Vol. 8 No. 2 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

THE MODERATING EFFECT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL IN THE EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES ON INTRAPRENEURSHIP BEHAVIOR

PDF (Türkçe)
  • Kemal EROĞLUER
Kemal EROĞLUER
Asisst. Prof., Milli Savunma University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1530

Published 2020-06-25

Keywords

  • Transformational Leadership,
  • Psychological Capital,
  • Intrapreneurship
  • Dönüşümcü Liderlik,
  • İç Girişimcilik,
  • Psikolojik Sermaye

How to Cite

EROĞLUER, K. (2020). THE MODERATING EFFECT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL IN THE EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES ON INTRAPRENEURSHIP BEHAVIOR. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(2), 2503–2530. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1530

Abstract

1. LITERATURE

1.1. RESEARCH SUBJECT
The transformational leadership perception of employees is a significant concept in terms of organizational management examined by Bass (1988). Transformational leaders create an environment that fosters innovativeness by their ability to communicate, vision and values (Arago’n-Correa vd., 2007: 351). By establishing empathy, they develop positive relationships with employees and increase motivation (Arslan; 2013; 32). Transformational leadership has been investigated with idealized dimensions, inspiring motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual support (Bass, 1999; Avolio, 1999). Intrapreneurship defined by Pinchot (1985) as what people should do to create and develop new ideas in organizations. Intrapreneurship is a concept that has important effects on the development and competitiveness of organizations and has been examined with its dimensions of innovation, proactivity and risk taking (Gifford, 2010: 304). Psychological capital, which is an important concept for the organization, consists of the person's open sides to development and shows the psychological development of the person. Self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism dimensions (Luthans and Youssef, 2004: 153) were examined.

1.2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of transformational leadership perception of employees in organizations on intrapreneurship behaviors and, if any, whether psychological capital has a moderating effect on this effect. It is considered to be a noteworthy study in terms of transformational leadership, intrapreneurship and psychological capital variables together.

1.3. CONTRIBUTION of the ARTICLE to the LITERATURE
In this study in which the variables of transformational leadership, intrapreneurship and psychological capital are examined together, it is evaluated that the results achieved will contribute to the fields of application and to the literature and may be a starting point for future research.

2. DESIGN AND METHOD

2.1. RESEARCH TYPE
It is an explanatory and applied study, which is conducted in Defense Industry, aimed to examine the effect of transformational leadership perception of employees in organizations on intrapreneurship behaviors. Moreover, it also investigates if there is any moderating effect of psychological capital on this effect.

2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
One of the problems of the study is whether transformational leadership has an impact on the employees' intrapreneurship, the other problem is to determine the presence of a moderating effect of psychological capital on this effect, if any. Defense industry employees constitute the main mass of the study, while the sample of the study consists of the employees of an organization operating in this sector.

2.3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD
The data were obtained easily by sampling method. The questionnaire prepared for the study was distributed to 147 employees in a convenient timeframe for employees on a day determined by the organization's management between November and December 2019 after obtaining permission from the organization where the research would be conducted, and 139 questionnaires were collected back. As a result of the investigation, 24 questionnaires were not included in the analysis due to incorrect and incomplete filling.

2.4. QUANTITATIVE / QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
The research was carried out with quantitative research method and the data obtained as a result of the application was analyzed with the SPSS 21 package program. Cronbach Alpha reliability analysis was used to determine the internal consistency of the scales used in the study. Explanatory factor analysis was performed to determine the suitability of the available expressions in the variables, and hierarchical regression analysis was applied to determine the modareting role of the multiple linear regression and psychological capital variable to determine the relationships between the variables and test the hypotheses.

