Research Article: 2023 Vol: 29 Issue: 5S
Investigating the mediating role of entrepreneurial personality traits in the relationship between managers' social power bases and employees' organizational commitment
Farhad Mahbobkhah, Islamic Azad University
Citation Information: Mahbobkhah. F. (2023). Investigating the mediating role of entrepreneurial personality traits in the relationship between managers' social power bases and employees' organizational commitment. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 29(S5), 1-12.
Abstract
The main purpose of this research is to determine the mediating role of entrepreneurial personality traits in the relationship between social power bases of managers and organizational commitment of employees in government offices of Iran (West Azarbaijan province). The statistical sample was first selected as a cluster and then as a stratified proportional type within the clusters. Standard questionnaires were used to measure the variables, and their validity and reliability were proved by the relevant tests. In order to derive the results, structural equation modeling using the partial maximum square method has been used. The results of the model showed that the powers of authority and expertise have a positive and significant role in the entrepreneurial personality traits of employees and their organizational commitment, and also based on the results, it was determined that the entrepreneurial personality traits of employees have a positive and meaningful role in their organizational commitment, so with Paying attention to the mediating role of employee entrepreneurship personality traits was partially confirmed. Therefore, the government departments in the mentioned society can use the findings of this research to strengthen the organizational commitment in their employees and provide the basis for their further success.
Keywords
Power Sources, Entrepreneurship, Commitment.
Introduction
Considering the prevailing conditions in organizations in today's era, the need to adopt appropriate management methods is felt more than ever (Daft, 2000). In the current situation, organizations need managers who can strengthen the sense of commitment to the organization in their employees to continue their existence (Jalilund & Nasralhi, 2015). Everything is changing, organizations are also following certain changing conditions that require managers to use all their abilities for survival, growth and profitability and effectively use all their capacities, especially their human resources capacities. (Analoui et al., 2009). The necessity of entrepreneurship in organizations is caused by the incompatibility and slow reaction of medium and large organizations to the increasingly fast and unfavorable environmental changes. Entrepreneurship and opportunity are two intertwined phenomena that it is impossible to imagine one without the other. In fact, entrepreneurship is associated with the process of recognizing, evaluating and exploiting profitable opportunities (Bamshad et al., 1400). Today, in organizations, the need for managers who can increase the commitment of employees is felt more than ever. The issue of creativity and innovation as well as entrepreneurial personality traits is also important in this regard. Managers can strengthen the entrepreneurial personality traits of their employees by using their social power bases and thereby increase the organizational commitment of employees. Organizational commitment in the organization acts as a force that connects people to the organization. Commitment is a type of bond and a deep positive relationship between employees and the organization, which the organization can benefit from (Vesti, 2005). The results that organizational commitment can lead to in the organization can be mentioned as success with the organization's shape, citizenship behavior, absenteeism reduction and financial performance (Eby et al., 2009). The powers used by managers are factors that influence the personality characteristics of entrepreneurship and organizational commitment, and managers can increase the organizational commitment of employees and play a significant role in organizational success by using these sources of power appropriately and appropriately. Considering the current situation in government offices and the existence of numerous weaknesses in Iran's administrative system despite the great human potential, the researcher was determined to investigate the effect of managers' social power bases on organizational commitment and the mediating role of entrepreneurial personality traits in government offices. Provide the basic solutions to end the existing position, but for this, it should be measured, with what power base can this variable be strengthened? Therefore, the current research aims to determine the relationships between the mentioned variables and to test the mediating role of personality traits.
An Overview Of Theoretical Foundations And Research Background
Research on power and influence processes has been of interest since ancient times in the research conducted in the organization (Chiu et al., 2017).These researches have attracted the opinion of many researchers (Rondolf & Kemery, 2011). Note that when employees have positive feelings towards their managers, they can easily show entrepreneurial personality traits and these traits strengthen and as a result, this causes their organizational commitment to increase, and finally, increasing commitment makes them fulfil the demands of the organization's managers (De Luque et al., 2008). In general, the basis of the social power of managers is as a force that can influence the behavior and performance of another person (Haugaard, 2009). The process of influencing the social power of managers on employees is formed in a social exchange (Mossholder et al., 1998). Regarding the bases of social power, an important framework has been stated by French and Raven (1959) these two researchers have identified the bases of social power in five bases (legal power, reward, coercion, authority and expertise) in organizations. Currently, it has become the subject of study by many organizations and researchers. After presenting the theory of social power bases by French and Raven, research has been formed about the social power bases of managers and their reactions. It should be noted that when managers with different levels of power interact with employees on the way to achieve the organization's goals, it is natural that the discussion of the social power of managers becomes heated. Employees in different administrative positions have different perceptions according to their understanding and according to the behavior of those who hold power, and these perceptions are very important in the performance and subsequent reactions of employees and are considered as a determining factor (Tyler, 1990; Tervino, 1992).
