the moderating effect of emotional competence

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Taking charge and employee outcomes: the moderating effect of emotional competence Tae-Yeol Kim & Zhiqiang Liu To cite this article: Tae-Yeol Kim & Zhiqiang Liu (2015): Taking charge and employee outcomes: the moderating effect of emotional competence, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1109537 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1109537

Published online: 01 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20 Download by: [Professor Tae-Yeol Kim]

Date: 01 December 2015, At: 16:10

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1109537

Taking charge and employee outcomes: the moderating effect of emotional competence Tae-Yeol Kima and Zhiqiang Liub a

Downloaded by [Professor Tae-Yeol Kim] at 16:10 01 December 2015

Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management Department, China Europe International Business School, Shanghai, P.R. China; bManagement School, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

ABSTRACT

This study examined how taking charge was related to job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and job performance among Hong Kong Chinese newcomers, and how emotional competence moderates the latter relationships. The results of a two-wave survey involving 137 newcomers supported the proposition that taking charge would be positively associated with job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment, but not with job performance. In addition, emotional competence significantly moderated the relationship between taking charge and job performance, such that taking charge was positively related to job performance only when newcomers’ emotional competence was high.

KEYWORDS

Affective organizational commitment; emotional competence; job performance; job satisfaction; taking charge

Introduction The concept of taking charge has emerged as an important element of proactive behavior (Crant, 2000; McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parker & Collins, 2010). Taking charge refers to the ‘voluntary and constructive efforts, by individual employees, to effect organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within the contexts of their jobs, work units, or organizations (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 403).’ In today’s rapidly changing environment (Moon, Kamdar, Mayer, & Takeuchi, 2008), taking charge has become crucial to both organizational and individual success. Managers cannot foresee all contingencies or fully anticipate the activities they may desire employees to perform, so employees’ voluntary efforts that aim to bring about functional change help to enhance management effectiveness (McAllister et al., 2007; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). In addition, due to the existence of organizational inertia, employees’ taking charge plays an important role in bringing new

CONTACT Zhiqiang Liu © 2015 Taylor & Francis

[email protected]


2

T.-Y. Kim and Z. Liu

insights to organizations to promote organizational innovation and to strengthen the organization’s adaptability and long-term viability (Moon et al., 2008; Parker & Collins, 2010). Taking charge can also be beneficial to individual success because it helps employees foster leadership potential and generate social network (Fuller & Marler, 2009). Although the potential value of taking charge has been highlighted, this topic remains relatively understudied (Parker & Collins, 2010). Taking charge is generally presented in the literature as an entity that is important to organizations as a means of maintaining competitive advantage (Fuller & Marler, 2009; McAllister et al., 2007; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parker & Collins, 2010). However, there are several researchers (e.g. Bindl & Parker, 2011; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2012; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009) who warn that proactive behavior may not always result in beneficial outcomes. Therefore, understanding when taking charge will lead to positive outcomes and when it is unlikely to do so is important so that the organizations can select, place, and train individuals in a way that the potential for negative personal or organizational consequences of inappropriate/unwanted/poorly executed proactive behavior is reduced. Nevertheless, few studies examined the factors that moderate the relationship between taking charge and employee outcomes. Some of the researchers who explored this important question are Fuller et al. (2012) and Grant et al. (2009). Fuller et al. (2012) found that taking charge was related to job performance more strongly when supervisors had higher proactive personalities. Grant et al. (2009) demonstrated that taking charge was more likely to contribute to job performance when employees expressed strong prosocial values or low negative affect. Our study continues this line of research but advances the literature on proactive behavior in several ways. First, we cap the efforts of Grant et al. in examining the subordinate values and the negative affect, and those of Fuller et al. in examining the personalities of supervisors by exploring the subordinate skills as a moderator for the relationship between taking charge and employee outcomes. In particular, this study proposes that individuals who can understand other’s emotions and those who can effectively handle their emotions aroused by others are more adept at understanding when or when not to take charge and are more likely to reap the potential benefits of taking charge (cf. Grant, 2013). Second, the research of Grant et al. and Fuller et al. did not examine employee outcomes other than job performance. Examining the extent to which the boundary conditions exist for other employee outcomes associated with taking charge is also important. Therefore, to achieve these ends, this study examines the moderating role of emotional competence in the relationship between taking charge and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance among newcomers. We focus on newcomers because they can promote organizational innovation by bringing new insights to organizations and strengthen organizational adaptability and long-term viability by taking charge (Hansen & Levine, 2009; Kim, Liu, & Diefendorf, 2015; Moon et al., 2008; Parker & Collins, 2010;


