 1.47
Within groups 25,291.64 24.82
GMTL Between groups 68.30 17.07 1.01
Within groups 17,191.81 16.87
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GM = general motivation to lead. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.
117
Chapter 5: Discussion
The primary goal of the present study was to explore the relationships between
person-organization fit, moral philosophy, and motivation to lead by focusing on these
questions.
1. To what extent does PO fit predict general, affective-identity, non-calculative,
and social-normative motivation to lead among employed individuals, over
and above personal, job, and organization characteristics?
2. To what extent does relativism moderate PO fit’s prediction of general,
affective-identity, non-calculative, and social-normative motivation to lead
among employed individuals, over and above personal, job, and organization
characteristics?
3. To what extent does idealism predict general, affective-identity, non-
calculative, and social-normative motivation to lead among employed
individuals, over and above personal, job, and organization characteristics?
The study results showed that lower PO fit consistently predicted lower general
motivation to lead, and lower levels for all three dimensions of motivation to lead.
However, contrary to hypotheses, none of these relationships was moderated by
relativism. Higher idealism was found to predict lower general, affective-identity, and
non-calculative motivation to lead. However, the results for social-normative motivation
to lead were not definitive. Although idealism was significantly negatively correlated
with social-normative motivation to lead, the regression model was not significant under
the Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .0167. However, the regression model was
significant using a non-adjusted alpha level of .05. This chapter presents conclusions
118
drawn from these results, practical implications, study limitations, and recommendations
for future research.
Conclusions for PO Fit and Motivation to Lead
This study showed that individuals who do not share the values of their
organization are less attracted to leading and less likely to see themselves as having
leadership qualities. van Vianen and Stoelhorst (2007) suggest that, based on behavioral
ecology theory, individuals prefer to emulate similar successful others. As employees
with low PO fit do not share the values of their leadership, they are less likely to emulate
them, and would therefore have less interest in leading. The findings of the present study
support this scenario and demonstrate that the self-selection away from promotions
suggested by Nicholson (2005) is occurring. Further, as leaders are known to promote
individuals to whom they are similar (Giberson et al., 2005), employees with low PO fit
may also be excluded from leadership opportunities. In essence, those with low PO fit do
not have the opportunity to gain the leadership experience and leadership self-efficacy
that promotes motivation to lead.
The results indicated that low PO fit individuals calculate and consider the costs
of leadership. This is most likely due to the high salience of costs for those who differ in
values, as reported by Whetstone (2001) and Papavero (1999). In particular, Billsberry et
al.’s (2005) finding that work-life balance was important to lower-level employees, but
not to those at higher levels, is telling given the results of the present study. Valuing
work-life balance when the organization does not may indicate a serious cost of leading
that decreases non-calculative motivation to lead, populating management with those
who are less likely to value it. The present study also showed that those who do not share
119
values are less motivated to lead due to feelings of obligation and duty to the group. This
supports previous findings that PO fit encourages prosocial behaviors (Posner, 1992) and
organizational citizenship behaviors (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). In addition,
individuals who do not feel a duty to lead are less accepting of social hierarchies,
preferring social equality (Chan, 1999). This may explain their reluctance to advance in
the organizational hierarchy when low PO fit is due to a mismatch in values regarding
social dominance type. An individual who prefers social hierarchy might be hesitant to
lead in a hierarchy attenuating organization, and someone who believes in social
egalitarianism may avoid leadership in an organization that is hierarchy enhancing (Haley
& Sidanius, 2005).
Most importantly, this study introduced an outcome for PO fit that has never been
considered before, with the potential to impact both the individual and the organization.
In addition, these findings support results from a past qualitative study that indicated
values incongruence as a cause for promotion rejection (Papavero, 1999). This study also
adds to the literature on PO fit and incumbents, which is limited (Billsberry, 2004). For
example, the fact that lower PO fit predicts lower motivation to lead provides an
explanation for Bretz and Judge’s (1992) findings that lower PO fit leads to lower levels
of success.
The findings of this study indicated that, for incumbents, low PO fit leads to
outcomes other than attrition, which, by extension, gives a new dimension to attraction-
selection-attrition theory. That is, a new mechanism of homogenization was identified by
which homogenization at higher levels becomes concentrated. This mechanism may have
an inordinate impact on the organization, as it mostly affects higher levels by limiting the
120
leadership pool. This also provides an explanation for Bretz et al.’s (1989) contention that
values are more homogenous at higher levels.
This study provided early evidence that situation influences motivation to lead.
The finding that PO fit predicts motivation to lead also provides evidence of a
phenomenon that fits the integrated model of motivation and commitment proposed by
Meyer, Becker, and Vandenberghe (2007). When PO fit is low, low commitment results,
leading to a prevention focus (the fulfillment of obligations rather than working to
advance ideals), and a reliance on external goal regulation. A less difficult goal is then
chosen (i.e., a non-leadership role) and less effort and persistence are exerted towards that
goal. Non-discretionary behavior, rather than discretionary behavior, is then exhibited in
the non-leadership role. Finally, non-discretionary behavior leads to lowered outcome
expectancy and satisfaction, which then leads to lowered self-efficacy. This further
reinforces a prevention focus and external goal regulation. This reveals the process by
which situation influences the outcomes that preclude leadership experiences, resulting in
lower motivation to lead. This model also provides direction for temporal PO fit research,
as goal regulation is expected to change in response to external and internal conditions.
Conclusions for PO Fit, Relativism, and Motivation to Lead
This study predicted an interaction form where those low in relativism, who
believe in universal moral rules, would experience lower motivation to lead when PO fit
is lower, and the motivation to lead of those high in relativism would not be affected by
lower PO fit. However, no interactions were found and none of these hypotheses were
supported. Although ethical conflict could result from a mismatch in values, either
conflict was not present, or relativism did not impact the reaction to this conflict in such a
121
way that motivation to lead was affected. It is possible that low PO fit is not equivalent,
or even similar to, ethical conflict, or that low PO fit does not necessarily imply ethical
conflict.
Even for the low relativist (i.e., universalist), external forces, such as the need for
job security, may create a coping mechanism that allows moral rules to be overridden.
Strength of conviction regarding moral codes may vary with economic opportunity or
individual characteristics such as self-efficacy and self-confidence. That is, the severity
of consequences may affect the salience of personal moral values (Forsyth, 1992). Just as
commitment can be forced due to fear or obligation (Ashman & Winstanley, 2006),
motivation to advance to increased rewards while in a state of low PO fit may be subject
to forces more salient than moral philosophy.
Forsyth (1992) points out that moral philosophies influence action only when they
are accessible. Certain personal values may be unclear to the individual and have varying
priorities. Social pressures may also cause organizational values to be internalized by the
individual, and this may make low PO fit less salient (Edwards & Shipp, 2007) and cause
low relativism to become irrelevant. It is also possible that organizational moral codes are
generally unclear, in which case belief in the possibility (or impossibility) of universal
moral codes is irrelevant, as the moral codes of the context are subject to individual
interpretation and rationalization.
Conclusions for Idealism and Motivation to Lead
This may be the first empirical study to consider idealism in relation to motivation
to lead. The finding that idealists are less motivated to lead adds a new individual
difference to the current motivation to lead model. It also introduces a new outcome for
122
idealism. Although uncovering explanations for this finding was not a goal of this study,
several clues are suggested by the literature. The idealist focuses on costs and negative
consequences for others (Forsyth, 1992), and this is probably key to their low motivation
to lead. To limit their exposure to decision making that might bring negative
consequences for others, idealists may avoid leadership roles. Idealists are also more
committed to their professions (Shafer et al., 2002a) and they may see abandonment of
profession as a cost and loss of investment. If an idealist is dedicated to the principles of
their profession, this may also reduce attraction to a new leadership role where
professional ethics and goals could be challenged. Idealists are conscientious, and
conscientiousness is an antecedent of affective-identity and social-normative motivation
to lead (Chan, 1999). However, Forsyth (1992) suggests that idealists may be very hard
on themselves regarding failure, which may affect their estimation of their own
leadership self-efficacy, thus lowering motivation to lead.
Idealists are intrinsically motivated (Bierly et al., in press). As such, they would
prefer self-regulation and self-management, described by Pinder (2008) as monitoring
and evaluation of a person’s own behavior, and self-administration of rewards and
sanctions. This conclusion is in line with Greguras and Diefendorff’s (in press) finding
that autonomy mediated the relationship between PO fit and affective organizational
commitment, i.e., autonomy need satisfaction directly predicted commitment. Individuals
who rejected promotions have been found to consider themselves to be intrinsically
motivated (Papavero, 1999). Further, these individuals found the requirement to manage
others who are externally motivated to be a barrier to advancement. This excerpt
describes their strong feelings on the subject.