Managers in organizations can use their social power bases to control the work reactions of their employees and direct them towards the constructive direction. In the following, how and why the influence of managers' social power bases on organizational commitment is explained through the strengthening of entrepreneurial personality traits. The power of authority refers to the ability to manage the emotions of others. This power mainly comes from the personality characteristics of the person (manager). If a person is respected by another person, then that person can exercise power over him (Mossholder et al., 1998). Managers with this type of power make their subordinates feel valuable and they are the type of government managers that their subordinates identify with and provide the basis for their approval and increase their perception of personality traits and organizational commitment (Taylor & Lind, 1992). It is natural that being valued by someone in a higher position gives that person a sense of personal identity and positive emotions. Hinkin and Sheraykhim (1990) states that the use of rationality by managers as an effective tactic is related to authority power. Expert power is the ability to apply knowledge and experience. This power is achieved through empowering employees (Rondolf & Kemery, 2011) Hinkin Schreikheim (1990) states that this power can influence the work reactions of employees. According to Wilson (1995), expert power, which indicates the exchange of workrelated information, is one of the other important powers in the organization, and by using this type of power, managers can remind employees that they are valuable and on the way to achieving The targets should be given more authority and this power can strengthen the entrepreneurial personality traits in employees and ultimately lead to an increase in organizational commitment. The power of coercion refers to the ability to impose some undesirable performance and remove some desirable tasks from the employees' method. This power base is directed through threat, confrontation, and force behaviors that are outside of expectations (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). Raven (1994) states that managers who treat their employees in this way are people who behave with personal biases and authoritarianism, which is in contrast with positive work reactions and can have a negative effect on it. But the power of reward refers to the ability to provide desirable things or eliminate undesirable things regarding employees. The results have shown that managers who use this type of power strengthen entrepreneurial personality traits in employees. Also, other researches have confirmed that using this type of power creates a positive feeling in employees towards the manager (Raven, 1990). Reward power includes dimensions such as admiration, praise, personal emphasis, respect, and independence, and such tactics can influence card reactions in employees.
The next power that is studied in this research is legal (legitimate) power, which is related to the ability to create a sense of job-related duties and responsibilities in employees (Taccean & et al., 2016). This power is created through the position and the system. Niehoff and Moorman (1993) state that this formal supervision of leaders over subordinates through formal and informal meetings affects their perceptions of the manager and can influence their work reactions. It should be acknowledged that the bases of social power of managers in organizations are considered important. In order to create a conceptual model between the bases of managers' social power and the organizational commitment of employees, we assume that authority, expertise, reward and legal powers have positive effects on strengthening the entrepreneurial personality traits of employees, and these characteristics also affect the organizational commitment of employees. In fact, it is assumed that the entrepreneurial personality traits of employees play a mediating role in this model, and of course we measure the direct model, i.e. the effect of social power bases on the organizational commitment of employees, in order to finally present our suggestions after obtaining the results, so in this research We test two models, the direct model and the indirect model.
Considering that the entrepreneurial characteristics of employees are one of the factors that can have a special effect on the success of an organization and are important in the work reactions of employees, they are considered as mediating variables in our research and organizational commitment can also be To play a role in the success or failure of the organization is considered as dependent variable in our model. It should be noted that organizations can be creative, innovative, risk-taking and active through their human resources. Therefore, for this reason, we chose entrepreneurial personality traits in our model, which is known as the individual model in the entrepreneurship literature. In entrepreneurship studies, the factors affecting entrepreneurial behavior have been divided into three categories: social, environmental, and individual factors. The individual factors model that is considered focuses on the personality characteristics of entrepreneurship (Gurol & Atsan, 2008).
