a study of the relationships between ethical leadership
TRANSCRIPT
MASTER'S THESIS HUMAN RESOURCE STUDIES
A study of the relationships between ethical
leadership, Human Resource Management (HRM) and
self-efficacy
Student: Tom Vianen
ANR: 416368
Supervisor: Karianne Kalshoven
Second reader: Renée de Reuver
Date: 21 August 2014
Project period: January 2014 - August 2014
Project theme: Interplay between ethical leadership and HRM
Word count: 13.087
2
Table of contents
1. Introduction 4
2. Theoretical framework 6
2.1 Ethical leadership 6
2.2 Self-efficacy 7
2.3 Ethical leadership and self-efficacy 8
2.4 HRM and self-efficacy 9
2.5 The moderating role of HRM 10
3. Methods 11
3.1 Research set-up and characteristics 11
3.2 Procedure 12
3.3 Measures 12
3.4 Statistical analysis 14
4. Results 14
4.1 Correlations 15
4.2 Regression analyses 16
5. Discussion 19
5.1 Theoretical implications 19
5.2 Practical implications 22
5.3 Strengths and limitations 23
5.3 Conclusion 25
6. References 26
7. Appendix A - Questionnaire with relevant variables included 32
8. Appendix B - Factor analyses 35
3
Abstract
This study investigated the link between ethical leadership, Human Resource Management (HRM)
and self-efficacy. Based on the social learning theory, it was expected that ethical leadership (as
perceived by the employee) is positively related to the employee's self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was
proposed that employee perceptions of HRM are positively related to the employee's self-efficacy.
Next, HRM as a moderator in the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy was
posed, with the social learning theory as the underlying principle. When employees perceive high
levels of both ethical leadership and HRM within the organisation, it was expected that this would
lead to employees perceiving higher levels of self-efficacy. By means of a questionnaire, data was
acquired from 142 employees. Analyses of the data revealed that ethical leadership was positively
related to self-efficacy. No relationship was found between HRM and self-efficacy. Furthermore, the
moderating effect of HRM on the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy was not
supported by the results. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed and future research is
recommended to further investigate the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy
and possible factors that influence this relationship.
Keywords: ethical leadership, Human Resource Management, self-efficacy, social learning theory
4
1. Introduction
Where ethical leadership has been the former domain of philosophical researchers in
particular, amongst social scientists interest in ethical leadership has emerged in the organisational
settings this century (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2003). Unethical
leaders in companies give priority to their own desires, instead of giving the company and employees
top-priority (Padilla et al., 2007; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). This unethical behaviour has a negative
influence on follower's behaviour and ultimately on the business performance (Piccolo, Greenbaum,
Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2011). Research in the early seventies has already
shown that leadership is of importance in relation to business performance (Lieberson & O'Connor,
1972). With the global financial crisis still going on, it is of main importance that a company performs
well. Therefore, possible antecedents of business performance are the topic of interest amongst
scientists recently (Hassan, Wright, & Yukl, 2014; Walumbwa et al., 2011; Zhang, Walumbwa, Aryee,
& Chen, 2013). These developments have increased the interest amongst researchers in ethical
leadership in relation to the business environment.
To begin with, ethics in general has been defined by Resnik (2010) as follows: ''Norms of
conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour'' (p.1). In other words: it is
about what is ''right'' and what is ''wrong'' to do. Taking the descriptive ethical point of view in
relation to leadership, Treviño et al. (2003) explained that ethical leaders influence employees by
setting ethical standards and subsequently holding employees accountable for ethical conduct,
ultimately influencing the follower's ethical behaviour. Additionally, Brown et al. (2005) argued that
ethical leadership can be linked to behavioural and attitudinal employee outcomes. This argument
has been supported by several scientists, as ethical leadership is positively related to followers' voice
behaviour (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), helping (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012) and organisational
citizenship behaviour (Avey, Palanski, & Walumbwa, 2011; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, &
Salvador, 2009). Furthermore, relationships have been found between ethical leadership and
performance-related outcomes, such as task performance (Piccolo et al., 2010).
Previously outlined research stresses the importance of ethical leadership as an antecedent
of employee behaviours. However, employee behaviours are not the only ones that matter within an
organisation. There can be other variables that are in-between the relationship of types of leadership
and employee behaviours (Casimir et al., 2006; Jung & Avolio, 2000; Walumbwa, 2011). For example,
research conducted by Piccolo et al. (2010) has shown that ethical leadership increases task
significance, thus focusing on the 'black box' part of the ethical leadership-performance chain. They
argue that the relationship between ethical leadership and task significance stems from the principle
5
of social learning, which can be explained by the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). Another
commonly recurring and important variable in the social learning theory is self-efficacy (Bandura,
1977). Taking the social learning perspective on ethical leadership suggests that the ethical leader, as
a legitimate role model, helps employees to utilise their full potential, thus influencing the
employee's self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The research will build on the work that has been done by
Walumbwa et al. (2011) by further examining the role of ethical leadership in relation to self-efficacy,
as research on this relationship remains scarce. Thus this research investigates the 'black box' by
looking at the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is about a person's confidence in his or her competence to display performance
on a specific task (Gist, 1992). Drawing on the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), Walumbwa et
al. (2011) argue that a leader's behaviour influences the employee's behaviour through role
modelling which subsequently gives these followers the opportunity to learn and acquire new skills
and strengthen their behaviour, which in turn increases an employee's self-efficacy. Furthermore, as
implied by Walumbwa et al. (2011), there can be moderators that affect the relationship between
ethical leadership and self-efficacy. This research extends the existing study of Walumbwa et al.
(2011) by including the moderating role of Human Resource Management (hereinafter referred to as
HRM) as perceived by the employees.
Within organisations, HRM can have a supportive role for employees and includes multiple
practices, such as selection, training and development, performance appraisal, rewarding and
participation (Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton, & Swart, 2005; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, &
Allen, 2005). Research has already shown that HRM is of importance when speaking of a company's
performance (Guest et al., 2003; Guest, Katou, & Budhwar, 2011; Huselid, 1995; Paauwe, & Wright,
2012; Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003). Besides performance outcomes, HRM also influences
behavioural and commitment-based outcomes (Boxall, Ang, & Bartram, 2011; Meyer & Smith, 2000;
Snape & Redman, 2010). Thus researchers stress the need that research should also focus on
employee-centred outcomes (Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). The foregoing research leads to an
expectation that HRM is positively related to self-efficacy. HRM practices, such as training and
development and performance appraisal, are expected to positively influence an employee's beliefs
in successfully completing his or her tasks, thus increasing the employee's self-efficacy. Next to the
direct effects of HRM and ethical leadership on self-efficacy, the effect of HRM in the leadership -
self-efficacy chain is likely (cf. Kalshoven & Boon, 2012). It is expected that HRM, when perceived by
the employees as ''high'', acts as a role model for employees. This ''role modelling'' is one of the
techniques of how the employees' self-efficacy is being increased (Bandura, 1977). Furthermore,
HRM represents organisational policies and support by using HRM practices, therefore strengthening
6
the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy. Thus this research contributes to the
existing ethical leadership literature by linking HRM to the effect of ethical leadership on self-
efficacy. It is expected that high levels of HRM as perceived by the employee can help ethical leaders
to increase the employee's self-efficacy through the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).
Therefore, HRM is expected to affect the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy, in
such a way that it strengthens the above mentioned relationship. This leads to the following research
model (Figure 1).
Ethical
LeadershipSelf-efficacy
HRM
+
+
+
Figure 1. Research model
The research question which relates to the depicted research model is as follows:
To what extent do perceptions of HRM and ethical leadership relate to self-efficacy and does
HRM moderate the positive relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy?
To answer the above stated research question, a theoretical framework has been developed
containing explanations of the variables which can be found in the second chapter. Furthermore,
relationships between these variables have been supported by using the social learning theory. The
third chapter is the methods section, which contains the research set-up and procedures, as well as
an explanation of the measurements and statistical analyses that have been used for the variables.
