Flourishing at work is all about relationships

Work as strictly business is an outdated idea: office friendships serve a growing number of functions in our lives, write Amy E. Colbert, Joyce E. Bono and Radostina (Ina) K. Purvanov

Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders.

We extend existing theories by linking transformational leadership to "self-concordance" at work. In two studies using diverse samples and methods, leader behaviors were associated with follower tendencies to set self-concordant goals. In general, followers of transformational leaders viewed their work as more important and as more self-congruent. The effects of self-concordant work goals on job attitudes and performance were generally positive; however, the pattern of relationships differed in the field study and the experimental study. Over the past 20 years, considerable research effort has been invested in the study of transformational, charismatic, visionary, or inspiring leaders. In contrast to rational or "transactional" approaches to leadership, transformational and charismatic theories have been framed to recognize the affective and emotional needs and responses of followers. Whereas each of the extant theories In light of this impressive support, it is surprising that so little is known about the processes by which transformational or charismatic leaders have their effects on followers. According to Bass, "Much more explanation is needed about the inner workings of transformational leadership " (1999: 24). Noting that current rational and economic theories of motivation cannot explain the transformational leadership process, Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) offered a self-concept-based theory. Although their theory is one of the best articulated theories regarding the motivational effects of charismatic leaders, it received only limited support in a recent empirical test The present investigation was designed to extend the self-concept-based theory by linking some elements of the theory with the self-concordance model, a motivational theory that links internal self-regulation, goal-directed effort, and goal attainment. Our purpose was to gain a better understanding of the reasons why followers of transformational leaders exhibit increased motivation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance. We did this by testing one of the most fundamental notions underlying transformational leadership theory and the self-concept-based theory-that followers of transformational leaders find their work more meaningful and thus, are more self-engaged. In two studies, we used the selfconcordance model to demonstrate how transforThis manuscript is based on the dissertation of the first author, which was completed under the supervision of the second. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X (copyright 1995 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio), was used with the permission of Mind Garden, 1690 Woodside Road, Suite 202, Redwood City, CA 94061. All rights reserved. The Role-Based Performance Scale (RBPS) was used with the permission of Theresa Welbourne, University of Michigan Business School, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234. 2003, Vol. 46, No. 5, 554-571. 554 mational leaders affect follower engagement with their work. Academy of Management Journal THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Transformational Leadership One of the vexing issues in research on charismatic and transformational leadership is the extent to which the various theories overlap, both conceptually and operationally. These differing approaches lend depth and breadth to academic and practitioner knowledge of this genre of leadership. However, it is difficult to specify the motivational mechanisms linking leaders and followers without very clear conceptual definitions, including the specification of leader behaviors. Recent theories of charisma in organizations Self-Concept-Based Theory and the SelfConcordance Model With self-concept-based theory, Shamir and his coauthors (1993) advanced transformational leadership research by outlining the motivational processes linking leaders and their followers. In selfconcept-based theory, there are three key ways in which transformational leaders motivate followers: by increasing follower self-efficacy, by facilitating followers' social identification with their group, and by linking work values to follower valuesthus increasing the extent to which followers view their work as self-expressive. First, by providing a sense of direction (vision) and expressing high expectations and confidence in followers' ability to meet these expectations Second, transformational leaders increase followers' social identification with their group. Social identification is the process by which individuals identify with a group, feel pride in belonging, and see membership in the group as an important aspect of their identities or self-concepts. This aspect of the self-concept-based theory also received mixed support in the The third way that transformational leaders influence followers is through value internalization and "self-engagement" with work. When transformational leaders describe work in ideological terms, and focus on higher-order values (such as high achievement as a value in and of itself An assumption underlying self-concept-based theory is that employees who view their work as congruent with their own motives, goals, and/or values (or as self-congruent) will be more motivated and more satisfied and will perform better. Indeed, the self-concordance model-a psychological theory of motivation and self-regulation-suggests that this is true. Thus, we sought to gain a better understanding of the effects of transforma-2003 555 Bono and Judge tional or charismatic leaders by considering selfconcordance as a motivational mechanism. Self-concordance refers to the extent to which activities such as job-related tasks or goals express individuals' authentic interests and values (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). The self-concordance model is a theory of self-regulation, that is based in selfdetermination theory In a recent series of studies, Sheldon and colleagues (e.g., Sheldon & Elliot, 1998 found that autonomous (versus controlled) motivation was associated with goal-directed effort, goal attainment, and satisfaction with goal achievement. This relationship exists because autonomously motivated goals fit with a person's values and beliefs and are consistent with personal convictions. They represent core values and enduring interests of the self. In contrast, controlled motivation represents goals adopted in response to environmental contingencies, such as financial rewards, or those resulting from internal processes, such as guilt or shame. Whether a goal is perceived to be autonomous or controlled is not necessarily a function of the goal's content. Rather, it is the assessments individuals make about their reasons for goal pursuit that are important. On the basis of these studies, Sheldon and Elliot (1999) posited a self-concordance model, arguing that goals that are self-concordant (that is, consistent with one's values and interests) lead to goal attainment and well-being. Like Ryan and Connell (1989), Sheldon and Elliot treated