When the new career, the feature of which was boundaryless career attitudes, organizational mobility preference, self-directed and values-drive had appeared in employees, the new subject of the current academic and organizational practices faced was what actions the leader should take to guide the behavior of employees effectively, even to improve job performance. On the basis of reviewing the existing literature, a theoretical framework of leadership task behavior and relational behavior, work alienation and job performance had been proposed in this study by using leadership behavior theory. Questionnaire data were collected from employees by paired data and analysis data using SPSS17.0 LISREL8.7. Regression analyses revealed insignificant relationships between the leadership task behavior, relational behavior, and job performance, and work alienation partially mediated this relationship. This study not only enriches the theory of leadership behavior, but also has a guide and reference for the leadership and management practices of enterprises.
After the 1970s, protean career [
Most of previous studies about the influence of leadership behavior on job performance are based on the theory of psychological contract and organizational commitment, and from the standpoint of the exchange of material and spiritual between employee and organization, and between employee and leadership. But the emergence of protean career and boundaryless career changes traditional concept of employment and psychological contract, and it also puts forward a new subject for leadership behavior, organizational behavior, and even the management practice of enterprise organization, that is in the new organization environment what leadership and management behavior the leaders take will effectively guide employees’ behavior to improve job performance. Therefore, based on the theory of motivation and behavior and from the perspective of employees paying more attention to the work itself and the future career development, this paper proposes the relational model that leadership task behavior and relationship behavior will affect job performance through work alienation, and then the paper confirms that the leadership task behavior and relationship behavior is how to influence work alienation (individual attitudes and behavior), then influence the job performance. This study not only enriches the theory of leadership behavior, but also has guidance and reference value for enterprise leadership and management practices.
Leadership is the process that has a certain influence in a group, and can lead the group to achieve goals through the kind of influence [
Based on this discussion, the following hypotheses are advanced.
H1 Leadership task behavior will be negatively related to job performance, it contains 3 secondary hypotheses:
H1a Leadership task behavior will affect employees’ task performance negatively;
H1b Leadership task behavior will affect employees’ interpersonal facilitation negatively;
H1c Leadership task behavior will affect employees’ job dedication negatively.
H2 Leadership relational behavior will be positively related to job performance, it contains 3 secondary hypotheses:
H2a Leadership relational behavior will affect employees’ task performance positively;
H2b Leadership relational behavior will affect employees’ interpersonal facilitation positively;
H2c Leadership relational behavior will affect employees’ job dedication positively.
Leadership task behavior focuses on achieving goals. The leader with task behavior will clearly tell employees what they should do, and make plans to tell employees how to work, and provide employees suggestions on how to solve problems. Therefore, the leader performing task behavior will provide employees with close guidance which will make employees feel their working process and results out of control and feel no interest and significance of work, then resulting in work alienation [
The leader with relational behavior will actively communicate with employees and the communication about organization and environment variables between leader and employees is the primary way of guiding employees’ expected correctly and reducing work alienation [
Based on this discussion, the following hypotheses are advanced.
H3 Leadership task behavior will be positively related to work alienation, it contains 3 secondary hypotheses:
H3a Leadership task behavior will affect employees’ monotonousness positively;
H3b Leadership task behavior will affect employees’ powerless positively;
H3c Leadership task behavior will affect employees’ nihilism positively.
H4 Leadership relational behavior will be negatively related to work alienation, it contains 3 secondary hypotheses:
H4a Leadership relational behavior will affect employees’ monotonousness negatively;
H4b Leadership relational behavior will affect employees’ powerless negatively;
H4c Leadership relational behavior will affect employees’ nihilism negatively.
Work alienation is the monotonousness, powerless and nihilism of employees whose work expectation can’t be met. Work alienation will result in the change of employees’ emotion, attitude and behavior.
When people believe that to a certain extent they can take some control, they are more likely to perform positive emotion to respond to the environment and make proactive adjustments [
Employee’s work alienation affects job attitude mainly reflected in the job burnout (Powell, 1994) [
The work efficiency of employees with job alienation will be declined (Huang, 2006) [
Above all, the following hypotheses are advanced.
