The Relationship between Ethical Leadership and Core Job Characteristics - Research Paper Example

The Relationship between Ethical Leadership and Core Job Characteristics Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 The Relationship between Ethical Leadership and Core Job Characteristics 2 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESES 3 Hypothesis 1 3 Hypothesis 2 3 Hypothesis 3 3 1. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 3 Impact of Individual Differences 5 Role of Ethical Leadership 6 Dimensions of Individual Differences 7 2. The Nature of the relationship between a supervisor and subordinate 8 Tenure of Association before Relationship 8 Coordination between Subordinate and Supervisor 9 Role of Gender in Relationship between a Supervisor and Subordinate 11 Leader-Member Exchange Theory 12 3. AFFECTIVE MECHANISMS AS A PROCESS BY WHICH JOB CHARACTERISTICS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MOTIVATED BEHAVIOR 13 Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model and Work Motivation 13 Measuring motivated behavior through job characteristics 15 CONCLUSION 17 Reference List 18 The Relationship between Ethical Leadership and Core Job Characteristics INTRODUCTION In a study performed by Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger (2010), the authors shed light on the role of ethical leadership with regard to core job characteristics. The research attempted to highlight the relationship that exists between these two variables. In the concluding phases of the research, the authors have highlighted three key areas as extensions for further study in the subject area of study. The first area highlighted is that of the role of individual differences in the affect of ethical leadership on job characteristics. The authors state that "Individual differences, for example, are likely to serve as boundary conditions on a number of relationships in the proposed model" (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010). Secondly, the authors state that "[t]he link between ethical leadership and job behaviors may also depend on the nature of the relationship between a supervisor and subordinate" (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010). The third key area can be found in the statement in which the researchers state that “[f]uture studies could assess affective mechanisms as a process by which job characteristics are associated with motivated behavior and complementary appraisals of the work environment " (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010). This paper will perform a literature analysis with regard to each one of these three areas suggested by the authors for further study. It is imperative to note that the authors suggested other areas for further study as well but almost all of the areas suggested for further research fall under the three key areas highlighted above. However, before initiating the discussion through formulation of hypotheses that address these areas for further research, it is imperative to realize that while the first and the second areas for further research relate directly to the central subject of discussion, the third is an extension of sorts which attempts to explore a different dimension of the study. This can be ascertained through the fact that the third recommendation for further research addresses the association of job characteristics to motivation of the employee; unlike the first two which continue to associate job characteristics with ethical leadership. HYPOTHESES The paper will attempt to present an insight into the three key areas highlighted above in the context of hypotheses that address them. In this regard, the hypotheses will play a key role in the paper. Hypothesis 1 Individual differences play a key role in determining the influences of ethical leadership on job characteristics Hypothesis 2 The nature of the relationship that exists between a subordinate and a supervisor exercising ethical leadership has a significant degree of influence on the subordinate’s job characteristics. Hypothesis 3 Job characteristics can be associated with the subject individual’s motivation in order to ascertain the degree to which an employee is motivated. 1. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES When studying the implication of ethical leadership on core job characteristics with relation to individual differences, it is imperative to realize the difference between ability and skill. Ability is an individual's talent which comes into play in the performance of tasks that incorporate mental and/or physical exertions. This talent is a combination of the tacit knowledge that an individual has as well as the mental ability and emotional intelligence. In contrast, a skill is a talent that an individual learns over time. A skill also facilitates the performance of a task but is learnt actively. Knowledge behind a learned skill is not of a tacit nature. “[T]he influence of others in shaping our morals, values and propensity to be ethical plays a limited role— it is a role of influence, rather than control. Like it or not, ethics and integrity—or the lack of them—finally boil down to individual people and the decisions they make. We can’t look to other people or processes to make us do the right thing” (April, Peters, Locke, & Mlambo, 2010). The reason because of which individual differences take a pivotal position in this regard is that people tend to act out their beliefs and perceptions. Their actions are practical manifestations of what they believe