Common use of Practical Implications Clause in Contracts

Practical Implications. We found that leaders who overestimated their EL had subordinates who reported lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intention compared with subordinates of under- estimators and in-agreement leaders. This may, in turn, cause decreased job performance (Judge et al., 2001) and increased actual turnover (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2000) among subordinates of such leaders. Due to possible arrogance and narcissistic tendencies, over-estimators may perceive that no changes are necessary and continue to influence subordinates’ attitudes in a negative direction. It would therefore be useful to bring over-estimators into a more reality- oriented position regarding their empowering leader behavior. One possibility is to provide feedback to these leaders, and previous studies (e.g., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & Ferstl, 1999) have indicated that over-estimators may improve the accuracy of their self-perception after receiving feedback. However, other studies have shown that negative upward feedback (i.e., high self relative to subordinates’ ratings) may reduce a leader’s commitment to their subordinates (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2000), and over-estimators may react to lower ratings from others with anger and discouragement (▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2001). It is therefore important to be aware of these possible negative reactions on the parts of leaders and others who provide upward feedback to over-estimators. Another practical issue concerns our finding with respect to under-estimators. These leaders were perceived as more effective by their superiors and their subordinates reported relatively higher rates of job satisfaction and lower turnover intention. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (1998) noted that under-estimators’ favorable effectiveness “may represent an interest in continually striving to improve and not becoming overconfident or complacent” (p.594). Under- estimators willingness for self-improvement and desire to meet the behavioral expectations of their subordinates make them to especially valuable leaders. Feedback to under-estimators should therefore help them to build self-confidence and lead them to understand that they play an important role in the organization (cf., ▇▇▇▇▇, 2001). They are often hard-working individuals who maintain pleasant relationships with their subordinates and it is important that they be made more aware of their qualities as leaders. This study should be considered in light of some limitations. First, we used a single sample from the public municipal sector in Norway, and generalization of our results requires cross-validation using samples from other countries, organizations and work settings. It would also be useful to replicate the study in countries with work values comparable to Norway in order to further investigate how such values may impact the effect of SOA. Additionally, due to the relatively high number of females in the sample, future research should investigate whether our findings can be replicated in Norwegian samples involving more males. Second, estimates of the correlations between subordinate ratings of EL, job satisfaction, and turnover intention may have been inflated due to common method variance (CMV). Even though our use of the unmeasured-latent-method-construct approach (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2009) did not indicate any biasing effect of CMV on the correlations, the incompleteness of this statistical technique means that we could not conclude with certainty on this issue. Therefore, there is a need for future studies that have further controls for CMV. We also suggest that future research expand the sample of others’ ratings of EL to include peers and superiors of the leaders. This will facilitate efforts to investigate whether these sources reveal patterns of SOA results that differ from those reported here for subordinates. Third, the relatively small sample size (N = 50 for job satisfaction and turnover intention, and N = 46 for leader effectiveness) contributed to low statistical power in our analyses and therefore the results should be interpreted in light of the possibility of a Type-II error. A power analysis indicated that, with our sample size and five predictors, it would require a power of .80 (▇▇▇▇▇, 1988) to detect a significant semipartial correlation sri (p < .05, two-tailed, t-test) with a magnitude of .37 (▇▇▇▇, Erdfelder, ▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2007). Possible measurement errors along with the relatively small sample size may also have affected our findings. Future studies should therefore seek to use larger sample sizes to obtain greater statistical power in the analyses. Fourth, although we restricted the range of the self and other axes in the surface graphs relative to the actual cases in our data, the graphs contain all possible combinations of self and others’ ratings within this range. Thus, it is possible that the surface plots included combinations that were not present in our data, which implies that the graphs should be interpreted with caution on the outer edge of the self and other axes. Fifth, because data were gathered at one point in time, the correlations between the variables did not represent causal relationships. To assess causal directions, the findings should be replicated in future experimental and/or longitudinal studies. Sixth, we included only SOA of empowering leadership in our study, which has prevented us from analyzing whether SOA of different leadership approaches can lead to different results on our outcome variables. A final limitation may be that our measure of leader effectiveness consisted of items that tapped into only limited aspects of effectiveness, although the measure was considered sufficient in the present leadership development program. Future studies should therefore consider applying broader measures of leader effectiveness that include more facets of the construct.