2.5. RESEARCH MODEL



2.6. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The hypotheses of the study are determined as follows;
H1: Employees' idealized influence perceptions affect their intrapreneurship behaviors positively and significantly.
H2: Employees' perceptions of individual support significantly affect their intrapreneurship behavior.
H3a: Employees' self-efficacy perceptions significantly regulate the impact of idealized perceptions on intrapreneurship behavior.
H3b: Employees' perceptions of hope significantly regulate the impact of their idealized perceptions on intrapreneurship behavior.
H4a: Employee self-efficacy perceptions significantly regulate the impact of individual support perceptions on intrapreneurship behavior.
H4b: Employee perceptions of hope significantly regulate the effect of individual support perceptions on intrapreneurship behavior.
3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. FINDINGS as a RESULT of ANALYSIS
Explanatory factor analysis and reliability analysis of factors were applied to transformational leadership, psychological capital and Intrapreneurship scales. According to the results of the analysis, the eigenvalues of the factors are above 1. The Barlett test shows that the correlation between the variables is sufficient for factor analysis and the KMO value can be interpreted as on very good level. Again, in the anti-image matrix, it was determined that there was no expression with a value below 0.50, the total explanation of the factors was good, and the factor loads of the expressions were above 50%. Cronbach Alpha values show that the factors are highly reliable.
After the normality test was resulted, variables were found to be normally distributed and it was decided that they were suitable for Pearson correlation test. According to the results of Pearson correlation analysis, it was determined that there is a positive and significant relationship between the idealized effect of transformational leadership sub-dimensions and self-efficacy and individual support from psychological capital sub-dimensions. It has been determined that there is a positive and significant relationship between idealized influence and individual support and intrapreneurship behavior from transformational leadership sub-dimensions, and similarly, there is a positive and significant relationship between self-efficacy and hope and intrapreneurship behavior from psychological capital sub-dimensions.

3.2. HYPOTHESIS TEST RESULTS
According to the results of the hypothesis test; “H1: Employees' idealized perceptions of influence affect their intrapreneurship behavior in a meaningful and positive way.” hypothesis, "H2: Employees' perceptions of individual support significantly affect their intrapreneurship behavior." hypothesis and “H4a: Employee self-efficacy perceptions significantly regulate the effect of individual support perceptions on intrapreneurship behavior.” hypothesis was accepted. H3a: Employees' self-efficacy perceptions regulate the effect of idealized perceptions of influence on intrapreneurship behaviors. hypothesis, “H3b: Employees' perceptions of hope significantly regulate the effect of their idealized perceptions of influence on intrapreneurship behavior.” hypothesis and “H4b: Employee perceptions of hope significantly regulate the effect of individual support perceptions on intrapreneurship behavior.” hypothesis was not accepted.

3.3. DISCUSSING the FINDINGS with the LITERATURE
The results obtained in this study are similar to the findings obtained in this literature with the moderating effect of psychological capital on the effect of transformational leadership perception on employees' intrapreneurship behavior. Moriano et al. (2014, 103) determined that transformational leadership was effective on internal entrepreneurial behaviors, and a similar result was reached in a study by Büyükyılmaz and Kayış (2018, 147). The researchers determined that the dimensions of influencing, intellectual encouragement and individual interest by idealizing positively affect the dimensions of intrapreneurship. Bay and Söker (2016, 698) concluded that transformational leadership has a positive effect on intrapreneurship. According to Battal et al. (2017: 17), it was determined that there is a positive relationship between psychological capital and transformational leadership, and between creativity and transformational leadership. Şengüllendi and Şehitoğlu (2017: 112) stated in their study that there is a relationship between transformative leadership and psychological capital, and their educational status has a moderating effect in this relationship. Ates et al. (2017, 665) determined that the workplace security climate has an effect on the employees' intrapreneurship behavior and that psychological capital has a moderating effect in this relationship.
4. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS
4.1. RESULTS of the ARTICLE
According to the results of the analysis, it has been determined that the transformational leadership perception has an effect on the intrapreneurship of the employees, the idealized effect of the transformational leadership sub-dimensions and the individual support dimensions have a positive effect on the intrapreneurship and the self-efficacy and hope dimensions of the psychological capital have a moderating effect on the effect of the idealized effect on the intrapreneurship. It was concluded that the self-efficacy and hope dimensions of psychological capital do not have a moderating effect on the effect of idealized effect on intrapreneurship. However, it has been concluded that the self-efficacy dimension of psychological capital has a moderating effect on the effect of individual support dimension on intrapreneurship behavior, which is one of the transformational leadership sub-dimensions.