Many researchers believe that entrepreneurs have characteristics, views and values that separate them from non-entrepreneurs (Borch, 2007; McCelland, 1961; Rotter, 1966; Rumball, 1989; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1996). . Psychologists have identified the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs for several years, the main characteristics they have identified are: seeking independence, controlling one's own destiny and being one's own master, creativity in creating new ideas, achievement seeking (need to succeed and be better than others) Risk taking and acceptance of calculated risks form internal control (a person's belief that events are the result of his own actions and not the effect of environmental factors) and uncertainty tolerance (tolerating ambiguous situations and making the right decision in these situations). Of course, it should be acknowledged that some other personality traits, such as the desire to be recognized, have also been identified by scholars (Ahuri et al., 1400). Jalilund, Nasralahi and Seta (2015) showed in their research that organizational commitment plays an important role in the success of the organization and has a special role in predicting extra-role behaviors, absenteeism and performance. Niningar et al., (2010) have stated in their research that strengthening organizational commitment in the knowledge-based economy is one of the important factors in the success of the organization. Rich (2008) states that strengthening organizational commitment is one of the concerns of current organizations. In Jo et al., (2012) research, organizational commitment and the prediction of its effects on organizational development and human resource development have been investigated. Research by Johns in 2006 and Morgeson et al., (2010) have shown that organizational conditions and managers' attitudes affect individual employee outcomes such as job satisfaction and performance.
Also, in the researches of Hickin Sheraykhim (1989) and Sheraykhim et al., (1991) state that there is a strong positive relationship between the source of expert power and authority with organizational commitment, and there is a weak relationship between legal powers and rewards and coercion of managers with organizational commitment. Randolph and Kemari (2011) found in their research that there is a positive and significant relationship between the power bases used by managers and psychological characteristics. Chi (2016) in his research after examining the factors influencing organizational commitment to it was concluded that managers' mindset is one of the influencing factors on employees' organizational commitment. Another research, including (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Folger & Konovsky, 1989) also showed that managers' behaviors have an effect on organizational commitment. Goetz and colleagues in 2021 concluded that the fit of the person and the environment can lead to different employees' performance, so managers should design an environment so that employees can show appropriate behaviors in that environment. It should be said that most of the researches conducted regarding the power of managers and the work reactions of employees have assumed that the relationships are essentially direct, but instead, our mediation hypothesis can create a new model and an alternative to the mentioned relationships and from in this sense, it is unique in its kind. The researcher has compiled research variables and the relationship between them in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model Made By The Researcher.
In general, it can be said that the conceptual model is composed of 3 models. The first model is the direct effect model in which there are direct relationships and the social bases of managers' power directly affect the organizational commitment of employees, and the second model is a partial mediation model. in which there is a path from the foundations of social power to the personality traits of employees' entrepreneurship, and there is a path from the foundations of social power to organizational commitment, and there is a path from the foundations of social power to organizational commitment, and the third model is a full mediation model, in other words, in this model There is a path from social power bases to entrepreneurial personality traits and from entrepreneurial personality traits to organizational commitment. Thus, in this model, there is no longer a path from the foundations of social power to organizational commitment. In this model, the foundations of social power affect the organizational commitment of employees through the change of mediator (personality characteristics), which each of these 3 models is examined separately, and also for more accuracy in the estimated model of covariance errors between personality characteristics of the entrepreneur. And the organizational commitment of the employees has been released. Table 1 describes the models and assumed paths of each.
Table 1, A summary of the hypothesis models of the research shows the path from managers' social power bases to employees' organizational commitment, Model 1 (direct effect model), there is a path from social power bases to organizational commitment and entrepreneurial personality traits of employees and a path from entrepreneurial personality traits to employees to organizational commitment, Model 2 (partial mediation), there is a path from the foundations of social power to the personality characteristics of employees and a path from these personality characteristics to the organizational commitment of employees Model 3 (full mediation).