in. Furthermore, it is only natural for each individual to hold a unique perception and attitude towards a situation, task, or problem. Hence, when faced with the same, it is similarly natural for each individual to differ in action. The differences extend and expand as the situation at hand evolves and the each individual makes further choices, judgments, and decisions (Anderson & Martin, 1995). As a result the odds of the increase in differences between individuals become relatively higher than those that consider judgments and choices to converge as the situation in question evolves. It is imperative to note that these individual differences take effect on three levels: perception, attitude, and abilities. These three come together to form a unique personality which has a direct impact on how an individual chooses to exercise productivity, performance and creativity in the work place. For instance, the variable of attitude is one that tends to develop over time; based on direct and indirect experiences. The attitude tends to define an individual’s general approach towards a task and/or problem. Since an attitude serves as an emotional base, it often comes into play as part of the natural personality. The ethical leader can attempt to change an individual's attitude over time by exposing the individual to stimuli that addresses weaknesses in the attitude (Lee-Ross, 2005). Giving the individual opportunities to develop weak areas in his/her attitude can prove to be extremely effective in developing attitude so that it gives room to the implemented management practices over time. Impact of Individual Differences In the subject perspective, individual differences can play out in two different forms. The first form is one in which individual differences create friction between the leader and the employees while the second form is one in which the friction is observed between employees upon the application of leadership by an individual in a leadership role. Leadership often calls for initiatives to be taken and changes to be implemented. In cases such as these, adaptability to change can be expected to vary across individuals, hence creating a scenario where one change can be expected to be received in differing levels of acceptance (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Ethical leadership may bring forth the change to be a positive one but individual differences may have a considerable impact on how certain employees choose to accept the changes and adhere to them and how other employees exercise a passive resistance to the change in their actions. When considering the role of individual differences in this regard, it is essentially imperative to identify what individual differences constitute. Individual differences hold a considerable degree of relevance because they tend to come into play almost every time there is a disagreement or an issue that needs addressing (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007). Individual differences can play a highly influential role in determining the outcome of a relationship between ethical leadership and key job characteristics. This is because of the fact that the leader may consider his/her role to be of a specific nature that other personnel may not agree with. It is imperative to highlight at this point that the focus is on the relationship between ethical leadership and key job characteristics in contrast to management and key job characteristics; hence the scenario does not necessarily have to constitute a vertically displaced relationship between the involved personnel. In the event that the personnel involved are horizontally aligned in the organization, the influence of individual differences can be expected to be all the more clearly visible. Role of Ethical Leadership Ethical leadership also plays an important role in defining job characteristics in employees when considered with regard to how employees tend to react differently to different levels of supervision. Some employees tend to exercise increased levels of efficiency when their leaders extensively exercise their supervisory roles while other employees tend to bring down efficiency levels when supervision is kept at a relative low. In the cases such as those highlighted above, ethical leadership requires that individual differences are identified beforehand and addressed. In cases such as these, ethical leadership provides three options: either the leader brings down the impact of the individual differences, or he/she applies managerial functions so that they go around them without creating conflict (Bellingham, 2003). The third alternate is to create an environment where perceptions generated through individual differences and leadership practices can engage in a productive compromise that gives way to both sides. In order to do so, ethical leadership calls for the studying of the variables that influence and dictate the perceptions, abilities and attitudes that come together to form unique personalities. However, the element of ethical leadership can be trusted to maintain equilibrium in such a setting. An individual may be motivated towards job responsibilities in a very different manner than that in which the leader perceives the job responsibilities to hold relevance in (Mendonca & Kanungo, 2006). The factor of individual differences takes on an increased level of relevance when considered with regard to the scenarios in which a large team is taken into consideration. In cases such as these, the presence of individual difference can serve to cause complications