Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13

North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

North American Journal of Economics and Finance

Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability

1

2

3

Q1

4 5 6 7 8 9

Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen a, Mei-Ling Yuan a,∗, Jen-Wei Cheng b, Roger Seifert c a Business Administration at National Central University, No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli District, Taoyuan City 32001, Taiwan b Business Administration at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Da’an Dist., Taipei City 10607, Taiwan c Business School, University of Wolverhampton, City Campus (North), Nursery Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1AD, UK

10

11

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

12 13

Available online xxx

14

19

Keywords: Felt accountability Transformational leadership Core self-evaluation Job performance

20

1. Introduction

15 16 17 18

21 22

This study examined the mediating effects of felt accountability (FA) on the effect of both transformational leadership and core self-evaluation (CSE) on task performance (TP) and contextual performance (CP). Structural equation modeling and Analysis of Moment Structures were used to analyze data collected from questionnaires distributed to 302 supervisor–employee dyads. The concept of FA is based on a social contingency model of accountability, which is distinct from feelings of responsibility or obligation in organizational research. Our hypotheses for the mediating role of FA were supported by the data, except that the mediating effect of FA on the relationship between CSE and CP was not supported. We discuss the implications of these results for research and practice in organizations. © 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Considerable research is required to empirically reexamine the widely held assumption that Q2 accountability is an organizational panacea. We echo the claim of Ferris et al. (2009): “Our ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 939 656201. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.-L. Yuan). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012 1062-9408/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13 2

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

understanding of accountability antecedents, processes, and outcomes is woefully deficient” (p. 528). The common a priori rationale for this statement was expressed by Lerner and Tetlock (1999), as 25 follows: “all we need to do is hold the rascals accountable” (p. 270). 26 A prevalent problem-solving-oriented social consensus is that accountability is an essential mech27 anism for social and personal control (Frink & Ferris, 1998). However, because practitioners stress 28 performance outcomes, the failure to demonstrate a clear connection between accountability and 29 job performance impedes the advocacy of accountability and its implementation in real organiza30 tional settings. We argue that a crucial and implicit proposition of accountability research is that the 31 impacts of accountability mechanisms on member behavior are essential for improved organizational 32 performance. 33 In addition, individual performance of an organization is contingent, inter alia, on the interplay of 34 leaders and the dispositional characteristics of employees. Transformational leadership (TL; Carter, 35 Armenakis, Field, & Mossholder, 2013) and core self-evaluation (CSE; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997), 36 therefore, may affirm that conditions of accountability affect employee behavior in organizational 37 settings (Frink & Ferris, 1998, p. 1260). This affirmation contains broad implications for the emergence 38 of felt accountability (FA) and job performance and can enrich our understanding of their roles in the 39 performance management process. 40 The purpose of the present study was to determine the underlying psychological process of FA in 41 the relationships among TL, CSE, and job performance. Furthermore, the study was intended to fill the 42 gap in the literature regarding FA and its empirical connection to job performance. We discuss both the 43 theoretical and practical implications of our findings, which include TL, CSE, FA, and job performance 44 theories. In addition, we argue for a process perspective of the mediating role of FA in response to 45Q3 a need for a comprehensive understanding of the antecedents and consequences of FA (Frink et al., 46 2009). 23 24

47

2. Theory and hypotheses

48

2.1. Characteristics and effect of felt accountability

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Accountability is ubiquitous in organizations and social systems, and is conceptualized as a perceived likelihood that the behaviors of an individual or group will be evaluated by some salient audience, and that the evaluation will result in either rewards or sanctions received by the individual or group (Hall et al., 2003, p. 33). The perspective of integrating accountability with role theories (Frink & Klimoski, 1998, 2004; Frink et al., 2008) suggests that the characteristics of accountability in social and organizational systems require shared norms and rules to guide individual behavior. FA is therefore considered to bind social systems or serve as a mechanism for maintaining systems and structures (Frink et al., 2008). Thus, felt accountability is viewed as an internal pressure leading individuals to comply (Ferris et al., 2009, p. 519). In contrast with the traditional superior–subordinate or “vertical” relationships, other accountability mechanisms are “horizontal,” as in the relationships between peers, partners, clients, and independent bodies (Schillemans, 2010). Thus, FA derives from multiple sources. For example, employees are expected to be accountable to their superiors, colleagues, clients, and other stakeholders (Hall, Bowen, Ferris, Royle, & Fitzgibbons, 2007). Consequently, under the “web of accountability” (Frink & Klimoski, 1998) the joint impact of multiple mechanisms may create “redundant accountability” (Schillemans, 2010). Instead of examining each of the multiple sources and identifying their individual effects from a multi-level or meso-level perspective among the redundant forms of accountability, Hall et al. (2007) suggested that accountability can be thought of as a subjective representation of the context. Nevertheless, FA research integrates the impact of intrapsychic processes (Lerner & Tetlock, 2003) into a conceptual framework to enhance the linkages of individual behavior with the larger organizational and social institutional context. Specifically, the concept of FA is based on the social contingency model of accountability (Tetlock, 1985, 1992), which is distinct from the feeling of responsibility or obligation in organizational research (Frink & Ferris, 1998; Frink et al., 2008; Hall et al., 2007). Felt accountability is subjective and internal in Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model ECOFIN 553 1–13