Practical Implications. We found that leaders who overestimated their EL had subordinates who reported lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intention compared with subordinates of under- estimators and in-agreement leaders. This may, in turn, cause decreased job performance (Judge et al., 2001) and increased actual turnover (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2000) among subordinates of such leaders. Due to possible arrogance and narcissistic tendencies, over-estimators may perceive that no changes are necessary and continue to influence subordinates’ attitudes in a negative direction. It would therefore be useful to bring over-estimators into a more reality- oriented position regarding their empowering leader behavior. One possibility is to provide feedback to these leaders, and previous studies (e.g., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Atwater et al., 1995; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & Ferstl▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1999) have indicated that over-estimators may improve the accuracy of their self-perception after receiving feedback. However, other studies have shown that negative upward feedback (i.e., high self relative to subordinates’ ratings) may reduce a leader’s commitment to their subordinates (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Atwater et al., 2000), and over-estimators may react to lower ratings from others with anger and discouragement (▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2001). It is therefore important to be aware of these possible negative reactions on the parts of leaders and others who provide upward feedback to over-estimators. Another practical issue concerns our finding with respect to under-estimators. These leaders were perceived as more effective by their superiors and their subordinates reported relatively higher rates of job satisfaction and lower turnover intention. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Atwater et al. (1998) noted that under-estimators’ favorable effectiveness “may represent an interest in continually striving to improve and not becoming overconfident or complacent” (p.594). Under- estimators willingness for self-improvement and desire to meet the behavioral expectations of their subordinates make them to especially valuable leaders. Feedback to under-estimators should therefore help them to build self-confidence and lead them to understand that they play an important role in the organization (cf., ▇▇▇▇▇, 2001). They are often hard-working individuals who maintain pleasant relationships with their subordinates and it is important that they be made more aware of their qualities as leaders. This study should be considered in light of some limitations. First, we used a single sample from the public municipal sector in Norway, and generalization of our results requires cross-validation using samples from other countries, organizations and work settings. It would also be useful to replicate the study in countries with work values comparable to Norway in order to further investigate how such values may impact the effect of SOA. Additionally, due to the relatively high number of females in the sample, future research should investigate whether our findings can be replicated in Norwegian samples involving more males. Second, estimates of the correlations between subordinate ratings of EL, job satisfaction, and turnover intention may have been inflated due to common method variance (CMV). Even though our use of the unmeasured-latent-method-construct approach (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2009) did not indicate any biasing effect of CMV on the correlations, the incompleteness of this statistical technique means that we could not conclude with certainty on this issue. Therefore, there is a need for future studies that have further controls for CMV. We also suggest that future research expand the sample of others’ ratings of EL to include peers and superiors of the leaders. This will facilitate efforts to investigate whether these sources reveal patterns of SOA results that differ from those reported here for subordinates. Third, the relatively small sample size (N = 50 for job satisfaction and turnover intention, and N = 46 for leader effectiveness) contributed to low statistical power in our analyses and therefore the results should be interpreted in light of the possibility of a Type-II error. A power analysis indicated that, with our sample size and five predictors, it would require a power of .80 (▇▇▇▇▇, 1988) to detect a significant semipartial correlation sri (p < .05, two-tailed, t-test) with a magnitude of .37 (▇▇▇▇, Erdfelder, ▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2007). Possible measurement errors along with the relatively small sample size may also have affected our findings. Future studies should therefore seek to use larger sample sizes to obtain greater statistical power in the analyses. Fourth, although we restricted the range of the self and other axes in the surface graphs relative to the actual cases in our data, the graphs contain all possible combinations of self and others’ ratings within this range. Thus, it is possible that the surface plots included combinations that were not present in our data, which implies that the graphs should be interpreted with caution on the outer edge of the self and other axes. Fifth, because data were gathered at one point in time, the correlations between the variables did not represent causal relationships. To assess causal directions, the findings should be replicated in future experimental and/or longitudinal studies. Sixth, we included only SOA of empowering leadership in our study, which has prevented us from analyzing whether SOA of different leadership approaches can lead to different results on our outcome variables. A final limitation may be that our measure of leader effectiveness consisted of items that tapped into only limited aspects of effectiveness, although the measure was considered sufficient in the present leadership development program. Future studies should therefore consider applying broader measures of leader effectiveness that include more facets of the construct.