to extensive degrees and the need for ethical leadership becomes all the more imperative. Factors such as those created by differing perspectives, emotional intelligence, awareness regarding the problem, general attitude and the like can have a significantly influential role in ascertaining how a leader's judgment is considered and how the team eventually translates the leader's judgments into practice (Yukl, 2009). Dimensions of Individual Differences Individual differences can be classified into two categories. The first category constitutes stable and somewhat static dimensions while the second category constitutes relatively variable dimensions that can be expected to evolve over time. The first category includes the factors of age, race and/or ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical characteristics and gender (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2005). The second category incorporates the educational background that the individual has, the general state of his/her health, relevant work experience, religious orientation, and marital status. Job characteristics can be impacted extensively as a result of individual differences on account of the fact that individual differences tend to create a new scenario every time a new decision has to be implemented. Each individual reacts differently to each new stimulus (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2005). Ethical leadership calls for the addressing of the variables to which the stimuli is exposed in order to ensure that the adaptation to change and the reaction to the assignment and nature of assigned task is positive and supports efficiency. 2. The Nature of the relationship between a supervisor and subordinate The nature of the relationship between a supervisor and subordinate can also play a critical role in the manner in which job characteristics and eventual job outcomes are achieved. For instance, if considered in the perspective of a scenario in which a supervisor and a subordinate are present, the scenario takes a turn where any number of complications between the supervisor and the subordinate can be present (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2005). The body of literature that deals with the supervisor-subordinate relationship is quite extensive however it was observed that a very limited volume of literature exists with regard to the relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate if perceived from the perspective of leadership and its implications on job characteristics. In the event that the relationship between the subordinate and the supervisor is unpleasant, the leader's judgments and practices will face conflict from the subordinates every time there is potential for the generation for conflict (Anderson & Martin, 1995). In addition, the subordinates can be expected to exercise a somewhat resisting behavior to the leader's judgments on account of the already present friction between them. Tenure of Association before Relationship The nature of the relationship between the supervisor and a subordinate can also undergo considerable influences on account of the time period for which the subordinate and the supervisor have known each other or have been interacting (Anderson & Martin, 1995). In cases where the supervisor and the subordinate have not been working together for long and therefore interaction has initiated only on account of a new task or development, the subordinate may feel threatened by the supervisor and the supervisor may feel that he/she needs time to adjust to the new subordinate before any exemplary performance can be expected. In scenarios such as these, ethical leadership requires that job characteristics do not suffer on account of obstructions such as red tape or the like. Associations need to be present before the execution of the actual task at hand begins in order to ensure that the scenario does not fall victim to varying circumstances as it evolves. In addition, the project can also be expected to suffer on account of the time that it will take for the supervisor and the subordinate to understand each other's modus operandi (Anderson & Martin, 1995). Ethical leadership requires that the subordinate and the supervisor are not placed in any circumstances where they may have to engage with each other directly. Both, the supervisor and the subordinate should not be thrust into communication without giving them time to orient themselves with the task at hand and their colleague for the specific task. Another key factor that may come into play in this regard is the quality of the professional relationship that is present between the subordinate and the supervisor. The quality of the relationship is a factor that tends to surpass the factor of time for which both have been acquainted with each other (Anderson & Martin, 1995). This factor requires far more effort than that which has been discussed above. An inferior quality of relationship can cause the supervisor and subordinate to be locked in conflict even before the actual task has begun. Coordination between Subordinate and Supervisor While this perception takes the subordinate into account, another perspective is one that pertains to the supervisor. The supervisor can have just as much implications on the job characteristics as the subordinate (Sias, 2009). This statement holds true on account of the fact that subordinates remain wary of the slightest of changes in their supervisors and therefore tend to bring about changes in their approaches based on these