emotiile liderului in schibarile organizationale

7/30/2019 Emotiile Liderului in Schibarile Organizationale

1/26

http://hum.sagepub.com/Human Relations

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/9/1207

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/00187267114333122012 65: 1207 originally published online 30 May 2012Human Relations

Karina Nielsen and Kevin Danielsorganizational change: A randomized, controlled study

Enhancing team leaders' well-being states and challenge experiences during

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- May 30, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 30, 2012Version of Record>>

by guest on September 13, 2012hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/9/1207http://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/9/1207http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/30/0018726711433312.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/30/0018726711433312.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/9/1207.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/30/0018726711433312.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/9/1207.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/content/65/9/1207http://hum.sagepub.com/


2/26

human relations65(9) 12071231

The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0018726711433312

hum.sagepub.com

human relations

Enhancing team leaders well-being

states and challenge experiences

during organizational change:

A randomized, controlled study

Karina NielsenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Denmark

Kevin DanielsUniversity of East Anglia, UK

AbstractWhen implementing teams, first-line leaders are often responsible for suchimplementation and their leadership role changes. This change may result in a perceived

mismatch between the demands of the function and the leaders resources. In a multi-method, controlled intervention study, we examined whether training leaders in teammanagement changes their appraisals of the job and preserves their well-being. Data

were collected with the Experience Sampling Method from 29 team leaders and surveydata were collected from their followers (N = 233). Multi-level analyses revealed that

training increased trained leaders challenge experiences and well-being states only

where team members reported openness to change. In situations when both trainedand non-trained leaders found themselves challenged above their average levels of

challenge, they reported better well-being.

Keywords

challenge experiences, evaluation, Experience Sampling Method, intervention, teamleaders, teamwork, training, well-being

Corresponding author:

Karina Nielsen, National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersoe Parkalle 105,

Copenhagen 2100, Denmark.

Email: [email protected]

433312HUM65910.1177/0018726711433312Nielsen and DanielsHuman Relations2012

http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/


3/26

1208 Human Relations65(9)

Introduction

Organizational change involves a shift in roles, the skills required to fulfill these new

roles, and has been identified as a potential source of stress (Kieselbach et al., 2009). One

shift in role occurs for first-line leaders when implementing teams: their role shifts fromdelegating work to that of coach and facilitator (Senior and Swailes, 2004). Despite the

awareness of the shift in role, and the subsequent potential mismatch between demands

on, and skills of, those leaders, there has been little research on whether training leaders

in how to implement and manage teams will provide them with the necessary resources to

meet these demands and lead to sustained or even improved well-being (through apprais-

als of feeling challenged at work). In this multi-method, multi-source study, we examine

whether training leaders in how to implement and manage teams, as a way of ensuring

leaders have the necessary skills to implement and manage teams, increases their chal-

lenge experiences and well-being.This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, based on Lazarus and

Folkmans transactional model (1984), we examine whether training leaders will alter

their appraisals of the events they face in their daily work and so come to see their job

as more challenging and experience better well-being. To our knowledge, this is the first

study to use Experience Sampling Methods to test Lazarus and Folkmans theory in

relation to the effects of training on situational appraisals. Second, the study addresses

the call of Burke and Hutchins (2007) to capture how contexts impact transfer of train-

ing. To address this call, we examine the degree to which followers openness to change

allows leaders to feel challenged, and how such followers perceptions influence lead-

ers well-being. To our knowledge, this is the first study to integrate followers openness

to change (as a contextual factor) into training effectiveness analyses. Previous research

has examined openness to change in participants themselves (Weiner et al., 2008); how-

ever, we examine how others openness to change influences intervention outcomes,

treating openness as a moderator rather than a mediator. Third, based on activation

(Scott, 1966) and cognitive overqualification theories (Fine, 2007), we examine how

within-person variability in challenge experiences influences leaders levels of well-

being. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the outcomes of

team leader training on challenge experiences and well-being focusing on daily

experiences.

The effects of training in implementing and managing

teams on leaders well-being

With team implementation, the demands on leaders increase in two ways. First, leaders

are often charged with the responsibility of implementing teams (Nielsen and Randall,

2009). Second, leaders are required to take on a new role and have to learn new things

and extend their capabilities. The leaders role is often characterized by a change from

giving orders to that of a coach; listening, motivating and facilitating followers skills

come to the fore (Senior and Swailes, 2004). As a result leaders may feel overwhelmed

by the new demands put on them and may perceive that they do not possess the resources

to deal with these demands; in other words, they may perceive a mismatch between their

resources and the demands of the job.