4.2. SUGGESTIONS BASED on RESULTS
In transformational leadership practices, it is considered that individual support given to employees can improve employees' positive feelings and thoughts about the organization and leader, and employees with positive opinions and thoughts can positively affect their intrapreneurship behaviors in which they will strive to contribute to their organizations. In addition, one of the most important effects on processes is communication. Along with transformational leadership practices, establishing and operating an effective and open communication system within the organization will have stronger impacts on employees. The fact that the self-efficacy dimension of psychological capital in this relationship has a moderating effect can be expressed as increasing the morale and motivation of the employee who receives individual support from the leader and thus the employee will try to show more effort for the organization.

4.3. LIMITATIONS of the ARTICLE
The study also has some limitations. The study was carried out on employees working in a certain organization, within a certain time period in the defense industry. Conducting the study in organizations in different sectors and on more employees will provide different results.

PDF (Türkçe)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ağca, V. ve Kurt, M. (2007). İç Girişimcilik ve Temel Belirleyicileri: Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 29, 83-112.
  2. Aiken, L.S. ve West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
  3. Akın, K. (2020). Psikolojik Sermaye ve Örgütsel Adalet Algısının Akış Deneyimi Üzerindeki Etkisinde İşe Tutulmanın Aracılık Rolü: Türk Savunma Sanayinde Bir Araştırma. Doktora Tezi. Başkent Üniversitesi SBE. Ankara.
  4. Antoncic, Bostjan ve D. Hisrich Robert. (2003). Clarifying the Intrapreneurship Concept. Journal of Small Busıness and Enterprise Development, 10, 7-27.
  5. Arago’n-Correa, J.A., Garcı’a-Morales, V. J. ve Cordo’n-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership And Organizational Learning’s Role On Innovation And Performance: Lessons From Spain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 349-359.
  6. Arbak, Y. (2014). Örgütlerde Bilgi Teknolojisi Kullanımının Analitik Bir Yaklaşımla İncelenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi: İzmir.
  7. Arslan, G. (2013). Liderliğin Kriz Yönetimine Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
  8. Arslantaş, C.C. ve Pekdemir, I. (2007). Dönüşümsel Liderlik, Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı ve Örgütsel Adalet Arasındaki İlişkileri Belirlemeye Yönelik Görgül Bir Araştırma. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 261-286.
  9. Ateş, M.F., Turgut, H. ve Tokmak, İ. (2017). İşyeri Güvenlik İkliminin İç Girişimcilik Üzerine Etkisinde Psikolojik Sermayenin Düzenleyici Rolü. UİİİD-IJEAS (16. UİK Özel Sayısı), 665-680.
  10. Avcı, A. (2015). Dönüşümcü ve İşlemci Liderlik Stilleri: Kavramsal Çerçevesi ve Eğitim Örgütleri Açısından Etkileri. FSM İlmî Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 5, 85-108.
  11. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. ve Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the Components of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
  12. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Worth Publishers.
  13. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  14. Bass, B.M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.
  15. Battal, F., Özden, E.A. ve Kılıçaslan Ş. (2017). Psikolojik Sermaye, Dönüştürücü Liderlik ve Çalışanların Yaratıcılığı Arasındaki İlişkinin Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi ile Araştırılması. Van Yüzüncüyıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 34, 1-20.
  16. Bay, M. ve Söker, F. (2016). İşletmelerde İç Girişimcilik ve Yönetsel-Dönüşümsel Liderlik: Karamanda bir Araştırma. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(45), 698-713.