123
Another engineer explained that, when managing a group of talented and motivated people, a manager does not have to rely on wielding power in the form of salary reviews in order to produce good work. The engineers prefer working with people who do good work because they want to, not because they are being forced to. This was a common theme for all of the engineers. They are not interested in persuading or manipulating people: "I tend to prefer to have people do what they want to do because they want to do it rather than because you're telling them." (Papavero, p. 57)
The idealist’s preference for self-regulation and self-management gives an additional
explanation for their low motivation to lead.
Given the weak support for lower idealism predicting lower social-normative
motivation to lead, it appears that idealists do feel an obligation to lead. As
conscientiousness is both an antecedent of social-normative motivation to lead (Chan,
1999) and an attribute of the idealist (Forsyth, 1992), there may be a greater sense of duty
regarding leading. Further, this finding could be due to the idealist’s concern for
obedience (Forsyth), which might dull the need for negative consequence avoidance and
create higher salience for organizational norms. Idealists face a choice between being
obedient and conforming to organizational norms by taking a leadership role (and
perhaps hoping that these norms can be changed), or rejecting leadership roles due to
conflicts with personal ideals. The less conclusive results for social-normative motivation
to lead may reflect the tension produced by these choices.
Practical Implications
Meyer et al. (2004) proposed that goal choice, self-efficacy, and goal mechanisms
from motivation theory, and forms, foci, and bases of commitment from commitment
theory could be integrated to better account for situation. One suggestion by Meyer et al.
is that in times of economic uncertainty, the motivation provided by commitment can still
be harnessed by changing the foci of commitment to targets with goals compatible with
124
the organization (e.g., a focus on profession rather than organization). Likewise,
motivation to lead might be increased during times of low PO fit by changing the foci to
informal leadership roles that decrease the need for identification with management and
the organization, but continue to support goals compatible with the organization.
The advancement processes and reward structures of organizations should be
examined to determine if they are properly aligned in support of organizational goals
(Schein, 2004). If the organization desires diversity, the advancement process and reward
structure should support this goal (Nicholson, 2005). Individuals who do not value
dominance may experience low motivation to lead when placed in situations where only
dominance is valued and rewarded (Nicholson). Further, the organizational design itself
could reflect values of competition and political game playing that may not be attractive
to individuals who possess valuable knowledge and leadership ability (Nicholson;
Papavero, 1999). These individuals may be women, individuals in ethnic groups
underrepresented in current leadership, or members of any group with conflicting values.
Regarding the impact of organizational designs on advancement decisions, Nicholson
states that these:
discriminate both directly and indirectly against the accession of women to leadership positions, not least because of the self-selection of women away from them, on the grounds that such positions are unattractive and their demands are felt to be a poor fit with their style. (p. 406)
The exclusion of idealists from leadership could also have a detrimental effect.
Although not known for their pragmatism, they are known for their creativity (Bierly et
al., in press), and their strategic input would balance and inform decisions. Idealists,
perhaps with roles as thought leaders, have the potential to inspire their colleagues to
broaden their horizons. The inclusion of idealists could help leadership seek alternatives
125
that produce more benefit for employees, the community, and the environment, while still
meeting organizational goals. Intrinsically motivated idealists might receive special
benefit from programs that offer more autonomy, such as opportunities for self-
management.
Complementary fit is already exploited by organizations that recruit executives
externally to instigate change. Another demonstration of this principle is the terminology
used in the media regarding the cabinet of president-elect Obama, which is being called a
team of rivals (borrowing from Lincoln’s theory of team formation [Goodwin, 2005])
that will promote robust debates. The same process could be exercised with internal
applicants by assessing the complementary PO fit of incumbents during promotion
planning.
Low PO fit can be used as a gap-analysis tool at the organizational level to
diagnose misalignments between espoused and operational values. Just as individual
moral incongruence can spur self-development (Rodriguez, 2005) misalignment at the
organizational level can be used to integrate diverse values to transform the organization.
Specifically, points of low PO fit can be identified at the group or individual level, and
information gathered about the nature of this phenomenon could be used to increase the
moral congruence of the organization. A promotion rejection interview could be used,
much like an exit interview, to determine if low PO fit is affecting motivation to lead.
These would be initial steps in an exploration that could lead to the discovery of points of
resistance to the status quo. The purpose of identifying these points is not necessarily to
change or reduce resistance. Rather, resistance can identify areas for improvement in the
126
current organizational design and may indicate organizational values that should be
questioned.
Study Limitations
External validity for this study was limited by a non-random sample. However,
very little organizational research uses random sampling, making generalizability
commonly problematic. Sample selection bias and range restriction were likely present as
the sample included mostly highly educated and high job level individuals, and a
relatively smaller number of friends and work colleagues. In addition, common method
bias may have been present, as all predictors and criteria were presented in a single
instrument. Although the survey was administered online and offered complete
anonymity to participants, social desirability may have affected the results, especially
with more sensitive questions, such as those regarding moral philosophy.
All questions posed by participants were answered immediately. However, this
may not have been as effective as having the researcher physically present when the
survey was administered. The present study was not designed to examine the meaning
inferred by participants for the term “organization” when perceived PO fit was measured.
However, one participant questioned the connotation of this term. Inquiries on the
meaning of several moral philosophy questions were also answered. This underlines the
importance of clarity on context and meaning of terms in future research in these areas.
Members of the military participated in this study, as the Northcentral University
community included service men and women. The impact of this group was not
anticipated. No category for public, private, or military sector was included in the survey.
A previous meta-analysis found that organizational commitment measures did not differ
127
by private and public sector (Steinhaus & Perry, 1996). So this limitation may be minimal
for these groups. However, although it may have been better to do so, the military group
was not differentiated, so military organizations could not be treated as a separate group
in the analysis. As the decisions made by members of the military are certainly more
serious and pressing, and governed by more strict guidelines and a duty to defend one’s
country, the results for this group are likely to be more complex and would likely differ
from private and public organizations.
Recommendations for Future Motivation to Lead Research
The situational factors suggested by the bases of commitment, as identified by
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), give direction for other situations that may influence
motivation to lead. As the bases of affective commitment include the shared values
reflective of PO fit, the other bases for this form of commitment are the most strongly
suggested by the current findings. These include any situation that influences
involvement, or promotes identification with an organization or objective. Other
situational factors suggested by normative and continuance commitment that may
influence motivation to lead include a lack of alternatives and a sense of obligation due to
a psychological contract. Situational factors in these areas are recommended as
candidates for future research to further develop a situational model of motivation to lead.
More research is needed to compare commitment and motivation to lead. As these
concepts are differentiated, the relationship between PO fit and motivation to lead may be
partially explained by commitment. Motivation to lead may be sourced in commitment,
or commitment may motivate an individual to take a leadership role. Westerman (1997)
proposes that values congruence feeds organizational commitment, which then
128
contributes to the intention to remain with the organization. Likewise, PO fit could
increase organizational commitment, which could, in turn, increase motivation to lead.
Conversely, Edwards and Shipp (2007) suggest that, as commitment is identification with
and involvement with the organization, it could be assumed that leaders are higher in
organizational commitment. More research comparing commitment and motivation to
lead would be useful. As Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) motivation to lead construct is
relatively new, research based on the premise that motivation to lead and organizational
commitment are related could utilize the relatively rich body of knowledge already
existing for organizational commitment.
This study found that both idealists and individuals experiencing low PO fit are
self-selecting away from leadership positions. However, it is still not known if these
individuals are also systematically excluded from leadership positions. Organizational
barriers to advancement due to low PO fit or idealism, such as withholding of
opportunity, could lead to internalized suppression of the motivation to lead, and these
forces could accumulate and compound over time (Fassinger, 2008). Future research
could explore these outcomes by differentiating the relative contribution of the
organization via exclusion versus self-exclusion by the low PO fit individual or idealist.
Detailed case studies might be best suited to this investigation.
Recommendations for Future PO Fit Research
van Vianen, de Pater, and van Dijk (2007) identified work values categories that
could be used to determine how PO fit on specific values relate to the motivation to lead
dimensions. They describe affective work values as being related to feelings and
emotions, and referring to happiness, good human relationships, and friendships at work.
129
Cognitive work values relate to belief systems about appropriate behaviors, and refer to
broadening one's horizons, contributing to society, and having meaningful work.
Instrumental work values are based on obtaining desired ends like work benefits,
security, and success. van Vianen et al. found cognitive and instrumental values to be
related to turnover intention, but affective values were not. Although value dimensions
are not included in the present study, the differences found by van Vianen et al. indicate
that each motivation to lead dimension may have a different relationship with PO fit
based on each of these values categories.