4/26

Nielsen and Daniels 1209

According to the job demands-resources model, employees apply resources to deal

with the demands of the job (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Hobfolls (1989) Conservation

of Resources (COR) theory suggests that resources are important factors that may help

individuals gain additional resources and enhance well-being. Larsson et al. (1990) sug-

gested that training may release inner resources that can be applied in the outer world,thus leading to better well-being. The changes in leaders roles and responsibilities may

result in an imbalance between the leaders personal resources and the demands they

face. Implementing teamwork without providing leaders with the skills and resources to

implement and manage teams may have detrimental effects on their well-being, owing to

the appraisal that the demands of the new situation exceed their resources. Training lead-

ers may provide leaders with the necessary resources, such as skills and self-efficacy,

making leaders feel in control and able to cope with the demands of implementing teams.

Work motivation theories suggest that successful use of resources requires both skills

and desire: skills refers to the competence to do the job and desire that the individualwants to do the job (Porter and Lawler, 1968). Training leaders may increase their moti-

vation to invest time and energy into implementing teams as they understand what may

be achieved through successful implementation.

There is some research to suggest that job training may improve trainees well-being.

For example, Jones et al. (2008) found that team training in how to improve relationships

with patients increased well-being among mental health care workers. Beas and Salanova

(2006) found that training IT workers in ICT improved self-efficacy beliefs and well-

being. Heaney et al. (1995) found that a caregiver support program aimed at improving

social support and problem solving reduced depressive symptoms and physical stresssymptoms. A recent meta-analytic review also found positive effects of leadership train-

ing on employees affective well-being (Avolio et al., 2009). The effects of training on

leaders own well-being have yet to be explored:

Hypothesis 1: Leaders who have received training in how to implement and manage teams will

experience higher levels of well-being than leaders who have not received training.

Challenge experiences as a mediator between training

and well-being

The transactional theory of stress provides an explanation of the links between percep-

tions of work and well-being (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). According to this theory,

poor well-being is the result of an individuals appraisal of an imbalance between the

individuals skills and resources and the demands of the job (Lazarus and Folkman,

1984). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) emphasized that a situations novelty is central to

the appraisal of whether a situation may be perceived to be exceeding the individuals

resources. Team implementation is likely to be perceived as novel because the leader has

to act in completely new ways and adopt new values.Lazarus and Folkman (1984) distinguish between primary and secondary appraisal.

Primary appraisal concerns the evaluation of whether a situation is likely to be beneficial

or stressful for an individual. In secondary appraisal, individuals consider the best means

of coping with a stressful situation or its consequences. Threat and challenge appraisals

are specific types of primary appraisal that occur when an individual is faced with, or

http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/


5/26


anticipates, a stressful situation. In a challenge appraisal, the individual sees the situation

as an opportunity to gain and to feel energized; in a threat appraisal, the individual sees

the situation as having the possibility to impair well-being. Leaders may appraise the

change into teamwork as a threat or a challenge. On the one hand, leaders may fear losing

status and doubt their ability to effectively implement and manage teams. On the otherhand, leaders may perceive team implementation as a challenge where they have the

opportunity to shape their own job, their followers jobs, and to refocus their leadership

role (Nielsen et al., 2010).

Banduras self-efficacy theory predicts that individuals beliefs about their capabili-

ties to perform a task and achieve a desirable outcome will influence their motivation to

seek out or avoid a task (Bandura, 1997). It is likely that leaders will appraise the situa-

tions in which they find themselves as challenging if they have been on a training course

and feel they have developed the skills in how to implement and manage teams. Training

may: i) alter leaders appraisal of the change into teamwork, as they may become moreconfident because they have been presented with tools to implement and manage teams

and have been informed of the possible gains of implementing teams; ii) give leaders a

clearer understanding of what is expected of them and that they may achieve the new

goals of the organization, making them feel less emotionally overwhelmed; and iii) make

leaders more capable of drawing on resources, both their own and those of colleagues

who have also been on training. In sum, trained leaders may perceive team implementa-

tion as a challenge because they have the necessary skills and abilities and appraise team

implementation as an opportunity to achieve a more challenging job.