3

Thompson & Choi, 2005). Thus, understanding how newcomers’ taking charge behaviors are related to their work outcomes and how emotional competence plays a role in the latter relationships has some practical implications for managers to hire or train newcomers for their emotional competence. Theory and hypothesis development


Taking charge

Three essential characteristics can be used as a basis to differentiate taking charge from other concepts. First, taking charge is voluntary, which means the act is discretionary and spontaneous as a form of extra-role behavior not formally required (Crant, 2000; Moon et al., 2008). In this regard, taking charge is similar to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (McAllister et al., 2007). OCB refers to ‘those organizationally beneficial behaviors and gestures that can neither be enforced on the basis of formal role obligations nor elicited by contractual guarantee or recompense’ (Organ, 1990, p. 46). Second, it is change-oriented and constructive. Taking charge is inherently change-oriented, which means it urges employees to challenge the status quo to bring about functional change that aims to improve individual, team or organizational performance (Janssen, 2005; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Third, taking charge is challenging. Unlike OCB, taking charge requires responsibility and accountability on the possible consequences of the actions taken (McAllister et al., 2007; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). That is, it involves taking risks, which implies that taking charge is more challenging than other types of extra-role behavior, such as OCB and helping behavior (McAllister et al., 2007; Parker & Collins, 2010). OCB is the modest behavior that sustains the status quo (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), and helping behavior acts as an example of affiliative OCB (McAllister et al., 2007). Taking charge and employee outcomes

Taking charge is positively related to employees’ job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment for several reasons. First, empirical evidence indicate that people have an inherit need to strive for consistency (Hogg & Copper, 2007; Katz, 1960). Thus, people attempt to keep their attitude and behavior consistent. Although attitude generally affects behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), behavior can also influence attitude (Hogg & Copper, 2007; Souchet & Girandola, 2013). For example, according to self-perception theory (Bem, 1970), individuals infer their attitude from their behavior and the circumstances in which they performed it. Extrapolating from this, after performing taking charge behavior that aims to bring functional changes to their jobs and organization, individuals can infer that they are the kind of person who upholds this type of cause, and who have positive attitudes toward their jobs and organizations. In addition, taking charge


4


is a discretionary and spontaneous form of committed behavior, which is based on self-choice and is not imposed (Crant, 2000). When individuals perform tasks out of their own volition, they are naturally more committed to and satisfied with their tasks (Millette & Gagne, 2008), and are highly committed to their organizations (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Taking charge can also be positively associated with employee job performance. Taking charge aims to improve the working methods that increase the quality and quantity of work outcomes, and thus eventually benefit the entire organization (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). In addition, individuals who engage in taking charge tend to put extra effort into bringing functional changes in their jobs and organizations (McAllister et al., 2007; Moon et al., 2008). These internal goals to bring functional changes and corresponding constructive and additional effort can help employees improve their job performance (Lawler, 1973; Moran, Diefendorff, Kim, & Liu, 2012). Consistent with this, Fuller et al. (2012), Grant et al. (2009), and Kim et al. (2015) showed that taking charge was positively associated with job performance. Although most of empirical research on the effects of taking charge on employee outcomes has been conducted in the western society (Fuller & Marler, 2009; Fuller et al., 2012; Grant et al., 2009; McAllister et al., 2007; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parker & Collins, 2010), the logic behind these studies should not be culture bound and can be validated across countries. For example, Kim et al. (2015) found that taking charge led to positive job performance among Mainland Chinese employees. Taken together, we propose that: Hypothesis 1: Taking charge is positively related to job satisfaction (a), affective organizational commitment (b), and job performance (c) among Hong Kong Chinese.

The moderating role of emotional competence

We so far discussed that taking charge leads to positive employee work attitudes and performance. However, taking charge that aims to bring functional changes to the jobs and organizations may induce some challenges from others since people tend to resist to changes (Dent & Goldberg, 1999); thus, the effectiveness of taking charge can depend on how effectively individuals who engage in taking charge deal with challenging situations or potential negative reactions from others. One of the factors that can help individuals effectively manage others’ negative reactions to their taking charge behaviors is emotional competence. Emotional competence refers to individuals’ perceptions of their own emotional abilities on four dimensions: understanding one’s own emotion (i.e. knowing how they feel), understanding others’ emotion (i.e. knowing the emotions of people around them), regulation of one’s emotion (i.e. ability to control emotions and recover from psychological distress), and utilization of one’s emotion (i.e. ability to direct emotions toward constructive activities).



5

(Kim, Cable, Kim, & Wang, 2009, p. 985). Emotional competence is conceptually similar to emotional intelligence, but we prefer to use emotional competence instead of emotional intelligence in this study, consistent with Kim et al. Specifically, emotional competence is appropriate for use in self-report measures (including the ones used in this study) that assess perceptions of the respondents’ own emotional abilities, instead of measuring cognitive ability or maximally possible behavior, as the intelligence label implies. People with high emotional competence significantly understand the emotion of others and use their affect-related skills to mitigate tension and effectively improve social relationships (Giardini & Frese, 2008). Emotional competence also often emerges as a consistent predictor of employee outcomes because most jobs require the ability to know, manage, and regulate emotions (Hessler, 2008). In addition, individuals with high emotional competence are more likely to cope with stress positively, whereas those with low emotional competence tend to engage in negative coping strategies (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). We expect emotional competence to moderate the relationship between taking charge and affective outcomes of employees (i.e. job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment). Manzoni and Barsoux (2009) posited that taking charge is not only a time of great excitement but also of great stress because of its challenging nature. Employees who are able to control their emotions and recover from psychological distress can positively cope with the stress associated with their taking charge behaviors, and thus can keep positive work attitudes resulting from their taking charge. To support this, Eisenberg et al. (1995) demonstrated that employees who can cope with stress and adversity effectively are less likely to change their original goals and attitudes. That is, individuals who can understand and regulate their own emotions are the ones who can recover effectively from potential psychological distress resulting from their taking charge (cf. Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001; Hessler, 2008; Mayer & Salovey, 1997), and thus can maintain their positive work attitudes. In contrast, employees with low emotional competence may not be able to effectively manage potential stress and negative reactions from others associated with their taking charge, and thus may not maximize the potential benefits of taking charge in boosting the positive attitudes toward their jobs and organization. Hence, we predict that: Hypothesis 2: Emotional competence moderates the relationships between taking charge and employees’ job satisfaction (a) and affective organizational commitment (b), such that the latter relationships becomes stronger when emotional competence is high rather than low.

Emotional competence can also moderate the relationship between taking charge and job performance. Employees with high emotional competence are more likely to seek feedback on their performance to improve their work efficiency and initiate social interaction with co-workers to build social networks for support (Kim et al., 2009; Morrison, 1993). Thus, they can effectively manage the potential negative reactions from others associated with their taking charge behavior by


6


seeking more feedback and social support from others, including their supervisors (Fitzgerald, Brown, Sonnega, & Ewart, 2005), and can maximize the potential benefits of taking charge on their job performance. Moreover, employees who can recognize others’ emotions more accurately in social interactions are more skilled at anticipating, sensing, and thus dealing with others’ negative reactions associated with their taking charge behavior, which can further enhance the benefits of taking charge on job performance. In addition, individuals with high emotional competence better utilize their emotions and direct their emotions toward constructive activities (Kim et al., 2009), and thus are more effective in bringing positive outcomes from their taking charge behaviors. Conversely, individuals who have low emotional competence tend to direct their emotions toward problematic activities, including withdrawal, self-blame, and attacking others who disagree with them instead of getting social support to deal with any difficulties (Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Daus, 2002; Hessler, 2008). Accordingly, when employees face negative reactions from others in relation to their taking charge, they can withdraw their efforts to bring functional changes or blame others and thus lose necessary social support to make their taking charge successful, resulting in low performance in their jobs. The preceding discussions lead us to predict that: Hypothesis 3: Emotional competence moderates the relationship between taking charge and employees’ job performance, such that the relationship is positive when emotional competence is high, but negative when emotional competence is low.