Chapter four contains the results of the research, to conclude with chapter five, which contains the
discussion section and directions for future research.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Ethical leadership
This decade, a growing interest has emerged towards moral standards and ethics in the
leadership field (Brown et al., 2005). Whereas the previous decade mainly concerned research
regarding leadership types such as transformational leadership, transactional leadership, spiritual
leadership and authentic leadership, the ethical part of leadership has become prominent lately due
to several ethical business scandals (Ackman, 2005; Colvin, 2003; Mehta, 2003; Revell, 2003).
7
Ethical leadership has developed as a separate leadership style throughout the years. As one
of the early researchers who were concerned with ethical leadership, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999)
highlighted that ethical leadership is about the leader's moral character, the ethical legitimacy of the
values that are present in the leader's vision and a leader's morality concerning social ethical choices
that he makes. Additionally, Treviño et al. (2000) make a two-part distinction regarding ethical
leadership, namely a leader as an ethical person and a leader as an ethical leader. The former is
about values as trustworthiness, honesty and integrity whereas the latter is about the decisions that
a leader makes that influence the ethics throughout an organisation, thus as perceived and taken
over by the employees. As a follow-up, Treviño et al. (2003) collected results from interviewing
leaders which subsequently revealed that ethical leaders are the ones who set ethical standards and
also take care of the accountability that employees have for acting on an ethical way.
These studies have led Brown et al. (2005) to define ethical leadership in their study as
follows: ''The demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and
interpersonal relationships and the promotion of such conduct to employees through two-way
communication, reinforcement and decision-making'' (p. 120). Following the social learning theory
(Bandura, 1977), Brown et al. (2005) mentioned that ethical leaders are legitimate and are perceived
as honest and trustworthy by their employees, making them credible role models of normatively
appropriate behaviours. Furthermore, they argue that ethical leaders set ethical standards and
correct others if they do not follow these standards. To conclude, Brown et al. (2005) have shown
that ethical leadership can be linked to the employee level in multiple ways.
Evidence has been found that ethical leadership is related to follower outcomes such as
willingness to exert extra effort and satisfaction with the leader (Brown et al., 2005). In the current
study the focus will be on the employee's perceived ethical leadership and self-efficacy using the
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).
2.2 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is important in the work environment, because people that have a high level of
self-efficacy set challenging and difficult goals for themselves, which makes these people more likely
to be more successful in their work (Bandura & Locke, 2003). The concept of self-efficacy has been
derived from the aforementioned social learning theory and is about a person's beliefs in his or her
capability to perform a given task (Bandura, 1977). These beliefs can be influenced by four
techniques, namely enactive mastery, arousal, vicarious modelling and verbal persuasion. These will
be described below.
8
Enactive mastery is about gaining experience from previously performed tasks. Failure will
lead to a lower level of self-efficacy, while success provides a confirmation of an individual's
performance (Lent & Hackett, 1987). However, successes that have been gained easily will not lead
to a higher level of self-efficacy. Persistency and endeavour is needed to achieve this increase in self-
efficacy (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Arousal concerns an individual's perception of its own emotions and psychological well-
being, in such a way that it can influence a person's self-efficacy. Previous research has shown that
anxiety leads to lower self-efficacy (Stumpf, Brief, & Hartman, 1987). Furthermore, emotions and
physical condition can determine the level of arousal an individual experiences when completing his
or her task (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
Vicarious modelling entails the increase of a person's self-efficacy due to the observation of
someone else completing a certain task. In other words, people compare themselves with others
(Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). The effect of this modelling will be larger when a person identifies himself
and sees similarities with the other person/role model (Gist, 1987). On the other hand, seeing
someone fail can also lead to a decrease in self-efficacy.
Verbal persuasion is about providing information to the individual regarding his or her ability
to execute a task. Positive feedback can lead to individuals putting more effort in their tasks (Gist,
1987). However, the credibility and trustworthiness and expertise of the person who persuades need
to be taken into account when judging the persuasion quality (Bandura 1977).
In short, self-efficacy is partly determined by a person's own abilities (enactive mastery) and
for example his or her psychological state (arousal), and partly determined by other people who are
influential on the person's self-efficacy (i.e. by role modelling or verbal persuasion). Especially the
latter statement is useful for this research, as the influence of ethical leadership on self-efficacy
through social learning will be investigated in this research.
2.3 Ethical leadership and self-efficacy
The social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) states that ''behaviour is learned from the
environment through the process of observational learning'' (p.3). Processes through which this is
accomplished are: watching others (thus vicariously), verbal persuasion and direct modelling. This
means that people need role models or, in other words, people that show them how to behave in a
correct and effective way. Taking this social learning perspective into account, Brown et al. (2005)
view ethical leaders as the people that are role models for the workforce. Ethical leaders set
standards of how employees should complete their tasks and what these efforts mean for them (De
9
Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Additionally, employees learn to think in a strategic way about their
own decision-making. Ethical leaders help them think through decisions that they have to make by
asking them: ''What is the right thing to do?'' This process increases their self-efficacy beliefs by
enhancing the decision-making skill, which in turn increases their autonomy, ultimately leading to an
increased self-efficacy (Walumbwa et al., 2011). In this line of reasoning, ethical leaders treat
employees with respect and fairness, and they create an environment in which employees can do
their work satisfactory (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Weaver, Treviño, & Agle, 2005). This function
as a role model can influence the way employees fill in their work, linking ethical leadership to an
employee's self-efficacy.
Furthermore, ethical leaders help employees throughout their process in succeeding in their
work, which subsequently takes away anxiety and stress. This, in light of the 'arousal' technique (an
element of the social learning theory), can lead to an increase in self-efficacy (Walumbwa et al.,
2011). Additionally, ethical leaders care about their employees and want to see them perform well.
This confidence in the employee might lead to an increase in confidence of the employee in his or
her own performance, thus leading to a higher level of self-efficacy (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck,
2009).
There is also some empirical evidence available that supports the line of reasoning. Eden and
Aviram (1993) found that self-efficacy is raised by plausible feedback sources. A feedback source that
raises self-efficacy can be found in ethical leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Furthermore,
research has shown that employees use their manager as a role model regarding how to perform and
behave in an organisation (Detert & Treviño, 2010; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Additionally,
recent research (Kang, Park, & Jung 2013) has shown that ethical leadership positively affects the
perceived clarity of ethics codes by the employees in an organisation, which can be seen as a
component of an employee's self-efficacy. These arguments have led to the first hypothesis.
H1: Ethical leadership as perceived by the employees is positively related to self-efficacy
2.4 HRM and self-efficacy
Boxall and Purcell (2008) have defined HRM as follows: ''all those activities associated with
the management of people in firms'' (p. 1). This definition still leaves room for many points of view
regarding HRM. Some researchers see HRM as individual practices (Batt, 2002) or a bundle of
practices (Neumark & Cappelli, 2001) that focus on creating a highly committed and capable
workforce, which leads to competitive advantage (Storey, 2007). Others put more emphasis on
performance-related outcomes, as they interpret HRM as practices that stimulate long-term
10
relationship with employees, enhance organisational effectiveness and thus induce better
performance outcomes (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Combs et al., 2006; Datta, Guthrie, & Wright,
2005). These practices are commonly known as High Performance Work Practices (HPWP's), which
include for example compensation, training, selection and participation (Huselid, 1995). In this
research, the latter performance-related interpretation will serve as the definition of HRM.
Within this study the focus will be on the employee perceptions of these HPWP's
(representing HRM), as perceptions are likely to differ between employees (Wright & Nishii, 2007).
As Purcell and Kennie (2006) argue, the employee perceptions of HRM determine the employee's
behaviour. Research has already shown that HPWP's give employees the motivation and opportunity
to do their job (Delery & Shaw, 2001) and increase job satisfaction (Combs et al., 2006). As discussed
in this section, HRM is related to multiple types of outcomes. This research will extend to these
findings by investigating the direct relationship between HRM and self-efficacy, explained by the
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). In line with this theory it is expected that HRM acts as a role
model that contributes to an employee's self-efficacy through providing the right tools and support.
Employees are expected to perceive these HRM tools/practices positively, for example practices
related to training employees. By receiving training and thus acquiring new knowledge, employees
are expected to have an increased belief in their abilities to do their job. Therefore it is expected that
the employee perceptions of HRM are positively related to an employee's self-efficacy. This leads to
the second hypothesis.
H2: HRM as perceived by the employees is positively related to self-efficacy
2.5 The moderating role of HRM
As discussed before, HRM practices are mostly being conducted by managers within a
company (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Researchers have argued that employees will show positive
behaviour when the employer appreciates them and the contribution that they have towards the
organisation by using HRM (Brown et al., 2005; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Kuvaas & Dysvik,
2010). Furthermore, if an employee perceives high levels of HRM, they will show discretionary role
behaviour and contribute to the organisational goals (Gong, Chang, & Cheung, 2010).
Previously outlined research shows that both leadership and HRM as perceived by the
employees are influential on employee behaviour and play an important role in supporting the
employees. The influence of both the ethical leader as the employee perceptions of HRM on the
employees' self-efficacy can be explained by the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). As discussed
before, the ethical leader sets out standards of how employees should behave and by having
11
confidence in them, the confidence of the employees in their own performance is likely to increase,
thus increasing their self-efficacy (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). In addition, it is expected that
HRM serves as a role model for the employees, thus enhancing the relationship between ethical
leadership and self-efficacy. It 'represents' the organisation and its policies by using HRM practices
that influence the employee behaviour. Therefore, it is expected that employees perceive both the
ethical leader and high levels of HRM as role models and that they complement each other. The level
of HRM that employees experience indicates the support they receive from their leaders and the HR
department. This means that the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy is
expected to be stronger when employees perceive high levels of HRM. On the other hand, when
employees perceive low levels of HRM, it is likely that the employees do not perceive HRM as a role
model. Then, the influence of HRM in the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy
will be lower. Altogether, it is expected that when employees perceive high levels of both ethical
leadership and HRM, it will lead to a higher level of self-efficacy. On the other hand, if employees
perceive low levels of HRM it is expected that the role of HRM diminishes in the relationship
between ethical leadership and self-efficacy. This line of reasoning leads to the third hypothesis.
H3: HRM as perceived by the employees moderates the relationship between ethical
leadership and self-efficacy, such that this relationship is stronger when HRM is high than
when HRM is low
3. Methods
3.1 Research set-up and sample characteristics
This research was explanatory in nature as it investigated the positive relationship between
ethical leadership and self-efficacy and the moderating role of HRM in this relationship. Furthermore,
the positive direct effect of HRM on self-efficacy was included in this research. For this research a
questionnaire (see Appendix A for the questions relevant to this research) was used for collecting
data at a single point in time, thus it is a cross-sectional research design. Data collection was done by
four Master's Thesis students, who combined the answers of their respondents into one data set.
The questionnaire contained irrelevant questions related to other variables than the ones that were
used in this study, as it was used for different kind of studies.
The study focused on the individual employees, thus an individual level of analysis was used.
As (ethical) leadership was used as a variable in this research, the employees needed to be working
as subordinates, meaning that they needed to have a person who leads them in their daily works.
The employees and organisations that were used for this research were being selected through
12
convenience sampling, as the students who conducted this research used their own network for
distributing the questionnaires. The students agreed upon a minimum of 120 respondents (30 per
student) for this research to be conducted, a sample size sufficient to carry out the factor analyses
and multiple regression analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
In total, 293 employees were asked to fill in the questionnaire. 156 employees responded to
the invitation, which equates to a response rate of 53.24%. However, fourteen respondents did not
fully complete the questionnaire. Therefore, these respondents have been removed from the
dataset, resulting in a dataset of 142 respondents. The respondent group's age ranged from 16 to 59
with an average age of 34.99 (SD = 12.57). Furthermore, the research consisted of 79 men (55.6%)
and the education level was divided as follows: university degree (25.4%), higher vocational
education (40.1%), pre-university secondary education (8.5%), higher general secondary education
(6.3%), lower vocational education (2.1%) and intermediate vocational education (17.6%).
Additionally, the average tenure with the organisation was 5.5 years (SD = 6.6), while the average
tenure for working under the same supervisor was 2.7 years (SD = 3.7). Only the percentages of the
education level did respond with its national distribution in the Netherlands (CBS, 2012). The age,
gender and tenure with the organisation and supervisor did not respond with their national
distributions, which means that the sample is only representative for the population in terms of the
education level.
3.2 Procedure
The questionnaires were distributed online by using the survey program 'Survey Monkey'.
This was done by sending the respondents a link (i.e. by e-mail or Facebook/LinkedIn direct
messages) which led them to the introductory text and the questionnaire. The introductory text
concerned that participation in this research is on voluntary basis and that participation as well as
data analysis will be done on the basis of confidentiality. Additionally, an e-mail address was added
to provide the respondents with an opportunity to ask questions. The questionnaire was pre-tested
by the four Master's Thesis students and the supervisor to track the time needed for completing the
questionnaire, which amounted to 20-25 minutes. Furthermore, respondents did not receive any
incentives by participating in this research. When a respondent did not react to the invitation, a
reminder was sent. Firstly after seven days; secondly after fourteen days.
3.3 Measures
Existing scales that have been validated were used to measure the concepts of ethical
leadership, HRM and self-efficacy. These scales were all answered by using a 5-point Likert scale
13
ranging from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 5 ('strongly agree'). As the scales that were used in this
research are existing scales, previous research has already tested the scales in terms of validity and
reliability. Nevertheless, factor analyses were performed to reconfirm their validity. To be more
specific, Principal Component Analyses (PCA's) have been run for each variable to seek underlying
variables which are reflected in the observed variables (Abdi & Williams, 2010). Furthermore, a KMO
value higher than .6 is wanted (Dziuban & Shirkey, 1974). At last, the reliability of the scales was
checked by looking at the Cronbach's Alpha (α) of each scale. See Appendix B for the factor analyses.
Ethical leadership
Ethical leadership was measured using the 10-item Ethical Leadership Scale developed by
Brown et al. (2005). An example item within this scale is: 'Disciplines employees who violate ethical
standards.' The scale has shown to be suitable for factor analysis as the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
shows significance (p < .001). The KMO value for this scale is .91, thus exceeding the recommended
value considerably. The results of the PCA have shown that all the communalities are above .3 and
that two components should be used according to the eigenvalue criterion (λ > 1.0). However, the
scree plot clearly indicates that one factor is desirable and this one-factor solution explained 53.83%
of the variance. Thus one component for this scale will be used as previous researchers have also
used the same scale without removing items (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Kalshoven & Boon, 2012;
Walumbwa et al., 2011). Furthermore, the Cronbach's alpha (α) for this scale is .895.
Human Resource Management (HRM)
The variable HRM was measured using the 22-item High Performance Work Scale (HPWS) by
Lepak and Snell (2002). Within this scale employees were asked to estimate to what extent they
perceived various HRM practices in an organisation. An example question is: 'Our training activities
for these employees are comprehensive.' Running the PCA gives a KMO with the sufficient value of
.776. Furthermore, the Bartlett''s Test of Sphericity reveals significance (p < .001). However, the PCA
has shown a multiple-factor solution (λ > 1.0) containing seven factors, whereby the first factor
explained 25,5% of the variance and the other factors explained smaller amounts of the variance,
ranging from 8,27% by the second factor to 4,83% by the seventh factor. Multiple factor solutions
where tested using the Oblimin rotation, but the results of these tests were inconclusive.
Furthermore, the scree plot indicates the usage of one component and previous researchers have
used the one-factor solution regarding the High Performance work Scale (Becker & Huselid, 1998;
Kalshoven & Boon, 2012; Lepak & Snell, 2002; Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007). Using the
one-factor solution gives rather low communalities and factor loadings. When checking for reliability,
14
the Cronbach's Alpha of this scale is .839. Based on previous research and a high internal consistency
(α = .839) all items will be included in this research.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy was measured using the New General Self-efficacy (NGSE) scale by Chen, Gully
and Eden (2001). This scale contains eight items and an example question is: 'When I start working
on a difficult task, I am sure I will complete it.' Running the PCA reveals a KMO of .844, which can be
considered as a high value. Furthermore, the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity reveals significance (p <
.001), thus making this scale suitable for factor analysis. The communalities are all above .3 and the
PCA shows that two components should be used according to the eigenvalue criterion (λ > 1.0).
However, looking at the scree plot indicated that a one-factor solution is suitable, which explains
48.22% of the variance. Forcing the scale into one component leads to two items ('Compared to
other people, I can do most tasks very well' and 'Even when things are tough, I can perform quite
well') showing low communalities of respectively .19 and .21. However, the factor loadings of all the
items are above .4. Thus the scree plot and the scale's content validity have led to using a one-factor
solution in this research. In addition, the Cronbach's Alpha of this scale is .833.
Control variables
In order to control for potential confounding effects, questions regarding the following
respondent demographics were added to the questionnaire: age in years and gender (1 = male, 0 =
female). These control variables have been used regularly in literature regarding ethical leadership,
HRM and self-efficacy, thus they have been selected for this research purpose (Kalshoven & Boon,
2012; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). To be more specific, a person's gender is suggested to affect an
individual's perception of ethics (Schminke, Ambrose, & Miles, 2003). Furthermore, research has
shown that age has an impact on an employee's self-efficacy (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee,
1991). Therefore, age and gender are used as control variables.
3.4 Statistical analysis
At first, the correlations between the three variables were evaluated to determine the
direction of the relationships between these variables. Secondly, the hypotheses were tested using
regression analysis. Ethical leadership, HRM, self-efficacy and the control variables were mean
centred to eliminate multicollinearity effects (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). For testing the
hypotheses, multiple regressions are performed; for the hypotheses to be confirmed, a significant
positive relationship (p < .05) must be found between the entered variables.
15
To test the first hypothesis, a multiple regression analysis was conducted by using the control
variables, the independent and dependent variable, which are respectively age, gender, ethical
leadership and self-efficacy. To test the second hypothesis, a multiple regression analysis was
conducted by using the control variables, HRM and the dependent variable self-efficacy.
To test the third hypothesis, a multiple regression analysis was conducted by using the
control variables, the independent variable (ethical leadership), the moderator (HRM) and the
interaction effect (ethical leadership * HRM) on the dependent variable (self-efficacy). The
interaction effect was created by multiplying the independent variable (ethical leadership) with the
moderator (HRM), which are both mean centred. In regression step 1 the control variables were
entered, in step 2 ethical leadership, in step 3 self-efficacy and in step 4 the interaction effect.
Furthermore, when interaction is present, a simple slope analysis will be conducted to indicate
whether the direction of the interaction effect is in line with the third hypothesis. This simple slope
analysis will give information about the significance of the relationship between the independent and
the dependent variable at different levels of the moderator HRM (Frazier et al., 2004). For
interpretation, based on the interaction, it will be plotted at one standard deviation above the means
and one standard deviation below the means of HRM.
4. Results
In this section, the results of the statistical analysis will be presented and interpreted
accordingly to see whether the hypotheses can be confirmed or rejected. In order to provide a clear
overview, the results have been categorised in two different sections. The first section is concerned
with correlations amongst the different variables; the second section contains the regression
analyses that have been conducted.
4.1 Correlations
For this section, Pearson's correlation has been used to measure the strength of the linear
relationship between the variables in this research and to see if they are significantly related. The
results of these measurements are presented in Table 1, containing the number of respondents,
means, standard deviations and strengths of the correlations.
As can be seen in Table 1, the correlation between ethical leadership and self-efficacy
appears to be significantly positive (r = .21, p < .05), which is in line with what is stated in hypothesis
1. Next, an insignificant correlation has been found between HRM and self-efficacy (r = .15, p = .08),
thus showing a result which is in contrast with what is expected regarding hypothesis 2.
Furthermore, a significant positive correlation between ethical leadership and HRM is found (r = .45,
16
p < .01). This relationship has not been taken into account within this research and was not expected,
but is in line with results from earlier conducted research (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012). Looking at the
correlation matrix concerning the control variables, only one control variable was found to be
significantly related, namely gender which correlated with ethical leadership (r = -.16, p < .05).
Table 1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and correlations (r)
N M SD
1.
2.
r
3.
4.
5.
1. Age 142 34.99 12.57
2. Gender
(1=male, 0=female)
142 .56 .50 .14
3. Ethical leadership 142 3.80 .67 .09 -.16*
4. HRM 142 3.27 .46 .01 -.06 .45**
5. Self-efficacy 142 3.89 .46 -.09 -.01 .21* .15
**p < .01
* p < .05
N = 142
4.2 Regression analyses
For testing the research's hypotheses multiple regression analyses have been conducted. The
results of these regression analyses have been presented in Table 2 and 3 and will be discussed
hereafter.
17
The first multiple regression analysis concerned the first hypothesis, which states that ethical
leadership as perceived by the employees is positively related to self-efficacy. As Table 2 reveals, the
first model only contained the control variables, showing no significant results nor a significant
contribution to the variance in self-efficacy (F = .62, p = .54) and explaining a small amount of 0.09%
of the variance in self-efficacy. Thereafter, the independent variable ethical leadership was added to
test the first hypothesis. This second model did significantly contribute to the explained variance in
self-efficacy (F = 2.94, p < .05) and this model also significantly contributes more than model 1 (∆ F =
7.52, p < .01). Additionally, model 2 explained 6% of the variance in self-efficacy, which is an increase
of .051 in comparison with model 1. Furthermore, a significant relationship has been found between
ethical leadership and self-efficacy (β = .23, p <.01). Therefore, hypothesis 1 has been accepted.
Table 2. Regression analysis of ethical leadership, HRM and the interaction effect on self-efficacy
Standardized coefficients
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Age -.09 -.12 -.12 -.13
Gender .00 .04 .04 .04
Ethical leadership
.23** .20 .23
HRM
.06 .08
Interaction EL * HRM
.11
R² .01 .06 .06 .07
∆ R² .01 .05 .00 .01
F .62 2.94** 2.30 2.19
∆ F .62 7.52** .43 1.67
**p < .01
* p < .05
N = 142
18
To test the second hypothesis, a multiple regression analysis has been conducted with
Human Resource Management (HRM) as the independent variable and self-efficacy as the
dependent variable. Table 3 points out the results of this analysis. As both models show, no
significant results have been found in this analysis. In model 2, HRM has been added as the
independent variable. This model explained 3.1% of the variance in self-efficacy, which is a change of
2.2% in comparison with model 1. The increase of the F-value (∆ F = 3.20, p = .08) was not significant
(F = 1.49, p = .22), thus model 2 did not contribute significantly to the explained variance in self-
efficacy. At last, no significant relationship has been found between HRM and self-efficacy (β = .15, p
= .08). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
The last multiple regression analysis, of which the results have been depicted in Table 2 on
the previous page, concerns hypothesis 3 which is about the degree to which HRM (as perceived by
the employees) moderates the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy, such that
this relationship is stronger when HRM is high than when HRM is low.
Model 1 and model 2 are the same as the ones from Table 2, so no further explanation is
needed. In the third model, the variable HRM has been added. This has led to the model having an
insignificant F-value (F = 2.30, p = .06), thus this model does not contribute to the explained variance
in self-efficacy. Model 3 explains 6.3% of the variance in self-efficacy, which is a minor improvement
Table 3. Regression analysis of HRM on self-efficacy
Standardized coefficients
Model 1 Model 2
Age -.09 -.10
Gender .00 .01
HRM
.15
R² .01 .03
∆ R² .01 .02
F .62 1.49
∆ F .62 3.20
**p < .01
* p < .05
N = 142
19
of 0.3% compared with model 2. Furthermore, the variable HRM revealed to be insignificant in
relation to self-efficacy (β = .06, p = .51).
Model 4 concerns the addition of the interaction effect into the multiple regression analysis.
This model explains 7.4% of the variance in self-efficacy, which is a change of 1.1% compared with
model 3. Again, the F-value and F-change appear to be insignificant (F = 2.19, p = .06 and ∆ F = 1.67, p
= .20 respectively). Adding the interaction effect (EL * HRM) did cause the β-value of ethical
leadership to increase (β = .23, p < .05). The interaction effect appears to be insignificant (β = .11, p =
.20). Therefore, hypothesis 3 is rejected.
5. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between ethical leadership and
self-efficacy. Drawing on the social learning theory it was expected that ethical leadership positively
relates to self-efficacy, which was supported by the results, thus hypothesis 1 has been confirmed.
Furthermore, a positive relationship between the perceived HRM and self-efficacy was proposed.
Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the results. At last, it was expected that HRM (as perceived by
the employees) would moderate the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy, in
such a way that this relationship would be stronger when HRM is high than when HRM is low, thus
leading to hypothesis 3. This hypothesis has not been confirmed by the results. Overall, this study
showed that ethical leadership positively relates to employee self-efficacy and that HRM does not
play a role here.
5.1 Theoretical implications
Within this study the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy has been
examined. Research on ethical leadership is still in its infancy, but the impact of ethical leadership on
employee outcomes seems evident (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012; Mayer et al., 2009; Walumbwa &
Schaubroeck, 2009). This research builds on the work done by Walumbwa et al. (2011), which partly
consisted of examining the relationship between ethical leadership and employee performance,
including the mediating role of self-efficacy. Triggered by this research and the role of self-efficacy,
the current study focused on ethical leadership as an antecedent of self-efficacy. This relationship is
supported by the social learning theory of Bandura (1977). In line with that research, the current
study also showed a positive relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy, which is
consistent with earlier findings by Walumbwa et al. (2011) who also found a positive relationship
between ethical leadership and self-efficacy. For future research it might be interesting to investigate
and test whether it is the social learning theory that lays a bridge between ethical leadership and
20
self-efficacy, as this theory states that individuals adjust their behaviour by watching others, and
especially by watching their supervisors. Ethical leaders set out standards regarding ethics and
wanted behaviour and subsequently employees act upon them (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). In
that way, ethical leadership increases an employee's self-efficacy beliefs. As the relationship between
ethical leadership and self-efficacy has been investigated, it might also be interesting to see whether
other types of leadership can have the same effect on an employee's self-efficacy. Research has
shown that another type of leadership, namely transformational leadership, enhances self-efficacy
(Pillai & Williams, 2004; Walumbwa, Lawler, Avolio, Wang, & Shi, 2005). Future research should
investigate whether there are differences in types of leadership in relation to self-efficacy, as
previous research has already shown that leadership types can differ regarding their influence on
performance outcomes (Robinson, Loyd, & Rowe, 2008; Howell & Avolio, 1993). This research could
build on work done by Chen and Bliese (2002), who started by already making a distinction between
the effects lower-level and upper-level leadership on an individual's self-efficacy beliefs.
Additionally, Walumbwa et al. (2011) suggested that future researchers should take into
account possible moderators that might affect the relationship between ethical leadership and
employee outcomes, such as self-efficacy. Research that takes into account perceptions of HRM as a
variable that influences employee behaviour and outcomes remains scarce (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012;
Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Furthermore, Purcell and Kinnie (2005) argued that the way employees
perceive HRM determines their behaviour. Previous research has already confirmed this
argumentation (Combs et al., 2006; Delery & Shaw, 2001). This research contributes to this line of
reasoning by investigating the relationship between HRM and self-efficacy, a relationship that has
not been researched before, thus trying to find a connection between HRM and self-efficacy as an
employee outcome. To contribute to the existing literature and to respond to the call of Walumbwa
et al. (2011), the moderating role of HRM in the ethical leadership - self-efficacy relationship has
been included in this research. Besides, it was expected that HRM also directly relates to self-efficacy.
It has been hypothesized that HRM as perceived by the employees would be positively
related to self-efficacy. This relationship was expected, as previous researchers have shown that
HRM can be linked to employee outcomes (Combs et al., 2006; Delery & Shaw, 2001; Kalshoven &
Boon, 2012; Purcell & Kinnie, 2005). Unfortunately, the relationship between HRM and self-efficacy
has not been found in this research. The results show a marginal relationship, which implies that
future research on this relationship might be interesting to conduct. For studying the perceptions of
HRM on the individual level, the usage of a controlled research setting might be suitable to
determine patterns of cause and effect with respect to perceptions of HRM (Andersen & Taylor,
2012). To be more specific, it means that one individual would benefit from the organisation's HRM
21
practices, while another individual would not to see whether differences occur in terms of the
individual's self-efficacy. A reason why this relationship has not been found might have to do with
the variable self-efficacy. As the name implies, self-efficacy is about an individual's beliefs about his
or her capabilities. As discussed in the theoretical framework, self-efficacy can be influenced by four
techniques, namely enactive mastery, arousal, vicarious modelling and verbal persuasion (Bandura,
1977). The first two techniques concern what an individual does himself to enhance the self-efficacy,
which implies that external parties, such as HRM, do not influence the process of enhancing self-
efficacy. Yet, this would imply that the other two techniques would be influenced by the perceived
HRM, which has not been confirmed by this research. This may be due to the ignorance of the
leader's role in this relationship. As Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) argue, the front-line managers can
be seen as the agents of HRM and are therefore essential in the transition of HRM to the employees.
By neglecting the possible mediating role of the leader, the effectiveness of the perceived HRM on an
employee's self-efficacy might have evaporated. In addition, Mayer et al. (2009) argue that ethical
leadership trickles down throughout the different organisational levels as far as the employee level.
As this research found an unforeseen positive relationship between perceptions of HRM and ethical
leadership, it can be suggested that this trickle down mechanism, combined with Purcell and
Hutchinson's (2007) line of reasoning regarding front-line managers as agents of HRM, also applies
for the perceptions of HRM towards an employee's self-efficacy. Thus for future researchers it is
interesting to investigate what the influence of ethical leadership, as a mediating variable, is in the
relationship between the perceptions of HRM and an employee's self-efficacy.
Additionally, there are multiple theories and points of view regarding HRM and the
effectiveness of HRM regarding employee and organisational outcomes (Paauwe, 2009). On the one
hand, research has shown that HRM increases firm performance (Huselid & Becker, 2000; Paauwe &
Richardson, 1997) and positively influences employee behaviour (Delery & Shaw, 2001; Purcell &
Kinnie, 2005). On the other hand, the effectiveness of HRM in organisational settings has been
questioned repeatedly (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005; Wright & Gardner, 2003). These inconsistencies
throughout the years towards the effectiveness of HRM yield for more research regarding this
variable and the creation of a new HRM perception-focused scale. This new scale could be found in
recent research done by Hwan and Wang (2013), who operationalised the perceptions of HRM
trough four dimensions, which are staffing management, development management, compensation
management and maintenance management, each containing items that explain the corresponding
dimension. As this study has shown that the used HRM scale construction shows internal consistency
and reliability, and that it is significantly related to outcomes such as job satisfaction and
22
organisational loyalty, it might be interesting to see whether this scale can be linked to self-efficacy
as an employee behaviour.
Next, this research investigated whether the interaction between ethical leadership and HRM
as perceived by the employees would lead to an increase in the employees' self-efficacy. It was
expected that ethical leadership and HRM (as a representation of the organisation and its policies)
would both serve as role models for the employees. Having both of these as role models, it was
expected that they would influence the employee's self-efficacy, in such a way that high levels of
HRM strengthen the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy. Contrary to the
expectations, this relationship did not find support within the results. An explanation might be found
in research conducted by Kalshoven and Boon (2012), who hypothesized and confirmed, using the
conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001), that ethical leadership and HRM in relation
to well-being are substitutional and not complementary, which was suggested and not confirmed in
this research. This would mean that when employees perceive low levels of HRM, an ethical leader
can compensate this loss by acting as a role model and by giving employees support. On the other
hand, when the employees perceive high levels of HRM, the necessary organisational resources are
provided through HRM, thus the role of the ethical leader is diminished (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012).