Appraisals mediate between resources and psychological well-being (Lazarus andFolkman, 1984). As a result, trained and non-trained leaders may react differently to the

situations they face because trained leaders have had more resources in terms of knowl-

edge, skills and social networks developed through training. Whereas trained leaders

may interpret the situations they find themselves in as challenging, with potential gains

for personal growth and well-being (Rodell and Judge, 2009), non-trained leaders may

see the demand to implement teams as a threat to their existing status and ways of going

about their work. Therefore, for non-trained leaders, teamwork may be seen as a hin-

drance to achieving their work goals (Rodell and Judge, 2009). Accordingly, non-trained

leaders will not experience as many challenges and, as a result, report poorer well-being.We therefore propose that trained leaders are more likely to appraise the situations in

which they find themselves as challenging and these challenge experiences mediate the

relationship between training and well-being. To our knowledge this is the first study to

examine challenge experiences as a training outcome:

Hypothesis 2: Challenge experiences mediate the relationship between having been on a

training course and experiencing higher levels of well-being.

Challenge experiences and well-being in context:The moderating effect of followers openness to team

implementation

Peoples appraisals are, in part, shaped by their social systems (Lazarus and Folkman,

1984). Followers place many shifting and complex expectations on their leaders and the



6/26


roles they are required to fulfill (Van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003). Followers open-

ness to change may support attempts made by the leader to implement teams and change

his or her leader role to fit the requirements of a team leader. Openness to change refers

to the extent to which participants welcome change and see the potential benefit from it

(Weiner et al., 2008). According to Person-Environment (P-E) fit theory (Kristof-Brownet al., 2005), a match between the values, norms and goals of the individual and the

expectations of the environment is important to ensure individual well-being. Where the

leader and his or her followers share the values and norms that support team implementa-

tion, the leader is more likely to experience a fit and as a result report better well-being.

That is, where followers are open to change and training has led leaders to be motivated

to implement teams and develop the skills to do so, followers may support trained lead-

ers to implement teams, and, as a result, leaders may report better well-being as they

experience a good fit.

The relationship may be different for non-trained leaders. Because non-trained lead-ers are unlikely to change their norms and values concerning teamwork and do not

acquire additional resources, it is less likely that non-trained leaders well-being will be

influenced by whether followers are open to change or not. Although non-trained leaders

may have been charged with the responsibility of implementing teams, they may not feel

as strongly about team implementation and therefore not experience a mismatch between

their own values and goals and those of their followers if these are not open to change.

As a result, openness to change may not influence non-trained leaders well-being.

Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3: Followers openness to change moderates the relationship between training and

well-being such that the positive effects of training on well-being will be greater for leaders

whose followers are open to change.

Fine (2007) suggested that being unable to use skills at work results in boredom and

dissatisfaction. When leaders do not feel their followers allow them to use the skills

learned on the training course they will report fewer challenge experiences. Therefore,

it is possible that when followers are low in openness to change, trained leaders are less

likely to report challenge experiences and as a result report poorer well-being.

Conversely, where trained leaders are able to use newly acquired skills by teams that are

open to change, trained leaders may experience more challenge experiences. We there-

fore suggest that leader training interacts with openness to change among followers to

predict challenge experiences and well-being states. In other words, where leaders have

received training and return to an environment where followers share the values and

norms acquired through the training, they are more likely to appraise the situations in

which they find themselves as more challenging and they will experience higher levels

of well-being. Trained leaders who do not have followers open for change may report

fewer challenge experiences and therefore have lower levels of well-being. Non-trained

leaders will have no increased expectations of the benefits of teamwork and use of newskills and will therefore not be affected by their followers level of openness to team

implementation.

This leads us to propose a fourth hypothesis that integrates the assumptions of

Hypotheses 2 and 3:



7/26


Hypothesis 4: There will be mediated moderation, so that higher levels of challenge experiences

mediate the association between training and well-being for trained leaders with teams high in

openness to change.

Within-person variability of challenge experiences: The

effects on well-being

Examining how differences in challenge experiences affect well-being across situations

may help understanding of the antecedents of within-person variations in well-being

(Fritz and Sonnentag, 2009; Ohly and Fritz, 2010). According to the COR theory

(Hobfoll, 1989), individuals who develop a surplus of resources are more likely to have

high levels of well-being. Reporting feeling challenged in a situation is likely to stretch

the individuals capabilities and facilitate growth and the development of resources

resulting in a positive gain spiral (Hobfoll, 1989; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Cognitiveoverqualification is defined as the extent to which employed individuals possess surplus

resources and have limited opportunities to apply skills and feel challenged by their work

(Fine, 2007). In general, mentally unchallenged individuals are theorized to be unmoti-

vated and bored with their work and dissatisfied as a result (Herzberg, 1966). Previous

research has indicated that a lack of challenge on the job is associated with boredom and

job dissatisfaction (Burke, 1998; Quinn and Mandilovitch, 1975). When looking at the

situations a leader finds him or herself in, a similar mechanism may be at play across

situations. When leaders do not feel challenged by the situation they are likely to report

poor well-being. Conversely, the more challenges leaders experience, the more leadersexperience better well-being.