changes. Therefore the supervisor can have a higher influence on the subordinate's job characteristics than the subordinate himself/herself. The nature of the relationship between subordinate and the supervisor can also undergo considerable implications as a result of the supervisor's behavior toward the subordinate (Rahim, Golembiewski, & Mackenzie, 2003). In cases where the supervisor is of a somewhat coercive nature and chooses to exercise strictness on the subordinates, job characteristics tend to suffer on account of lower job satisfaction and low internal motivation. In addition, job characteristics tend to change over time with respect to the sensitivity that they have towards the attitude of the supervisor. Similarly, in cases where the supervisor chooses to exercise only legitimate power and refrains from coercive behavior, job characteristics tend to improve over time on account of positive job satisfaction and increased internal motivation. While this The role of ethical leadership is very significant in this regard since the concept of ethical leadership serves to draw the line between the subordinate and the supervisor on account of the legitimacy of their authority over the situation. Another manner in which the nature or relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate can have implication on job characteristics comes across in regard to the form of coordination that the subordinate chooses to develop with his/her colleagues over time in the context of his/her relationship with the supervisor. Employees may develop varying degrees of reliance on each other as a reflection of the leadership with which they are led (Cushman & Cahn, 1985). For instance, in cases where the leader/supervisor does not give room to democratic functioning in the workplace, the subordinate will be more inclined to resolve his/her problems by himself/herself, regardless of the nature and intensity of the problem. For the employee, it will be necessary to ensure that the problem does not come out into the open and that nobody else in the workplace has to channel time towards the resolution of the problem except for the specific employee in question. In contrast, in cases where the leadership gives room to discourse and mutual cooperation, the subordinate will be more prone to seek out assistance with regard to the problem and to coordinate with his/her colleagues regarding the same. Additionally, this may also influence the degree to which the subordinate wishes to interact with the supervisor. A supervisor who supports interaction and coordination will observe that subordinates bring forth potential problems more readily than those who discourage interaction and develop an every-man-for-himself work environment. Another very important aspect of this discussion is one that pertains to gender. Role of Gender in Relationship between a Supervisor and Subordinate Female supervisors tend to exercise democratic structures of supervision and female subordinates require subjection to democratic structures of supervision in contrast to male supervisors and subordinates (Andorka, 1998; Anderson & Martin, 1995). While this does not in any way imply that men give little room to democratic structures and functioning in the workplace, the fact remains that female employees are more open to the resolution processes in conflicting situations than men are (Moskal, 1997; Rozier & Hersh-Cochran, 1996). Female supervisors and subordinates tend to confront disputes and conflicts by attempting to resolve it while male supervisors and subordinates tend to confront each other instead of concentrating on the resolution of the dispute at hand (Daley & Naff, 1998; Gayle, 1991). Aspects such as these have a considerable degree of impact on the job characteristics of employees in the work place (Meeker & Elliott, 1996). The literature shows differences between male and female approaches and these differences can take on highly complex forms when placed in supervisor and subordinate roles (Van Velsor, Taylor, & Leslie, 1993; Valentine & Godkin, 2000; Daley & Naff, 1998; Moskal, 1997; Andorka, 1998). Job characteristics can be influenced considerably as a result of these differences and their simultaneous complex presence (Comer, Jolson, Dubinsky, & Yammarino, 1995). Generally, "a supervisor's gender may influence individual perceptions of job design because males and females have been found to favor different leadership styles. With regard to interpersonal job characteristics, employees who have female supervisors are expected to have greater opportunities to develop friendships and to deal with other people in their jobs compared to those employees who have male supervisors. With regard to task structure of jobs, individuals who have male supervisors are expected to perceive greater variety, autonomy, task completion, job significance, and feedback than those who have female supervisors" (Valentine & Godkin, 2000). Leader-Member Exchange Theory A key theory that comes into play in this regard is the Leader-Member Exchange Theory. “Since its introduction, Leader-Member Exchange Theory has been used by researchers to explain the relationships a supervisor has with each of his or her subordinates. The relationships that leaders develop with subordinates have been described on a continuum. At one extreme are subordinates who are part of the in-group. In-group membership is characterized by a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation. At the other extreme are the subordinates who are part of the out-group. Out-group membership is characterized by low trust, respect, and obligation. In addition, out-group subordinates receive worse performance ratings, less attention and fewer perks from their leaders than do their in-group counterparts” (Suazo, Turnley, & Mai-Dalton, 2008). 