H5 Employee’s work alienation will be negatively related to job performance, it contains 9 secondary hypotheses:
H5a Employee’s monotonousness will affect job performance negatively;
H5b Employees’ powerless will affect job performance negatively;
H5c Employees’ nihilism will affect job performance negatively.
Kanungo (1992) [
Thus, work alienation staff is a combination of psychological and social phenomena, having been affected by all kinds of factors, such as individual, organization, job characteristics and the leadership and so on. In which, the leadership have the greatest influence on it [
Task behavior helps to achieve targets, it can help group members to achieve their goals. Relationship behavior helps subordinate to feel comfortable with themselves, others and their own situations. The Extent of the relationship behavior reflects the extent of the comfort of subordinates, colleagues, and the team, also reflects the degree of concern people. We can say that the leadership task behavior and relationship behavior will largely affect employees’ work experience, which affects their judgement about their own needs whether to be met or not, the extent of satisfying work is reflected in the level of alienation. The level of work alienation indicates the degree of employees’ needs is met, and ultimately affects the external performance of employees.
There are large number of studies have shown that work alienation and job performance are negatively correlated. Mulford and Waldner-Haugrud (1993) [
Employee performance including task performance and contextual performance is an action of employees. According motivation behavior theory, it is an action for specific performance motivation, motivation is decided by people’s needs. According to Maslow’s theory, people need to meet the physical needs, security needs, social needs, esteem needs and self-actualization needs. Whether people’s needs are met all levels or not at, as well as satisfaction will affect the strength of the motivation of employees, which in turn will affect employee engagement at work, it will eventually be realized as the level of employee job performance. Work alienation was define as a “state of psychological separation from work insofar as work is perceived to lack the potentiality for satisfying one’s salient needs and expectations” [
Above all, the following hypotheses are advanced.
H6 work alienation will mediate the relationship between leadership task behavior and job performance; which includes nine sub-hypothesis:
H6a employee’s monotony will mediate the relationship between leadership task behavior and job performance;
H6b employee’s powerlessness will mediate the relationship between leadership task behavior and job performance;
H6c employee’s emptiness will mediate the relationship between leadership task behavior and job performance;
H7 employee’s work alienation will mediate the relationship between leadership relational behavior and job performance, which includes nine sub-hypothesis:
H7a employee’s monotony will mediate the relationship between leadership relational behavior and job performance;
H7b employee’s powerlessness will mediate the relationship between leadership relational behavior and job performance;
H7c employee’s emptiness will mediate the relationship between leadership relational behavior and job performance.
According to the relationship between leadership work behavior and relationship behavior, work alienation and job performance, we propose to mechanism model that how leadership task behavior and relationship behavior affect job performance, and work alienation will mediate the relationship between them as shown in
In this study, the work alienation is divided into three dimensions: monotony, powerlessness, and emptiness. The job performance is divided into three dimensions: task performance, interpersonal promotion and job dedication. The model is consisted mainly of relationship between the two levels. The first level, the relationship between the leadership task behavior, work alienation and job performance, it assumes that leadership task behavior negatively affect the dimensions of employee performance, and work alienation will mediate the relationship between leadership task behavior and job performance. The second level, the relationship between the leadership relational behavior, work alienation, and job performance, it assumes that the leadership relational behavior positively affect the dimensions of job performance, and work alienation will mediate the relationship between leadership relational behavior and job performance.
The measures utilized in the current study were chosen for two primary reasons. First, they have yielded consist ently strong reliabilities across a number of prior studies. Second, the measures tapped into the attitudes and behaviors that were relevant to the current study. A 20-item scale develop by Northouse (2012) was used to measure leadership task behavior relational behavior. Sample items of task behavior include “My immediate supervisor sets standards of performance for group members “and “My immediate supervisor develops a plan of action for the group”. Sample items of task behavior include “My immediate supervisor communicates actively with group members” and “My immediate supervisor shows concern for the personal well-being of others”.