Activation theory (Scott, 1966) suggests that a certain level of challenge is needed to

activate the individual (DeRue and Wellmann, 2009). Stamp (1991) suggested that a

state of anxiety may also occur as a result of under-use of skills and a lack of challenges.

This increase in anxiety is explained by a perception that current skills and capabilities

may not be exercised and as a result be lost.

In summary, when leaders report levels of challenge experiences below their usual

levels, leaders may feel bored and under-stimulated, resulting in poor well-being. This

mechanism is believed to be the same for both trained and non-trained leaders:

Hypothesis 5: Higher levels of challenge experiences in a situation are associated with higher

levels of well-being in that situation. This will be the case in both the trained and non-trained

group of leaders.

The present study

As Lazarus and Folkmans (1984) model focuses on appraisals of events, momentary

event sampling methods may prove useful in examining appraisals as they occur andcapture the momentary effects of appraisals on well-being. Furthermore, measuring

well-being and challenge experiences as they occur minimizes recall bias compared with

methods that rely on retrospective assessments of well-being and overall appraisals of

challenges at work made over longer periods (Fritz and Sonnentag, 2009; Ohly and Fritz,



8/26


2010). In this study we used the Event Sampling Method (ESM) to assess well-being and

challenge experiences because: i) assessing well-being as a state using experience sam-

pling and diary methods may enable more accurate measurements of well-being, as peo-

ple may not accurately recall their levels of well-being over protracted periods (Ohly

et al., 2010); ii) the study of well-being as a transient state enables us to understand psy-chological variables at the time and level they are manifested, thus capturing within- and

between-person variance (Ohly et al., 2010); and iii) ESM can capture the triggers of a

state of well-being in the moment they occur (Ohly et al., 2010; Xanthopoulou et al.,

2009). In this study we examined whether challenge experiences triggered well-being

states.

Method

The leader training intervention

A theory-driven (action learning) (Revans, 1980) and evidence-based team leader train-

ing course was delivered to the leaders within the intervention group (Nielsen et al.,

2008; Nielsen et al., 2010). The training course consisted of six days training spread

over a period of six months. The research team carried out a thorough review of current

theory and research on: i) teamwork; ii) leadership behaviors that may support teamwork

and change processes; and iii) how team leaders may implement changes in their own

teams (including information on the possible barriers met when implementing changes).

Based on this, occupational health consultants developed a syllabus and manual for theleader training course.

Burke and Hutchins (2007) summarized a number of training course elements that

increase the likelihood of participants being able to transfer skills learned on the course

to daily work:

1) Needs analysis and including stakeholders in the design of training has been found

to predict training transfer. To ensure relevance to the context, researchers and

trainers held a series of meetings with the participating organizations (human

resource managers, senior leaders and employee representatives) to ensure the

course was tailored to the organizations needs;

2) The objectives of the training course should be made explicit for the participants.

At the beginning of the training, the objectives of the course (i.e. to help leaders

implement and manage teams) were clearly communicated and consultants con-

tinually referred back to these objectives throughout the entire training course;

3) The content of the training course should be easily transferable to daily working

practices. During the course, consultants applied tools and exercises developed

such that leaders could use these with their own teams;

4) Training should require trainees to address real-life problems, so that trainees

would be encouraged to re-evaluate their attitudes and start thinking in new waysabout their work practices. During the training course, leaders were asked to rate

their own teams and their own leadership behaviors and discussed the develop-

ment of their teams and their own role therein throughout the training course;



9/26


5) Actions should be developed to make planned changes and the strategies behind

them made explicit. Leaders were required to develop action plans to be imple-

mented in their own teams to support the transfer of learning;

6) Training should focus on the translation of skills into the actual job of participants.

Training modules were conducted with one month between them. This time laggave leaders the opportunity to apply skills between modules. During the course,

participants were given the opportunity to discuss how they had used the skills

acquired between modules;

7) Peer support can also improve transfer of training. To increase the support among

leaders on the training course, participants were encouraged to discuss team issues

between modules (Burke and Hutchins, 2007).