3. AFFECTIVE MECHANISMS AS A PROCESS BY WHICH JOB CHARACTERISTICS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MOTIVATED BEHAVIOR Motivation plays an integral role in the workplace. An employee experiencing a low level of motivation cannot be expected to provide the same degree of effectiveness that an employee with a high degree of motivation will provide. It would not be unjust to state that nearly every aspect of the employee's working behavior is influenced by the degree of motivation with which he/she works. Individuals tend to show low levels of willingness to work and to adhere to managerial policies. Furthermore, employees with low levels of motivation tend to become liabilities to the organization. In this regard, job characteristics can play an important role in ascertaining the motivation level of an employee. An employee experiencing low levels of motivation is bound to reflect the same in his/her job characteristics. It is imperative to highlight at this point that the relationship between job characteristics and motivation levels functions both ways. While suffering job characteristics can be taken as a reflection of low levels of motivation, inadequate job characteristics can also be the cause of low motivation. Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model and Work Motivation If job characteristics were to be considered with regard to how they serve as scores of motivation, then each job characteristic can be associated with motivation in terms of its positive frequency. The underlying concept is that the higher the motivational level of the employee, the higher the magnitude of the job characteristics when considered in quantitative measure. Hence, data collection practices divided across a particular period of time can serve to provide a picture of the degree of motivation being exercised by an individual in an organization. This can be done by making use of Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The factor of Skill variety addresses the mix of skills that an individual must have in order to adequately perform a job. The factor of task identity incorporates the degree to which a task in a job appears as a unit that can be considered and addressed as a unit of work. The third factor of task significance establishes the degree to which the tasks have an impact on their internal and/or external environment. The factor of task significance tends to present an external view of the task's implications. The fourth factor of autonomy addresses the degree to which the job gives authority and control to the individual regarding the tasks that the job constitutes. This may include anything from prioritization of multiple tasks to the allotment of time to each individual task. The fifth and last factor presented by Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model is that of job feedback. This factor holds the most significant degree of relevance in the Job Characteristic Model. This factor entails the "Degree to which carrying out work activities results in employees obtaining direct and clear information about their performance effectiveness" (Lee-Ross, 2005). Furthermore, it is imperative to realize that "Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) JCM is based on the way workers perceive specific dimensions of their jobs. These variables are conceptualized as discrete core job dimensions...If jobs contain “sufficient” amounts of “skill variety”, “task identity”, task significance, autonomy, job feedback, agent feedback and dealing with others then three cognitive states are aroused. These are known as experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results. The cognitive responses then affect an outcome state of internal work motivation" (Lee-Ross, 2005). For instance, the factors of skill variety, task significance, feedback, task identity, and autonomy can be placed in organizational contexts that reflect specific gradients of performance by the individual (Lee-Ross, 2005). The measured magnitude for each factor can then be placed against a threshold that can provide a picture of the degree of actual motivation that the individual is exercising in his/her organizational capacity. Measuring motivated behavior through job characteristics The reason because of which Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics qualify as an adequate determinants for the relationship between job characteristics and motivation is because Hackman and Oldham have provided a proper formula through which motivation can be given a score with regard to the measure of each of the five fundamental job characteristics (Lee-Ross, 2005). According to the model equation, the job characteristics of skill variety, task significance, and task identity form one category of the motivation of an individual. Each of these three factors are measured individually in quantitative terms and then subjected to a mathematical average. The value acquired from this operation is then multiplied form the quantitative product of the magnitude of autonomy and feedback that has been recorded (Lee-Ross, 2005). The equation serves to show that the factors of autonomy and feedback tend to take a highly influential position and may serve to have an influence on the combined implication of the other three