For future research it is interesting to investigate whether this contradictory line of reasoning, using
the COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001), can also be applied on the relationship between ethical leadership
and self-efficacy, moderated by the employee perceptions of HRM.
5.2 Practical implications
Self-efficacy is an important concept as it influences the employee's performance, in such a
way that it will lead to employees being more successful in their work (Bandura & Locke, 2003) and
to put more effort in their work (Gist, 1987). This study has shown that managers should consider
how they fill in the relationship with their employees, as employees are likely to perform better
when being managed properly, which subsequently leads to better results (Walumbwa, 2011). In
practice, this means that managers could follow training courses that address the topic of ethics and
ethical behaviour towards employees. Hereby it is important that, with regard to punishments or
rewards, decision making is being done carefully. Only then these punishments or rewards will create
a learning effect (Bandura, 1991).
Besides these specific managerial training courses, organisations can take it a step further by
implementing the ethics/ethics behavioural codes into the organisation's policies and general
training courses. As this research has shown, ethical leadership is positively related to an employee's
self-efficacy. By doing this, the company assures that ethical behaviour is embedded within the
23
organisation as a whole, thus improving the employees' self-efficacy and ultimately improving the
company's performance and preventing ethical scandals to occur (Ackman, 2005; Colvin, 2003;
Mehta, 2003; Revell, 2003).
Additionally, in line with the previously mentioned practical implications regarding training
courses, organisations should also focus on improving their hiring and selection programs, so that the
people with the right ethical norms and values, both managers and employees, enter the
organisation. Taking the outcomes of this research into account, which point out the importance of
ethical leadership in relation to the employee's self-efficacy, it will have a positive influence on the
organisation's outcomes (Mayer et al., 2009; Walumbwa, 2011).
At last, it is important for organisations, specifically for the Human Resource department, to
take into account the employees' perceptions of the HRM practices, as employee perceptions are
likely to differ (Den Hartog, Boselie, & Paauwe, 2004). This is even the case when the organisation
uses one HRM strategy: interpretation amongst individuals can be different (Kuvaas, 2008). As
discussed before, line managers can and should play a key role in the transition of the HRM practices
to the employees (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Open communication throughout the organisation
and employee involvement and encouragement can enhance this transition.
5.3 Strengths and limitations
Despite the fact that the expected outcomes of this research were not fully in line with the
actual outcomes, strengths of the study can be mentioned. Existing scales have been used that have
been pre-tested and used by other researchers, thus making them reliable scales for the subject-
matter. Furthermore, the dataset can be labelled as a diverse dataset in terms of age, background
and job tenure. Besides these strengths, the research contained a number of limitations.
At first, this research used convenience sampling as the methodological technique for
collecting data. The choice of using convenience sampling influences the generalisability of the
research's outcomes. It means that participants were selected via the students' network, meaning
that the respondents did not have an equal chance to be selected, thus making it unlikely that the
dataset is representative for its population. Furthermore, the representativeness is likely to be lower
than when random sampling is used (Lunsford & Lunsford, 1995). As this study has shown, the
sample is not representative for its population, only in terms of education level. An example of how
convenience sampling affected the results can be found in the education level, which was quite high
in this research. For example, this might have led to a sample that gives a distorted view or that
generalises a certain sub group.
24
Second, this study is cross-sectional by design. This means that causality cannot be inferred.
For example, reverse causation of certain relationships might also be the case (Mann, 2003). In
relation to this study, this implies that self-efficacy could lead to a higher amount of ethical
leadership. However, based on previous research on ethical leadership and employee outcomes
(Avey et al., 2011; Mayer et al., 2009; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), it is not expected that
reverse causation is the case. If causality is the goal of a certain study, then selecting a specific
population and studying it longitudinally can give information about causality. Especially when
leadership is involved as a variable to be studied, as research has shown that time is of significant
importance when studying the perceptions of leadership (Tate, 2008).
Third, using self-report measures can be seen as a limitation, because the variables used in
this research also concern others than just the employees, for example the managers within an
organisation. Using self-report may have led to structurally biased answers, which might for example
have been caused by social desirability (Moorman & Podsakoff, 1992). However, looking at the
variables that have been used in this research, for example self-efficacy, they are difficult to measure
by external parties, thus making self-report measures a suitable measurement instrument. On the
other hand, questions regarding ethical leadership and perceptions of HRM can be answered
purposefully by supervisors. Still, this research's purpose was to investigate the employee's
perceptions of the ethical leader and HRM as role models. For future research using a multi-source
approach is recommended to see whether differences in results emerge.
Fourth, the used HRM scale from Lepak and Snell (2002) had several problems that might
have influenced the research's outcomes. The unit of analysis in the original scale is focused on the
employer-level, whereas the questionnaire has been distributed amongst employees. This might
have caused inconsistent answering amongst the respondents caused by questions that were
formulated difficultly. Furthermore, the scale showed inconsistency according to the factor analysis,
which is not in line with previously conducted research regarding HRM (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012;
Lepak & Snell, 2002). Some questions loaded on a different factor, which could mean that HRM
consists of different dimensions that are substantially different from each other. Furthermore, Lepak
and Snell (2002) have shown that the HRM scale is effective in the USA. This does not imply that the
scale is suitable for other countries/cultures and therefore it might be an improper scale, as the role
of HRM differs amongst countries, industries and culture (Ahmad & Schroeder, 2003; Easterby-Smith,
Malina, & Yuan, 1995). Future research should consider whether employee perceptions of HRM has
to be seen as one variable or as multiple variables.
25
The fifth and last limitation concerns the length of the questionnaire, because the 20 minutes
that were needed to fill in the questionnaire, were considered to be too long by the respondents. A
questionnaire that is too long might lead to a lower response rate and to people who are less willing
to fully complete the questionnaire (Galesic & Bosjnak, 2009). The latter might have occurred during
this research, as a substantial part of the respondents quitted before finishing the questionnaire.
Therefore, future research should take into account the length of the questionnaire.
5.3 Conclusion
Ethicality in the work environment has emerged this century and several researchers have
shown that an ethical leader influences the employees' behaviour and performance outcomes in a
positive way. This study has contributed to these findings by confirming that ethical leadership is
positively related to a person's self-efficacy beliefs, explained by the social learning theory which
states that people learn by watching others, the role models which are the ethical leaders in this
matter. Additionally, it was expected that HRM as perceived by the employees would be positively
related to a person's self-efficacy. This relatively new developed relationship was not supported by
this research. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that HRM as perceived by the employees would
moderate the relationship between ethical leadership and self-efficacy, in such a way that this
relationship is stronger when HRM is high than when HRM is low. Again, the study's results did not
confirm this line of reasoning. This means that the role of HRM seems limited, so far. However, the
results did show that perceived HRM is positively related to ethical leadership. As the amount of
research regarding ethical leadership and its positive influence on employee behaviour and
outcomes grows, organisations should nevermore neglect ethics. Success in this matter will predict a
bright future for both the organisation as for the employees themselves: a win-win situation.
26
6. References
Ackman, D. (2005) ‘Bernie Ebbers Guilty’, Fortune, 15 March.
Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2003). The impact of human resource management practices on
operational performance: recognizing country and industry differences. Journal of operations
Management, 21(1), 19-43.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and
supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of management, 29(1),
99-118.
Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Computational Statistics, 2(4), 433-459.
Andersen, M., & Taylor, H. (2012). Sociology: the essentials. Cengage Learning.
Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When leadership goes unnoticed: The
moderating role of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and
follower behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,98(4), 573-582.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. Handbook of moral behavior
and development, 1, 45-103.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of applied
psychology, 88(1), 87.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership
behavior. The leadership quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales
growth. Academy of management Journal, 45(3), 587-597.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1998). High performance work systems
and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications. In Research in
personnel and human resource management.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance
research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation
and performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 14(2), 153-164.
27
Boxall, P., Ang, S. H., & Bartram, T. (2011). Analysing the ‘black box’ of HRM: Uncovering HR goals,
mediators, and outcomes in a standardized service environment. Journal of Management
Studies, 48(7), 1504-1532.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, P. (2008). Strategy and Human Resource Management, 2nd edn. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 63-63.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective
for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97(2), 117-134.