Employee task performance was measured by 6-item employee task performance questionnaire developed by Tsui, Pearce and Porter (1997). Sample items include “The employee’s efficiency is much higher than average” and “The employee’s efficiency is much higher than the formal standards for this job”. Contextual performance is consisted of interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. A 15-item scale developed by Van Scootter and Motowidlo (1996) was used to measure contextual performance. A sample for each of the two dimensions of contextual performance was “support and encourage a coworker with a problem”, “offer to help others accomplish their work” (interpersonal facilitation); “volunteer for additional duty” “take the initiative to solve a work problem” (job dedication).
A 10-item scale developed by Maddi(1979)was used to measure work alienation. A sample for each of the three dimensions of contextual performance were “Those who work for a living are manipulated by those who run things”, “I don’t enjoy work; I just put in my time to get paid” (monotonousness); “No matter how hard you work, you never really seem to reach you goals” (powerless); “I find it hard to believe people who actually feel that the work they perform is of value to society” (nihilism).
In the study, response options ranged from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”.
In order to correct the above scale, this paper tests the reliability and validity of measures by pre-research. To avoid common method variance, the data used in this study was collected by matching samples, leadership style questionnaire is completed by the subordinate employees, their performance scale is filled by a corresponding superiors. In addition, the independent variables and dependent variables were separated in the design of the questionnaire, and the dependent variables were in the independent before, to avoid the answer to be affected by the scale of the independent. Meanwhile, in the description section of the questionnaire, we emphasized that they should fill out the questionnaire According to the free will and the actual situation in order to ensure authenticity of the data.
The questionnaire used in the study is divided into two categories, one is an employee’s questionnaire, in addi tion to demographic variables: gender, education, and job, nature of business and work experience, including the scale of the leadership task behavior, leadership behavior and work alienation. One is the manager’s questionnaire, including the scale of employee task performance and employee contextual performance. In this study, two types of questionnaire are numbered to ensure that the manager’s questionnaire manager is matched with their subordinate’s questionnaire.
The pretest of this study was conducted using a sample of managers and employees from kinds of organizations in Dalian, China. Among the participants, 103 completed surveys were returned (85.8 percent response rate).
We conducted the reliability analysis of the scale with SPSS 17.0 after the questionnaire received. The Cronbach’s a coefficient of the scales is as follows: the Cronbach’s a coefficient of leadership work behavior scale is 0.929; the Cronbach’s a coefficient of leadership behavior scale is 0.866. The Cronbach’s a coefficient of the employee performance scale is 0.918, the Cronbach alpha coefficient of task performance scale is 0.908, the Cronbach a coefficient of is interpersonal facilitation scale is 0.877, the Cronbach alpha coefficient of job dedication scale is 0.906. The Cronbach’s coefficient of work alienation scale is 0.901, the Cronbach a coefficient of the monotonousness scale is 0.858, the Cronbach a coefficient of powerless and nihilism are 0.784 and 0.807. Thus all Cronbach a coefficient are more than the standard 0.8. It indicated that the questionnaire had good reliability, and it is stable and reliable.
To examine if participants were able to distinguish between the dimensions (i.e., interpersonal facilitation and job dedication), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using LISREL 8.5. Analysis results are as follows: the standardized loading factor of items of leadership tasks behavior were between 0.50 and 0.87; the standardized loading factor of items of leadership relational behavior were between 0.50 and 0.64, the standardized loading factor of items of job performance were between 0.527 and 0.890; the standardized loading factor of items of work alienation were between 0.641 and 0.857. In summary, the subscales selected in this paper have good reliability and validity, which correspond with the previous test results. It can be applied to the formal measurements.
Data were collected in the study from the employees of the organization in Dalian, China. Among the participants, 210 completed surveys were returned (83.33 percent response rate).