| Table 1 A Summary Of The Hypothesis Models Of The Research |
|
|---|---|
| Model 1 (direct effect model) | shows the path from managers' social power bases to employees' organizational commitment |
| Model 2 (partial mediation) | there is a path from social power bases to organizational commitment and entrepreneurial personality traits of employees and a path from entrepreneurial personality traits to employees to organizational commitment. |
| Model 3 (full mediation) | there is a path from the foundations of social power to the personality characteristics of employees and a path from these personality characteristics to the organizational commitment of employees |
Research Methodology
The current research can be considered as a descriptive and correlational research in terms of applied purpose and in terms of nature and method. The statistical population of the research was formed by all the employees of the government departments of West Azarbaijan province (46963 people), and our statistical sample was selected based on the Morgan table of 385 people. In order to select a statistical sample from the studied society, the researcher first selected six cities as a cluster from within the province, and then within the clusters (cities) from government departments, he selected a statistical sample as a stratified proportional type to collect information from 3 standard questionnaires were used, which are explained below.
The first questionnaire is the Hinkin and Sheraykhim (1989) power bases questionnaire, which measures the social power bases in the 5 components mentioned earlier, and four questions are designed for each component in this questionnaire.
The second questionnaire: O'Reilly and Chatman's (1986) organizational commitment questionnaire, which they designed nine questions to measure organizational commitment. The third questionnaire: The entrepreneurial personality characteristics questionnaire of the Durham Entrepreneurship Center, England, which measured six components and designed four questionnaires for each component.
It should be noted that in all 3 questionnaires, a five-point Likert scale was used to measure the respondents' opinions, and it should also be said that this research examined the variables of the research from the employees' point of view. The questionnaires were checked and confirmed in terms of validity and reliability. In terms of validity, they were checked in terms of three dimensions: face validity, content and construct validity. Discussion of content validity of CVR and CVI forms for all three questionnaires were prepared and given to 14 sample members and experts, after correcting the CVR and CVI values for each questionnaire, they were above 79% and 66%, which according to Lavshe's table (1975) ) showed the existence of content validity for the questionnaires used, and finally, in the construct validity dimension, the convergent and divergent validity of the questionnaires were checked and confirmed by the sample members after completing the questionnaires, which is mentioned in the section of their research findings. In the discussion of reliability, the reliability of the research measurement tool was confirmed according to the obtained alpha coefficients, because this coefficient was obtained for all research variables above 0.7 and it indicates the existence of acceptable reliability (Cronbach, 1995). Also, the composite reliability, which is one of the important indicators of the reliability of the instrument in the considered model. was investigated, which was confirmed after modifying the measurement model (Table 2).
| Table 2 Cronbach's Alpha Coefficients And Composite Reliability Of The Components |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Component | Number of items | Cronbach's alpha | Composite reliability |
| The foundations of social power | Legal power | 4 | 0.730 | 0.814 |
| Reward Power | 4 | 0.79 | 0.815 | |
| The power of coercion | 4 | 0.739 | 0.802 | |
| Referent Power | 4 | 0.803 | 0.901 | |
| Expert Power | 4 | 0.769 | 0.831 | |
| Personality characteristics of entrepreneurship | Internal control | 4 | 0.880 | 0.836 |
| Ambiguity tolerance | 4 | 0.801 | 0.799 | |
| Risk tolerance | 4 | 0.821 | 0.806 | |
| Seeking independence | 4 | 0.735 | 0.826 | |
| Creativity | 4 | 0.760 | 0.851 | |
| Organizational commitment | Organizational commitment | 9 | 0.801 | 0.891 |
The data were examined and analyzed using Emus software using structural equation modeling method based on partial maximum squares. In this way, in the first stage, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was investigated for the research model, and then, after modifying the model and confirming the fit of the indicators in the measurement model, in the second stage, the structural models (path analysis) were examined and evaluated. In order to evaluate the direct and indirect relationships between social power bases, entrepreneurial personality traits and organizational commitment according to Anderson and Jerbink (1989) and Hair (2011), we used a two-stage approach, since the model under investigation includes variables There were many problems faced by the researcher, so to simplify the models, the methods used by Bentrocho (1987), Mitofar (1991), Hair (2010) and Klein (2013) were used to compare the data related to each variable with We do not combine. This caused the number of obvious variables related to the hidden variables of the hidden research to decrease to its lowest level.