ARTICLE IN PRESS C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

3

80

essence. The FA of an individual is partly affected by his or her perceptions and experiences of external accountability contexts (Hochwarter, Perrewé, Hall, & Ferris, 2005). Hence, the present study adopted the following definition: FA refers to “an implicit or explicit expectation that one’s decisions or actions will be deemed important or noteworthy and will be subject to evaluation by salient others with the belief that there exists the potential for one to receive either rewards or sanctions” (Hochwarter et al., 2005, p. 518). In other words, a person is aware of the need to satisfy some standard of behavior and of the consequences of success and failure.

81

2.2. Felt accountability and job performance

74 75 76 77 78 79

99

Job performance is commonly asserted as the most valuable outcome for facilitating organizations in predicting and rewarding member behavior. To hold people accountable for their job performance is a basic element of organizational systems (Ferris et al., 2009). Previous studies have shown that organizational cues influence individual’s accountability perceptions and that the effect of FA depends on a decision maker’s knowledge of the views of the audience (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). When the views of the supervisors are known and conformity is likely, decision makers act in accordance with these views. Thus, the resulting perception of accountability is a critical determinant of subsequent performance. Additionally, when the organizational function of accountability mechanisms is to make the behavior of the “focal person” more predictable and controllable for achieving organizational goals, then the felt accountability affects job performance. Organizational research gauges an individual’s performance in terms of his or her job performance behaviors (Carter et al., 2013), which are typically separated into task performance (TP; i.e., performance of duties that are formally recognized as part of the job) and contextual performance (CP; i.e., extra-role behaviors that are performed voluntarily for increasing organizational effectiveness, such as organizational citizenship behavior; Royle, Hall, Hochwarter, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2005). Erdogan, Sparrowe, Liden, and Dunegan (2004) suggested that the outcomes of FA could include task and contextual behaviors, and identified the conditions under which people perceive differences in FA for task and contextual behaviors.

100

2.3. Transformational leadership, felt accountability, and job performance

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

It is axiomatic that leadership is critical to the success of any organization. TL is recognized as an effective leadership form that facilitates members in addressing the continual challenges that organizations may face (Carter et al., 2013). Regarding FA, employees’ experiences of external events as objective antecedents evoke the feeling of accountability and result in a series of self-generated influences on personal determinants of judgment and action (Frink et al., 2008). Thus, TL can be an essential environmental antecedent within organizations that requires further exploration for study on FA. TL is distinguished by its focus on developing followers. This functions through the process of contingent reinforcement to account for who attempts, who is successful, and who is effective as a leader (Bass, 1995). Theoretically, transformational leaders engage in inspirational activities to energize followers by enhancing their psychological empowerment and self-efficacy, providing them with greater aspirations and organizational identity, and encouraging them commit to greater responsibility for work outcomes (Aryee, Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012; Bartram & Casimir, 2007). Khanin (2007) suggested that transformational leaders can improve follower job performance by using motivational tools such as idealized influence and charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration, thus inducing higher-order changes that surpass the expectations of subordinates. Regarding these social influence processes, transformational leaders, for example, assist their followers in enhancing their social identification and self-concept. The followers are encouraged to internalize and emulate their leader’s values, beliefs, and behaviors. These types of interaction in turn strengthen leader–follower ties over time, including mutual obligation, respect, trust, and interpersonal support (Carter et al., 2013). Thus, being at least accountable to their leaders and to their own jobs can increase the level of the followers’ felt accountability. Therefore, TL is positively related to employees’ FA. Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13 4