The participants reported that 57% of the respondents were male, 43% were female. Addition 6% reported having a high-school degree or less, 26.5% reported having a vocational degree, 50% reported having an undergraduate degree, 17.5% reported having a master’s degree and above. Among the participants, 28.5% were ordinary employees, 40.0% were line managers, and 31.5% were middle managers. Besides that, 46.5% reported working in the state-owned enterprises, 29% reported working in the private enterprises, and 24.5% reported working in the foreign-funded enterprises. In our sample, 26.9% of the respondents had 1 - 3 years of job tenure, 13% of the respondents had 4 - 6 years of job tenure, 34.5% of the respondents had 5 - 7 years of job tenure, and 36% of the respondents had more than 7 years of job tenure. Overall, it made the samples more representative.
The results of statistical analysis (
The mean value of work alienation was 2.25, lower than Likert scale’s median value 3. This proved that staff didn’t feel work alienation obviously. The mean value of monotonousness was 2.11; the mean value of powerless was 2.42; the mean value of nihilism was 2.27, all were lower than 3.
The overall performance level of the respondents was relatively high, with the average of 3.78, higher than Likert scale’s median 3. In which the mean value of task performance was 3.60, relationship performance was 3.85, so employees’ relational performance was higher than task performance and it proved that employees were more willing to performance behavior on their own initiative which was not specified on work instructions, but can enhance mutual cooperation. Especially interpersonal facilitation behavior in relational performance, and the mean value was 3.90.
Variables | Mean | S.D. | Coefficient of Variance | Item number | N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Task behavior | 2.5110 | 0.59434 | 0.2367 | 10 | 200 |
Relational behavior | 3.9945 | 0.59842 | 0.1498 | 10 | 200 |
Work alienation | 2.2500 | 0.70054 | 0.3114 | 10 | 200 |
Monotonousness | 2.1125 | 0.79285 | 0.3753 | 4 | 200 |
Powerless | 2.4167 | 0.82922 | 0.3431 | 3 | 200 |
Nihilism | 2.2667 | 0.80548 | 0.3554 | 3 | 200 |
Job performance | 3.7764 | 0.51710 | 0.1369 | 21 | 200 |
Task performance | 3.6050 | 0.70776 | 0.1963 | 6 | 200 |
Relational performance | 3.8450 | 0.50449 | 0.1312 | 15 | 200 |
Interpersonal facilitation | 3.9036 | 0.54440 | 0.1395 | 7 | 200 |
Job dedication | 3.7938 | 0.60369 | 0.1591 | 8 | 200 |
We use Pearson correlation coefficient to determine the correlation between variables, and the statistical analysis results were shown in
This paper adopted hierarchical regression method, firstly, put the demographic variables (education, job category or business nature) as the first group of predictor variables into regression equation, then put the leadership task behavior and relational behavior which were get through the treatment center as the second group of predictor variables into the regression equation. The dependent variable were employee work alienation (including three dimensions: monotonousness, powerless and nihilism, the controlled variable are educational background, position and nature of the enterprise) and job performance (including three dimensions: task performance, interpersonal facilitation and job dedication, the controlled variable are educational background and job category), and made independent variables into the way by force.
Results of regression analysis (
Leadership task behavior and relational behavior on employees’ work alienation (including three dimensions: monotonousness, powerless and nihilism) predictive ΔR2 values were 0.097, 0.100, 0.54, 0.001, 0.011, 0.567,
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | ||||||||||||
Educational background | 0.064 | |||||||||||
Position | 0.045 | 0.488** | ||||||||||
Nature | −0.106 | −0.157* | −0.159 | |||||||||
Fixed number of years | −0.006 | 0.011 | −0.086 | 0.037 | ||||||||
Monotonousness | −0.136 | −0.736** | −0.504** | 0.182* | 0.007 | |||||||
Powerless | −0.116 | −0.663** | −0.402** | 0.179* | 0.06 | 0.587** | ||||||
Nihilism | −.171* | −0.724** | −0.337** | 0.180* | 0.039 | 0.628** | 0.674** | |||||
Task behavior | −0.079 | −0.554** | −0.308** | 0.149* | −0.094 | 0.675** | 0.638** | 0.601** | ||||
Relational behavior | 0.108 | 0.466** | 0.332** | −0.114 | −0.061 | −0.388** | −0.416** | −0.441** | −0.383** | |||
Task performance | −0.103 | 0.199** | 0.275** | −0.116 | 0.019 | −0.199** | −0.189** | −0.140* | −0.341** | 0.269** | ||
Interpersonal facilitation | 0.00 | 0.169* | 0.192** | −0.055 | 0.06 | −0.146* | −0.162* | 0.198** | −0.250** | 0.336** | 0.521** | |
Job dedication | −0.084 | 0.278** | 0.201** | −0.037 | −0.003 | −0.284** | −0.229** | −0.325** | −0.396** | 0.400** | 0.628** | 0.528** |
Note: All coefficients are standardized coefficients. p* < 0.05; p** < 0.01; p*** < 0.001.