DesignA quasi-experimental design was employed (Cook and Campbell, 1979). Participants

were from two almost identical elderly care centers in a large local government organiza-

tion and from an accountancy firm in Denmark. Both organizations were of their own

accord implementing a teamwork structure. Leaders and their teams were all exposed to

the implementation of teams. Leaders were responsible for implementing change and

they became team leaders. Before the training course, leaders and their teams were ran-

domly allocated to an intervention or comparison (control) group with 12 leaders being

allocated to the intervention group in each organization and 18 leaders became the com-

parison group. In the elderly care, one elderly care centre became the intervention groupand the other the comparison group. In the accountancy firm, leaders and their teams

were located in offices country-wide and these were clustered according to geographic

location and divided into intervention and comparison groups. Cluster randomization

was used to minimize contamination (Cook and Shadish, 1994) between intervention

and comparison groups.

The study took place over an 18-month period. Participation in the study was volun-

tary and leaders in the training and no training groups completed an ESM study both

before and after team implementation and training. At zero months (Time 1), data were

collected from leaders using ESM and team implementation started. The training courseran from months three to nine. At 18 months (Time 2), follow-up data were collected. In

addition to ESM data collected from leaders at 18 months, all followers were asked to

complete a questionnaire just before their leader completed the final ESM assessment.

We refer to ESM assessment as the event level throughout the article. Surveys were sent

to all followers in the participating teams.

Participants

Leaders in both organizations were responsible for between four and 30 followers. In thisstudy, we included leaders who were employed in the organization at both baseline and

follow-up (see Table 1 for response rates and Table 2 for demographics). Owing to high

turnover levels, only four out of 12 trained leaders and 12 out of 18 non-trained leaders

from the elderly care centres were included in our study. In the elderly care organization,



10/26


one leader in the comparison group did not wish to complete the ESM questionnaire and

was therefore not included in the study, bringing the number of non-trained leaders down

to 11. In the accountancy organization, seven out of 12 trained leaders participated in the

study at both time points, and 11 out of 18 non-trained leaders. The ESM data of one

leader in the control group were not recorded at baseline owing to technical problemsand he was therefore excluded from this study. All followers of the participating leaders

received a questionnaire. Examination of company records indicated that the employee

samples were representative of the population from which they were drawn in terms of

gender and age.

Questionnaire data

Team members responded to the questionnaire-based measures post-intervention just

prior to leaders completing the follow-up ESM (Time 2). Team data were averaged togive scores for each leader.

Follower openness to change (four items) (Randall et al., 2009) This variable contained

items relating to followers expectations of, and openness to, change (e.g. I was ready to

accept the changes brought about by the implementation of teams). Responses to these

items were given on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly

disagree). Items were summed and the scale recalibrated to have a theoretical range of 0

to 100 (Cronbachs = .90, mean rwg(j) = .80, ICC1 = .09, ICC2 = .60). As openness for

change represents a group orientation, aggregating team members responses to form anindex of openness to change requires justification through indices of within-group agree-

ment (Chan, 1998; Hofmann, 2004). Two appropriate indices are rwg(j) and ICC1. ICC2

indicates the reliability of the group mean. The rwg(j), ICC1 and ICC2 values indicate

sufficient convergence amongst raters to justify aggregation (e.g. Schneider et al., 1998).

There was also significant variation between groups (2= .24,p < .01).

Table 1 Participating organizations and response rates

Accountancy Elderly care

Intervention Comparison Intervention Comparison

Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2

Survey

Employeeresponse rates

71/88(81%)

45/60(75%)

54/88(61%)

63/128(49%)

Experience Sampling Method

Leaders that

completed ESMat both time 1and 2

7 11 4 7

Leader ESMresponse rates

431/503(86%)

324/398(81%)

397/552(72%)

303/390(78%)

233/276(84%)

179/234(76%)

389/470(83%)

250/410%(61%)



11/26


Table2

Dem

ographics A

ccountancy

Elderlycare

Intervention

Comparison

Intervention

Comparison

Time1

Time

2

Time1

Time2

Time1

Tim

e2

Time1

Time2

Leaders

Meanage(SD)

35.1

1(5.6

9)

36.67

(5.5

9)

36.1

3(4.1

6)

38.0

0(4.3

1)

46.0

0(8.0

4)

47.2

5(8.1

4)

44.2

9(5.5

3)

45.8

6(5.7

3)

Femalepercen

tage

40%

40%

50%

50%

80%

80%

83%

83%

Meantenure(

SD)

12.5

6(4.9

0)

14.56

(4.9

0)

10.6

3(3.5

0)

12.5

0(3.5

9)

8.5

0(3.1

1)

10.2

5(3.5

0)

5.6

7(7.5

5)

7.1

7(7.9

4)

Followers

Meanage(SD)

30.69

(8.7

1)

28.7

1(7.9

1)

43.3

5(11.1

9)

43.5

7(10.2

8)

Femalepercen

tage

49%

33%

95%

91%

Meantenure(

SD)

6.3

0(

7.1

7)

3.00

(2.5

9)

10.5

1(10.0

0)

13.8

9(13.4

3)

Note.T

ime1=pre-intervention,T

ime2=ninemo

nthspost-trainingintervention.