Casimir, G., Waldman, D. A., Bartram, T., & Yang, S. (2006). Trust and the relationship between
leadership and follower performance: Opening the black box in Australia and China. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies,12(3), 68-84.
CBS, Kerncijfers, http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=71822NED&D1=0&D2=0
&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0,2,4,6-9&D6=0&D7=l&HDR=T,G6,G2,G5,G3&STB=G1,G4&VW=T, (20-8-
2014;2012)
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and
collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 549.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy
scale. Organizational research methods, 4(1), 62-83.
Colvin, G. (2003). Corporate crooks are not all created equal. Fortune,
October, 27, 64.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐performance work practices
matter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel
Psychology, 59(3), 501-528.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal
of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work
attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(1), 160.
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with
leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates'
optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297-311.
Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management: a model and research
agenda. Applied psychology, 53(4), 556-569.
28
Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level
leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249-270.
Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis?
Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin,81(6), 358.
Easterby-Smith, M., Malina, D., & Yuan, L. (1995). How culture-sensitive is HRM? A comparative
analysis of practice in Chinese and UK companies.International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 6(1), 31-59.
Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to help
themselves. Journal of applied Psychology, 78(3), 352.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual review of sociology, 335-362.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling
psychology research. Journal of counseling psychology, 51(1), 115.
Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of
response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349-360.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management. Academy of management review, 12(3), 472-485.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Academy of Management review, 17(2), 183-211.
Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S. Y. (2010). High performance work system and collective OCB: a
collective social exchange perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(2), 119-
137.
Guest, D. E., Michie, J., Conway, N., & Sheehan, M. (2003). Human resource management and
corporate performance in the UK. British journal of industrial relations, 41(2), 291-314.
Guest, D. E., Paauwe, J., & Wright, P. (Eds.). (2012). HRM and Performance: Achievements and
Challenges. John Wiley & Sons.
Hassan, S., Wright, B. E., & Yukl, G. (2014). Does Ethical Leadership Matter in Government? Effects on
Organizational Commitment, Absenteeism, and Willingness to Report Ethical
Problems. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 333-343.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of
control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance. Journal of applied psychology, 78(6), 891.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of management journal, 38(3),
635-672.
29
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (2000). Comment on “Measurement error in research on human
resources and firm performance: how much error is there and how does it influence effect
size estimates?” by Gerhart, Wright, Mc Mahan, and Snell. Personnel Psychology, 53(4),
835-854.
Hwang, K. P., & Wang, M. K. (2013). The impact of ethical issues on privatization: Employee
perceptions of HRM systems, job satisfaction and organizational loyalty in the Taiwan
telecommunications industry. African Journal of Business Management, 7(6), 381-400.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964.
Kalshoven, K., & Boon, C. T. (2012). Ethical Leadership, Employee Well-Being, and Helping. Journal
of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 60-68.
Kang, S. W., Park, H. J., & Jung, D. (2013, January). Why Does Ethical Leadership Matter in
Workplace? Empirical Evidence from South Korea. InAcademy of Management
Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 13659). Academy of Management.
Katou, A. A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2010). Causal relationship between HRM policies and organisational
performance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector. European Management
Journal, 28(1), 25-39.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2005). Satisfaction with HR practices and
commitment to the organisation: why one size does not fit all. Human Resource
Management Journal, 15(4), 9-29.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational
and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee–organization relationship affects the linkage
between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee
outcomes*. Journal of Management Studies,45(1), 1-25.
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived investment in
employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee outcomes. Human
Resource Management Journal, 20(2), 138-156.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 30(3), 347-382.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships
among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of
Management, 28(4), 517-543.
30
Lieberson, S., & O'Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large
corporations. American sociological review, 117-130.
Lunsford, T. R., & Lunsford, B. R. (1995). The research sample, part I: sampling. JPO: Journal of
Prosthetics and Orthotics, 7(3), 17A.
Mann, C. J. (2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and
case-control studies. Emergency Medicine Journal,20(1), 54-60.
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM practices and organizational commitment: Test of a
mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue canadienne des
sciences de l'administration, 17(4), 319-331.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does ethical
leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108(1), 1-13.
Mehta, S. (2003). MCI: Is being good good enough?. Fortune, 27, 117–
124.
Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta‐analytic review and empirical test of the potential
confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour
research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 131-149.
Neumark, D., & Cappelli, P. (1999). Do" High Performance" work practices improve establishment-
level outcomes? (No. w7374). National bureau of economic research.
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices:
Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel
psychology, 61(3), 503-545.
Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and
prospects. Journal of Management studies, 46(1), 129-142.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: what next?. Human Resource Management
Journal, 15(4), 68-83.
Paauwe, J., & Richardson, R. (1997). Introduction. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 8(3), 257-262.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. N. D., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical
leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2‐3), 259-278.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness,
commitment, and performance. Journal of organizational change management, 17(2), 144-
159.
31
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front‐line managers as agents in the HRM‐performance causal
chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20.
Resnik, D. B. (2010). What is ethics in research & why is it important.Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/National Institute of Health.
Revell, J. (2003). The fires that won’t go out. Fortune, 13, 139.
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An
analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.Educational administration quarterly.
Schaubroeck, J., Walumbwa, F. O., Ganster, D. C., & Kepes, S. (2007). Destructive leader traits and the
neutralizing influence of an “enriched” job. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 236-251.
Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Miles, J. A. (2003). The impact of gender and setting on perceptions
of others' ethics. Sex Roles, 48(7-8), 361-375.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of management Journal,38(5), 1442-1465.
Storey, J. (Ed.). (2007). Human resource management: A critical text. Cengage Learning EMEA.
Stouten, J., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2012). Ethical Leadership. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 11(1), 1-6.
Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-
related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(1), 91-108.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An empirical examination of the
mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of
Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1069.
Tate, B. (2008). A longitudinal study of the relationships among self-monitoring, authentic leadership,
and perceptions of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(1), 16-29.
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive
ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human
Relations, 56(1), 5-37.
Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral Person and Moral Manager: How
executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management
Review, 42(4).
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A
review. Journal of management, 32(6), 951-990.
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Wang, P., & Shi, K. (2005). Transformational leadership
and work-related attitudes: the moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy across
cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 2-16.
32
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011).
Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange,
self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 115(2), 204-213.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior:
mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(5), 1275.
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Agle, B. (2005). “Somebody I Look Up To:”: Ethical Role Models in
Organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 34(4), 313-330.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of
management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). The impact of HR practices on the
performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 21-36.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR
practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 409-
446.
Zhang, X., Walumbwa, F. O., Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. G. (2013). Ethical leadership, employee
citizenship and work withdrawal behaviors: Examining mediating and moderating
processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 284-297.