job characteristics. Figure 1: Job Characteristics & Motivation Source: (Lee-Ross, 2005) As is apparent from the above diagram, the factors of skill variety, task significance and task identity tend to come together to establish experienced meaningfulness in the job while the factor of autonomy has a direct influence on the degree of responsibility that the individual experiences. Job feedback comes into play by providing the individual with the information necessary to ensure performance recognition and growth. These factors subsequently come together to generate internal work motivation. CONCLUSION The discussion shed light on three key areas identified in the concluding notes of the research by (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010) as areas that merited further research. The literature analysis was carried out in the context of hypotheses that were developed before initiating the discussion in order to provide the discussion with a direction that could be taken as an extension of the founding study. It can be surmised from the above discussion that job characteristics can serve as key determinants to the degree of commitment and productivity that an individual is exercising. Job characteristics are influenced considerably by ethical leadership practices. The discussion also showed that ethical leadership requires the development of a situation so that it encourages productivity on the job characteristics. It was observed that individual differences can have impacts on job characteristics from a number of perspectives. The individual differences can serve to create a work environment where each scenario is unique and requires the adaptability of leadership in order to adapt to it. Furthermore, it was also observed that the nature of relationship between a subordinate and a supervisor can direct the eventual outcome of management practices. Reference List Anderson, C., & Martin, M. (1995). Why employees speak to co-workers and bosses: motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction. The Journal of Business Communication , 32, 249-65. Andorka, F. J. (1998). Women gaining leadership roles. Hotel and Motel Management , 213, 54. April, K., Peters, K., Locke, K., & Mlambo, C. (2010). Ethics and leadership: enablers and stumbling blocks. Journal of Public Affairs . Bellingham, R. (2003). Ethical leadership: rebuilding trust in corporations. New York: Human Resource Development. Comer, L., Jolson, M., Dubinsky, A., & Yammarino, F. (1995). When the sales manager is a women: an exploration into the relationship between salespeople’s gender and their responses to leadership style. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management , 15, 17-32. Comer, L., Jolson, M., Dubinsky, A., & Yammarino, F. (1995). When the sales manager is a women: an exploration into the relationship between salespeople’s gender and their responses to leadership style. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management , 15 (4), 17-32. Cushman, D. P., & Cahn, D. D. (1985). Communication in interpersonal relationships. New York: SUNY Press. Daley, D., & Naff, K. (1998). Gender differences and managerial competencies: federal supervisor perceptions of the job of management. Review of Public Personnel Administration , 18, 41-56. Gayle, B. (1991). Sex equity in workplace conflict management. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 19, 152-68. Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology , 60 (2), 159-70. Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (2007). Organizational behavior. New York: Cengage Learning. Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2005). Organizational Behavior & Management. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Lee-Ross, D. (2005). Perceived job characteristics and internal work motivation - An exploratory cross-cultural analysis of the motivational antecedents of hotel workers in Mauritius and Australia. Journal of Management Development , 24 (3), 253-266. Meeker, B., & Elliott, G. (1996). Reward allocations, gender, and task performance. Social Psychology Quarterly , 59, 294-301. Mendonca, M., & Kanungo, R. N. (2006). Ethical Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Moskal, B. S. (1997). Women make better managers. Industry Week , 246, 17-19. Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. n., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31, 259–278. Rahim, M. A., Golembiewski, R., & Mackenzie, K. (2003). Current Topics in Management, Volume 8. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Rozier, C., & Hersh-Cochran, M. (1996). Gender differences in managerial characteristics in a female-dominated health profession. Health Care Supervisor , 14 (4), 57-70. Sias, P. M. (2009). Organizing Relationships: Traditional and Emerging Perspectives on Workplace Relationships. New York: SAGE Publications Inc. Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (2008). Characteristics of the supervisor-subordinate relationship as predictors of psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Issues . Valentine, S., & Godkin, L. (2000). Supervisor gender, leadership style, and perceived job design. Women in Management Review , 117-129. Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S., & Leslie, J. (1993). An examination of the relationships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Human Resources Management , 32, 249-63. Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in Organizations. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. Read More