12/26


Sector We included a control variable for organization for each leader (0 = Accountancy,

1 = Elderly care).

Team size We included a control variable for leaders span of control indexed by team

size.

ESM data ESM data were recorded on personal digital assistants (PDAs). A signal-con-

tingent ESM design was used, where participants were asked to provide multiple ratings

of affective and cognitive states. Signal-contingent designs are recommended when the

objective is to minimize recall bias and the focus is on within-day analyses (Wheeler and

Reiss, 1991). Participants were signaled at random times on weekdays, on average eight

times a day between 9 am to 5 pm over both a two-week period before the team imple-

mentation and the training intervention and for a two-week period after the team imple-

mentation and the training intervention. The PDAs were programmed to have a timelapse of 15 minutes, such that if the respondent did not complete the questionnaire or

only completed parts of the questionnaire, it would automatically turn off and jump to the

next time slot. This procedure is recommended in order to avoid recall bias (Hektner and

Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). No two signals were presented within 30 minutes of each other.

Owing to technical problems with the PDAs, not all participants were signaled the

maximum of 80 times. Also, a number of participants had days off or were on training

during the two-week period and therefore did not complete the questionnaires during the

days when they were off work. Participants responded an average of 38.79 times (range

six to 78). The number of responses was not related to any of the independent, control,or dependent variables (p > .05). Neither did including the number of responses as a

control variable alter the significance or the interpretation of the hypothesis tests.

Psychological well-beingwas assessed by seven items tapping both affective and

cognitive aspects of psychological well-being (see e.g. Ryff and Keyes, 1995; Warr,

1994). Items were rated on five-point fully anchored scales (1 = to a very large extent,

5 = not at all; or where 1 represented a psychological state and 5 its antonym). Using

both multilevel and robust modeling options available in the EQS program (Bentler,

2006) for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we assessed several alternative models

that could explain the underlying structure for these items. Neither a single first orderfactor model nor different variants of two-factor models had adequate fit to the data

(CFI .91). A three-factor model did provide an adequate fit to the data (CFI = .95 for

multilevel estimation, CFI = .97 for robust estimation). One factor represented general

cognitive and affective aspects of well-being that were not attached to a specific point

in time (e.g. To what extent did you enjoy what you were doing?), and two factors

represented activated and calm affective states respectively that referred to how people

felt at the time of the alarm signal (e.g. How active did you feel when you were beeped?

and How tense did you feel when you were beeped?). These three factors were labeled

general well-being, activated well-being and calmness. To calculate scale scores, the

well-being items were coded so that high scores indicated better well-being, summed

and divided by the number of items in each scale to give an overall score (general well-

being, three items Cronbachs = .88 at baseline, Cronbachs = .80 at

follow-up; activated well-being, two items Cronbachs = .94 at baseline, correlation



13/26


between items at baseline, r= .89, Cronbachs = .90 at follow-up, correlation between

items at follow-up, r= . 89; calmness, two items Cronbachs = .79 at baseline, correla-

tion between items at baseline, r= .66, Cronbachs = .85 at follow-up, correlation

between items at follow-up, r= .74).

Challenge experience was assessed by two items pertaining to the activity in whichrespondents were engaged in when they were signaled (To which extent did you feel

challenged by the activity? and To which extent did you use your skills?). The items

were rated on a five-point fully anchored scale (1 = to a very large extent, 5 = not at

all), summed and divided by two to give an overall score (Cronbachs = .91 at base-

line, correlation between items at baseline, r= .84, Cronbachs = .89 at follow-up,

correlation between items at follow-up, r= .80). A series of CFAs were used to check that

the challenge experience items were not aspects of well-being. The well-being items

were represented by three factors representing general well-being, activated well-being,

and calmness. In the first three models, the challenge items were loaded onto each well-being factor. None of these models provided adequate fit (CFI .82 for multilevel esti-

mation, CFI .90 for robust estimation). A four-factor model, in which the challenge

items were represented by a separate factor provided a better fit to the data (CFI = .94 for

multilevel estimation, CFI = .96 for robust estimation).