Model | Task performance | Interpersonal facilitation | Job dedication | Monotonousness | Powerless | Nihilism | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | ||||||||
Demographic variables | R2 = 0.081 | R2 = 0.044 | R2 = 0.083 | R2 = 0.571 | R2 = 0.453 | R2 = 0.544 | |||||||||||||||||||
Task behavior | −0.322 | −4.068 | 0.000 | −0.218 | −2.641 | 0.009 | −0.346 | −4.410 | 0.000 | 0.374 | 7.524 | 0.000 | 0.382 | 6.614 | 0.000 | 0.280 | 5.104 | 0.000 | |||||||
R2 = 0.153 ΔR2 = 0.072 (Sig.F Change = 0.000) | R2 = 0.077 ΔR2 = 0.033 (Sig.F Change = 0.009) | R2 = 0.166 ΔR2 = 0.083 (Sig.F Change = 0.000) | R2 = 0.668 ΔR2 = 0.097 (Sig.F Change = 0.000) | R2 = 0.553 ΔR2 = 0.100 (Sig.F Change = 0.000) | R2 = 0.598 ΔR2 = 0.54 (Sig.F Change = 0.000) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Relational behavior | 0.198 | 2.580 | 0.011 | 0.316 | 4.131 | 0.000 | 0.340 | 4.589 | 0.000 | −0.031 | −0.574 | 0.027 | −0.123 | −2.048 | 0.042 | −0.125 | −2.271 | 0.024 | |||||||
R2 = 0.111 ΔR2 = 0.03 (Sig.F Change = 0.011) | R2 = 0.121 ΔR2 = 0.077 (Sig.F Change = 0.000) | R2 = 0.172 ΔR2 = 0.089 (Sig.F Change = 0.000) | R2 = 0.672 ΔR2 = 0.101 (Sig.F Change = 0.027) | R2 = 0.464 ΔR2 = 0.011 (Sig.F Change = 0.042) | R2 = 0.556 ΔR2 = 0.012 (Sig.F Change = 0.024) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Note: 1) *in a significant level of 0.05, **in a significant level of 0.01, ***in a significant level of 0.001; 2) The regression coefficient of demographic varia bles was omitted.
and except for the coefficient of task behavioral and monotonousness, the other coefficients had all reached a significant level of 0.05. That proved eliminating the effect of demographic variables on job performance, leadership relational behavior had a significant positive effect on work alienation, and leadership task behavior had a significant negatively effect on employee’ powerless and nihilism. Therefore, hypothesis 2 and sub hypothesis, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e and 2f were supported.
Still using hierarchical regression method, the independent variables were monotonousness, powerless and nihilism, the control variables were educational background and job category, the dependent variables was job performance, and the results of regression analysis showed (
According to the method of testing the mediation proposed by Baron & Kenney (1968) and reference to the method of testing the mediating effects proposed by Zhonglin Wen (2004), this paper tested the mediation of work alienation between leadership style and job performance through the following steps: First, test whether the relationship between leadership style and job performance was significant; Second, test whether the relationship between leadership style and work alienation was significant; Finally, test whether the relationship between work alienation and job performance was significant.
Through the regression analysis we can know that task behavior(independent variable) was significantly correlated with task performance (dependent variable), and task behavior (independent variable) was significantly correlated with powerless(mediating variables).So, we just need to examine whether the powerless(mediating variables) had a significant influence on task performance (dependent variable) and whether task behavior(independent variable) was still significantly correlated with task performance (dependent variable) when powerless (mediating variables) was entered as a mediator in regression equation of task behavior (independent variable) and task performance (dependent variable).