Findings
The results were extracted in two descriptive and inferential parts. In the descriptive part, the results showed that among the respondents, the most frequency is related to the age group of 30-40 years and 25% of the respondents are women and 75% of them are men. Most of the respondents (90%) have a bachelor's degree or higher, and the years of service of most of them (70%) are 5 years or more, the highest frequency is in the age group of 40 to 50 years, and most of them have a bachelor's degree or higher, and the years of service are more 75% of them are over 10 years old. In the continuation of this section, the group t results and the correlation between the researches variables were examined, which are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
| Table 3 One-Group T-Test Results Of Research Variables |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Component | T | SD | Mean |
| Legal power | 13.72 | 0.56 | 4.61 |
| Reward Power | 14.35 | 0.67 | 3.85 |
| The power of coercion | 13.45 | 0.87 | 1.95 |
| Refrent Power | 34.35 | 0.61 | 4.10 |
| Expert Power | 24.85 | 0.81 | 3.71 |
| Personality characteristics of entrepreneurship | 35.21 | 0.83 | 3.81 |
| Organizational commitment | 44.95 | 0.81 | 4.25 |
The results showed that regarding the bases of power, legal power (4.60) has the highest average and coercive power has the lowest average among the bases of social power, and according to the values in order from the highest to the lowest, it is legal, Authority, reward, specialization and coercion. Also, the results showed that the power averages obtained for legal powers, authority, reward and expertise are significantly higher than the average at the level of 99% (score 3), or in other words, it can be said that the employees of the investigated community use These powers agree, but regarding the power of coercion, the level of 99% is lower than the average score, in other words, it can be said that the respondents do not agree on the abuse of the power of coercion.
In the inferential part, the results are given below. Table 4 shows the correlation coefficient between the research variables. The results showed that the bases of social power of managers (except the power of coercion) have a positive and significant relationship with the entrepreneurial personality traits of employees. From these power bases, authority, expertise and reward powers had a significant positive relationship with employees' organizational commitment, and no relationship was observed between coercive and legal powers with employees' organizational commitment. The CFA measurement model was examined from structural equation modeling and Imus software, and due to the low factor loadings of some variables and due to the lack of proper fit, the measurement model was modified according to Heyer's algorithm (2010). After removing the questions with a factor load lower than 0.5 and implementing the correction suggestions of the software, the fit indices were measured again.
| Table 4 The Results Of The Correlation Coefficient Test Between Research Variables |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Legal power | Reward Power | The power of coercion | Refrent Power | Expert Powe | |||||
| Personality characteristics of entrepreneurship | Sig | R | Sig | R | Sig | R | R | Sig | Sig | r |
| 0.004 | 0.234 | 0.000 | 0.38 | 0.559 | 0.48 | 0.491 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.410 | |
| Organizational commitment | 0.061 | 0.014 | 0.004 | 0.24 | 0.62 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.25 |
In Table 5, the fit indices for the research models after model modification are reported.
According to the results of the reviewed models, as shown in Table 5, partial mediation and full mediation models have similar chi-squares, RMSEA, (X2) and also have larger PFI and CFI compared to the direct effect model. The results of the chi-square difference obtained for the full mediation model and the direct effect model against the partial mediation model are also interesting, as the chi-square difference of the two mentioned models is not significant and this indicates that the full mediation model (Model 3) According to AX2 and PFI indicators, it is the most suitable model for the community under investigation, or in other words, it is more adapted (more generalizable) and the best model to use. Finally, the standardized path coefficients (software output) for the model. The research results are shown in Table 6, which gives us different perspectives by focusing on the estimated parameters of social power bases (20) in different models.
| Table 5 Model Fit Indices |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structural model | PFI | RMSIA | CFI | ΔX2 | Df | X2 |
| Model 1 | 65/0 | 091/0 | 87/0 | **81/67 | 372 | **55/333 |
| Model 2 | 66/0 | 073/ | 87/0 | - | 389 | **43/385 |
| Model 3 | 70/0 | 073/0 | 91/0 | 23/13 | 377 | **67/388 |
| - | - | - | - | 397 | **91/1875 | |
Model 3 = direct effect Model 2 = full mediation Model 1 = partial mediation P</01 **
According to the results of the structural model, as can be seen in Table 6, in the direct effect model, authority and expertise have a positive and significant effect on organizational commitment. In the partial mediation model, these powers also have a positive and significant effect in the partial mediation model. Entrepreneur's personality traits have a positive and significant effect on organizational commitment. In the full mediation model, authoritativeness and expertise on entrepreneurial personality traits and entrepreneurial personality traits of employees have a positive and significant effect on their organizational commitment. These strengths in personality traits in the full mediation model are more than the partial mediation model, and also the personality traits have a higher effect coefficient on organizational commitment in the full mediation model than other models, so according to the fit indices of the full mediation model, it is the most suitable research model.