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

138

In addition, these types of interaction may also make the followers prioritize a larger collective cause over individual interests (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). Followers’ awareness and concerns about their evaluation of salient others and their contribution to workplace goals can be increasingly evoked, thereby encouraging them to work harder. Previous studies have found that TL is positively related to followers’ TP and CP under most conditions (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011; Wang et al., 2005). TL and FA are two organizational devices mediating the effects of motivation and intrapsychic processes on individuals’ behavior (cf., Lerner & Tetlock, 2003). Both constructs can be shown to target behavioral changes through an inner motivational process that is aroused to produce outcomes such as TP and CP. Thus, the social cognitive model of triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura, 1989) suggests that the external environment, cognitive and other personal factors, and behavior interact and influence each other bi-directionally (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 362). Accordingly, after the primary causal sequence was considered, this study adopted a mediating model with TL as the antecedent and job performance as the outcome of FA (cf., Frink et al., 2008). This study proposed the following hypotheses:

139

Hypothesis 1a.

Employees’ FA mediates the relationship between TL and TP.

140

Hypothesis 1b.

Employees’ FA mediates the relationship between TL and CP.

141

2.4. Core self-evaluation, felt accountability, and job performance

124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137

142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174

FA, as “the social psychological link between individual decision makers on the one hand and social system on the other” (Lerner & Tetlock, 1994, p. 2), should be viewed as a state of mind (Hochwarter et al., 2007). It motivates employees to seek the approval and respect of those to whom they are accountable. Previous studies have found that personality traits play roles in felt accountability (Frink & Ferris, 1998; Mero, Guidice, & Anna, 2006). Other researchers, such as Laird, Perryman, Hochwarter, Ferris, & Zinko (2009) and Hall and Ferris (2010), have adopted the negative and positive effects of felt accountability as control variables in their analyses of the relationships between felt accountability, strain, and extra-role behaviors. However, these studies on felt accountability conducted only limited analysis of the various aspects of personality traits. CSE is a dispositional profile that reflects who the individual is and how individuals perceive themselves. CSE research has involved using approach–avoidance frameworks (Elliot & Thrash, 2002) as a theoretical foundation, positing that personality traits can be characterized in terms of sensitivity to positive or negative information. Consequently, people can be categorized into approach (positive) and avoidance (negative) temperaments; high-CSE individuals are conceptualized as sensitive to positive stimuli and insensitive to negative stimuli and vice versa (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012). Specifically, this construct is composed of four CSE traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control. Several studies by Judge et al. confirmed the relationship between CSE and job performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). For example, Bono and Judge (2003) found that these four traits and the CSE construct were related to two central criteria: job satisfaction and job performance. They suggested that CSE can be used for trait evaluations, by focusing on the lens through which people view themselves and their world. Recently, because CSE is a valid construct for assessing self-traits, some meta-analytic studies have confirmed that CSE is related to individual job performance behaviors. Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) suggested that self-reported personality measures were useful in explaining and predicting organizational behaviors; their meta-analytic results revealed that CSE was a more useful predictor of performance than the Big Five personality traits, even when the effect of the entire set of Big Five traits was controlled for. Chang et al. (2012) found in their meta-analysis that CSE was positively related to TP and organizational citizenship behavior. Based on these prior findings, this study proposed that CSE is positively related to employees’ TP and CP. Bono and Judge (2003) suggested that future research could explore what additional psychological or behavioral processes link CSE to job performance. In addition, individuals with higher CSE Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

5

184

are more protective of their reputation and more capable of managing their individual impressions. The meta-analysis of Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, and Scott (2009) found that individuals with positive CSE experienced fewer stressors and less strain than individuals with negative CSE and that individuals high in CSE practiced less avoidance coping, less emotion-focused coping, and more problem-solving coping than individuals with low CSE. Positive CSE can influence members’ sensitivities to organizational accountability cues, which could in turn affect individual decision making regarding coping strategies, enhance felt accountability, and increase individual job performance. Royle et al. (2008) found a mediating effect of informal accountability for others on the relationship between self-regulation and organizational citizenship behaviors. Therefore, this study proposed the following hypotheses:

185

Hypothesis 2a.

Employees’ FA mediates the relationship between CSE and TP.

186

Hypothesis 2b.

Employees’ FA mediates the relationship between CSE and CP.