7. Appendix A - Questionnaire with relevant variables included
1. Wat is uw leeftijd? ___________ jaar
2. Uw geslacht: □ Man □ Vrouw
3. Wat is uw hoogst genoten afgeronde opleiding?
□ WO □ VMBO
□ HBO □ MBO
□ VWO □ anders, namelijk ___________
□ HAVO
4. Hoe lang bent u werkzaam in uw huidige organisatie? ___________ jaar
5. Op basis van welk type arbeidscontract bent u werkzaam?
Vragenlijst
33
□ onbepaalde tijd contract □ bepaalde tijd contract
□ anders, namelijk ___________
6. Hoelang bent u werkzaam voor uw huidige leidinggevende? ___________ jaar
1 2 3 4 5
Volledig mee
oneens
Mee oneens Neutraal Mee eens Volledig mee
eens
Ethisch leiderschap
7 ..gedraagt zich ook buiten het werk op een ethische manier. 1 2 3 4 5
8 ..hanteert sancties als werknemers de ethische regels/procedures overtreden. 1 2 3 4 5
9 ..maakt bedrijfsethiek en bedrijfswaarden bespreekbaar onder werknemers. 1 2 3 4 5
10 ..luistert naar zijn/haar medewerkers. 1 2 3 4 5
11 ..handelt in het belang van zijn/haar medewerkers. 1 2 3 4 5
12 ..vraagt aan zijn/haar medewerkers "wat is de juiste manier om dit te doen?" als er
een beslissing genomen moet worden. 1 2 3 4 5
13 ..definieert succes niet alleen als goede uitkomsten, maar ook als de manier
waarop die worden bereikt. 1 2 3 4 5
14 ..is te vertrouwen. 1 2 3 4 5
15 ..geeft het goede voorbeeld van het ethische gedrag dat op het werk wordt
verwacht. 1 2 3 4 5
16 ..maakt eerlijke en weloverwogen beslissingen. 1 2 3 4 5
Human Resource Management
17 Werknemers kunnen zonder overleg veranderingen aanbrengen in hun
werkzaamheden. 1 2 3 4 5
18 Werknemers hebben werkzaamheden waarin zij zelf beslissingen mogen nemen. 1 2 3 4 5
19 Werknemers hebben een hoge mate van werkzekerheid in hun baan. 1 2 3 4 5
20 Werknemers voeren diverse en afwisselende taken uit. 1 2 3 4 5
21 De werknemers worden betrokken in taakroulatie. 1 2 3 4 5
22 Het werving- en selectieproces zorgt ervoor dat meer medewerkers interne
promotie kunnen krijgen. 1 2 3 4 5
34
23 Het werving- en selectieproces is gericht op het aannemen van de beste allround
kandidaat, ongeacht de specifieke functie-eisen. 1 2 3 4 5
24 Het werving- en selectieproces is gericht op wat medewerkers kunnen aan onze
strategische doelen. 1 2 3 4 5
25 Het werving- en selectieproces benadrukt sterk de mogelijkheid tot leren voor
medewerkers. 1 2 3 4 5
26 Wij bieden een veelomvattend pakket trainingen voor onze medewerkers aan 1 2 3 4 5
27 Wij scholen/trainen onze medewerkers voortdurend. 1 2 3 4 5
28 Onze trainingsactiviteiten voor werknemers vereisen intensieve geld- en
tijdsinvesteringen. 1 2 3 4 5
29 Onze trainingen proberen op korte termijn de productiviteit te verhogen 1 2 3 4 5
30 Onze trainingsactiviteiten trachten organisatie specifieke vaardigheden en/of
kennis te ontwikkelen. 1 2 3 4 5
31 Prestatiebeoordelingen voor werknemers zijn gebaseerd op input van meerdere
bronnen (collega’s, managers, enz.). 1 2 3 4 5
32 Prestatiebeoordelingen benadrukken het leren van werknemers. 1 2 3 4 5
33 Prestatiebeoordelingen zijn gefocust op de bijdrage van werknemers aan onze
strategische doelen. 1 2 3 4 5
34 Prestatiebeoordelingen voor werknemers bevatten feedback over hun
ontwikkeling. 1 2 3 4 5
35 Beloningen zijn primair gericht op de korte termijn prestaties. 1 2 3 4 5
36 Beloningssystemen voor werknemers bevatten aantrekkelijke secundaire
arbeidsvoorwaarden. 1 2 3 4 5
37 De beloningen zijn afhankelijk van organisatie prestaties. 1 2 3 4 5
38 Beloningen zetten medewerkers aan tot het bedenken van nieuwe ideeën. 1 2 3 4 5
Self-efficacy
39 Ik ben in staat om de meeste doelen die ik mijzelf stel te halen.
40 Als ik een moeilijke taak begin, ben ik er zeker van dat ik die zal voltooien. 1 2 3 4 5
41 In het algemeen denk ik dat ik de resultaten die ik belangrijk vind kan bereiken. 1 2 3 4 5
42 Ik geloof dat ik kan slagen in iedere uitdaging die ik wil aangaan. 1 2 3 4 5
43 Ik ben in staat om uitdagingen met succes aan te gaan. 1 2 3 4 5
35
44 Ik heb er vertrouwen in dat ik in veel verschillende taken effectief kan presteren. 1 2 3 4 5
45 Vergeleken met andere mensen kan ik de meeste taken erg goed aan. 1 2 3 4 5
46 Zelfs als dingen tegen zitten, kan ik vrij goed presteren. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Appendix B - Factor analyses
Ethical leadership
Table 1. Ethical leadership
Scale Factor 1
Factor 2
One factor extraction
1. Conducts his/her personal life in an ethical standard .604 .604 2. Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards .919 3. Discusses business ethics or values with employees .753 .753 4. Listens to what employees have to say .830 .830 5. Has the best interests of employees in mind .816 .816 6. When making decisions, asks “what is the right thing to do” .706 .706 7. Defines success not just by results but also the way that they are
obtained .688 .688
8. Can be trusted .826 .826 9. Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of
ethics .838 .838
10. Makes fair and balanced decisions .837 .837
Eigenvalues 5.383 1.047 5.383
Total variance explained in percentages (%) 53.83% 10.47% 53.83%
Cronbach’s alpha .895
NOTE: Factor loadings below .3 discarded
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis/Oblimin Rotation
Human Resource Management (HRM)
HRM scale, shown below by number in Table 2:
23. These employees perform jobs that allow them to routinely make changes
24. These employees perform jobs that empower them to make decisions
25. These employees perform jobs that have a high degree of job security
26. These employees perform jobs that include a wide variety of tasks
27. These employees perform jobs that involve job rotation
28. The recruitment/selection process for these employees emphasizes promotion from within
29. The recruitment/selection process for these employees focuses on selecting the best all-around
candidate, regardless of the specific job
30. The recruitment/selection process for these employees focuses on their ability to contribute to
our strategic objectives
31. The recruitment/selection process for these employees places priority on their potential to learn
(e.g., aptitude)
32. Our training activities for these employees are comprehensive
33. Our training activities for these employees are continuous
36
34. Our training activities for these employees require extensive investments of time/money
35. Our training activities for these employees seek to increase short-term productivity (R)
36. Our training activities for these employees strive to develop firm-specific skills/ knowledge
37. Performance appraisals for these employees are based on input from multiple sources (peers,
subordinates, etc.)
38. Performance appraisals for these employees emphasize employee learning
39. Performance appraisals for these employees focus on their contribution to our strategic
objectives
40. Performance appraisals for these employees include developmental feedback
41. Compensation/rewards for these employees focus primarily on their short-term performance (R)
42. Compensation/rewards for these employees include an extensive benefits package
43. Compensation/rewards for these employees include employee stock ownership programs (ESOP,
etc.)
44. Compensation/rewards for these employees provide incentives for new ideas
Table 2. Human Resource Management (HRM)
Scale (see HRM-scale above)
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Factor 7
One factor
extraction
23. .831 24. .514 .631 .427 25. .563 .365 26. .799 .514 27. .521 .483 28. -.415 .509 .505 29. -.856 .385 30. -.639 .567 31. .301 -.533 .598 32. .835 .700 33. .812 .758 34. .784 .625 35. .367 -.315 .463 36. .728 .610 37. .626 .550 38. .510 .533 39. .389 .353 .533 40. .343 .489 .658 41. .684 42. .775 .369 43. .879 44. .664 .439
Eigenvalues 5.612 1.820 1.543 1.397 1.228 1.110 1.062 5.612
Total variance explained
25.51% 8.27% 7.02% 6.35% 5.58% 5.05% 4.83% 25.51%
Cronbach’s alpha .839
NOTE: Factor loadings below .3 discarded
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis/Oblimin Rotation
37
Self-efficacy
Table 3. Self-efficacy
Scale Factor 1
Factor 2
One factor extraction
1. I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself
.924 .784
2. When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them
.711 .687
3. In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me
.881 .813
4. I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set my mind
.622 .744
5. I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges .807 .830 6. I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different
tasks .313 .617 .685
7. Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well .855 .441 8. Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well .719 .454
Eigenvalues 3.858 1.262 3.858
Total variance explained in percentages (%) 48.22% 15.78% 48.22%
Cronbach’s alpha .833
NOTE: Factor loadings below .3 discarded
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis/Oblimin Rotation