Analysis

Data were analyzed with multilevel regression (HLM-6, Raudenbush et al., 2004). Two-

level models were fitted to the data, representing leaders (Level 2) and event level(Level 1) data respectively. We did not include a level intermediary between event-level

and leader-level that represented the day of the week or the time of day because there

were no data to indicate whether day of week or time of day create dependencies between

events on the same day or events that occur at the same time on different days. In the

absence of such data, we believed it was better to treat each observation as a unique

combination of day of week and time of day (Becker, 2005).

In all models, we regressed the main effects of the training intervention (coded as a

dummy variable, where 1 = intervention) and its interaction with openness to change

onto challenge experiences and well-being as tests of Hypotheses 1 through 4. The maineffects for openness to change were also regressed onto challenge experiences (Aiken

and West, 1991). Openness to change was centered at the grand mean for the sample by

standardizing its score.

First, we estimated models of the training intervention, its interaction with openness

to change, and post-intervention within-person variation in challenge experiences on the

three indicators of post-intervention well-being (Model 1). This provided a direct test of

Hypothesis 1, that the training intervention influenced subsequent well-being. Using

Baron and Kennys criteria for evaluating mediation (1986), these models also provided

a first step in evaluating Hypothesis 2, that the impact of the intervention is mediated by

challenge experiences. Similarly for the non-linear hypotheses, these first models pro-

vided a direct test of Hypothesis 3, that the impact of the training intervention on well-

being is moderated by openness to change, and a first step in evaluating Hypothesis 4,



14/26


that the moderated effect of the intervention is mediated by challenge experiences. These

models also provided tests of Hypothesis 5, that within-person variations in post-inter-

vention challenge experiences are associated with well-being.

Second, we estimated models that were the same as the first set of models estimated,

except participants average levels of post-intervention challenge experiences were con-trolled (Model 2). As Hypotheses 2 and 4 are between-persons hypotheses, using the

persons mean post-intervention challenge experiences score models this between-per-

son variance (Zhang et al., 2009). These models provided the second step in evaluating

Hypotheses 2 and 4. If the effects of the training intervention or its interaction with open-

ness to change become non-significant (or remain significant but become weaker) after

controlling for participants average levels of post-intervention challenge experiences,

then Baron and Kennys (1986) second criteria for full (partial) mediation is met.

Third, we estimated a model of the training intervention and its interaction with open-

ness to change on event-level post-intervention challenge experiences (Model 3). Theseprovided the third and last steps in evaluating mediation using Baron and Kennys crite-

ria (1986). If the first two criteria were met, Hypothesis 2 or Hypothesis 4 would be

supported if the training intervention or its interaction with openness to change has sig-

nificant effects on challenge experiences.

Because Baron and Kennys criteria are known to be a conservative method and have

a number of other problems (e.g. MacKinnon et al., 2002), we used two other procedures

to examine Hypotheses 2 and 4 based on the estimation of indirect effects. We estimated

indirect effect using the product of the regression coefficient of the independent variable

on to the mediator (challenge experiences) and the regression coefficient of the mediatoronto the dependent variable (well-being variables) (Sobel, 1982). Because normal theory

standard errors are inappropriate when evaluating the significance of indirect effects

(MacKinnon et al., 2002), we used two alternative methods to evaluate the indirect

effects significance. First, we used the prodclin-r program, which uses the distribution

of the product of two normally distributed variables to compute asymmetric confidence

intervals for indirect effects (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Second, we used bias-corrected

bootstrapping methods (Edwards and Lambert, 2007). We used both methods because

bias-corrected bootstrapping methods usually converge with the prodclin-r approach, but

can lead to higher type I error than the prodclin-r approach in some circumstances(MacKinnon et al., 2004, 2007; Williams and MacKinnon, 2008).

We controlled for challenge experiences and the three well-being variables assessed

prior to the intervention by taking the average score on each variable for each participant.

Dependent variables in all models were left in their raw metrics as described for each

variable above. All dummy variables were left in their raw metric to ease interpretation

of their effects, otherwise predictor variables were centered (Raudenbush and Bryk,

2002). Most variables were centered at the grand mean, either because control variables

were between-person variables or because the hypotheses represented between-person

effects. This included post-intervention challenge experiences that were centered at the

grand mean when regressed on post-intervention well-being to test Hypotheses 2 and 4.

Because Hypothesis 5 represents a within-person process, challenge experiences were

centered at the mean for each person to test this hypothesis.



15/26


Results

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha), and

correlations. Before testing the hypotheses, we first fitted null models to the data.

These null models indicated over half of the variance for each dependent variablecould be attributed to within-person variation (67% for general well-being, 74% for

activated well-being, 58% for calmness, 67% for challenge experiences).