| Table 6 Standard Path Coefficients For All 3 Research Models |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Path | Models | ||
| Legal power →personality traits | Complete mediation | partial mediation | direct impact |
| Reward power →personality traits | -0.168 | -0.173 | |
| Power of coercion →personality traits | 0.057 | 0.065 | |
| Power of authority →personality traits | -0.002 | -0.001 | |
| Specialized power →personality traits | 20.425** | **0.4180 | |
| Legal power →organizational commitment | **0.289 | **0.286 | |
| Reward power →organizational commitment | 0.31 | 0.25 | |
| Coercive power →organizational commitment | 0.23 | 0.35 | |
| Authoritative power →organizational commitment | -0.06 | -0.02 | |
| Authoritative power →organizational commitment | **0.39 | **0.45 | |
| Personality traits →organizational commitment | **2.31 | **0.38 | |
| **0.431 | **0.421 | ||
Discussion and conclusion
The present study was an attempt to determine the effect of managers' social power bases on employees' organizational commitment with the mediating role of entrepreneurial personality traits in government offices of West Azarbaijan province. This research presents a new perspective on organizational commitment in terms of the subject model presented by the researcher, although the partial mediation model also had an acceptable fit, but the parameters obtained for the full mediation model had a better fit, compared to the other 2 models. It was more suitable and had more generalizability in the statistical population, so it is appropriate that this model be used in government offices. Regarding the direct effect model, it should be said that it was not suitable compared to the mediation model, considering the path coefficients obtained in the mediation model. Kamel, in this model, the powers of authority and expertise had a positive and significant effect on the entrepreneurial personality traits of employees, and in contrast to the power of the law, reward and coercion did not have a significant effect on these characteristics. Also, in this model, it was observed that the personality traits of entrepreneurship in organizational commitment it has a positive and significant effect, so it was concluded that the entrepreneurial personality traits of employees play a mediating role in the relationship between authority and expertise with organizational commitment. Mashholder and H Makaran (1998) is in line with the research results of Jalilund and Nasralahi (2015) regarding the results related to the power of rewards, and these differences can be related to the cultural differences in the statistical population. Regarding the power of rewards, there are also differences It is related to the organization under study and regarding the power of coercion, the results were in line with other researches, including Trevino's 1992 and Maschholder et al., (1998) research. Researchers have suggested that the power of coercion should not be used as a management strategy, because in such cases, double efforts should be made to re-establish a sense of fairness and positivity in the employees.
Suggestions
According to the findings, it is suggested that mechanisms should be created to present the opinions and views of subordinates regarding the punishment system, so that managers can receive appropriate feedback from these opinions, considering the effect of the entrepreneurial personality traits of employees on organizational commitment and considering the mediator. Considering these personality traits in the relationship between the foundations of social power and the organizational commitment of employees, it is suggested that the managers of the mentioned society strengthen these personality traits in their employees by using their authoritative and specialized powers and thus have a positive effect on their organizational commitment and there by provide the foundations for the success of their organizations.
References
Ahvari, H., Divandai, A., Esfidani, M., & Ekhlassi, A. (2022). User entrepreneurs: Motives, social and human capital (Case study: Kickstarter). Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 14(4), 561-579.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1: 177-198.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Analoui, F., Moghimi, S.M., & Khanifar, H. (2009). Public sector managers and entrepreneurship in Islamic republic of Iran. Journal of Management Development, 28(6): 522-532.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103:411-423.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Bamshad, V., Talebi, K., Yazdani, H., & Arasti, Z. (2021). A systematic mapping review and analysis of cognitive science in opportunity identification Literature: 1994-2018. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 14(1), 1-19.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(8): 875-884.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Chiu, Ch. Y., Balkundi, P., & Weinderg, F.J. (2017). When managers become leaders: The role of manager network centralities, social power, and followers' perception of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28: 334-348.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Cronbach, A. (1957). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 6(3): 297-334.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Daft, R.L. (2000). Essentials of organizational theory and design, Cincinnati, South.