The present study did not measure differential content or directional differences
for PO fit. Although it was shown that those lower in PO fit were lower in motivation to
lead, it is unknown as to exactly which values were perceived to be different and the
direction of the differences. For example, lower fit on work-life segmentation preferences
could indicate that the individual desires more segmentation while the organization offers
less, or vice versa. One application of measuring directional content would be exploring
the differences in effect for low ethical fit when the ethical level of the individual is
higher than that of the organization. Individuals low in ethical fit in this situation may
experience exclusionary punishment, which could induce low motivation to lead. For
example, “senior executives at Prudential-Bache systematically marginalized, demoted,
and fired individuals who objected to the company’s questionable practices and rewarded
those who went along” (Ashforth & Anand, 2003, p. 33). Ethical individuals within
corrupt environments might self-select away from leadership, as well as being
systematically excluded (Bradley, Brief, & Smith-Crowe, 2008). This exclusion
130
phenomenon, which appears to be occurring in the field, merits further investigation, and
directional ethical fit measurement could be one component used to detect its presence.
Although supplementary fit was the focus of the present study, needs-supplies fit
and its relationship with motivation to lead offers another avenue of research that would
be particularly valuable in a single organization context. This exploration could be
informed by the notion of affordances, which are the relationships between “abilities and
aspects of a situation that enable those abilities” (Jayawickreme & Chemero, 2008, p.
121). Much like assessing the climbability of stairs based on one’s own abilities, the
desire to advance on the corporate ladder and the opportunity supplied by the
organization, could produce varying affordances based on any number of individual and
organizational factors. Hodges and Baron (1992) propose that values themselves could
constrain the perception of affordances. Therefore, even if motivation to lead is initially
high, if values lower the perception of affordance, diverse leaders will not emerge. In
other words, if an individual wishes to lead, but the individual perceives that the
organization does not supply the opportunity and context that would enable them to lead,
the individual may simply conclude that they are unable to lead, decide that leadership is
too costly, or disengage and become unwilling to lead.
Another topic suggested by the present study is the interplay of PO fit and ethical
conflict. Results from the present study suggest that low PO fit does not automatically
imply ethical conflict. Relativism was proposed as a moderator of PO fit and motivation
to lead, in large part because relativism is known to effect reactions to ethical conflict.
However, no interaction was found. This implies that low PO fit is not an antecedent of
ethical conflict. It is possible that, rather than resulting from low PO fit, ethical conflict
131
moderates the relationship between PO fit and motivation to lead. An exploration of this
topic could show whether ethical conflict increases the salience of low PO fit.
On a system level, the introduction of diverse values by promoting those with low
PO fit could change the norms of the organization (Dickson, Resick, & Goldstein, 2008)
and diversify the leader pool, but it is unclear if and when this is desirable. For example,
Lankau et al. (2007) found that perceived values differences in top management teams
increased conflict and reduced commitment. Others have proposed that diversity of
experience, values, and opinions, and the resulting conflict, may assure ethical decisions,
Bendersky, 2003). Future studies may show concretely what is only proposed in the
present study concerning the importance of complementary fit on values at the systems
level. Using another categorization introduced by Ostroff and Schulte (2007), leadership
diversity could offer a compilational perspective, where a group of people, each with
differing values, offers a view that transcends that of a more homogenous group.
Recommendations for Future Moral Philosophy Research
In commitment research, attention has centered on affective commitment and PO
fit because affective commitment is thought to reflect shared values (Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001). The results of the present study saw one difference between
affective-identity motivation to lead and the other motivation to lead dimensions, in that
affective-identity motivation to lead was related negatively to relativism, whereas the
other dimensions were related positively to relativism. That is, individuals with a belief in
universal rules were less likely to feel that they were leadership material. Also, although
only approaching significance (p = .052), an interaction may have been present for PO fit,
132
relativism, and affective-identity motivation to lead, where relativists were less likely to
lead when PO fit was low, and low PO fit had no effect for universalists. Further
investigation of affective-identity motivation to lead may be warranted to determine if,
how, and why it differs from the other dimensions in relation to relativism.
The present study cannot answer the question of exactly why idealists exhibited
consistently low motivation to lead. It seems likely that idealists avoid leadership because
they view this role as requiring them to make decisions that would result in harm to
others. In addition, idealists value obedience (Forsyth, 1992). In a hierarchical
organization that uses command and control that requires acquiescence to authority, the
idealist may anticipate being torn between complying and honoring their principles.
Qualitative research exploring the experiences of idealists in organizations could clarify
the reasons for their low motivation to lead.
Those who are low in motivation to lead because of idealism may still feel some
pull to lead. For example, Ostroff and Schulte (2007) note that an individual response to
low PO fit may be an attempt to remake an environment to be more congruent. A similar
phenomenon may occur for the idealist. An idealist who believes they can provide
benefits for the group without causing harm may attempt to change the system, and then
later retreat from leadership when system resistance is strong enough that it breaks their
resolve (Papavero, 1999). A study of the experiences of idealists (and others) who have
left leadership positions could shed light on this phenomenon.
Idealists are more committed to their professions than their organizations (Shaub
et al., 1993). This suggests a possible negative relationship between person-vocation fit
(PV fit) and motivation to lead. A person with higher PV fit may be more reluctant to
133
move into a leadership position (Papavero, 2007). This topic could be explored by
comparing the relationship between PV fit and motivation to lead, using idealism as a
moderator.
Recommendations for Future Group Differences Research
PO fit did not differ for ethnicity or gender in the present study. This is possibly
due to attributes of the sample, such as the relatively high job level, which could impact
the importance of fit to the individual and the presence of fit itself. Gender and ethnicity
were related to relativism and motivation to lead, especially the non-calculative and
social-normative dimensions. This finding suggests a need for further research exploring
these differences, and organizational recognition of the reality of diverse values and
motivational bases for potential leaders. Top management is known to more closely
match the organization’s culture than lower management and non-management
employees, which is not surprising given that promotions are often based on fit with the
culture (Berthon, 1993). However, little research has explored how membership in groups
with values generally different from dominant organizational cultures relates to
advancement. Qualitative study of the experiences of group members that may be
marginalized and excluded would also be valuable in zeroing in on how values
differences are experienced in the general population of the organization. The study of
socio-cultural group differences for the prediction of motivation to lead from PO fit and
idealism is also warranted, similar to the work of Nwadei (2003) for PO fit and
commitment in the U.S., the Middle East, Africa, and Europe.
134
Epilogue
Motivation to lead decreases due to lower PO fit and higher idealism, which could
lead to increased turnover and lower commitment. These outcomes are especially costly
at higher levels of the organization. Clashes in organizational priorities and personal
values such as work-life balance can be addressed by offering honest portrayals of
expectations, and policies that balance and support both agendas. Shifting the
advancement process from exclusion to inclusion is key. Recognition that definitions of
success vary, and that these definitions may include values such as flexibility and
creativity that seem contrary to existing organizational values, may bring advantage to
the organization willing to recruit and accommodate talented and diverse employees and
management trainees.
Changes could be made to the advancement process to allow advancement
decisions and recommendations to be made by diverse teams that include peers and
subordinates, and top management could provide guidance. Decision makers could be
educated in self-reflection, and individual growth and development. Rather than focusing
on the possible detriments of conflict created by values differences in top teams, leaders
could be educated in viewpoints and team skills that enable constructive use of conflict,
and skills that enable movement to moral congruence.
However, change takes time, and other factors may adjust the color of these
concerns. If organizations become more decentralized and the relationship between
individuals and the organization become more loosely coupled, individuals may be able
to make choices that fit their values, but do not meet other basic needs, such as security
and fair compensation. The role of management may decrease dramatically if
135
technological controls are substituted for management controls. For example, if
employees are guided and monitored electronically, then managers may become obsolete.
If (or rather when) this occurs, the advancement process will be impacted dramatically, as
the corporate ladder will be far shorter and far further removed from the average worker.
Evidence of this transition can be seen in ever increasing income disparity. Strategic
leadership and high-level organizational element manipulation will remain as necessary
skills. However, relationships and linkages between employees and leadership could
become no more than up line reporting of results and productivity monitoring.
Allowances for creative expression at lower levels of the organization would have to be
made, but it is unclear how this would be accomplished.