Table 4 shows the results of the multilevel regressions. In respect of Hypothesis 1,

there was no evidence of significant relationships between the training intervention

and any of the well-being variables (range ofBs for Models 1 and 2 -0.07 to 0.12,

NS). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is rejected or we can conclude training had no effect on

well-being. Table 4 also shows there is no support for Hypothesis 2 using the Baron

and Kenny criteria to assess mediation of the effect of training on well-being through

challenge experiences. This is because there is no relationship between training andany of the well-being variables in each Model 1, and there was no relationship between

the training intervention and challenge experiences (B = 0.09, NS for Model 3).

Neither the prodclin-r program nor the bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure pro-

vided support for Hypothesis 2 (range of indirect effects -0.01 to 0.01, NS). Therefore,

Hypothesis 2 was rejected. Table 4 shows that the results of Model 1 for all indicators

of well-being indicate that there was support for Hypothesis 3 that openness to change

moderates the impact of the training intervention on well-being (range ofBs for

Model 1 0.25 to 0.46,p < .05).

Support for Hypothesis 3 has to be interpreted in light of support for Hypothesis 4.

Table 4 shows that the interaction between the training intervention and openness

became non-significant when participants average levels of post-intervention chal-

lenge experiences were controlled for (range ofBs for Models 2 0.06 to 0.17, NS).

Further, Table 4 shows that the interaction between the training intervention and

openness to change is associated with post-intervention challenge experiences (Model

3,B = 0.53,p < .01). Therefore, all three of Baron and Kennys criteria for mediation

were met for the interaction between the intervention and follower openness to

change. Because the interaction term becomes non-significant after controlling for

post-intervention challenge experience, the results indicate that the effect of the inter-

action between the training intervention and openness to change is fully mediated bychallenge experiences.

Analysis of the indirect effects also indicates challenge experiences mediate the inter-

action between the intervention and openness to change on leader well-being. The indirect

effect was statistically significant using both the prodclin-r program and bias-corrected

bootstrapping procedure for all three indicators of well-being (general well-being, indirect

effect = 0.21,p < .01 using both procedures; activated well-being, indirect effect = 0.15,

p < .01 using both procedures; calmness, indirect effect = 0.15, p < .01 using both

procedures).

To interpret the form of the interaction, we calculated simple slopes of the trainingintervention on challenge experiences for different levels of openness to change. We

used the procedures outlined by Preacher et al. (2006). The simple slope for training

intervention became significant at 1.00 standard deviations above the mean for openness



16/26


Table3

Means,s

tandarddeviations,i

nternalconsistencies,a

ndcorrelation

s

Variable

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1.

Post-inter

ventiongeneralwell-being

4.0

9

0.8

0

(.80)

.64

.63

.52

2.

Post-inter

ventionactivatedwell-being

4.1

3

0.8

0

.78**

(.90

)

.59

.56

3.

Post-inter

ventioncalmness

3.9

9

0.8

8

.89**

.83

**

(.85)

.55

4.

Post-inter

ventionchallengeexperience

3.5

8

1.0

7

.67**

.45

*

.69**

(.89)

5.

Trainingin

tervention

-

-

-.1

1

-.24

-.1

0

.00

(-)

6.

Followero

pennesstochange

62.7

8

11.8

1

.15

.25

.09

.03

-.1

0

(.90)

7.

Sector

-

-

.01

.31

.06

-.1

8

-.2

4

.32

(-)

8.

Team

size

12.4

5

7.6

0

-.0

4

.20

.09

-.1

7

-.2

8

.31

.69**

(-)

9.

Pre-interventiongeneralwell-being

4.3

6

0.3

8

.80**

.63

**

.63**

.35

-.0

4

.06

.14

-.0

6

(.88)

10.

Pre-interventionactivatedwell-being

4.3

9

0.3

8

.54**

.66

**

.46*

.19

.00

.17

.42

.23

.76**

(.94)

11.

Pre-interventioncalmness

3.8

7

0.5

1

.75**

.73

**

.74**

.39*

-.1

0

.05

.11

.07

.86**

.77**

(.79)

12.

Pre-interventionchallengeexperience

4.9

5

0.5

1

.46*

.28

.37

.48**

-.1

3

-.15

.25

.17

.55**

.51**

.48**

(.94)

Note.N

=29,no.o

fobservations=1125,a

lphacoefficientsofreliabilityshowninparen

thesesonmaindiagonal,correlationsaggregatedatthepersonlevelsh

ownbelow

primarydiagona

l,correlationsforESM

dataabovet

hemaindiagonal.

*p

emotiile liderului in schibarile organizationale

Documents