Method Participants and procedures

A total of 137 participants completed a two-wave survey and provided valid data in all study variables. Out of the total number of respondents, 47% were female with an average age of 22.2 (SD = 1.2) years. All participants graduated from a university in Hong Kong in the same year. At Time 1, the taking charge and the emotional competence of the participants were measured. The participants were asked to take part in the survey three months after graduation. Of the 398 respondents who were asked to participate, 277 returned the survey (69.6% response rate). However, 76 responses were excluded from the study because the participants who gave these responses were either unemployed or pursuing postgraduate studies. As stipulated in the research design, only those who are working in organizations were qualified to participate in the second survey. At Time 2, 6 months later, the second survey was distributed to 201 employees who responded to the first survey. The second survey measured the job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and job performance of the participants. Code numbers were used to match the first and second surveys. Of the 201 participants who completed the first survey, 146 returned the second questionnaire (72.6% response rate). Nine cases were excluded because of incomplete responses, yielding a total of 137 useful


7

responses. All respondents in each wave of data collection were assured that their responses would be kept confidential. No significant age and sex difference was found between the respondents and the non-respondents for the second survey. Measures


The surveys were initially developed in English and then translated to Chinese using the back-translation procedure of Brislin (1986). All variables in this study were assessed using the seven-point Likert-type scale (where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Taking charge The participants’ behavior of taking charge was assessed using the 10-item measure of taking charge proposed by Morrison and Phelps (1999). Sample items are ‘I often try to adopt improved procedures for doing my job,’ ‘I often try to change how my job is executed in order to be more effective,’ and ‘I often try to bring about improved procedures for the work unit or department.’ Emotional competence We asked the participants to assess their own emotional competence using Law, Wong, and Song’s (2004) 16-item scale to measure emotional intelligence. In this study, we used the term ‘competence’ instead of ‘intelligence’ because self-report measures assess the respondents’ own emotional abilities (i.e. emotional competence, Kim et al., 2009) instead of measuring cognitive ability or maximally possible behavior, as the measures for emotional intelligence aim to do (Giardini & Frese, 2008). Sample items include ‘I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time’ and ‘I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others.’ Following Law et al. (2004), the 16 items were added to form a composite. Higher scores on this composite indicate higher emotional competence. Job satisfaction The three-item measure of job satisfaction presented by Edwards and Rothbard (1999) was adopted to measure the respondents’ job satisfaction. The items are ‘All in all, the job I have is great,’ ‘In general, I am satisfied with my job,’ and ‘My job is very enjoyable.’ Affective organizational commitment The affective organizational commitment was gauged by Meyer and Allen’s (1991) five items using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Example items are ‘This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me’ and ‘I feel emotionally attached to this organization.’ Affective commitment was used because it reflects the intrinsic feelings of the respondents more than the other types of commitment.

8



Job performance To evaluate self-assessed job performance, the respondents were asked to determine how other people would generally rate their performance on the job. Four items from the role-based performance scale (Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998) were used to assess the ‘quantity of work output’ and ‘quality of work output.’ Control variables When facing uncertainty and risk, female and elder employees are more likely to become negative or resort to withdrawal than male and younger ones (Jianakoplos & Bernasek, 2007). Taking charge involves uncertainty and risk; thus, age and sex were used as control variables to better estimate the extent of the effects of the hypothesized variables. The social desirability of the respondents was also adopted as a control variable to reduce the potential bias in the self-report measures. Social desirability of raters can bias their answers (i.e. changing the mean scores of the response) and may produce spurious relationships between variables, or influence the nature of the relationships between the variables (Ganster, Hennessey, & Luthans, 1983). We assessed social desirability using the 10-item scale of Marlowe–Crowne (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). Sample items are ‘I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable’ and ‘When I don’t know something, I don’t at all mind admitting it.’ Analysis

Regression analyses were used to test the research hypotheses. To test the moderating effects of emotional competence, we used the bootstrap sampling method (bootstrap sample size = 5,000), as recommended by Hayes (2013), to generate asymmetric confidence intervals (CIs) for the moderating effect. Moreover, to exhaustively examine any significant interaction effect, the simple slopes of the taking charge–employee outcomes at one standard deviation below the mean and one standard deviation above the mean of emotional competence were plotted, and whether each slope was statistically significant was determined (Aiken & West, 1991). Results Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess the measurement model (i.e. taking charge, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, job performance, and emotional competence). The five-factor model provided a good fit to the data (χ2 [94] = 141.6, p