self-concordance as a continuum, forming a composite of the two controlled (external and introjected) and two autonomously motivated (identified and intrinsic) reasons for acting. Sheldon and colleagues' studies provide impressive evidence that self-concordant goals are associated with positive outcomes (such as goal attainment and well-being). Furthermore, their findings are consistent with those of O'Reilly and Chatman (1986), who found that individuals with an internalized (versus a compliant) commitment to their organizations exhibited more extrarole behaviors, were less likely to leave, and contributed more to fund raising. Given our adoption of a "new" concept-selfconcordance-we believe it is important to provide a brief discussion of the relationships between this construct and other related organizational variables, such as psychological empowerment, and to justify our reasons for linking the self-concordance model with self-concept-based theory. With respect to the first issue, there is conceptual overlap between psychological empowerment One might ask what the concept of self-concordance adds to earlier work on intrinsic motivation and self-determination. Is self-concordance simply "old wine in a new bottle"? Although it is clearly derived from thinking on self-determination, the self-concordance concept represents an advance in 556 October Academy of Management Journal several ways. Perhaps most importantly, selfconcordance is explicitly a goal-oriented or conative concept (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Earlier theorizing on intrinsic motivation did not place much emphasis on goal-directed behavior. In contrast, goals, and the associated reasons for their pursuit, are the defining feature of self-concordance. More generally, whereas self-determination theory was developed to account for the effects of contextual forces on intrinsic motivation (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), the self-concordance model focuses on individuals' proactive and self-generated plans. This focus fits well with the literature on charismatic/transformational leadership, which was explicitly developed as an alternative to leadership models that were predicated on a distinction between prescribed behavior on the job and performance beyond expectations There is surprising congruency between the selfconcordance model and Shamir and colleagues' (1993) self-concept-based theory. Shamir et al. noted that charismatic leaders link work behavior to followers' self-concepts, values, and identities, thereby increasing the value of their work activities and "harnessing the motivational forces of selfexpression, self-esteem, and self-worth" (1993: 585). Similarly, Sheldon and Elliott (1998) linked autonomous goals to individuals' core values, which are a key part of the self. Moreover, the behaviors of transformational leaders, which lead to follower self-engagement, appear to have a great deal in common with one of the primary environmental (social) determinants of self-concordance. Specifically, when individuals in authority (such as leaders) provide a meaningful rationale for the work to be done, self-concordance is increased With respect to our link between the self-concordance model and self-concept-based theory, we believe that the self-concordance model is an ideal means to address the motivational hypotheses underlying self-concept-based theory-that transformational or charismatic leaders influence follower self-engagement. The self-concordance model allows us to get directly at motives without confounding them with self-efficacy or job autonomy, though both of these may influence motives. For example, although Shamir and his colleagues (1998) provided many new insights into the links between leaders and followers, in their study heightened motivation was linked with self-sacrifice. The self-concordance model suggests that when individuals internalize work values-as suggested by the self-concept based theory-they do not perceive themselves to be sacrificing self-interests for the greater good. Rather, if followers internalize leader and group goals, subsequent actions are motivated by personally held values. Indeed, considerable evidence from the self-concordance model demonstrates motivational differences in goals pursued for an "other," such as a transformational leader, and goals pursued because they represent personally held values. Because self-concept engagement is at the heart of self-concept-based theory, testing the self-concordance model provides an important, direct test of self-concept-based theory. In summary, we suggest that when transformational leaders present work in terms of ideology and values endorsed by most followers (higherorder values STUDY 1: METHODS Participants and Procedures Participants were 247 individuals (leaders) holding supervisory or managerial positions within a participating organization and 954 of the individuals who reported directly to them. For this study, a leader was defined by formal position. Individuals who were supervised by these leaders are referred to as followers. We recruited nine organizations (seven business, one governmental, and one nonprofit), in industries ranging from advertising to aerospace, including both service and manufacturing organizations. Each organization identified a group of managers for participation in the study (such as all managers in the organization, or all managers in a particular geographic location or di-2003 557 Bono and Judge vision). The leaders we studied held positions ranging from upper-level manager to entry-level supervisor, such as a team leader. They had 2-248 followers; the mode was 4 followers per leader. On average, leaders had held their current jobs for 5.5 years and worked in their current organizations 9.7 years. Twenty percent of the leaders held graduate degrees, 42 percent had bachelor's degrees, 63 percent were men, and their average age was 43 years. Of 324 leaders invited to participate, 247 (76%) completed surveys. For each leader, up to 6 followers were also invited to participate (selection criteria are discussed below), resulting in a total of 1,368 followers who were potential participants. Of these, 954 followers (70%) completed our initial (time 1) surveys. Follow-up (time 2) surveys were completed by 98 percent (243) of the leaders and by 86 percent of the followers (775 of 904; 50 followers did not provide complete data at time 1 and thus did not receive time 2 surveys). The overall response rates were thus 70 percent, for the leaders, and 57 percent, for the followers. Matched data (leader and follower at times 1 and 2) were obtained for 173 leaders and 680 of their followers. Data were collected over the Internet. At time 1, leaders identified their followers from a company list. Six followers were randomly selected (by an algorithm built into the Web site) for inclusion in the study. If a leader had fewer than 6 followers, all were included. An e-mail was sent to followers asking them to participate in the study by completing a leadership survey (for the target leader) and a measure of goal self-concordance. Approximately 60 days later (time 2), leaders completed job performance surveys for each of the randomly selected followers, and followers completed job attitude surveys. Also at time 2, a