187

3. Methods

188

3.1. Procedures

175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

204

Data for this study were obtained from organizations located in Taiwan. The surveyed organizations were based in six industry and service sectors. To control for the same-source effect, this study used a dyadic questionnaire design by which data were collected from subordinates and supervisors in a typical dyadic relationship. The first questionnaire, administered to subordinates, was designed as a tool for collecting data on subordinate FA, TL, and CSE. As a supplement to the first questionnaire, the second questionnaire, administered to supervisors, was independently designed in form and administration for collecting data on subordinate job performance. The data collection process had two phases. In the first phase, the managers were contacted to assist in distributing the subordinate questionnaires to the middle-level supervisors of their companies. Each supervisor was requested to assign no more than five direct subordinates to complete the questionnaire and seal it in an envelope, which was then returned to the supervisor. When the subordinates returned the sealed envelopes to their supervisors, the supervisors were asked to record both the name and a sequential number (written on the envelope by the supervisors) of each subordinate. In the second phase, the supervisor questionnaires were distributed by the managers to the supervisors, who assessed the job performance of each of their subordinates following the sequential numbers that they had previously recorded.

205

3.2. Participants

189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203

215

A total of 685 subordinate questionnaires were distributed in this survey. We received 302 usable subordinate questionnaires, yielding a net response rate of 44%. The missing value questionnaires included questionnaires with incomplete answers, unidentified dyadic relationships, and incorrectly identified respondents. The subordinates exhibited the following demographic characteristics: 51.3% of the subordinates were women; 54.6% were married; regarding formal education, 20.6% of the subordinates had attained a master’s degree or above, 52.6% had attained a bachelor’s degree, and 26.8% had a college-level education or below; regarding the subordinates’ industry or service sector, 11.6% of the subordinates worked in traditional manufacturing, 38.4% worked in high-tech manufacturing, 25.2% worked in public utilities, 5.6% worked in wholesale and retail, 8.6% worked in transportation, storage, and communication, and 21.9% worked in finance and insurance.

216

3.3. Measures

206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214

217 218 219 220

Data were collected using two anonymous, self-administered questionnaires. All of the perceptions, dispositions, and attitudes in the subordinate and the supervisor questionnaires, including FA, TL, CSE, and job performance, were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The original English items of each scale used in this study were carefully translated Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13 6 221 222

223 224 225

226 227 228

229 230 231

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

into Chinese by the authors and revised by other local scholars in the field of organizational behavior and senior HR managers in business organizations. 3.3.1. Felt accountability The subordinate’s FA level was measured using an 8-item scale developed by Hochwarter et al. (2005, p. 523; e.g., “I am held very accountable for my actions at work”). 3.3.2. Transformational leadership The 20-item TL scale developed by Bass and Avolio (1997) was used for assessing the level of TL perceived by the subordinates (e.g., “My boss has a clear understanding of where we are going”). 3.3.3. Core self-evaluation This study used the 12-item CSE Scale developed by Judge et al. (2003, p. 315) for measuring the respondents’ personality traits (e.g., “I am confident I get the success I deserve in life”).

237

3.3.4. Job performance This study used two measures through which the supervisors assessed the sampled subordinates’ job performance. First, 7 items developed by Williams and Anderson (1991, p. 606) were adopted for measuring TP (e.g., “He/she adequately completes assigned duties”). Second, 16 items developed by Motowidlo and Van-Scotter (1994, p. 477) were adopted for measuring the subordinates’ CP (e.g., “He/she complies with instructions even when supervisors are not present”).

238

3.4. Analytical strategy

232 233 234 235 236

248

Structural equation modeling (SEM) and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) 17.0 software was used to test the hypothesized model. According to Jöreskog and Sörbom (1989), SEM provides a maximum-likelihood estimation of the entire system in a hypothesized model and enables assessing variables in the data. Thus, the two-step strategy of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was adopted for testing the hypothesized model. First, the measurement model was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); we then performed SEM analysis to measure the fit and path coefficients of the hypothesized model. In addition, we employed bootstrapping analysis (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Preacher & Hayes, 2008) to estimate the mediating and indirect effects. Bootstrapping procedures generate an empirical approximation of the sampling distribution that is used to construct confidence intervals (CIs) for indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

249

4. Data analysis and results

250

4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis

239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247

251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264

CFA is also referred to as a measurement model. When conducting SEM, researchers frequently first evaluate the measurement model (whether the measured variables accurately reflect the desired constructs or factors) before assessing the structural model (Jackson, Gillaspy, & Purc-Stephenson, 2009). In this study, the SEM comprised five main dimensions: (a) TL (Items L1–L20 of the subordinate evaluation); (b) CSE (Items S1–S12 of the subordinate evaluation); (c) FA (Items A1–A8 of the subordinate evaluation); (d) TP (Items P1–P7 of the supervisor evaluation); and (e) CP (Items P8–P23 of the supervisor evaluation). For each dimension, we tested the goodness of fit, factor loadings, squared multiple correlations (SMC), composite reliability (CR), convergent validity, and interdimensional discriminant validity of the CFA model. In the process of CFA analysis, factor loadings lower than 0.45 were removed according to Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008), Bentler and Wu (1993), and Jöreskog and Sörbom (1989). On the basis of Kenny (1979) and Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2009), at least 3 items were retained in each dimension for subsequent analysis. Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287

7

The second-order dimension of TL was composed of five dimensions: idealized attributes (ATTR), idealized behaviors (BEH), inspirational motivation (MOT), intellectual stimulation (STIM), and individualized consideration (CONSID). The Cronbach’s ˛ of the five sub-dimensions ranged from .83 to .91, which was higher than the recommended value of .7 (Hair et al., 2009). Therefore, parcel processing was conducted on the items to simplify the model. This procedure involved combining items of each dimension into new variables that represented their original dimensions. In addition to simplifying the model, item parcels can advance the data closer to normalization, reduce the likelihood of correlations between residuals, increase the likelihood of residual independence, and increase the model’s goodness of fit (Kline, 2011). Therefore, TL was used as a first-order dimension comprising 5 items, similar to the other four dimensions. During the CFA analysis, factor loadings smaller than .6 were removed, and the CR and average variance extracted (AVE) values were calculated. Fornell and Larcker (1981) asserted that a dimension with a CR larger than .7 and an AVE exceeding or approaching .5 possesses acceptable reliability and convergent validity. Our results are shown in Table 1. Except for the reference indicators that were set to 1, all of the non-standardized factor loadings reached the level of significance, and all of the standardized factor loadings exceeded .6. The SMCs exceeded or approached .5, the CRs all exceeded .7, and the AVE values exceeded or approached .5. Thus, the measurement dimensions of this study possessed favorable convergent validity. Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed that, when a model possesses discriminant validity, the convergent validity (i.e., AVE) should exceed the shared variance between dimensions. This study compared the AVE square root with Pearson’s correlations between dimensions. As shown in Table 2, the AVE squared roots exceeded Pearson’s correlation values for each dimension, indicating favorable discriminant validity between the dimensions.

Table 1 Factor loadings and convergent validity for research variables.

TL

CSE

FA

TP

CP

Unstd.

S.E.

t-Value

p

Std.

SMC

CR

AVE

ATTR BEH MOT STIM CONSID

1 0.928 0.974 0.867 0.879

*** *** *** ***

0.817 0.824 0.767 0.780 0.634

0.764

24.836 22.816 23.221 18.650

0.904 0.908 0.876 0.883 0.796

0.942

0.037 0.043 0.037 0.047

S1 S5 S7 S9 S11

1 0.921 0.904 1.175 0.831

*** *** *** ***

0.511 0.440 0.391 0.508 0.372

0.444

9.694 9.229 10.232 9.039

0.715 0.663 0.625 0.713 0.610

0.799

0.095 0.098 0.115 0.092

A5 A6 A7

1 1.384 0.944

*** ***

0.384 0.692 0.423

0.500

7.896 8.390

0.620 0.832 0.650

0.746

0.175 0.112

P1 P3 P4 P5

1 1.281 1.342 1.219

*** *** ***

0.546 0.691 0.771 0.594

0.651

13.986 14.606 12.997

0.739 0.831 0.878 0.771

0.881

0.092 0.092 0.094

P10 P11 P17 P21 P16

1 0.960 0.910 1.024 0.839

*** *** *** ***

0.530 0.605 0.500 0.627 0.384

0.529

12.279 11.262 12.452 9.920

0.728 0.778 0.707 0.792 0.620

0.848

0.078 0.081 0.082 0.085

Note: (1) **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed); N = 302. (2) TL = transformational leadership, CSE = core self-evaluation, FA = felt accountability, TP = task performance, and CP = contextual performance. (3) TL was composed of five dimensions, namely idealized attributes (ATTR; L5, L9, L11, L13), idealized behaviors (BEH; L2, L7, L12, L19), inspirational motivation (MOT; L4, L6, L14, L20), intellectual stimulation (STIM; L1, L3, L16, L18), and individualized consideration (CONSID; L8, L10, L15, L17).

Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13 8

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 2 Discriminate validity for research variables.

CP TP FA CSE TL

288

AVE

CP

TP

FA

CSE

TL

0.529 0.651 0.500 0.444 0.764

0.727 0.775 0.187 0.117 0.159

0.807 0.182 0.084 0.092

0.707 0.299 0.283

0.666 0.421

0.874

4.2. Structural models

310

In SEM, to evaluate the goodness of fit between the model and sample data based on multiple aspects, a series of empirical indicators were developed: the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed chi squared (2 /df), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The TLI, IFI, CFI, GFI, and AGFI were used to indicate the level of similarity between the model and sample. A value of 1 indicates complete similarity, and a value higher than .9 is generally recommended. Regarding other indicators such as the RMSEA and SRMR, which indicate the level of divergence between the model and sample, 0 indicates complete divergence, and a value below .08 is generally acceptable. The results of the structural model’s goodness of fit are displayed in Table 3. Most of the goodnessof-fit indicators for the original model exhibited favorable values. The chi-squared value was 364.022; the normed chi-squared value was 1.892 (lower than the recommended value of 3); the GFI was .903 (higher than the recommended value of .9); the AGFI was .876 (although lower than the recommended value of .9, the result was within an acceptable range); and the RMSEA was .052 (lower than the recommended value of .08). The SRMR was .049 (lower than the recommended value of .08); the CFI was .954 (higher than the recommended value of .9); and the IFI was .954 (higher than the recommended value of .9). Overall, the model’s goodness of fit satisfied established standards, demonstrating a favorable goodness of fit between the model and the sample. After an acceptable goodness of fit was obtained for the model, the results of the regression path coefficients and the significance levels were determined (Fig. 1). The model exhibited three significant paths: TL to FA, CSE to FA, and FA to TP. The remaining paths did not reach the significance level of 95%, whereas FA to CP nearly achieved the significance level (Table 4).

311

4.3. Mediation model analysis

289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309

312 313 314 315

Mediation effect analysis is also referred to as indirect effect analysis. To determine whether the mediating effects were valid, several regression models were conducted according to Baron and Kenny (1986). However, most researchers assert that this method is not sufficiently rigorous; therefore, numerous researchers recommend using the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982, 1986) to determine the signifiTable 3 Goodness of fit indicators for the research model. Fit indices

Reference value

Model value

Overall model fit

ML (2 ) df (Degrees of freedom) 2 /df (normed chi-sqrire) GFI AGFI RMSEA SRMR TLI (NNFI) CFI IFI

The smaller the better The bigger the better 1 < ␹2 /df < 3 >0.9 >0.9 <0.08 <0.08 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9

364.022 199 1.829 0.903 0.876 0.052 0.049 0.946 0.954 0.954

– – Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

9

.038 TL

TP .190

*

.166* FA

.219**

.149+ .018

.105

CSE

CP .029

Fig. 1. Structural equation modeling of the hypothesized model. Note: (1) +p < .1, *p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed); N = 302. (2) 2 = 364.022, df = 199, 2 /df = 1.829, CFI = .954, IFI = .954, TLI = .946, and SRMR = .052. Table 4 Standardized regression coefficient analysis of the model.

FA FA TP TP TP CP CP CP

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ←

TL CSE FA TL CSE FA CSE TL

Unstd.

S.E.

t-Value

p

Std.

0.174 0.259 0.136 0.029 0.018 0.143 0.033 0.091

0.07 0.098 0.064 0.054 0.077 0.075 0.09 0.064

2.506 2.629 2.137 0.528 0.232 1.912 0.36 1.43

0.012* 0.009** 0.033* 0.597 0.817 0.056+ 0.719 0.153

0.190 0.219 0.166 0.038 0.018 0.149 0.029 0.105

Note: Standardized estimating of 10,000 bootstrap sample. + p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327

cance of the value. If the Z-value exceeds 1.96, a mediating effect exists; otherwise, it does not exist. Thus, the Sobel test compensates for the limitations in the Baron and Kenny (1986) method, instead of replacing it. MacKinnon (2008) and Hayes (2009) asserted that the Z-test of the Sobel test assumes that the products of the indirect effect show a normal distribution; however, this assumption is incorrect; using a value of 1.96 for determining significance might cause judgment bias regarding the indirect effect. Therefore, this study employed a bootstrap technique with asymmetric regions for determining the CI of the indirect effect. When a typical indirect effect is estimated, the standard error of the indirect effect cannot be produced using general statistical analysis; therefore, calculating CIs requires using a bootstrap function through which the standard error is calculated, followed by the CIs (MacKinnon, 2008). Mediation is considered supported and the indirect effects are statistically significant if the CI does not contain a zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

Table 5 Indirect effect analysis for the model. Indirect effect

H1a: TL → FA → TP H1b: TL → FA → CP H2a: CSE → FA → TP H2b: CSE → FA → CP

Point estimate

0.024 0.025 0.035 0.037

Bias-corrected CI bootstrap 1000 times Lower

Upper

p

0.002 0.003 0.003 0.000

0.061 0.079 0.109 0.119

0.023 0.047 0.024 0.054

Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13 10

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

331

The results of our indirect effects are shown in Table 5. Among the four hypothesized indirect effects of the model, the CIs of the first three indirect effects contained values higher than 0; thus, the proposed mediating effects of Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 2a were supported. However, the last indirect effect contained a zero, which indicated that Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

332

5. Discussion

328 329 330

In practice, proponents of accountability mechanisms posit that their behavioral impacts are essential for controlling the performance levels of organizations and their members (e.g., Frink & Klimoski, 335 1998, 2004). However, few case studies have examined individual performance as expected outcomes 336 Q4 through accountability systems (Frink et al., 2008). Building from current theoretical frames of ref337 erence regarding accountability and expectations of management practices, we sought to test the 338 empirical connection of FA with job performance. Moreover, TL and CSE are constructs that contain 339 broad implications for the emergence of FA and job performance. Thus, the two constructs were intro340 duced into this study to enrich our understanding of the role played by FA in the relationships among 341 TL, TP, and CP, and the relationships among CSE, TP, and CP. 333 334

342

5.1. Theoretical implications

351

First, the study results confirmed the expectations of management practices that FA was positively related to TP, which is consistent with previous studies on accountability theories (e.g., Frank et al., 2008; Lerner & Tetlock, 1994). Secondly, regarding the determinants of FA, leadership and personality traits were the predominant domains of such determinants. Our results, as shown in Table 4, demonstrated the positive relationship of TL with FA and that of CSE with FA. Third, regarding indirect relationships, our results, as shown in Table 5, demonstrated that FA fully mediates the relationship between TL and TP, that between TL and CP (i.e., Hypotheses 1a and 1b), and that between CSE and TP (i.e., Hypothesis 2a), whereas the mediating effect of FA on the relationship between CSE and CP (i.e., Hypothesis 2b) was not supported.

352

5.2. Managerial implications

343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350

361

The consistency and potential generalizability of our results regarding accountability have several managerial implications. First, our findings of the direct and positive relationships between accountability and TP suggest that managers can directly shape their workplace environments to benefit their subordinates, thus improving their perceptions of accountability and subsequently achieving a higher level of job performance. Second, our findings regarding the mediating effect of FA on the relationship between TL and TP or CP, as well as the relationship between CSE and TP, suggest that FA can act as a catalyst for TL subordinates or for subordinates possessing a higher level of CSE. This catalytic effect can facilitate achieving task objectives assigned to TL members or subordinates possessing a higher level of CSE.

362

5.3. Limitations and future research

353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360

363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372

The major purpose of this study was to demonstrate positive direct and indirect relationships among TL, CSE, FA, and job performance in real work settings. The present research had several limitations. First, we did not control for contextual factors such as industries, firm scale, hierarchical levels, and job characteristics in our survey design. Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) suggested that research environments may warrant using an experimental research design under high levels of uncertainty, challenge, and stress to control for environmental conditions. Secondly, offering a more comprehensive test of the target relationship and matching the level of specificity of its predictor and criterion are both necessary approaches in research design. The present study adopted the first approach and focused on the direct and indirect relationships of FA to performance behavior. We agree with Barrick, Mount, and Judge (2001) that future research on the Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOFIN 553 1–13

C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

11

387

relationship between felt accountability and performance behavior at the individual level should consider potential approaches that link specific lower-level dimensions or facets of a construct predictor to their relevant specific criterion. In addition, creating a composite correlation can also result in a more constructive and valid measure of the variable of interest (Higgins, Judge, and Ferris, 2003). In particular, felt accountability has variations that produce different effects. Although TL and CSE are validated multidimensional constructs, they can also be rated by various raters using different subjective or objective measuring tools. Consequently, a future study on felt accountability could be extended, for example, to test direct relationships by linking the four dimensions (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) separately to evaluate performance behaviors as specifically rated by supervisors, peers, and customers or by objective data such as productivity counts and productive or counterproductive behavioral records. Felt accountability, as rated by the employees, supervisors, or peers, could then be introduced between the direct relationships to test the mediating effects. In summary, as Tedd, Steele, and Beauregard (2003) suggested, the predictors and criteria can be considered more specifically in future studies on accountability.

388

Uncited references

373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386

389

390

391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432

Brown (2006), Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller (2012), Kenny (2006), Thompson (2004). References Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25, 1–25. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. Bartram, T., & Casimir, G. (2007). The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 4–19. Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 463–478. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207–218. Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. (1993). EQS-Windows user’s guide: Version 4. BMDP Statistical Software. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, S5–S18 (special issue). Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford. Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 942–958. Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38, 81–128. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach–avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818. Erdogan, B., Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., & Dunegan, K. J. (2004). Implications of organizational exchanges for accountability theory. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 19–45. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279. Ferris, G. R., Dulebohn, J. H., Frink, D. D., George-Falvy, J., Mitchell, T. R., & Matthews, L. M. (2009). Job and organizational characteristics, accountability, and employee influence. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21(4), 518–533. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Accountability, impression management and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Human Relations, 51, 1259–1283. Frink, D. D., Hall, A. T., Perryman, A. A., Ranft, A. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Royle, M. T. (2008). Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 27) (pp. 177–245). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

Q5

G Model ECOFIN 553 1–13 12 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502

ARTICLE IN PRESS C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (16) (pp. 1–51). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the human resource management review special edition. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 1–17. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, E. W. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hall, A. T., Bowen, M. G., Ferris, G. R., Royle, M. T., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (2007). The accountability lens: A new way to view management issues. Business Horizons, 50, 405–413. Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Accountability and extra-role behavior. Employ Response Rights Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9148-9 Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Accountability in human resources management. In C. A. Schriesheim, & L. L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resource management (pp. 29–63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89–106. Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Gavin, M. B., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Frink, D. D. (2007). Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability-job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 226–239. Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 517–534. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6–23. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). . LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2) Chicago: Spss. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). General and specific measures in organizational behavior research: Considerations, examples, and recommendations for researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 161–174. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B. A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 177–195. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. pp. 1. New York: Wiley. Kenny, D. A. (2006). Series editor’s note. In T. A. Brown (Ed.), Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford, ix–x. Khanin, D. (2007). Contrasting burns and bass: Does the transactional-transformational paradigm live up to Burns’ philosophy of transforming leadership? Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, 7–28. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Routledge. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Anna, A. L. (2006). The interacting effects of accountability and individual differences on rater response to a performance-rating task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 795–819. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1994). Accountability and social cognition. pp. 1–10. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 1). Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Bridging individual, interpersonal, and institutional approaches to judgment and choice: The impact of accountability on cognitive bias. In S. Schneider, & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives in judgment and decision making (pp. 431–453). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laird, M. D., Perryman, A. A., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Zinko, R. (2009). The moderating effects of personal reputation on accountability–strain relationships. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 70–83. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480. Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879–891. Royle, M. T., Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship behavior and political behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13(1), 53–71. Schillemans, T. (2010). Redundant accountability: The joint impact of horizontal and vertical accountability on autonomous agencies. Public Administration Quarterly, 34, 300–337. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.

Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012

G Model ECOFIN 553 1–13

ARTICLE IN PRESS C.-H. Vivian Chen et al. / North American Journal of Economics and Finance xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518

13

Tedd, R. P., Steele, J. R., & Beauregard, R. S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on both sides of the personality-job performance relations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 335–356. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297–332. Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The Impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–376. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223–270. Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432. Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management, 14, 361–384.

Please cite this article in press as: Vivian Chen, C. -H., et al. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. North American Journal of Economics and Finance (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2015.10.012