GENERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AS ANTECEDENTS OF ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 9: Estimated Coefficients and Nomological Relationships for the Female and Male Models Estimated Coefficients and Nomological Relationships for the Female and Male Models Female Model Male model Dependent Variable Independent Variable Estimated Coefficient t-Value R s 2 Estimated Coefficient t-Value R s 2 Leadership Trust (LT) .184 .108 Peer Trust -> LT .372*** 4.724 .474 1.891 Shared Values (SV) .347 .241 Leadership Trust -> SV .523*** 6.754 .416*** 3.341 Engaged Performance (EP) .377 .409 Shared Values -> EP .271** 2.972 Peer Trust -> EP .432* 2.023 Communicative Adaptability -> EP -.585*** -3.481 Engaged Development -> EP .459* 2.424 Engaged Development (ED) .441 .469 Shared Values -> ED Peer Trust -> ED .172** 2.609 Communicative Adaptability -> ED -.354** -2.742 Gratitude ->ED -.284* -2.198 Leadership Trust -> ED .383*** 4.576 .405*** 3.181 Goodness of Fit Statistics Female Male Chi-sq. (df) 639.2 (394) 697.6 (396) NFI .832 .636 IFI .928 .802 TLI .920 .776 CFI .927 .796 SMSR .098 .140 RMSEA .058 .109 90% CI .050 - .066 .096 - .122 DISCUSSION The literature in positive psychology focuses on the role of character strengths and virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2003; Peterson & Park, 2004; Seligman, 2005), individual generative characteristics, in improving personal perspective and social environments. Persons of good character and positive perspective are happier, more adaptive, and more productive. The literature in appreciative inquiry stresses the importance of the generative nature of relationships, the ‘webs of connectedness’ (Cooperrider & Sekerka, 2003; Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000b; Fredrickson, 2005; Gergen & Thatchenkery, 2004), as the 26
asis for personal and organizational learning and performance. Persons who are better, more effectively and efficiently, connected to others learn faster and perform at higher levels. Organizations which have well-developed and active networks of connection among their members are more adaptive and higher performing (Hansen et al., 2005; Mohrman, Tenkasi, & Mohrman, 2003; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). This study draws on constructs from both areas of inquiry and examines their influence on individual engagement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 2006; Kahn, 1990, 1992) in performance and development. The results of this inquiry identify several interesting findings. The proposition that individual character strengths and virtues positively influence performance and development was not supported. In fact, where significant effect existed it was negative. All the related hypotheses (H5 through H8) were disconfirmed. The cause of this surprising outcome is unclear, but perhaps is attributable, in part, to the use of self-report data and inherent difficulties associated with accurate self-assessment. Equally interesting was the emergence of the causal link between leadership trust and shared values. Not originally hypothesized, this effect and its strength (0.52 female, 0.55 male) and significance in both female and male samples supports the literature on leadership and organizational culture (Amis et al., 2002; McEvily et al., 2003; Shein, 2004). As organizational culture is a subject of ongoing interaction and exchange among members, leadership trust and associated behaviors are an essential part of that conversation. The role of trust in leadership as mediator of the causal relationships between independent and dependent variables was far less prevalent than hypothesized. The only two instances of partial mediation were revealed in the findings. The first of these is in the peer 27
Page 1 and 2: GENERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AS ANTEC
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract.........
Page 5 and 6: & Hinings, 2002), and trust in peer
Page 7 and 8: subject knowledge and craft skill (
Page 9 and 10: Hypothesis 4. Peer trust has a dire
Page 11 and 12: part based on perceptions and obser
Page 13 and 14: esponses were received. Appendix A
Page 15 and 16: scales (refer to Appendix A). The c
Page 17 and 18: Adequacy of the model was establish
Page 19 and 20: Estimated Coefficients and Nomologi
Page 21 and 22: cutoff value (Fornell & Larcker, 19
Page 23 and 24: The re-specified model produced ove
Page 25: and H3 were not supported for the f
Page 29 and 30: espondents engage themselves in the
Page 31 and 32: accept. It is hoped and intended th
Page 33 and 34: 1.) Leadership in this organization
Page 35 and 36: C2 1 APPENDIX B: Item Correlations
Page 37 and 38: d2 1 d3 1 d4 d5 d6 1 d7 1 d9 1 1 d8
Page 39 and 40: -.09 APPENDIX F: Female Engagement
Page 41 and 42: REFERENCES Adams, M. G., Schiller,
Page 43 and 44: Cooperrider, D., & Sekerka, L. E. 2
Page 45 and 46: Head, T. C. 1997. Why does apprecia
Page 47: Thatchenkery, T. J. 2004. Paradox a

GENERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS AS ANTECEDENTS OF ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?