significant other (a close friend or family member) completed a job satisfaction survey for 510 (56%) of the followers. Paper surveys were distributed to followers, who passed them along to a significant other. Completed surveys were returned to the authors, and all individual responses were confidential, although summary reports were provided to leaders and organization executives. Measures Leadership. Transformational leadership behaviors were measured with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-Form 5X), the most frequently used measure of transformational leadership. Although early versions of this measure were criticized as assessing follower attributions rather than leader behaviors, more recent versions focus on leader behaviors. Considerable evidence of the validity and reliability of the MLQ has been compiled. However, some controversy over its dimensionality remains. In most studies, including a recent large-scale study Follower satisfaction with leader. Follower satisfaction with the leader was measured with the three-item Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) satisfaction with supervision scale Follower job satisfaction. We measured job satisfaction using five items from the Brayfield Rothe scale Follower organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured with the eight- 558 October Academy of Management Journal item affective commitment scale Follower job performance. We used a 15-item measure of job performance including both task performance and initiative aspects of performance, including innovation, personal initiative, and selfdirection. Leaders provided reports of job performance for each of their selected followers. Selfdirection items (4) were adapted from a scale developed by Self-concordance. A goal-based measure of selfconcordance was used, a practice that was consistent with research by Sheldon and colleagues (see Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Followers were asked to identify six of their short-term, job-related goals. Because of constraints imposed by participating organizations, and because it fit within the time frame of other self-concordance research, we defined a short-term goal as one that could be accomplished in 60 days. After participants identified goals, we asked for their reasons for pursuing each goal. An individual's first goal appeared on the computer screen followed by four questions representing a continuum of self-concordant reasons for goal pursuit. The questions were "You choose this goal because somebody else wants you to or because the situation demands it" and "You pursue this goal because you would feel anxious, guilty, or ashamed if you didn't" (external and introjected items represent controlled motivation); "You pursue this goal because you really believe it's an important goal to have" and "You pursue this goal because of the fun and enjoyment it provides you" (identified and intrinsic items represent autonomous motivation). Participants answered all four questions for each of their six goals using a ninepoint scale (1 ϭ "not at all for this reason," to 9, "completely for this reason"). As our Web-based survey did not allow skipping items, six goals were obtained for all participants. STUDY 1: ANALYSES AND RESULTS Levels of Analysis Before examining the statistical properties of our data, we followed recommendations made by Measurement Issues We used structural equation modeling (LISREL 8.3) to test our hypotheses. Prior to conducting our analyses, we examined several aspects of our data. We examined the relationship between leaders' demographic characteristics-age, sex, and organizational tenure-and transformational leadership. No associations were found. We also examined the measurement properties of some of our variables. As is typically found As noted earlier, it was our intention to obtain a comprehensive measure of overall job performance. Because we drew items from a number of performance scales, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis on the 15 items. Results indicated that a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.00 explained 84 percent of the variance in the items. Results, which are shown in Because we conceptualized transformational leadership at the group level, we averaged the transformational leadership scores of all followers for each leader (the average was four followers per leader). This procedure was consistent with past research We examined the data for consistency in goal self-concordance across the six goals for each follower. Results indicated consistency in responses across goals, as indicated by coefficients alpha of .82 and .83, respectively, for controlled and autonomous motivation. In some studies Although there are reasons to exercise caution in the use of difference scores 560 October Academy of Management Journal our undertaking analyses without reliance on difference scores, make their use here less of an issue than is often the case. Prior to aggregating the data across organizations, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) looking for mean-level differences between the organizations. Results revealed small, albeit significant, mean-level differences for some variables (such as transformational leadership and self-concordance), but not others (such as job satisfaction). However, organizations in which mean levels of transformational leadership were high were not the same organizations in which levels of self-concordance were high. We also conducted five meta-analyses, examining associations among transformational leadership, self-concordance, job attitudes, and job performance. Our goal was to determine whether sampling error could explain differences between organizations. Results indicated that sampling error accounted for most of the differences in relationships between companies: more than 70 percent of the variance in correlations across organizations was a consequence of sampling error. Thus, we deemed it appropriate to aggregate our data across companies. Finally, to prevent interpretational problems inherent in simultaneous estimation of measurement and structural models, we tested a measurement model, loading each of the latent and observed variables on the intended construct. This model demonstrated a good fit for the data ( 2 ϭ 25.99, df ϭ 14, p ϭ .02, CFI ϭ 1.00, IFI ϭ 1.00, SRMR ϭ .01, RMSEA ϭ .04). In cases in which we used a single observed variable to measure a latent construct (job attitudes), we corrected for measurement error by setting an error variance equal to ( 2 ). Results No association was found between self-concordance and job performance. Positive associations were found between self-concordance and job satisfaction (r ϭ .18 and r ϭ .12 for self-and significant-other reports), organizational commitment (r ϭ .12), and satisfaction with the leader (r ϭ .08). Further examination of the data reveals that these associations are due to the autonomous motivation-job attitudes association, as there is no association between controlled motivation and job attitudes. Next we estimated a structural model testing our mediation hypothesis (Hypothesis 2) for job attitudes. Results of this model, which are displayed in FIGURE 1 Relationships among Transformational Leadership, Goal Self-Concordance, and Job Attitudes a a n ϭ