  17. Bilkay, S. (2020). Pozitif Psikolojik Sermayenin Çalışanların İlişki Ağı Kurma Yeteneği Üzerindeki Etkisinde Nomofobinin Düzenleyici Rolü: Havacılık Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi SBE Doktora Tezi. İstanbul.
  18. Bounkamcha, F. (2019). The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Corporate entrepreneurship in Tunisian SMEs. Leadership and Organization development Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2018-0262.
  19. Burns, M. G. (1978). Leadership, Harper-Row, Newyork.
  20. Büyükyılmaz, O. ve Kayış, M. (2018). Dönüştürücü Liderliğin İç Girişimcilik Davranışına Etkisi: Bolu İlinde Bir Araştırma. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(3), 147-167.
  21. Demiroğlu, Y. (2007). Firma Davranışı Olarak Girişimcilik. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi SBE Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İzmir.
  22. Doğan, S. (2020). Kadın Yöneticilerin Örgütsel Psikolojik Sermaye Düzeyleri Ve Cam Tavan Algılarının Liderlik Tarzları Bağlamında İncelenmesi. Erciyes Üniversitesi SBE. Doktora Tezi. Kayseri.
  23. Doğan, S. (2019). Algılanan Dönüşümcü Liderlik Tarzının Yöneticiye Güven Üzerindeki Etkisi ve Bir Araştırma. İstanbul Üniversitesi SBE Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul.
  24. Dönmez, S. ve Toker, Y. (2017). Construction of A Likert-Type Transformational Leadership Scale. DTCF Journal, 57(2), 752-775.
  25. Durak, İ. (2011). Girişimciliği Etkileyen Çevresel Faktörlerle İlgili Girişimcilerin Tutumları: Bir Alan Araştırması. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 191–213.
  26. Durmuş, B., Yurtkoru, E.S., Çinko M. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS'le Veri Analizi. Beta Yayıncılık: İstanbul.
  27. Eraslan, L. (2006). Liderlikte Post-Modern Bir Paradigma: Dönüşümcü Liderlik. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 1-32.
  28. Ergüder, T. (2011). Girişimcilik, İç Girişimcilik, Sosyal Girişimcilik; Benzer ve Farklı Yönleri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi SBE Tezsiz Yüksek Lisans Bitirme Projesi. Isparta.
  29. Erkocaoğlan, Ertan. (2005). Örgüt Yapısı ve Pazar Yöneliminin Kurumsal Girişimciliğe Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Çukurova Üniversitesi SBE. Adana.
  30. Gifford, S. (2010). Risk and Uncertainty, Editörler: ACS, Z. J. ve AUDRETSCH, D. B., Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, An Intedisciplinary Survey and Introduction, Second Ed, Springer, London.
  31. Gümüşlüoğlu, L. ve İlsev, A. (2009). Transformational Leadership, Creativity, And Organizational Innovation. Journal Of Business Research, 62, 461-473.
  32. Hisrich, Robert D., Michael P .Peters, Dean A. Shepherd. (2002). Entrepreneurship. McGraw-Hill.
  33. Kahya, V. (2019). Psikolojik Sermayenin Girişimci Olma Eğilimine Etkisi: KOSGEB Girişimcilik Eğitimine Katılan Kursiyerler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Opus Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(18), 634-657.
  34. Kalyoncuoğlu, S. (2018). Algılanan Kontrolün Psikolojik Sahiplenmeye Etkisinde Maksimum Fiyatı Ödeme İstekliliğinin Düzenleyici Rolü: Mercedes Marka Otomobil Kullanıcıları Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(3), 974-994.
  35. Karcıoğlu, F. ve Kaygın E. (2013). Girişimcilik Sürecinde Dönüştürücü Liderlik Anlayışı: Otomotiv Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 27(3), 1-20.
  36. Keser, S. ve Kocabaş, İ. (2014). İlköğretim Okulu Yöneticilerinin Otantik Liderlik ve Psikolojik Sermaye Özelliklerinin Karşılaştırılması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 20(1), 1-22
  37. Koçel, T. (2018). İşletme Yöneticiliği. Beta Yayınları. Genişletilmiş 17. Baskı. İstanbul.
  38. Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., ve Hornsby, J.S.; (1990). Developing An Intrapreneurial Assessment Instrument For Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 49-58.