De Luque, M.S., Washburn, N.T., Waldman, D.A., & House, R.J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates' perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53:626-654.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Eby, L.T., Freeman, D.M., Rush, M.C. & Lance, C.E. (1999). Motivational bases of affective organizational commitment: A partial test of an integrative theoretical model. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72(4): 463-483.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115-130.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
French, J., & Raven, B.H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwtight (Ed.). Studies in social power: 150-167.
Goetz, N., & Wald, A. (2021). Employee performance in temporary organizations-the effects of person-environment fit and temporariness on task performance and innovative performance. European Management Review, 18(2), 25-41.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Gurol, Y., & Atsan, N. (2006). Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey. Education & Training, 48(1):25-38.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2010). PLS-SEM Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of marketing Theory & practice, 19(2): 135-147.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Haugaard, M. (2009). Power and hegemony, in clegg, S.R. & Haugaard, M. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of power, Sage Publications, Thousand oaks, CA, 236-255.
Hinkin, T.R., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 561-567.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Hinkin, T.R., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1994). An examination of subordinate-perceived relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and leader bases of power. Human Relations, 47: 779-800.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Hinkin, T.R., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations, 43: 221-237.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Jalilvand, M.A., & Nasrollahi, L. (2015). Examining the relationship between managerial power and affective organization commitment. Sport, Business and management: An International Journal, 5(4): 344-364.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Kleine, R.B. (2013). Principles and practice of structural Equation modeling. Third Edition. New York: The Guilford press.
Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 698-707.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Lawshe, Ch. (1975). Aquantitive approach to content validity. Personel psychology, 28: 568-575.
Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
McCelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving society Princeton. NJ: Van No strand Reinhold.
McFarlin, D.B., & Sweeney, P.D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 626-637.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Morgeson, F.P., Dierdorff, E.C., & Hmurovic, K.L. (2010). Work design in situ: Understanding the role of occupational and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 351-360.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Mossholder, K.W., Kemery, E.R., & Wesolowski, M.A. (1998). Relationship between bases of power and work Reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. Journal of Management, 24(4):533-552.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Neininger , A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Kauffeld, S. & Henschel, A. (2010). Effects of team and organizational commitment-A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76 (3):567-579.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Niehoff, B.P., & Moorman, R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527-556.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Raven, B.H. (1990). Political applications of the psychology of interpersonal influence and social power. Political Psychology, 11: 493-520.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Reiche, B.S. (2008). The configuration of employee retention practices in multinational corporations foreign subsidiaries. International Business Review, 17(6): 676-687.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Rondolf, W.A., & Kemery, E.R. (2011). Managerial use of power Bases in a model of managerial empowerment practices and employee psychological empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1): 95-106.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and Applied, 80: 609-621.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Rumball, D.(1989). The Entrepreneurial Edge: Canadas Top Entrepreneurs reveal the secrets of their success. Toronto: Key Porter Books.
Schriesheim, C.A., Hinkin, T.R., & Podsakoff, P.M. (1991). Can impassive and single-item measures produce erroneous results in field studies of French and Raven’s (1959) five bases of power?: An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 106-114.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Taccean, I.M., Tamasila, M., & Strauti, G.N. (2016). Study on management style a managerial power types for a long organization. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221: 66-75.
Trevino, L.K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17: 647-676.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Tyler, T.R., & Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 115-191.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wasti, S.A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2): 290-308.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Wilson, P.A. (1995). The effects of politics and power on the organizational commitment of federal executives. Journal of Management, 21: 101-118.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Yean T.F., & Yosof, A.A. (2016). Organizational justice: A conceptual discussion. Procideia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219: 798-803.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Received: 12-May-2023, Manuscript No. AEJ-23-13725; Editor assigned: 14-May-2023, PreQC No. AEJ-23 13725(PQ); Reviewed: 29-May-2023, QC No. AEJ-23-13725; Revised: 03-May-2023, Manuscript No. AEJ-23 13725(R); Published: 14-June-2023