Model | Task performance | Interpersonal facilitation | Job dedication | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized Coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | |||||
Demographic variables | R2 = 0.081 | R2 = 0.021 | R2 = 0.083 | ||||||||||
F | 5.478** | 2.435* | 8.909*** | ||||||||||
Monotonousness | −0.190 | −1.950 | 0.046 | −0.146 | −2.077 | 0.039 | −0.257 | −2.400 | 0.017 | ||||
Powerless | −0.268 | −2.427 | 0.017 | −0.162 | −2.307 | 0.022 | −0.103 | −1.976 | 0.049 | ||||
Nihilism | −0.298 | −2.624 | 0.010 | −0.203 | −2.872 | 0.005 | −0.037 | −0.379 | 0.705 | ||||
F | 4.775 *** | 4.124* | 5.319*** | ||||||||||
R2 = 0.164 ΔR2 = 0.083 (Sig.F Change = 0.009) | R2 = 0.040 ΔR2 = 0.019 (Sig.F Change = 0.005) | R2 = 0.121 ΔR2 = 0.038 (Sig.F Change = 0.043) | |||||||||||
Note: 1) *in a significant level of 0.05, **in a significant level of 0.01, ***in a significant level of 0.001; 2) The regression coefficient of demographic variables was omitted.
As is seen in
Simultaneously, we added powerless into the regression equation of task behavior and inter personal facilitation. The results showed that there were significant relationships between powerless and interpersonal facilitation at the p < 0.05 level after we added powerless into the equation of task behavior and interpersonal facilitation, and significant relationships were observed between task behavior and interpersonal facilitation at the p < 0.05 level. Therefore, powerless partially mediated the relationship between task behavior and interpersonal facilitation.
In the same way, we added powerless into the regression equation of task behavior and job dedication. The results showed that there were significant relationships between powerless and job dedication at the p < 0.05 level after we added powerless into the equation of task behavior and interpersonal facilitation, and significant relationships were observed between task behavior and job dedication at the p < 0.001 level. Therefore, powerless partially mediated the relationship between task behavior and job dedication.
By this way, we added other dimensions of work alienation into the regression equations of task behavior and relational behavior with other dimensions of job performance. The results showed that nihilism partially mediated the relationship between task behavior and task performance, interpersonal facilitation; Monotonousness partially mediated the relationship between task behavior and task performance, interpersonal facilitation, job dedication. Nihilism partially mediated the relationship between relational behavior and task performance, interpersonal facilitation; Powerless fully mediated the relationship between relational behavior and task performance, interpersonal facilitation, and partially mediated the relationship between relational behavior and job dedication; Monotonousness partially mediated the relationship between relational behavior and task performance, interpersonal facilitation, job dedication.
In the examination of the mediating role that nihilism played between task behavior and job dedication, relational behavior and job dedication, the results showed that nihilism was not significantly related to job dedication, so we need to do Sobel test. The result was shown in
Model | Task performance | Interpersonal facilitation | Job dedication | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standardized coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | Standardized coefficients | T value | Statistical significance | |
Task behavior | −0.295 | −3.712 | 0.000 | −0.168 | −2.071 | 0.040 | −0.295 | −3.851 | 0.000 |
Relational behavior | −0.254 | −4.452 | 0.000 | −0.186 | −1.975 | 0.049 | −0.285 | −3.700 | 0.000 |
Powerless | −0.153 | −2.031 | 0.048 | −0.046 | −2.143 | 0.035 | −0.120 | −2.255 | 0.030 |
Note: The regression coefficient of demographic variables was omitted.
Independent variable | Mediating variables | Consequences of variables | Z | P (Two-tailed) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Task behavior | Nihilism | Job dedication | −1.330 | 0.183 |
Relational behavior | Nihilism | Job dedication | −1.716 | 0.086 |
Employees in China were taken as an object of the study to find out the influence of leaders’ task behavior and relational behavior on job performance, and the mediating effects of work alienation was verified at the same time. The results revealed that part of the demographic variables had effects on work alienation and job performance. Sex, educational background, positions, nature of enterprise were significantly related to work alienation at p < 0.01 level; Educational background and positions were significantly related to job performance at p < 0.01 level, while nature of enterprise was significantly related to job performance at p < 0.05 level. There was a significant negative correlation between leaders’ task behavior and job performance, while relational behavior was significantly positive correlated with job performance. The relationship between leaders’ task behavior and relational behavior was mediated by work alienation. Monotonousness and powerless partially mediated the relationship between task behavior and three dimensions of job performance, such as task performance, interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. While nihilism partially mediated the relationship between task behavior and three dimensions of job performance except job dedication. Monotonousness has a partially mediation role in the relationship between relational behavior and three dimensions of job performance, too. The relationship between relational behavior and two dimensions of job performance including task performance and interpersonal facilitation was fully mediated by powerless, but there was only a partially mediating effect of powerless in the relationship between relational behavior and job dedication. As for nihilism, it played a partially mediate role between relational behavior and dimensions of job performance except job dedication. In other words, nihilism had no mediating effects on the relationships between task performance and job dedication or the relationships between relational behavior and job dedication.
1) The structure of job performance. Scholars in different periods had make definitions of performance from angles of results, abilities, behaviors, as well as the value, respectively, since 1970s. Kane (1996) [
Task performance and contextual performance are two important aspects to value job performance, and task performance varies with different positions while contextual performance is more depended on staffs personal factors rather than the significantly effects by positions [
The division of task and contextual performance proposed by Borman and Motowidlo has been widely accepted in academic field. It is supported by later empirical study either. Most of present works begin with it [
2) Leadership task behavior and relational behavior. Leadership style of managers has been studied more in the research field of leadership theory and it is relatively mature. Transactional and transformational leadership are two kinds of popular leadership styles at present. However, both of them are the change of leadership behaviors with the aim of leadership style matches with the environment around. They are combinations in different degrees of care about human or task. So the leaders react with different situations is really based on the understanding of the two most basic behaviors’ combinations of leadership styles. Though studies about leadership styles and job performance have obtained a number of research achievements, this paper chose task behavior and relational behavior as variables, which can represent leadership style in nature, to study the mediating role of work alienation in the relationship of job performance and behaviors still have unique meanings for managers and staffs.
This paper constructed a relational model of task behavior and relational behavior with work alienation and job performance. We did an empirical research and made mechanism of task behavior, relational behavior and task performance clearly. There are three limitations of the study followed.
1) Due to the containing of sensitive variables in the paper, such as task behavior, relational behavior, job performance and so on, we did more strict selections to choose the samples. On the other hand, to avoid same-source common method variance and guarantee the authenticity and accuracy of data, the data were analyzed by paired samples in this article. It was a challenge to enlarge sample size to some extent so that we didn’t have enough valid samples.
2) Questionnaire survey was the mainly method in this paper, but we couldn’t accurately judge the leading behaviors of leaders and work alienation of employees through it.
3) It is a complex process for leadership behavior to influence job performance. There are other variables exist, except work alienation, which may mediate or regulate the relationship between leadership behavior and job performance. Owing to space constraints, this paper tested only the mediation of work alienation.
We encourage future research to enlarge sample size so that the accuracy and credibility of the sample data can be improved and the survey results will be more convictive. It should be combined with questionnaires, interviews and other methods to test leadership behavior and work alienation in the future research. We can avoid measurement errors caused by psychological self-protection and improve the accuracy of measurement through it. Another direction for future research is to uncover additional variables, except work alienation, that have effects on the relationship between leadership behavior and job performance to enrich the mechanism of how leadership behavior influence job performance.
Wenchen Guo,Rong Dai,Jing Yang, (2016) The Effect of Leadership Task Behavior and Relational Behavior on Job Performance: Investigating the Moderating Role of Work Alienation. Journal of Service Science and Management,09,97-110. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2016.92013