  39. Kutanis, R.Ö. ve Oruç, E. (2014). Pozitif Örgütsel Davranış ve Pozitif Psikolojik Sermaye Üzerine Kavramsal Bir İnceleme, The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being, 2, 145-159.
  40. Luthans, F. (2002). Positive Organizational Behavior: Developing and Managing Psychological Strengths, Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-72.
  41. Luthans, Fred - Luthans, Kyle W. - Luthans, Brett C. (2004), Positive Psychological Capital: Beyond Human and Social Capital, Business Horizons, 47(1), 45-50.
  42. Luthans, F. ve Carolyn. M. Youssef. (2004). Human, Social, and Now Positive Psychological Capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143–160.
  43. Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B., Norman, S.M. (2007a). Positive Psychological Capital: Measurement and Relationship with Performance and Staisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572.
  44. Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M., Avolio, B.J. (2007b). Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press.
  45. Moriano, J.A., Molero, F., Topa, G. ve Mangin, J-P.L. (2014). The Influence of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Identification on Intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journak, 10(1), 103-119.
  46. Nik Nor H., Mahmood R. ve Rahim, R.A. (2012). The Relationship between Intrapreneurial Orientation and Job Performance among Academicians in Malaysian Public Universities. ASEAN Entrepreneurship Conference. 91-100.
  47. Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
  48. Rasyid, A.A. ve Bangun, Y.R. (2015). The Relationship between Psychological Capital and Entrepreneurial Traits: A Case Study of MBA SBM ITB Students in Bandung. Journal of Business and Management, 4(3), 297-316.
  49. Snyder, C. R. (2000). Hypothesis: There İs Hope. In C. R. Snyder Handbook (Ed.) of Hope: Theory, Measures, And Applications. San Diego: CA: Academic Press
  50. Şengüllendi, M.F. ve Şehitoğlu, Y. (2017). Dönüşümcü Liderlik ve Pozitif Psikolojik Sermaye İlişkisinde Eğitim Düzeyinin Moderatör Rolü. Yıldız Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(2), 112-126.
  51. Topaloğlu, T. (2013). Psikolojik Sermaye: Psikolojik Sermaye İle İş Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiye Otantik Liderliğin Düzenleyici Etkisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi SBE Doktora Tezi. İzmir.
  52. Topaloğlu, T. ve Özer, P.S. (2014). Psikolojik Sermaye ile İş Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiye Otantik Liderliğin Düzenleyici Etkisi. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 156-171.
  53. Tulum, E.S. (2019). Psychological Capital and Contextual Ambidexterity: The Role of Transformational Leadership as a Moderator. Istanbul Bilgi University Institute of Social Sciences Organizational Psychology Master’s Degree Program. Istanbul.
  54. Turan, Ceyda. 2019. Kurumsal Girişimcilik Profilinin Firmanın Yenilikçilik Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisinde İç Girişimcilik Davranışının Aracı Rolü. Yıldız teknik Üniversitesi SBE Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul.
  55. Türk Dil Kurumu. (2017). Türkçe Sözlük.
  56. Yılmaz, A., Çelik A. ve Ulukapı H. (2013). Otantik Ve Dönüşümcü Liderlik Düzeyi Algılamasının Çalışanların İç Girişimcilik Eğilimleri Üzerindeki Etkisinin Belirlenmesi: Konya İlinde Bir Araştırma. 21. Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi. 17-22.
  57. Yılmaz, S. ve Arcasoy, G.G. (2019). Dönüşümcü Liderlik ve Örgütsel Sessizlik Arasındaki İlişki. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 6(40), 2066-2087.
  58. Zhenguo, Z. ve Hou, J. (2009). The Study on Psychological Capital Development of Intrapreneurial Team. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1(2), 35-40.