We may be experiencing a crisis of confidence in organizations that have not
evolved beyond materialist values. Organizations are not democracies and they are not
subject to democratic accountability (Quinn et al., 1997). Anecdotally, a worker who had
recently arrived in the U.S. from China in the late 1990s expressed surprise that she did
not feel free to express her true self in the undemocratic context of the large corporation
in which she worked (personal communication, 1997). She likened the lack of freedom to
that of her homeland. Quinn et al. suggest that we need a democratic conversation among
equals. Otherwise, we will be left with pure instrumentalism, meaning that the least cost
route to advancement will always be taken. Quinn et al. see citizenship as a prerequisite
of virtue and differentiate between pragmatic ethics and vulgar pragmatism. The
unwritten rules of ethical conduct in organizations offer no protection to those who
espouse a foreign ethic (Quinn et al.). Under constant pressure, employees simply give in
and conform, as out of sync attributes must be hidden from those who make promotion
136
decisions (Quinn et al.). It is possible that some individuals who are not motivated to
lead, or are excluded from leadership roles due to low PO fit, are the very individuals
who could introduce us to a more democratic organization. We can welcome this change
by thoughtfully integrating leaders with values known to conflict with the current ethic
through upgraded reward structures and advancement policies.
The present study is value laden, and was conceived from observations in the field
regarding rejections of advancement. As Bennis (2007) points out, leadership is always a
matter of values, which are difficult, to say the least, to research objectively. Bennis calls
for new scholarly forms that are both expansive and rigorous. It is necessary to start a
conversation on how our organizations are designed and controlled, and whether
admittance to leadership levels requires a price that some do not notice or choose to
ignore, some understand and tolerate, and some are not willing to pay. This situation
presents a paradox, where diverse values orientations enable pluralistic leadership, but
individuals select away (or are excluded) from leadership when values differ. However,
these are the people who might be the least resistant to change and who might have the
best chance of moving organizations forward.This subject is sensitive as it involves
questioning existing leadership and the advancement process itself. Individuals who
differ in basic values, especially values of social dominance and control, are unlikely to
be taken into the fold without resistance from the existing culture that may view these
individuals as a threat. But this could change.
It is hoped that this study will generate further research into the role that low PO
fit and idealism play in the advancement process, and how organizations can be
transformed to allow more pluralistic leadership that welcomes the full participation and
137
contributions of all individuals. In Argyris’ (2004) words, “one criterion of a better world
is a better fit between self-actualizing needs of individuals and the requirements of
organizational effectiveness” (p. 379).
138
References
Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression analysis for categorical moderators. New York: Guilford Press.
Aguinis, H. (2008). ALTMMR moderated regression power calculator [Computer software]. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://members.aol.com/IMSAP/altmmr.html
Aguinis, H., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2001). A generalized solution for approximating the power to detect effects of categorical moderator variables using multiple regression. Organizational Research Methods, 4(4), 291-323.
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ambrose, M. L., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2008). Individual moral development and ethical climate: The influence of person-organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 323-333.
Amit, K., Lisak, A., Popper, M., & Gal, R. (2007). Motivation to lead: Research on the motives for undertaking leadership roles in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Military Psychology, 19(3), 137-160.
Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., & Thompson, W. L. (2000). Null hypothesis testing: Problems, prevalence, and an alternative. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 64, 912-923.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 396-402.
Argyris, C. (1954). Organization of a bank. New Haven, CT: Yale Labor and Management Center.
Argyris, C. (2004). Reflections on personality and organization. In B. Schneider, & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and Organizations (pp. 371-385). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Arthur, W. J., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 786-801.
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-52.
Ashforth, B. E., & Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Work organizations as secular religions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 359-370.
139
Ashman, I., & Winstanley, D. (2006). The ethics of organizational commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 142-153.
Atwater, L. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). A process model of leader-follower fit. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives in Organizational Fit (pp. 183-208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Autry, C. W., & Wheeler, A. R. (2005). Post-hire human resource management practices and person-organization fit: A study of blue-collar employees. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(1), 58-75.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bartlett, K. R. (2005). Survey research in organizations. In R. A. Swanson, & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry (pp. 97-114). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Bass, K., Barnett, T., & Brown, G. (1999). Individual difference variables, ethical judgments, and ethical behavioral intentions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 183-205.
Benjamini Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57(1), 289-300.
Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 62, 2–5.
Berthon, P. R. (1993). Psychological type and corporate culture: Relationship and dynamics. International Journal of Management Science, 21(3), 329-344.
Bierly, P. E., III, Kolodinsky, R. W., & Charette, B. J. (in press). Understanding the complex relationship between creativity and ethical ideologies. Journal of Business Ethics.
Billing, Y. D., & Alvesson, M. (1989). Four ways of looking at women and leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5, 63-80.
Billsberry, J. (2004). Selecting for fit: A direct test of Schneider’s selection proposition. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Billsberry, J. (2007). The cooler: A cinematic example of self-serving and organisation-serving fit. Paper presented at the 1st Global e-Conference on Fit. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.open.ac.uk/fitconference/node/17
140
Billsberry, J., Ambrosini, V., Marsh, P. J. G., Moss-Jones, J., & van Meurs, N. (2005). Towards a composite map of organisational person–environment fit. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Annual Conference, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Billsberry, J., Marsh, P. J. G., & Moss-Jones, J. (2004). Mapping organizational members’ sense of fit. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Blau, G. (2000). Job, organizational, and professional context antecedents as predictors of intent for interrole work transitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(3), 330-345.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 211-239.
Boone, C., Olffen, W. V., Witteloostuijn, A. V., & Brabander, B. D. (2004). The genesis of top management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing, 1970-94. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 633-656.
Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the job. The Executive, 5(4), 35-51.
Bowman, J. S. (1976). Managerial ethics in business and government. Business Horizons, 19(5), 48-54.
Bradley, J. C., Brief, A. P., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). The “good” corporation. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The People Make the Place: Dynamic Linkages Between Individuals and Organizations (pp. 175-224). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brenner, S. N., & Molander, E. A. (1977). Is the ethics of business changing? Harvard Business Review, 55(1), 57-71.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology, 42(3), 561-581.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1992). The relationship between person-organization fit and career success (CAHRS Working Paper #92-11). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. Retrieved June 4, 2007 from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/295
Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001). Organizational research methods. London: Sage Publications.
141
Byers, B., & Powers, W. G. (1997). Criminal justice and ethical ideology: An exploration of a loyalty-truthfulness dilemma. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 527-540.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822-834.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294-311.
Caldwell, S. D. (2003). Viewing person-environment fit through the lenses of organizational change: A cross-level study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA.
Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding of the relationships among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 868-882.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Stewart, M., & Manning, J. (2003). Putting personality in social context: Extraversion, emergent leadership, and the availability of rewards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1547-1559.
Cerff, K. (2006). The role of hope, self-efficacy, and motivation to lead in the development of leaders in the South African college student context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University, VA.
Chan, D. (1996). Cognitive misfit of problem-solving style at work: A facet of person-organization fit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 194-207.
Chan, K. (1999). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Chan, K. (2001). Measuring the motivation to lead over time: A 2-year study. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association, Canberra, Australia. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from, http://www.internationalmta.org/Documents/2001/Proceedings2001.pdf
Chan, K., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481-498.
142
Chan, K., Ong, K. C., & Chah, C. (1999). Research and theory on the motivation to lead: Implications for officer selection. Paper presented the NATO Research & Technology Organization Workshop on Officer Selection, Monterey, CA. Retrieved August 10, 2007 from ftp://ftp.rta.nato.int/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-055/MP-055-11.pdf
Chan, K., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The relation between vocational interests and the motivation to lead. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 226-245.
Chan, S. Y. S., & Leung, P. (2006). The effects of accounting students’ ethical reasoning and personal factors on their ethical sensitivity. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(4), 436-457.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Chatman, J. A., Wong, E. M., & Joyce, C. K. (2008). When do people make the place?: Considering the interactionist foundations of the attraction-selection-attrition model. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The People Make the Place: Exploring Dynamic Linkages Between Individuals and Organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chiu, R. K., & Erdener, C. B. (2003). The ethics of peer reporting in Chinese societies: Evidence from Hong Kong and Shanghai. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 335-353.
Choi, J. A. (1998). Stress as a function of person-environment fit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, NY.
Chonko, L. B., Wotruba, T. R., & Loe, T. W. (2003). Ethics code familiarity and usefulness: Views on idealist and relativist managers under varying conditions of turbulence. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3). 237-252.
Cintrón, N. E. (2004). The Effects of biculturalism, emotional intelligence, and acculturation on motivation to lead of expatriate Latina business leaders and entrepreneurs: An exploratory investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University, VA.
Clinebell, S. K., & Clinebell, J. M. (2007). Differences between part-time and full-time employees in the financial services industry. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(2), 157-167.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
143
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
Coldwell, D. A., Billsberry, J., van Meurs, N., & Marsh, P. J. G. (2008). The effects of person-organization ethical fit on employee attraction and retention: Towards a testable explanatory model. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 611-622.
Cui, C. C., Mitchell, V., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Cornwell, B. (2005). Measuring consumers' ethical position in Austria, Britain, Brunei, Hong Kong, and USA. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 57-71.
Cyert, R., & March, J. G. (2002). Behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A. M. A., Priem, R. L., & Gray, D. A. (1995). Top management team characteristics and corporate illegal activity. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 138-170.
Davis, M. A., Andersen, M. G., & Curtis, M. B. (2001). Measuring ethical ideology in business ethics: A critical analysis of the ethics position questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(1), 35-53.
Davis, V. A. (2006). Relationships among subjective workplace fit perceptions, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego, CA.
Day, D. V., & Kilduff, M. (2003). Self-monitoring personality and work relationships: Individual differences in social networks. In M. R. Barrick, & A. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and Work: Reconsidering the Role of Personality in Organizations (pp. 205-228). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
de Vaus, D. (2002). Analyzing social science data: 50 key problems in data analysis. London: Sage.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theories and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Goldstein, H. (2008). Seeking explanations in people, not in the results of their behavior: Twenty-plus years of the attraction-selection-attrition model. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The People Make the Place: Dynamic Linkages Between Individuals and Organizations (pp. 5-36). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
144
Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2007). Professional ethics in science and engineering. Retrieved April 7, 2008 from http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/cd5590/07_11/lectures/L1-intro.pdf
Dukerich, J. M., Nichols, M. L., Elm, D. R., & Vollrath, D. A. (1990). Moral reasoning in groups: Leaders make a difference. Human Relations, 43(5), 473-493.
Eaton, J., & Struthers, C. W. (2002). Using the Internet for organizational research: A study of cynicism in the workplace. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5(4), 305-313.
Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 167-230.
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802-827.
Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 209-258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eichenwald, K. (1995). Serpent on the rock. New York: Harper Business.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 305-332
Erickson, R. W. (2005). Exploring the antecedents of motivation to lead and the affects of collective efficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University, VA.
Fasching, D. J. (1981). A case for corporate and management ethics. California Management Review, 23(4), 62-76.
Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy. American Psychologist, 63(4), 252-268.
Feasel, K. E. (1999). Profiles of personal agency: Ethnocultural variations in self-efficacy beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Finegan, J. E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(2), 149-169.
145
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205-221.
Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175-184.
Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 461-470.
Forsyth, D. R., O'Boyle, E. H., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). East meets West: A meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 813-833.
Fowke, G. K. (1998). Layoffs and survivors' career motivation. Unpublished manuscript, School of Industrial Relations, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225-1244.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91.
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1002-1010.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Goodell, R. (1994). Ethics in American business: Policies, programs, and perceptions: Report of a landmark survey of US employees. Washington, DC: Ethics Resource Center.
Goodpaster, K. E. (2004). Ethics or excellence? Conscience as a check on the unbalanced pursuit of organizational goals. Ivey Business Journal, 68(4), 1-8.
Goodwin, D. K. (2005). Team of rivals: The political genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based surveys? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
146
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (in press). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 43-47.
Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. (2005). Person-organization congruence and the maintenance of group-based social hierarchy: A social dominance perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 167-203.
Hardy, M. A. (1993). Regression with dummy variables. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harman, W. S., Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Felps, W., & Owens, B. P. (2007). The psychology of voluntary employee turnover. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1), 51–54.
Harrison, D. A. (2007). Pitching fits in applied psychological research: Making fit methods fit theory. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 389-416). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 219-230.
Herndon, N. C., Jr., Fraedrich, J. P., & Yeh, Q. (2001). An investigation of moral values and the ethical content of the corporate culture: Taiwanese versus U.S. sales people. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 73-85.
Hiller, N. J. (2005). An examination of leadership beliefs and leadership self-identity: Constructs, correlates, and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Urbana, IL.
Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. C. (1987). Multiple comparison procedures. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hodges, B. H., & Baron, R. H. (1992). Values as constraints on affordances: Perceiving and acting properly. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(3), 263-294.
Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19-24.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoobler, J. M. (2005). Lip service to multiculturalism: Docile bodies of the modern organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 49-56.
147
House, R. J., & Singh, J. V. (1987). Organizational behavior: Some new directions for I-O psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 669-718.
Howard, A., & Wilson, J. A. (1982). Leadership in a declining work ethic. California Management Review, 24, 33-46.
Ivarsson, S. M., & Ekehammar, B. (2001). Women's entry into management: Comparing women managers and non-managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 301-314.
Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, J. (2002). Turning down a promotion. Chronicle Careers. Retrieved June 23, 2005, from http://chronicle.com/jobs/2002/10/2002100901c.htm
Jansen, K., & Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2006). Toward a multi-dimensional theory of person environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 28, 193-212.
Jayawickreme, E., & Chemero, A. (2008). Ecological moral realism: An alternative theoretical framework for studying moral psychology. Review of General Psychology, 12(2), 118-126.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. In B. Staw, & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 26, pp.187-242). New York: Elsevier Science Publications.
Jeter, L. W. (2003). Disconnected: Deceit and betrayal at WorldCom. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Judge, T. A. (2007). The future of person-organization fit research: Comments, observations, and a few suggestions. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 419-445). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Judge, T. A. (2008). The future of person-organization fit research: Problems, opportunities, and a few suggestions. Paper presented at the 2nd Global e-Conference on Fit. Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://www.fitconference.com/2008/key02.pdf
Kabacoff, R. I. (2002). Personal motivations and leadership styles in organizational settings. Paper presented at the 110th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
Karakurum, M. (2005). The effects of person-organization fit on employee job satisfaction, performance and organizational commitment in a Turkish public
148
organization. Unpublished master’s thesis, the Graduate School of Social Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
Kenny, D. (2004). Moderation analysis. Retrieved September 12, 2007, from http://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm
Killeen, L. A., López-Zafra, E., & Eagly, A. H. (2006). Envisioning oneself as a leader: Comparisons of women and men in Spain and the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(3), 312-322.
Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Opportunities and challenges. American Psychologist, 59(2), 105-117.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Jansen, K. J. (2007). Issues of person-organization fit. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 123-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
Kuczmarski, S. S., & Kuczmarski, T. D. (1995). Values-based leadership: Rebuilding employee commitment, performance, and productivity. Darby, PA: Diane Publishing.
Kumar, S. (2007). Moral failures at WorldCom: Cynthia Cooper. Illumine Newsletter of the Kravis Leadership Institute at Claremont McKenna College, p. 5.
Lankau, M. J., Ward, A., Amason, A., Ng, T., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Agle, B. R. (2007). Examining the impact of organizational value dissimilarity in top management teams. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(1), 11-35.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the 21st century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
Leary, M. R., Knight, P. D., & Barnes, B. D. (1986). Ethical ideologies of the Machiavellian. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 75-80.
Leicht, K. T., & Fennell, M. L. (1997). The changing organizational context of professional work. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 215-231.
149
Lenth, R. V. (2001). Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. The American Statistician, 55, 187-193.
Liedtka, J. M. (1989). Value congruence: The interplay of individual and organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(10), 805-815.
Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (1988). Egoism and independence: Entrepreneurial ethics. Organizational Dynamics, 16(3), 64-72.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (1992). Contemporary views of leadership and individual differences. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 137-157.
MacPhee, C. (2006). The effects of transformational leadership on career management. Unpublished master's thesis, Concordia University, Canada.
McConnell, C. J. (2003). A study of the relationships among person-organization fit and affective, normative, and continuance components of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8, 137-156.
McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. New York: Portfolio.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585-600.
Moon, C. J., & Woolliams, P. (2000). Managing cross cultural business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2), 105-115.
Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 129–139.
Moser, M. R. (1988). Ethical conflict at work: A critique of the literature and recommendations for future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(5), 381-396.
150
Mueller, J. H., Jacobsen, D. M., & Schwarzer, R. (2000). What are computing experiences good for?: A case study in online research. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 195-216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Naus, F. (2004). From Diogenes to Damocles: Four distinct conceptualizations of organizational cynicism. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
Nelson, P., & Billsberry, J. (2007). Exploring the impact of person–organisation fit on organisational performance. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Annual Conference, Warwick, United Kingdom.
Nicholson, N. (1994). Ethics in organizations: A framework for theory and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(8), 581-596.
Nicholson, N. (2005). Objections to evolutionary psychology: Reflections, implications and the leadership exemplar. Human Relations, 58, 393-409.
Nwadei, A. C. (2003). The relationship between perceived values congruence and organizational commitment in multinational corporations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, AZ.
O’Neil, R. F., & Pienta, D. A. (1994). Economic criteria versus ethical criteria: Toward resolving a basic dilemma in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(1), 71-78.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516.
Ostroff, C. (2007a). Fitting theory with methods in fit research. Paper presented at the 1st Global e-Conference on Fit. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.open.ac.uk/fitconference/node/17
Ostroff, C. (2007b). General methodological and design issues. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 352-355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ostroff, C., & Rothausen, T. J. (1997). The moderating effect of tenure in person-environment fit: A field study in educational organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 173-188.
151
Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2007). Multiple perspectives of fit in organizations across levels of analysis. In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 3-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Papavero, E. M. (1999). An exploration of the experiences of persons who reject offers of advancement. Unpublished master’s thesis, Goddard College, Plainfield, VT.
Papavero, E. M. (2007). Assessing the relationships between person- organization fit, moral philosophy, and the motivation to lead. Paper presented at the 1st Global e-Conference on Fit. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.open.ac.uk/fitconference/node/17
Park, H. (2005). The role of idealism and relativism as dispositional characteristics in the socially responsible decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 81-98.
Peterson, D. K. (2003). The relationship between ethical pressure, relativistic moral beliefs and organizational commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 557-572.
Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43(3), 296-319.
Piasentin, K. A. (2007). How do employees conceptualize fit? Development of a multidimensional measure of subjective person-organization fit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Canada.
Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2007). Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective person-organization fit. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 341-354.
Pierce, L., & Snyder, J. (in press). Ethical spillovers in firms: Evidence from vehicle emissions testing. Management Science.
Pinder, C. C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Ponemon, L. (1992). Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 239-258.
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2002). Internal world of transformational leaders. In B. Avolio, & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 203-229). New York: Elsevier Science Publications.
152
Posner, B. Z. (1992). Person-organization values congruence: No support for individual differences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45, 351-361.
Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1984). Values and the American manager: An update. California Management Review, 26(3), 202-216.
Powell, G. N. (1998). Reinforcing and extending today's organizations: The simultaneous pursuit of person-organization fit and diversity. Organizational Dynamics, 26(3), 50-61.
Powell, D. M., & Meyer, J. P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 157-177.
Puente, J. M. (2004). Values research. Paper presented at the 46th Annual International Military Testing Association, Brussels, Belgium.
Quinn, J. K., Reed, J. D., Browne, M. N., & Wesley, J. H. (1997). Honesty, individualism, and pragmatic business ethics: Implications for corporate hierarchy. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12/13), 1419-1430.
Ravlin, E. C., & Ritchie, C. M. (2006). Perceived and actual organizational fit: Multiple influences on attitudes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 175-192.
Rayburn, M. R, & Rayburn, L. G. (1996). Relationship between Machiavellianism and type A personality and ethical-orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1209-1219.
Richter, C. M. (2001). Motivation to lead: A study of the career occurrences that motivate educators to choose educational leadership positions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University, MO.
Rodriguez, H. E. (2005). On becoming morally congruent: Reflections and narratives of a group of Mexican executives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University, CA.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Work-family policies and individual desire for segmentation. Organizational Science, 16(3), 243-258.
Ryckman, R. M., & Houston, D. M. (2003). Value priorities in American and British female and male university students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(1), 127-138.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Jones, J. R. (1998). Organization and occupation influences in the attraction-selection-attrition process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 869-891.
153
Schein, E. H. (2004). Learning when and how to lie: A neglected aspect of organizational and occupational socialization. Human Relations, 57(3), 259-273.
Schlenker, B. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1977). On the ethics of psychological research. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 369-396.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Schneider, B. (2007). Evolution and current status of the ASA model. Paper presented at the 1st Global e-Conference on Fit. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.open.ac.uk/fitconference/node/17
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 462-470.
Schwepker, C. H. (1999). Research note: The relationship between ethical conflict, organizational commitment and turnover intentions in the salesforce. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 19(1), 43-49.
Schwepker, C. H., Ferrell, O. C., & Ingram, T. (1997). The influence of ethical climate and ethical conflict on role stress in the sales force. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 25(2), 99-108.
Scott, E. D. (2000). Moral values fit: Do applicants really care? Teaching Business Ethics, 4(4), 405-435.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Senge, P. M. (1996). Leading learning organizations: The bold, the powerful, and the invisible. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The Leader of the Future (pp. 41-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shafer, W. E., Lowe, D. J., & Fogarty, T. J. (2002a). The effects of corporate ownership on public accountants' professionalism and ethics. Accounting Horizons, 16(2), 109-124.
Shafer, W. E., Park, L. J., & Liao, W. M. (2002b). Professionalism, organizational-professional conflict and work outcomes: A study of certified management accountants. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(1), 46-68.
Shaub, M. K., Finn, D. W., & Munter, P. (1993). The effects of auditors' ethical orientation on commitment and ethical sensitivity. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 5, 145-169.
154
Shin, H., & Holland, B. (2004). PO fit as a moderator of personality-job performance relations. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.
Siegall, M., & McDonald, T. (2004). Person-organization value congruence, burnout and diversion of resources. Personnel Review, 33(3), 291-301.
Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 592-599.
Sims, R. L., & Keon, T. L. (1997). Ethical work climate as a factor in the development of person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1095-1105.
Sims, R. L., & Keon, T. L. (2000). The influence of organizational expectations on ethical decision making conflict. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2), 219-228.
Sims, R. L., & Kroeck, K. G. (1994). The influence of ethical fit on employee satisfaction, commitment and turnover. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12), 939-947.
Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2002). Leaders as moral role models: The case of John Gutfreund at Salomon Brothers. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(4), 327-339.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical aspects of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27(1), 19-35.
Sissem, P. A. (2004). Leaders of adult basic and literacy education programs in Pennsylvania: A typology of leadership styles and organizational issues in context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, PA.
Smith, D. (2003). Five principles for research ethics. Monitor on Psychology, 34(1), 56-63.
Snell, R. (2000). Studying moral ethos using an adapted Kohlbergian model. Organization Studies, 21(1), 267-295.
Sommer, S., Bae, M., & Luthens, F. (1996). Organizational commitment across cultures: The impact of antecedents on Korean employees. Human Relations, 49, 977-993.
Soper, D. S. (2007a). A priori sample size calculator [Computer software] Retrieved September 12, 2007, from
Soper, D. S. (2007b). Interaction! (Version 1.0.1280) [Computer software]. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.danielsoper.com/Interaction/default.aspx
Soper, D. S. (2008). Statistics calculators [Computer software]. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/default.aspx
Soutar, G., McNeil, M. M., & Molster, C. (1994). The impact of the work environment on ethical decision making: Some Australian evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(5), 327-339.
Sparks, J. R., & Hunt, S. D. (1998). Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: Conceptualization, measurement, and exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 92-109.
Steinhaus, C. S., & Perry, J. L. (1996). Organizational commitment: Does sector matter? Public Productivity and Management Review, 19, 278-288.
Stern, D. F. (2003). Value congruence, organizational commitment and intention for job turnover in physical therapists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, FL.
Swaidan, Z., Rawwas, M. Y. A., & Vitell, S. J. (2008). Culture and moral ideologies of African Americans. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(2), 127-137.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tafero, T. L. (2007). Personality predictors of motivation to lead. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clemson University, SC.
Talbot, D., Billsberry, J., & Marsh, P. J. G. (2007). An exploratory study into the construction of employee fit and misfit. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Annual Conference, Warwick, United Kingdom.
Tansey, R., Brown, G., Hyman, M. R., & Dawson, L. E., Jr. (1994). Personal moral philosophies and the moral judgments of salespeople. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14(1), 59-75.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thorne, L., & Saunders, S. B. (2002). The socio-cultural embeddedness of individuals' ethical reasoning in organizations (cross-cultural ethics). Journal of Business Ethics, 35(1), 1-14.
156
Tikanmaki, A. K. (2001) The impact of person-organization fit and perceptions of justice on employee organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and trust towards management after an acquisition. Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada.
Toffler, B. L. (1986). Tough choices: Managers talk ethics. New York: Wiley.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990.
Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes and interpersonal behavior. In H. E. Howe, & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, beliefs, attitudes and values (Vol. 1, pp. 195-260). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
Tsahuridu, E. E. (2006). Anomie and ethics at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 163–174.
Tsai, M., & Shih, C. (2005). The influences of organizational and personal ethics on role conflict among marketing managers: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Management, 22, 54–61.
Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Lucero, M. (2002). Ethical context, organizational commitment, and person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 349-360.
van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Person-organization fit: The match between newcomers' and recruiters' preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53, 113-149.
van Vianen, A. E. M., de Pater, I. E., & van Dijk, F. (2007). Work value fit and turnover intention: Same-source or different-source fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 188-202.
van Vianen, A. E. M., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2007). Homogeneity of personalities generating organizational culture: Bottom-up rather than top-down fit. Paper presented at the 1st Global e-Conference on Fit. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.open.ac.uk/fitconference/node/17
van Vuuren, M., Veldkamp, B. P., de Jong, M. D. T., & Seydel, E. R. (2007). The congruence of actual and perceived person-organization fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1736-1747.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.
157
Walther, J. B. (2002). Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 205-216.
Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27(3), 341-368.
Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2001). Paradigms, praxis and paradox in the analysis of organization change: The generative nature of control. Paper presented at the Critical Management Studies Conference, Manchester, United Kingdom.
West, M. A. (2007). Flourishing people, teams and organizations: The challenge for work and organizational psychology. Keynote address, European Congress of Work & Organizational Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Westerman, J. W. (1997). An integrative analysis of person-organization fit theories: Effects on individual attitudes and behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, CO.
Westerman, J. W., & Cyr, L. A. (2004). An integrative analysis of person-organization fit theories. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 252-261.
Wheeler, A. R., Gallagher, V. C., Brouer, R. L., & Sablynski, C. J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219.
Whetstone, T. S. (2001). Copping out: Why police officers decline to participate in the sergeant’s promotional process. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 147-159.
Yokota, R., & Mitsuhashi, H. (2008). Attributive change in top management teams as a driver of strategic change. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(2), 297-315.
Young, A. M., & Hurlic, D. (2007). Gender enactment at work: The importance of gender and gender-related behavior to person-organizational fit and career decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 168-187.
Zhang, Y., Dolan, S., Straub, C., & Kusyk, S. (2006). Making a life or making a living: Does country and gender make a difference? Paper presented at the European Academy of Management Conference, Oslo, Norway.
Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. M. (1998). A note on misconceptions concerning prospective and retrospective power. The Statistician, 47, 385-388.
158
Appendix A:
Scale Items
Affective-Identify Motivation to Lead Items
1. Most of the time, I prefer being a leader rather than a follower when working in a group.
2. I am the type of person who is not interested in leading others. (reverse scored)
3. I am definitely not a leader by nature. (reverse scored)
4. I am the type of person who likes to be in charge of others.
5. I believe I can contribute more to a group if I am a follower rather than a leader. (reverse scored)
6. I usually want to be the leader in the groups that I work in.
7. I am the type who would actively support a leader but prefers not to be appointed as leader. (reverse scored)
8. I have a tendency to take charge in most groups or teams that I work in.
9. I am seldom reluctant to be the leader of a group.
Non-Calculative Motivation to Lead Items
1. I am only interested to lead a group if there are clear advantages for me. (reverse scored)
2. I will never agree to lead if I cannot see any benefits from accepting that role. (reverse scored)
3. I would only agree to be a group leader if I know I can benefit from that role. (reverse scored)
4. I would agree to lead others even if there are no special rewards or benefits with that role.
5. I would want to know “what’s in it for me” if I am going to agree to lead a group. (reverse scored)
6. I never expect to get more privileges if agree to lead a group.
7. If I agree to lead a group, I would never expect any advantages or special benefits.
159
8. I have more of my own problems to worry about than to be concerned about the rest of the group. (reverse scored)
9. Leading others is reality more of a dirty job rather than an honorable one. (reverse scored)
Social-Normative Motivation to Lead Items
1. I feel that I have a duty to lead others if I am asked.
2. I agree to lead whenever I am asked or nominated by the other members.
3. I was taught to believe in the value of leading others.
4. It is appropriate for people to accept leadership roles or positions when they are asked.
5. I have been taught that I should always volunteer to lead others if I can.
6. It is not right to decline leadership roles.
7. It is an honor and a privilege to be asked to lead.
8. People should volunteer to lead rather than wait for others to ask or vote for them.
9. I would never agree to lead just because others voted for me. (reverse scored)
Person-Organization Fit Items
1. The things that I value in life are very close to the things that my organization values.
2. My personal values match my organization’s values and culture.
3. My organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life.
Relativism Items
1. There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be a part of any code of ethics.
2. What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another.
3. Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be judged to be immoral by another person.
4. Different types of morality cannot be compared as to "rightness."
160
5. Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved since what is moral or immoral is up to the individual.
6. Moral standards are simply personal rules that indicate how a person should behave, and are not to be applied in making judgments of others.
7. Ethical considerations in interpersonal relations are so complex that individuals should be allowed to formulate their own individual codes.
8. Rigidly codifying an ethical position that prevents certain types of actions could stand in the way of better human relations and adjustment.
9. No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is permissible or not permissible totally depends upon the situation.
10. Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral depends upon the circumstances surrounding the action.
Idealism Items
1. People should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree.
2. Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be.
3. The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.
4. One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.
5. One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another individual.
6. If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done.
7. Deciding whether or not to perform an act by balancing the positive consequences of the act against the negative consequences of the act is immoral.
8. The dignity and welfare of the people should be the most important concern in any society.
9. It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.
10. Moral behaviors are actions that closely match ideals of the most "perfect" action.
161
Appendix B:
Request for Participation
Subject: Request for Research Participation
Dear (contact),
I am a PhD student at Northcentral University, Department of Psychology and I am currently collecting data for my dissertation. I am hoping that this study will increase our understanding of leadership and values.
Your input is necessary to ensure the success of this project. You can help further research that seeks to improve our workplaces and our experiences at work.
You will complete a simple and interesting online survey (you will not be asked to identify yourself, so your answers will be completely anonymous).
Here is a link to the survey. The password is: leadership.
[surveylink]
Participation is completely voluntary. If you have any questions about the study, please email me at [email protected].
Your participation is valuable and your time is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your input.
Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Age
Age PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
18 to 23 years M 12.11 29.00 34.00 32.56 35.56 33.67 33.93
SD 5.69 8.31 7.75 7.02 4.83 3.97 4.10
24 to 32 years M 14.66 28.21 35.33 32.20 33.99 31.94 32.71
SD 4.22 6.82 7.04 6.03 5.43 4.90 3.84
33 to 40 years M 15.18 27.22 34.80 32.50 33.80 32.46 32.92
SD 4.38 6.67 7.49 5.87 5.91 4.90 4.08
41 to 50 years M 14.73 25.38 35.20 33.01 35.57 32.26 33.61
SD 5.12 7.28 7.42 6.38 5.80 4.94 4.34
51 years and over M 14.67 25.07 34.87 33.40 35.79 31.45 33.54
SD 4.98 6.70 7.42 5.74 5.41 5.16 3.91
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
Table 10. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Gender
Gender PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Male M 14.83 26.00 33.24 33.59 34.44 32.80 33.61
SD 4.81 7.09 7.68 5.63 5.96 5.04 4.24
Female M 14.74 26.25 36.32 32.26 35.52 31.38 33.05
SD 4.81 6.95 6.71 6.34 5.45 4.84 3.97
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
172
Table 11. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Educational Level
Educational Level PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Some high school -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Completed high school M 13.50 30.50 33.50 24.50 32.00 31.50 29.33
SD 2.12 2.12 4.95 7.78 1.41 .71 3.30
Some college M 13.35 27.36 34.83 31.32 36.03 31.19 32.85
SD 5.27 6.94 7.15 6.49 5.22 5.53 4.44
Completed college M 12.14 27.73 35.59 30.31 32.81 32.14 31.75
SD 4.98 6.95 6.91 5.40 5.97 5.27 4.37
Some graduate school M 14.94 27.03 34.88 32.67 35.08 31.96 33.27
SD 4.73 6.53 7.93 6.82 5.92 5.29 4.49
Graduate degree M 14.97 25.81 35.03 33.16 35.07 32.11 33.45
SD 4.76 7.10 7.32 5.85 5.68 4.90 3.99
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
Table 12. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Work Experience
Work Experience PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Less than 1 year M 11.00 28.00 39.00 28.50 36.50 29.50 31.50
SD 7.07 8.49 2.83 7.78 4.95 2.12 .24
1 to 5 years M 13.49 29.06 36.04 31.66 33.76 32.07 32.50
SD 4.65 7.69 6.45 7.01 5.42 5.22 3.89
6 to 10 years M 14.85 27.05 36.40 32.33 33.63 31.62 32.53
SD 4.55 6.29 7.31 5.80 5.63 4.37 3.88
11 to 15 years M 15.17 27.23 35.05 32.66 34.35 31.98 33.00
SD 4.54 7.29 7.19 6.10 6.53 4.99 4.25
16 years or more M 14.80 25.54 34.74 33.12 35.43 32.13 33.56
SD 4.90 6.91 7.48 5.98 5.52 5.06 4.11
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
173
Table 13. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Leadership Experience
Leadership Experience PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Less than 1 year M 13.73 27.74 37.22 29.15 33.19 30.78 31.04
SD 4.87 6.67 6.20 6.83 6.75 5.18 4.42
1 to 5 years M 14.28 27.54 36.47 31.60 34.32 31.63 32.52
SD 4.91 6.94 7.34 6.15 5.45 4.37 3.76
6 to 10 years M 14.59 25.24 34.52 32.89 34.53 31.30 32.91
SD 4.68 7.21 7.11 5.73 5.55 4.81 3.80
11 to 15 years M 25.68 35.07 33.33 35.77 32.46 33.85 15.18
SD 6.96 7.01 5.62 5.59 4.93 4.17 4.76
16 years or more M 15.42 25.41 33.56 34.75 36.01 33.07 34.61
SD 4.74 6.86 7.75 5.44 5.59 5.36 4.00
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
Table 14. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Ethnicity
Ethnicity PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
White non-Hispanic M 14.73 25.98 34.39 32.97 34.94 31.92 33.28
SD 4.86 7.10 7.25 6.17 5.72 4.97 4.14
Asian or Pacific Islander M 15.15 30.65 36.85 32.50 31.31 32.50 32.10
SD 4.02 6.22 6.73 5.67 4.72 4.60 3.40
Hispanic M 14.70 26.65 39.89 32.97 34.89 32.57 33.48
SD 4.85 6.34 6.90 6.37 5.47 5.75 4.03
Black non-Hispanic M 15.26 26.59 37.72 32.24 36.36 32.11 33.57
SD 4.70 6.79 6.81 5.49 5.70 4.80 4.03
Other M 14.64 24.85 35.06 33.02 35.32 33.62 33.99
SD 4.63 6.13 8.77 5.23 5.75 5.15 4.11
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
174
Table 15. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Job Tenure
Job Tenure PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Less than 1 year M 14.40 27.36 34.60 32.08 35.20 30.94 32.74
SD 4.82 7.10 8.15 5.88 4.90 4.12 3.22
1 to 5 years M 14.79 26.47 34.73 32.88 34.60 32.12 33.20
SD 4.74 7.38 7.46 6.16 6.00 5.10 4.29
6 to 10 years M 14.33 26.02 35.32 32.85 35.04 31.77 33.22
SD 4.85 6.63 7.34 6.26 5.75 5.19 4.31
11 to 15 years M 15.41 26.04 34.45 32.88 34.98 31.98 33.28
SD 4.42 7.26 7.19 5.77 5.54 4.79 3.83
16 years or more M 15.02 25.53 35.59 33.13 35.61 32.61 33.78
SD 5.08 6.72 7.73 5.85 5.51 4.81 3.90
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
Table 16. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Job Level
Job Level PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Clerical M 13.36 27.38 35.57 28.91 34.14 31.23 31.42
SD 5.38 8.54 7.36 7.34 5.70 5.71 4.61
Technical M 13.36 27.38 35.57 28.91 34.14 31.23 31.42
SD 5.38 8.54 7.36 7.34 5.70 5.71 4.61
Professional M 14.63 26.08 35.80 32.24 34.78 31.61 32.88
SD 4.86 6.99 7.17 6.16 5.76 4.84 3.98
First line manager M 14.81 27.09 37.02 32.89 34.51 31.81 33.07
SD 5.04 6.90 7.06 4.69 5.15 4.70 2.96
Middle manager M 14.93 26.72 33.58 33.55 35.00 33.01 33.85
SD 4.41 6.87 7.63 5.65 5.64 5.05 4.29
Executive M 16.11 25.48 32.93 36.18 36.72 33.56 35.49
SD 4.50 7.18 7.54 4.93 5.82 5.14 4.00
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
175
Table 17. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Employment Status
Employment Status PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Part-time M 14.17 26.06 37.10 31.34 34.30 31.04 32.23
SD 5.16 8.62 6.35 6.20 5.55 3.82 3.50
Full-time M 14.84 26.14 34.84 33.02 35.07 32.14 33.41
SD 4.78 6.87 7.43 6.02 5.73 5.07 4.14
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
Table 18. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Organization Size
Organization Size PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
1 to 50 employees M 15.46 25.67 35.52 32.42 35.02 31.77 33.07
SD 4.81 7.38 7.08 6.44 5.47 5.05 4.08
51 to 100 employees M 14.70 24.43 37.34 32.57 34.71 32.39 33.22
SD 4.83 7.02 6.50 6.32 5.74 4.44 3.92
101 to 500 employees M 26.51 34.81 33.14 35.03 32.27 33.48 14.82
SD 7.44 7.06 5.67 5.75 5.15 4.05 4.68
501 to 1000 employees M 14.98 26.33 34.77 33.43 35.01 31.77 33.40
SD 4.75 6.79 7.05 5.88 6.50 4.98 4.43
1001 or more M 14.31 25.95 34.10 32.92 35.09 32.02 33.34
SD 4.90 6.54 8.01 6.04 5.60 5.03 4.14
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
176
Table 19. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables and Organization Tenure
Organization Tenure PO Fit Idealism Relativism AIMTL NCMTL SNMTL GMTL
Less than 1 year M 14.27 27.65 34.84 31.99 34.69 32.56 33.08
SD 4.77 6.65 7.32 6.57 5.45 4.70 3.87
1 to 5 years M 14.80 26.56 34.95 33.15 34.51 31.80 33.15
SD 4.86 7.48 7.23 5.93 6.13 5.08 4.27
6 to 10 years M 14.27 25.71 35.31 32.50 34.77 31.36 32.88
SD 4.83 6.61 7.22 5.98 5.38 5.01 3.92
11 to 15 years M 15.51 24.84 34.48 33.44 35.71 32.57 33.91
SD 4.58 6.68 7.65 6.16 5.98 4.63 4.18
16 years or more M 15.21 25.77 35.16 33.07 35.84 32.64 33.85
SD 4.79 6.93 7.70 5.97 5.35 5.05 4.08
Note. N = 1024. AIMTL = affective-identity motivation to lead; NCMTL = non-calculative motivation to lead; SNMTL = social-normative motivation to lead; GMTL = general motivation to lead.
177
Person-Organization Fit Score25.020.015.010.05.00.0
Fre
qu
en
cy
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 4. Histogram of participants' reported person-organization fit scores with normality curve superimposed.
Observed Cum Prob1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 5. Normal probability of participants’ reported person-organization fit scores.
178
Idealism Score50.040.030.020.010.00.0
Freq
uenc
y
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 6. Histogram of participants' reported idealism scores with normality curve superimposed.
Observed Cum Prob1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 7. Normal probability of participants’ reported idealism scores.
179
Relativism Score60.050.040.030.020.010.0
Freq
uenc
y
60
40
20
0
Figure 8. Histogram of participants' reported relativism scores with normality curve superimposed.
Observed Cum Prob1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 9. Normal probability of participants’ reported relativism scores.
180
General Motivation to Lead Score45.040.035.030.025.020.015.0
Freq
uenc
y
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 10. Histogram of participants' reported general motivation to lead scores with normality curve superimposed.
Observed Cum Prob1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 11. Normal probability of participants’ reported general motivation to lead scores.
181
Affective-identity Motivation to Lead Score50.040.030.020.010.0
Freq
uenc
y
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 12. Histogram of participants' reported affective-identity motivation to lead scores with normality curve superimposed.
Observed Cum Prob1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 13. Normal probability of participants’ reported affective-identity motivation to lead scores.
182
Noncalculative Motivation to Lead Score50.040.030.020.010.0
Freq
uenc
y
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 14. Histogram of participants' reported non-calculative motivation to lead scores with normality curve superimposed.
Observed Cum Prob1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 15. Normal probability of participants’ reported non-calculative motivation to lead scores.
183
Social-normative Motivation to Lead Score50.040.030.020.010.0
Freq
uenc
y
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 16. Histogram of participants' reported social-normative motivation to lead scores with normality curve superimposed.
Observed Cum Prob1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Figure 17. Normal probability of participants’ reported social-normative motivation to lead scores.
184
Table 20. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for PO Fit Predicting General Motivation to Lead