Mindfulness has big impacts for performance, decision-making and career longevity

It is no longer a fad, argue Darren J. Good, Christopher J. Lyddy, Theresa M. Glomb and Joyce E. Bon

Contemplating Mindfulness at Work: An Integrative Review

Mindfulness research activity is surging within organizational science. Emerging evidence across multiple fields suggests that mindfulness is fundamentally connected to many aspects of workplace functioning, but this knowledge base has not been systematically integrated to date. This review coalesces the burgeoning body of mindfulness scholarship into a framework to guide mainstream management research investigating a broad range of constructs. The framework identifies how mindfulness influences attention, with downstream effects on functional domains of cognition, emotion, behavior, and physiology. Ultimately, these domains impact key workplace outcomes, including performance, relationships, and well-being. Consideration of the evidence on mindfulness at work stimulates important questions and challenges key assumptions within management science, generating an agenda for future research

Breaking the Cycle: The Effects of Role Model Performance and Ideal Leadership Self-Concepts on Abusive Supervision Spillover

Building on identity theories and social learning theory, we test the notion that new leaders will model the abusive behaviors of their superiors only under certain conditions. Specifically, we hypothesize that new leaders will model abusive supervisory behaviors when (a) abusive superiors are perceived to be competent, based on the performance of their teams and (b) new leaders\u27 ideal leadership self-concepts are high on tyranny or low on sensitivity. Results of an experiment in which we manipulated abusive supervisory behaviors using a professional actor, and created a role change where 93 individuals moved from team member to team leader role, generally support our hypotheses. We found the strongest association between abuse exposure and new leader abuse under conditions where the abusive superior\u27s team performed well and the new team leaders\u27 self-concepts showed low concern for others

Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion

In a series of studies, we examine the role of positive emotions in the charismatic leadership process. In Studies 1 and 2, ratings of charisma in a natural work setting were linked to leaders' positive emotional expressions. In Study 3, leaders' positive emotional expressions were linked to mood states of simulated followers. Results suggest that mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers. In Study 4, we used a trained actor and manipulated leaders' positive emotional expressions to isolate the effects of positive emotions from the potential effects of non-emotional aspects of effective leadership (e.g., vision, other inspirational influence processes). A positive link between leader emotions and follower mood was found. Results also indicate that both leaders' positive emotional expressions and follower mood influenced ratings of leader effectiveness and attraction to the leader. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Relationship of core selfevaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis

This article presents meta-analytic results of the relationship of 4 traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (low neuroticism)—with job satisfaction and job performance. With respect to job satisfaction, the estimated true score correlations were.26 for self-esteem,.45 for generalized self-efficacy,.32 for internal locus of control, and.24 for emotional stability. With respect to job performance, the correlations were.26 for self-esteem,.23 for generalized self-efficacy,.22 for internal locus of control, and.19 for emotional stability. In total, the results based on 274 correlations suggest that these traits are among the best dispositional predictors of job satisfaction and job performance. T. A. Judge, E. A. Locke, and C. C. Durham's (1997) theory of core selfevaluations is used as a framework for discussing similarities between the 4 traits and their relationships to satisfaction and performance. Recently, Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) proposed a higher order construct they termed core self-evaluations or, more simply, positive self-concept. According to Judge et al. (1997), this construct is a broad dispositional trait that is indicated by four more specific traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus o