The Impact of Neuroleadership

FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP ON MOTIVATION
The Impact of Neuroleadership Brain Domains versus Charismatic Leadership on Employee
Motivation
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the
California School of Professional Psychology
Alliant International University
Los Angeles
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial-Organizational Psychology
By
Elena Gutierrez-Shackelford, M.S.
2016
Approved by:
Nurcan Ensari, Ph.D., Chairperson
Louise Kelly, Ph.D.
Toni Knott, Ph.D.

ProQuest Number: 10006503
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 10006503
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ii
© Elena M. Gutierrez-Shackelford, 2016

iii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband and my dad for their love and support
through it all; and to my Grandpa for instilling the importance of education, knowledge, and
career growth into my paradigm from a young age; and to my mother, you told me when I was
graduating high school to aspire, perspire and inspire…thank you for those words from the wise.
You pushed me to achieve my wildest dreams and supported me in every way possible.
iv
Acknowledgements
There are many individuals who have been through this five-and-a-half year journey with
me to complete my dissertation. These people are the reason I have been able to reach this
achievement. I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee and the work they all put
into this doctoral project. Thank you Dr. Ensari, you continually challenged me to think outside
of the box and create a study that was different from the norm; and thank you for the numerous
rounds of feedback and edits you provided. Thank you Dr. Knott and Dr. Kelly, you have not
only encouraged and supported me during this dissertation process, but also helped me grow
during your graduate classes.
Thank you to my family. You gave me words of wisdom, inspired me to keep going, and
supported me however you could to make this graduate school process easier. I love you all and
couldn’t have completed this without you. I am fortunate to have a family that has helped me in
so many different ways throughout my educational journey. A huge thank you to Dr. Jessica
Craig who I now consider to be my extended family; thank you for being my cohort, you were
my sense of calm in the graduate madness and thank you for convincing me to get my Ph.D. after
completing our M.S. program.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my incredible and loving husband. You are
without a doubt the reason I have not only survived graduate school, but finished my dissertation
(besides myself, of course!). For five and a half years you have read and edited every class paper,
presentation, and revision of my dissertation. If I had to quantify how many pages you have read
over the years, I simply couldn’t. You have helped me remain calm during this dissertation
roller coaster. You have shown patience, love and support through it all. Thank you.
v
Abstract
Employee motivation is an essential aspect of business and can lead to positive
organizational outcomes. The purpose of this experimental study was to explore the two key
factors of employee motivation: Charismatic Leadership and Feedback compatibility.
Charismatic leadership was hypothesized to have a great influence on employee motivation in
comparison to the non-charismatic leadership condition.
High feedback compatibility between a leader and employee was hypothesized to have
more of an impact on employee motivation in comparison to low feedback compatibility and no
feedback. David Rock’s SCARF model was used to examine the role of feedback. What
Neuroleadership has found is that receiving feedback will either send the brain into a threat or
reward state. When an employee is in a threat state, he/she is demotivated and less productive.
Therefore, it is very important for managers to keep their employees in a reward state when
giving feedback.
Charismatic Leadership was hypothesized to moderate the relationship between feedback
compatibility and employee motivation. When the leader is charismatic, feedback compatibility
will not affect employee motivation. However, when the leader is non-charismatic, high
feedback compatibility will result in higher employee motivation than low feedback
compatibility and no feedback conditions.
Data was collected from143 employees across diverse business industries in the United
States. Participation was voluntary, participants were recruited via email, and participants were
encouraged to invite other individuals who met the requirements to take the study. Results of
two-way ANOVA indicated that charismatic leadership increased employee motivation in
comparison to non-charismatic leadership; and high feedback compatibility increased employee

vi
motivation in comparison to low compatibility and no feedback. Charismatic leadership did not
moderate the relationship between feedback compatibility and employee motivation.
Implications of the results are discussed, such as feedback compatibility will have a great impact
on employee motivation regardless of the type of leader (Charismatic leadership and non-
charismatic leadership). The importance of leaders giving feedback that is highly compatible
with the employees’ brain domain preference is essential to employee motivation. Finally, the
strengths and limitations of the study, as well as recommendations for future research, are
presented.
vii
Table of Contents
Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................ iv
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii
CHAPTER I. Introduction ............................................................................................................1
The Impact of Leadership on Employee Motivation ...........................................................5
Charismatic leadership .............................................................................................6
The Role of Feedback on Employee Motivation .................................................................9
Neuroleadership .....................................................................................................10
Summary ............................................................................................................................11
The Purpose of the Present Study ......................................................................................12
CHAPTER II. Literature Review ...............................................................................................13
Motivation ..........................................................................................................................13
Motivation Theories ...........................................................................................................16
Content approach theories......................................................................................17
Process approach theories ......................................................................................23
The Role of Leadership in Motivation ...............................................................................28
Leadership Styles ...............................................................................................................28
Situational leadership theory..................................................................................29
Transactional leadership ........................................................................................31
Transformational leadership ..................................................................................32

viii
Charismatic leadership ...........................................................................................34
Attributional approach to charismatic leadership ....................................40
Self-concept theory of charismatic leadership ..........................................42
Goal orientation and charismatic leadership ...........................................45
Why charismatic leaders motivate their employees ..................................46
Emotional process of charismatic leadership ...........................................48
Cognitive process of charismatic leadership ............................................49
Summary ................................................................................................................50
Feedback and Motivation ...................................................................................................51
Neuroleadership and Feedback ..........................................................................................53
SCARF model ........................................................................................................56
Self-determination theory and SCARF model .......................................................62
McClelland’s needs theory and the SCARF model ...............................................62
The Implications of Neuroleadership on employee motivation.........................................63
The Role of Feedback in Motivation .................................................................................64
Feedback intervention theories ..............................................................................68
The Summary of Leadership and Feedback .......................................................................70
The Relationship among Neuroleadership, Feedback, and Charismatic Leadership.........71
Neuroleadership and charismatic leadership .........................................................71
Feedback and charismatic leadership.....................................................................72
The Present Study ..............................................................................................................75
CHAPTER III. Methodology ......................................................................................................78
Research Design.................................................................................................................78
ix
Participants .........................................................................................................................79
Procedures ..........................................................................................................................79
Manipulation of feedback compatibility ................................................................85
Manipulation of leadership style ............................................................................87
Dependent Measure ...............................................................................................88
Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................90
CHAPTER IV. Results ................................................................................................................91
Preliminary Analysis ..........................................................................................................91
Descriptive statistics ..............................................................................................91
Tests of normality ..................................................................................................93
Reliability tests.......................................................................................................94
Manipulation checks ..............................................................................................95
Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................................96
Hypothesis 1...........................................................................................................96
Hypothesis 2...........................................................................................................96
Hypothesis 3...........................................................................................................97
Additional Analyses ...........................................................................................................98
CHAPTER V. Discussion ..........................................................................................................103
Summary and Interpretation of the Results .....................................................................103
Charismatic leadership and motivation ................................................................103
Feedback compatibility and motivation ...............................................................106
Charismatic leadership, feedback compatibility and motivation .........................109
Additional findings ..............................................................................................112

x
Implications of the Results...............................................................................................112
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research ....................................................................116
Strengths of the study...........................................................................................116
Limitations of the study .......................................................................................117
Future Research ...................................................................................................120
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................121
References ...................................................................................................................................122
APPENDIX A. Email Invitation ...............................................................................................138
APPENDIX B. SCARF Self-Assessment................................................................................. 140
APPENDIX C. Consent Form ................................................................................................. 144
APPENDIX D. Debrief Statement ........................................................................................... 146
APPENDIX E. SCARF Vignettes ............................................................................................ 148
APPENDIX F. SCARF Leadership Behavior Components and Questions ........................ 154
APPENDIX G. Leadership Vignettes ..................................................................................... 156
APPENDIX H. Permissions for Use of Leadership Vignettes and Questions ..................... 159
APPENDIX I. The Behavioral Components of Charismatic Leadership Style and Questions
..................................................................................................................................................... 161
APPENDIX J. Work Preference Inventory............................................................................ 163
APPENDIX K. Permissions for Use of Work Preference Inventory ................................... 165
APPENDIX L. Demographics Questions................................................................................ 167

xi
List of Tables
Table 1. Analysis of Demographics ..............................................................................................92
Table 2. Tests for Normality ........................................................................................................93
Table 3. Psychometric Characteristics for the Work Preference Inventory Scales ......................95
Table 4. Two-Way ANOVA ........................................................................................................97
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics and Post Hoc Tests ......................................................................98
Table 6. Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix .............................................................................100
Table 7. Gender t Tests for Independent Means ........................................................................101
Table 8. Caucasian t Tests for Independent Means ....................................................................102

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Present Study ..........................................................................................................76
Figure 2. Predicted Model ............................................................................................................78
Figure 3. Research Design ...........................................................................................................79
Figure 4. SCARF Self-Assessment Instructions ..........................................................................80
Figure 5. SCARF Self-Assessment Demographics ......................................................................81
Figure 6. SCARF Self-Assessment Results .................................................................................82
Figure 7. Process of the Experiment ............................................................................................85

1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you
want them to do because they want to do it” (“Dictionary of Quotations,” 1989, p. 376). One of
the goals of an organization or employer is to motivate employees, but this is a challenging goal
for most organizations. How do they take the needs and wants of employees and turn them into
motivation? How does one get employees to do what they are required do even if they don’t
want to do it? As Eisenhower points out, motivation is a complex phenomenon because leaders
try to motivate their employees to perform to their highest ability while considering their
differences in personality, needs, and expectations. To deal with this complexity, it takes an
effective leader to know how to motivate their employees. Charismatic leadership and
Neuroleadership are among the most effective leadership styles in motivating employees. The
study specifically focused on these two leadership styles and their impact on motivation.
Motivation is defined as a psychological feature that arouses an organism to action
toward a desired goal and elicits, controls, and sustains certain goal directed behaviors
(“Motivation,” n.d.). Pinder (1998) defined work motivation as “A set of energetic forces that
originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior,
and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration” (p. 11).
Motivation is made up of three components, mentioned in the quote above: direction,
intensity and persistence (duration; Pinder, 1998). Direction refers to what an employee chooses
to do when given a variety of possible alternatives, no matter what alternative is chosen the
employee is motivated. Intensity is the strength of the reaction once the choice has been made or
the effort put forth by the employee. Lastly, persistence refers to how long an employee will
2
continue to dedicate effort (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2008). For example, a manager
gives an employee two options for work projects: an engagement survey or a quarterly pulse
check survey. The employee chooses being responsible for the engagement survey. This choice
creates motivation because the employee had autonomy over the choice. At first the employee
has great intensity for the engagement survey work project; he/she ends up working 10-hour
workdays and weekends. This intensity leads the employee to become burnt out, which results in
his/her persistence being short-lived. This example shows that motivation is an internal
inclination. Motivation is an employee’s internal disposition to approach positive incentives and
avoid negative incentives; the incentive is the anticipated reward or aversive event in the
environment (Jex & Britt, 2008).
Leaders can use motivation to help alter employee behavior, but motivation varies for
each employee because their goals and needs will differ. Needs refers to deficiencies an
employee feels at a particular time; these may include physiological (e.g., need for sleep),
psychological (e.g., need for self-esteem), or sociological needs (e.g., need for social
interactions). Such needs are viewed as energizers or triggers of behavioral reactions; when an
employee’s needs are deficient, then he/she is more likely to give in to a leader’s motivational
effort. The employee chooses a goal-oriented behavior to reduce the need deficiency. From that
point a leader will assess the employee’s performance and relay this back to the employee, at
which point then the employee will decide if he/she will continue his/her actions to reduce the
needs deficiency or reassess his/her actions. The motivational process is goal directed, the goals
and outcomes are what appeal to an employee’s actions, and the accomplishment of an
employee’s goals results in a reduction in needs deficiency (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Motivation
influences workplace behavior and performance; therefore it is key for organizations to

3
understand and structure the work environment to encourage and reinforce productive behaviors
(Jex & Britt, 2008).
Motivation is vital to organizations for a variety of reasons. First, it puts human resources
into action. Through motivation, human resources can be utilized by making full use of
employees’ skills, talents, and productivity, which can be done by building employee motivation.
This will help the company secure the best possible utilization of resources because human
resources are required to accomplish organizational goals. The second benefit is that it improves
employees’ level of efficiency. In order to get the best work performance from employees, the
gap between ability and willingness has to be filled. Filling the gap, thereby improving employee
efficiency and work performance, leads to the two more benefits: the achievement of
organizational goals and workforce stability. The employees will remain loyal to the company,
which will have a good public image in the market. The fifth benefit is better employee retention
rates; if employees are motivated, the company will be able to retain more of them. Existing
employees have a wealth of knowledge about the organization and how its projects work. By
retaining employees, the organization will save money and time (D. Felicitas, personal
communication, January 10, 2012).
There are many interesting cases of current organizations that are known for motivating
employees successfully. One such example is Kellogg’s, a top producer of breakfast foods that
are manufactured in 18 countries and sold in 180 countries. This large company understands that
motivated employees are content at work and are generally satisfied, absent less, and more loyal.
This company understands the importance of motivation and takes many actions to help increase
employee motivation. One of the areas on which they focus is creating ownership and autonomy
over work projects, making employees responsible for continuous improvement. The feedback
4
given on work projects focuses mainly on strengths and what the person does well (“Case
Study,” 2012). This practice is in alignment with research findings that people who develop their
strengths will improve significantly more than those who receive only feedback that focuses on
their weaknesses (D. Felicitas, personal communication, March 5, 2012). Kellogg’s also
maintains that two-way dialogue is vital for all communication and empowers their employees.
Feedback that focuses on developing strengths should be the core component of feedback; and
providing personal development planning for employees is the key to improving employee
motivation and performance. These development plans affect an employee’s work and schedule.
Kellogg’s is flexible with employees’ schedules so they can take time off from work to develop
themselves. This practice reinforces employee commitment and their feeling of being treated
well (“Case Study,” 2012). Kellogg’s uses many other motivational techniques, but for relevance
to this study, feedback is the primary focus.
In sum, there are many benefits of motivating employees; both the organization and its
leaders are responsible for maintaining employee motivation. Leaders are the key players in the
motivational process; they have the power to influence motivation. The organization cannot
provide only one methodology for motivating employees; each employee is unique, so it is up to
the leader to know how employees want to be motivated. Two factors that play a role in
motivating employees are leadership style and feedback. Leaders who can inspire and convey a
vision to employees are more effective in motivating them. Also, leaders who provide feedback
while considering unique attributes and different reactions of employees realize that what
motivates one employee may not work with another. These two factors are briefly introduced in
the following section.

5
The Impact of Leadership on Employee Motivation
As evidenced by today’s diverse and ever-changing business world, motivation is a
critical factor in maintaining organizational sustainability and profitability. Jobs, as well as the
expectations of employees, have become more demanding and complex. It has been a challenge
for organizations to keep their employees motivated and satisfied. Organizations must now
expect their leaders to be able to work with and motivate their teams. Leaders need to
understand what motivates employees to achieve success and higher productivity. Without
having motivated employees, a considerable number of businesses would succumb to failure. An
organization’s effectiveness relies on its manager’s abilities to motivate the employees. Effective
leaders play a critical role in pursuing the vision of the organization and creating an
organizational culture that keeps employees motivated, which in turn results in organizational
success and survivability in a competitive market.
Despite its importance, more often than not motivation is practiced poorly in
organizations. Poor practice is partly due to a lack of understanding why people work. In spite of
a great deal of research done over the years, the concept of motivation is not clearly understood
in organizations. With a vast number of theories, determining how to motivate employees can
often be overwhelming to leaders who have not been formally taught or trained in motivating
employees. For example, most leaders attempt to use one motivational approach for their entire
team. Leaders often fail to take into account that each employee may be motivated differently,
and using multiple motivational approaches will be more successful than relying on only one
approach. If leaders use only one approach in motivating their employees, it could have an
adverse impact and lead to a decrease in employee motivation and performance. Furthermore,
most leaders do not know how to convey a vision, inspire employees, and use reward systems to
6
motivate employees effectively. One of the most effective leadership styles, charismatic
leadership, has been shown to overcome these obstacles and motivate employees successfully.
Charismatic leadership. There have been charismatic leaders throughout history; most
have created positive influence over others. One of the most charismatic leaders that has been
discussed widely is Steve Jobs, who was the co-founder and CEO of Apple, Inc. Jobs was well
known for his keynote speeches at special Apple events, where he made important
announcements about Apple and demonstrated new products and services to all stakeholders,
competitors, and the general public. This vast audience gave him the potential to influence many
people about Apple. When Steve Jobs spoke and presented, he used his narrative and storytelling
skills as powerful persuasive tools. His narratives included a plot, composed of the current state
of affairs and competition, a catalyst (opportunity for change, idea, or action that deviated from
the old way of doing things), and a consequent state of affairs. His presentations made audiences
feel that Apple had evolved from more than a computer company. His speaking engagements
also demonstrated a vision and direction of where Apple was going. He had the ability to deliver
negative news, but his charisma would make the bad news more acceptable to audiences. He
built his relationships with employees through storytelling, foreshadowing, and humor. Jobs
acted on leader impression management and charisma; his storytelling appealed to his followers’
deeper beliefs by using people, places, objects, and events that made up of their everyday lives.
This approach leads followers to not only respond but also relate to the vision that Jobs created
(Sharma & Grant, 2011). Steve Jobs is just one example of many charismatic leaders in global
history.
Leadership is the process of influencing, guiding, and facilitating others to achieve a
desired outcome and have a meaningful effect on employees’ motivation and performance
7
(Ivancevich et al., 2008; Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Through these actions of influencing,
guiding, and facilitating, the manager needs to be able to understand the differences among
employees by watching and identifying the differences and determining the connections among
variables that affect employee behaviors (Ivancevich et al., 2008; Rock, 2009). Leaders will
always be responsible for guiding their employees in the right direction. Sometimes, but not
always, they may decide what the change should be, how it should be implemented, and who
should be responsible for implementing it (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Giving constructive
feedback and guidance to help with these goals is crucial.
Leaders are often seen as the people responsible for acknowledging when there is a need
for change and for leading the change that needs to be made. Whether it is a process, product, or
talent that needs to be changed, the leader is the key in this process. Leaders such as Martin
Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Walt Disney are prime examples of charismatic leaders
that made a difference with followers and employees.
A charismatic leader creates an environment of motivation based on a strong identity and
an emotional commitment to his/her vision, philosophy, and style on the part of the followers. A
charismatic leader creates a work environment of motivation through emotional commitment,
vision buy-in, which is a catalyst for a high level of employee performance. The key component
of charismatic leadership, if not obvious already, is charisma, which enables leaders to motivate
followers to achieve exceptional performance (Ivancevich et al., 2008). The mixture of charm
and magnetism helps to get other employees to endorse their vision and promote it zealously
(Adair, 2005). Charismatic leaders are described as being able to play an imperative part in
creating change. Charismatic leaders appeal powerfully to employees’ values and the
8
psychological bond between the leader and employee, which makes them successful (Jacobsen,
2001).
The key attributes and behaviors of charismatic leaders include the ability to inspire,
leading personalities, vision, and the ability to communicate (DeHoogh et al., 2005).
Additionally, Conger and Kanungo (1987) created a list of behavioral components that separated
charismatic leaders from non-charismatic leaders: relation to status quo, having an ideal vision,
likability, environmental sensitivity, and expertise. Charismatic leaders have a strong articulation
of future vision and motivation to lead; in contrast, non-charismatic leaders have weak
articulation of goals and little or no motivation to lead. Their power base component is also
different. Charismatic leaders have personal power based on their expertise, respect, and
admiration, whereas non-charismatic leaders acquire their power base from position power and
personal power, such as rewards or employees who feel similar to them. The last component that
separates charismatic leaders from other leaders is the leader-follower relationship. Charismatic
leaders inspire employees to support the radical changes that are being proposed by the leader,
whereas non-charismatic leaders are egalitarian, consensus seeking, or expect employees to share
their views.
Charismatic leadership can be divided into two different types: visionary and crisis-
based. A visionary charismatic leader conveys a shared vision of what the future could be.
Through his/her communication ability, he/she is able to connect employees’ needs and goals to
their job or organizational goals. Those connections are more easily made if the employee is
currently discontent or feeling unchallenged by his/her job. Charismatic leaders can see the big
picture, but are also able to see potential opportunities that the big picture will bring (DeHoogh
et al., 2005). Crisis-based charismatic leaders know when to make necessary changes (such as
9
when the current system in place isn’t sufficient, or when using the same knowledge, resources,
or processes must change). They are then able to identify the system that needs to be changed,
communicate what action needs to be taken, and convey what the outcome will be as a result of
making the change (Mitroff, 2004).
As mentioned previously, the relationship between the charismatic leader and employee
is a powerful one. The charismatic leader influences employees’ motivation by: (a) making the
employees’ self-esteem dependent on both the vision and mission; (b) developing and promoting
strong values and goals; (c) advocating strong personal and/or moral commitment by employees
to these values and goals; and (d) encouraging employees to put the collective group before their
own self-interests (Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Shamir & Howell, 1999).
The Role of Feedback on Employee Motivation
Feedback from immediate supervisors to their employees is one of the critical parts of an
organizational environment. Feedback is a process by which information about the past or
present influences the same phenomenon in the present or future. Feedback is needed when
employees show performance strengths and recognition of success, but most commonly when
there are performance areas that need development, correction, or redirection. By providing
proper feedback, leaders aim to improve employees’ motivation and performance.
In spite of good intentions, giving feedback does not always result in increased employee
motivation or performance. In fact, only 30% of the time it improves performance, 30% of the
time performance stays the same, and 40% of the time performance actually ends up getting
worse (D. Felicitas, personal communication, January 10, 2012). That is, 70% of the time the
intent of feedback does not match with the results that are needed. Clearly, leaders must pay
close attention to how to give proper feedback so that it motivates employees to achieve more
10
and do better. One of the more effective ways of providing feedback has been offered by the
field of Neuroleadership, which is an emerging area that considers unique features and attributes
of employees and uses multiple approaches to motivate them.
Neuroleadership. Neuroleadership is defined as the application of findings from
neuroscience to the field of leadership. The term Neuroleadership was first coined by David
Rock in the U.S. publication Strategy+Business (Rock, 2010). Neuroleadership is an emerging
field that focuses on bringing neuroscience knowledge into areas of leadership development and
human performance improvement, including feedback, management training, change
management, learning, motivation, consulting, and coaching. The purpose of this field is to
improve leaders’ effectiveness and efficiency in organizations and help them to succeed through
understanding how the brain works. This field incorporates hard science and physiology of the
mind and brain for leadership development (Ringleb & Rock, 2008). Neuroleadership examines
individuals in their social organizational environment, looking at how they make decisions, solve
problems, regulate their emotions, collaborate, influence others, and facilitate change (Rock,
2008) while focusing on employee engagement rather than looking at the functional aspect of
business (Minzberg, 2004).
Neuroleadership uses research on the human brain to develop a better understanding on
how to provide effective feedback and motivate employees (Mobbs & McFarland, 2010).
Research using brain scans has shown that the brain perceives little difference between physical
pain and social pain. Both physical and social pain signals that one needs to change his/her
behavior. If one ignores one or both of them, one’s mind and biological system are negatively
affected. Feedback can cause social pain, such as rejection or emotional hurt. Feeling pain often
demotivates employees on the job. In the context of work, for example, people who feel betrayed
11
or unrecognized at work experience a neural impulse that causes social pain (Eisenberger &
Lieberman, 2004). This pain then limits the employee’s motivation and his/he engagement.
Leaders who understand this dynamic can engage their employees more effectively, motivate
them, and nurture productive change (Rock, 2009). Neuroleadership research also utilizes fMRI
(functional magnetic resonance imaging) to identify the brain regions involved in social
psychological processes. Research using fMRI helps to recognize processes that rely on the same
brain mechanisms and gather data about mental processes (Ringleb & Rock, 2008). Through
neuroscience research, five domains of the brain have been identified to help reduce the amount
of social pain people feel: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. These five
domains are known as a brain-based model called SCARF (Rock, 2009). When an employee
feels social pain, the brain sends an employee into threat mode; however, through use of the
SCARF model, when giving feedback one can decrease social pain and the employee’s
threatened feeling.
Given the importance of feedback in motivating employees, leaders must learn effective
ways of providing feedback. Based on neuroscience research, Neuroleadership can help leaders
understand how the brain perceives feedback and reacts to it, and can teach them what decisions
and actions engage motivation (Mobbs & McFarland, 2010).
Summary
Motivation is an essential aspect of business. Maximizing human capital leads to positive
organizational outcomes such as high level of performance and employee retention accompanied
by less turnover. It is vital for organizations to fully comprehend the predictors of motivation. It
is primarily leaders’ responsibility to find out how to motivate employees. Charismatic
leadership is effective in motivating employees by appealing to their values, breaking the status
12
quo, and creating a vision that inspires employees to follow their goals. Additionally, feedback
plays an important role in motivation. Unfortunately, most leaders do not know how to provide
feedback effectively. They disregard different personalities and unique attributes of employees,
and use a singular approach to motivating employees. This one size fits all approach has not been
effective. Instead, a successful leader customizes his/her motivational approach to fit the
employee’s needs and determines their triggers and energizers. One useful approach to providing
feedback is Neuroleadership, which proposes a method to provide feedback in a way that
matches employees’ unique styles.
The Purpose of the Present Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the two key drivers of employee motivation:
leadership style and feedback. More specifically, the study examined the role of charismatic
leadership in motivation, as well as the impact on motivation of providing feedback using the
Neuroleadership approach. David Rock’s (2008) SCARF model was used to examine the role of
feedback as explained fully in the next chapter. The independent variables are charismatic
leadership and feedback using the Neuroleadership approach. The key dependent variable is
employee motivation.
The research questions are as follows:
1. Does charismatic leadership style enhance employee motivation?
2. Does providing feedback using the Neuroleadership approach enhance employee
motivation?
3. Do leadership style and feedback play an interactive role in enhancing employee
motivation?
13
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
This chapter is divided into four main sections. It focuses first on the key dependent
variable, motivation, and reviews key theories of motivation. It then introduces leadership
focusing specifically on charismatic leadership and its role in motivation. The third section
describes the role of feedback in motivation and how the emerging field of Neuroleadership
developed a new method of providing feedback that can motivate employees effectively. Lastly,
the hypotheses and their rationales are presented.
Motivation
As defined previously, motivation is “A set of energetic forces that originate both within
as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its
form, direction, intensity, and duration” (Pinder, 1998, p. 11). Accordingly, motivation is a
psychological process based on the interaction between the individual employee and his/her
environment (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Motivation is a process that determines how energy is
used to satisfy individual needs and where resources, such as time and energy, are distributed to
a range of work tasks. It includes the direction, intensity, and persistence of this allocation
process, which will be explained further subsequently. Motivation is a future-oriented concept in
that individuals predict the quantity of satisfaction they will receive when the outcome is
accomplished. The employees perception of applying energy to the task and the subsequent need
satisfaction impacts how much of the individual’s energy is dedicated to that action (Pritchard &
Payne, 2003).
Motivation is a vast area that organizational development psychologists and organizations
are trying to master. Motivation has a variety of components, such as job design characteristics,
14
person-environment fit, organizational climate and culture, leadership, teams, and national
culture, to name a few. Organizations have a massive amount of research to consult, but still seek
to find what will best motivate their employees. There are numerous theories, models, and
arguments in work motivation, and it is important for organizations and leaders to know what
will most likely increase employee motivation.
An employee’s needs are core to what will motivate him/her within his/her work role.
Needs based theories explain why an individual must act, but do not specify why actions are
chosen (Latham & Pinder, 2005). This complicates efforts to motivate employees from the
leader’s perspective. Most leaders will have work teams that are diverse, and this diversity will
apply to employee needs as well. Each individual employee will have a unique set of needs that
will motivate him/her on the job, which can create complications for the leader in implementing
an individualized need-based approach to motivate employees. Values are deeply rooted in needs
and provide a basis for goals (Locke & Henne, 1986). Values are comparable to needs in their
ability to stimulate, lead, and sustain behavior. Needs are inherent, whereas values are attained
through experiences and cognition. Values impact an individual’s behavior because they are the
expectations that are used to compare and choose alternate behaviors (Latham & Pinder, 2005).
Before transitioning into the various motivation theories, it is important to first explain
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation will be discussed in
many of the motivational theories. Extrinsic motivation is defined as a behavior that is driven by
avoiding punishments or obtaining external rewards, also known as the “carrots and sticks”
(Pink, 2009). Intrinsic motivation is a behavior that is driven by internal rewards; for example, an
aspiration to accomplish new tasks or challenges, gaining new knowledge, and the pure interest
and enjoyment of the task itself. There are three key parts to intrinsic motivation: Autonomy,
15
mastery and purpose. Employees should have autonomy over their task, time, technique and
team. Mastery involves learning goals instead of performance goals; having “grit”, perseverance
and passion for long-term goals. Lastly, mastery is asymptote - pursuing mastery knowing that
you will never actually get it fully. The last part of intrinsic motivation is purpose, which
involves working toward something purposeful and making a difference or contributing to the
world. In order to do this, words and policies are important. The goal is to pursue purpose and to
use the profit as a promoter rather than the objective; words explain why “we’re” doing it and
how it contributes to the greater good, policies around doing good, having dedicated time or
resources to serving a purpose (e.g., pro-social spending, community service, etc.; Pink, 2009).
As organizations and the work have become more self-directed and complex, intrinsic
motivation is imperative to motivate employees in today’s age, and what Daniel Pink (2009)
refers to as “motivation 3.0”. Extrinsic motivation is best used for routine tasks that are not very
interesting; rewards can then provide small motivational incentives. But, in addition to the small
rewards, you should also offer an explanation for why the task is important and allow them to
complete the task in their own way. Whereas, intrinsic motivation works best for tasks involving
creativity and non-routine tasks. Pink suggests that we should pay employees adequate and fair
baseline salaries, benefits, etc., so that money is not an issue. But when we offer rewards for non-
routine task, we turn an interesting and enjoyable task into work that decreases performance and
creativity, this is known as the Sawyer Effect. If an extrinsic reward is given for a non-routine
task, then it should be unexpected and offered only after the task is complete. Research, time and
again, has shown that higher incentives lead to worse performance. Even worse, “carrots and
sticks” can promote bad behavior including: unethical behavior, short-term thinking and
outcomes, decreased performance, reduced creativity, and reduced intrinsic motivation (Pink,
16
2009). Overall, research has highlighted the impact of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation that we
know will evaluate historical motivational theories.
Motivation Theories
During the times of the industrial revolution, employees were considered to be mere
components in the production of goods and services. At that time, organizations did not value the
importance of employee motivation, nor did they understand how employee motivation could
benefit the organization. Henry Landsberger and his Hawthorne Study (1927-1932) may have
changed the way organizations viewed employees (Dickson, 1973). This study found that
employees were motivated not only by money, but also by what is known as the Hawthorne
Effect; employees felt more important because someone was observing their work. Therefore,
they produced more because their work was being observed. In other words, employee
behaviors are linked to their attitudes (Dickson, 1973; Ivancevich et al., 2008). This study
created a new way of thinking and a different type of management approach where the needs and
motivation of employees became an important focus for managers (Bedeian, 1993). Through
examining the motivational theories that have developed over the years, the chapter aims to
enhance current understanding of different approaches to motivation and determine effective
approaches that enhance motivation.
At present, there are two main approaches to motivation: content and process approaches.
Content approaches focus on factors within an employee that motivate, direct, sustain, and stop
behavior. Leaders will have to be aware of the unique differences between employees’ needs and
goals. In contrast, process approaches focus on how behavior is energized, focused, sustained,
and stopped. With process-approach theories, leaders need to understand the process of
17
motivation and how employees will make choices based on their likings, rewards, and
accomplishments (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Both of these approaches are reviewed subsequently.
Content approach theories. One of the most well-known content theories is Maslow’s
(as cited in Jex & Britt, 2008) hierarchy of needs, which is applied in how the work environment
motivates employees. Maslow attempted to explain behavior in which individuals strive to
satisfy their needs in a hierarchical order. Maslow theorized that employees will not seek to
satisfy high level needs until they have met their lower level needs. According to Maslow, there
are five levels of needs:
1. The lowest level needs are physiological, these are needs for survival, such as shelter
and food;
2. The next level is safety, which involves security from threatening events or
environment, for example living in a safe neighborhood;
3. The third level is the need for belongingness, social and love, such as showing a need
for friendship and interaction;
4. The next level is the need for self-esteem and esteem from others;
5. The last and highest level is self-actualization, which is the need to fulfill oneself by
using their abilities, skills, and potential to the maximum capabilities.
Maslow believed that individuals are motivated not by rewards and punishments; instead, they
are motivated to achieve certain needs. When these lower level needs are not met, the individual
is motivated to meet those needs and then work toward higher-level growth needs. Maslow
stated that human motivation is based on people seeking fulfillment and change through personal
growth (Jex & Britt, 2008).

18
Past research by Wahba and Bridwell (1976) found that there is little to no evidence for
the hierarchy of needs described by Maslow. A large number of cross-sectional studies and
longitudinal studies have shown little support due to the many measurement and control
problems. Additionally, this theory could also be suffering due to the concept being vague. It is
not clear what is meant by the concept of need; there are no standard definitions to this construct,
and there are no guides for empirical verification for the theory (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976).
Researchers Tay and Diener (2011) conducted a more recent study on Maslow’s theory to
account for the mixed evidence from past research. These researchers examined the order in
which needs are fulfilled and the extent to which society moderates that order. It was found that
Maslow’s proposed needs emerged in order to some degree, especially for individuals who have
lower total needs fulfilled. Research (not strongly) found slight support for the order of need
fulfillment that was proposed. The studies measures only approximate Maslow’s needs, but it
does not perfectly align with them. Their findings indicate what happens when needs are
fulfilled, they do not entirely address the motivational issues of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. An
individual’s motivations may differ from actual need fulfillment partially due to the society and
the environment in which they live. It was found that lower needs, like basic and safety needs,
were tied strongly to country effects. This means that those individuals who live in countries
where most people have most of their needs met will tend to have basic and safety needs
fulfilled, in comparison to individuals from other countries. It was also found that an individual
can gain psychosocial needs regardless of whether his or her basic needs are fully met, this
challenges the order Maslow proposed. Researchers state that need fulfillment should be
achieved at the societal level, not just the individual level. Society needs to have basic needs met,
for the individual to fulfill their needs (Tay & Diener, 2011). Even though it is not fully
19
supported by previous research, this theory remains popular among graduate students as well as
most managers in organizations. It is important to study and validate motivational theories so
that managers can use motivational approaches that will be successful with their employees.
Alderfer (1972) expanded on Maslow’s theory and proposed only three levels of needs in
a hierarchy: (a) existence, the need for food, water, money, and working conditions;
(b) relatedness, the need for social and interpersonal relationships; and (c) growth, the need for
employee productive contributions (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Alderfer’s theory, known as ERG
Theory, argued that if an employee continually fails to satisfy a need, then the individual
becomes frustrated, which causes him/her to redirect attention to satisfying a lower level need
(Ivancevich et al., 2008). The main difference between Maslow’s and Alderfer’s hierarchy
theories is that the employees move through needs differently. Maslow believed that individuals
are motivated by unfulfilled needs, while Alderfer believed motivation is based on frustration
and attempting to satisfy needs. The weaknesses of ERG motivational theory aligns with the
issues attributed to Maslow’s theory as well. Another interesting issue is that both theories are
based on individualistic cultures (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). These theories do not examine the
differences between the needs of an individual raised in an individualistic society and an
individual raised in a collectivist society. The needs and drives of an individualistic society are
self-centered in comparison to a collectivist society. In a collectivist society, the needs of the
group and community are more important than the individual. These theories are not universal
and may vary across cultures. Therefore, if one were looking to validate these theories against a
diverse group of cultures, they would not apply.
Researchers Arnolds and Boshoff (2002), conducted an empirical assessment of
Alderfer’s ERG theory. Results indicated that growth needs were significantly related to
20
employee satisfaction but failed to show significant influence for existence needs and relatedness
needs. Results implicate that motivation and job performance of managers can be increased by
enhancing the satisfaction of their growth needs. The existence and relatedness needs were found
not to motivate managers in this study. But growth need satisfaction had no influence on
performance and motivation of frontline employees, whereas pay (existence need) did motivate
frontline employees.
ERG theory has not generated very much research and has had mixed results in being
validated empirically; although this is the case, needs theories remain popular because they offer
easy and simple explanations of human behavior (Ivancevich et al., 2008; Salancik & Pfeffer,
1977). Measurement of this theory also proved to be difficult because one would need to spend a
great deal of time evaluating the individual to know what motivates him/her and then determine
what needs are most important to that individual(Ivancevich et al., 2008).This theory relates to
employee motivation, because if an employee’s higher order needs are being blocked by
organizational barriers, then it is the manager’s responsibility to redirect the employee’s efforts
toward relatedness or existence needs (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
Another popular content theory is Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory (as cited in Jex & Britt,
2008), also known as the motivator-hygiene theory, which argues that the content of an
employee’s job is the primary source of motivation rather than compensation, and that hygiene
factors (e.g., job security, working conditions, job policies, pay and relationships with co-
workers) can only reduce employee dissatisfaction and cannot create satisfaction, whereas
motivation factors (e.g., work itself, challenge of work, responsibility, recognition, autonomy,
intrinsic interest) can increase satisfaction (Jex & Britt, 2008). These motivators are linked to the
nature of the job itself and motivate the employee through intrinsic motivation (Ivancevich et al.,
21
2008). The Gallup Organization conducted a study that provided strong support for Herzberg’s
separation of satisfaction and dissatisfaction onto two separate scales (Buckingham & Coffman,
1999). In this study, Buckingham and Coffman (1999) identified 12 questions that provide a
framework for determining high-performing individuals and organizations. These questions align
with Herzberg’s motivation factors, while hygiene factors were determined to have little effect
on motivating high performance. According to Herzberg’s theory, leaders should design an
employee’s job to meet motivation factors that are intrinsically rewarding, but this assertion has
not been supported strongly by previous research (Jex & Britt, 2008).
Unlike Maslow’s and ERG theories, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory can be applied to
employees in a majority of countries and cultures due to studies and reports from several
researchers. Researchers have also critiqued Herzberg’s theory and uncovered some potential
weaknesses: (a) researchers believe this theory oversimplifies the description of job satisfaction;
(b) the methodology has been critiqued because it requires the individual to reflect inwards,
instead of using a comprehensive measurement of satisfaction; (c) researchers have also
highlighted that this theory has had little testing on the motivational and performance outcomes;
(d) the initial study used self-reports of performance exclusively; and (e) the study participants
included factory workers only (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
The last content theory to be discussed is McClelland’s Learned Needs Theory, which
delineates three needs learned and acquired from culture: (a) the need for achievement, which
includes setting challenging goals, working hard to achieve goals, and asking for feedback on
performance; (b) the need for affiliation, which is the desire to interact socially with other
employees; and (c) the need for power, where the employee is more concerned about gaining and
exercising power and authority over others. McClelland argued that when an employee’s need is
22
strong, he/she will be motivated to act with behaviors that lead to satisfaction. Because needs are
learned, these behaviors that are encouraged and rewarded, which then leads to the behaviors
increasing in regularity (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
More research is needed on McClelland’s theory to determine whether acquired needs
last over a period of time. McClelland used a projective psychological personality test (the
Thematic Apperception Test [TAT]) to determine the level of individual needs, and researchers
question the scientific validity of this instrument. It was also believed that through training and
development programs, managers could increase their need for achievement (Ivancevich et al.,
2008). Unlike Maslow and Alderfer’s theories, McClelland believed that needs were not innate,
but learned at a young age, and could also be developed in individuals. Maslow, Alderfer, and
McClelland’s theories are called into question when applying to diverse cultures. For
McClelland’s theory specifically, differences in cultures play a significant role in how
achievement is perceived, and the theory does not account for this. Some cultures view failure as
a learning experience that helps an individual grow, whereas other cultures focus on the negative
side of failing to achieve.
McClelland stated that the most powerful motivational factor is the need for achievement.
This achievement needs to be reinforced externally through recognition. Effective feedback gives
an employee a sense of value that helps reinforce desirable behaviors, but it also helps redirect
behaviors that are not working effectively in order to achieve an employee’s goals. Feedback is
crucial in the motivation process; employees have a need for accomplishment in order to be
motivated to perform at a higher level. The leader’s feedback can provide the environment where
the employee can be self-motivated.

23
Maslow, Alderfer, Herzberg, and McClelland each attempted to clarify how behavior
drives motivation from a different perspective. These four theories have neither been fully
validated by researchers nor accepted as explanations for employee motivation. Maslow’s theory
describes a fixed needs hierarchy; Herzberg explained his theory in terms of intrinsic and
extrinsic job factors; Alderfer’s theory, although similar to Maslow’s, used a three-tiered
hierarchy that offered a more flexible approach; McClelland’s needs theory asserted that needs
were learned socially (Ivancevich et al., 2008). All theories focus more on the needs that cause
behavior while attempting to determine which specific factors motivate an individual. Each of
these content needs theories led to a great deal of research and interest in employee motivation. A
great deal of historical research has yielded intriguing findings, but without scientific proof and
validity, these theories cannot be applied in the workplace without being challenged.
Process approach theories. Process approach theories differ from content theories in
that the goal is to understand how an individual’s behavior is motivated, controlled, continued,
and ended. The first theory to be explained is Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, which states that
employees will work harder and want to be successful in their performance if they perceive their
efforts will result in not only successful performance, but also anticipated outcomes and rewards
(Jex & Britt, 2008; Lawler & Jenkins, 1992). In Vroom’s theory of motivation, behaviors are
considered to be voluntary and in the individual’s control. The motivation comes from the
anticipated rewards; therefore, if an employee forecasts a higher chance that he/she can achieve a
behavior and that behavior will result in a valued outcome, then the employee will focus his/her
efforts in that direction (Jex & Britt, 2008). Overall, Vroom’s theory of motivation includes three
parts: (a) the employee’s expectancy that effort will lead to the intended performance,
24
(b) instrumentality of the performance in achieving a definite result, and (c) the appeal of the
result (valence) to the employee (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
Many studies have tested expectancy theory’s to predict employee behavior; these tests
have supported the theory and shown a higher validity than most organizational behavior theories
(Ivancevich et al., 2008). One drawback of this theory is that it relies on rewards and the
individual’s perception of the reward for motivation. However, it does not take into account other
factors of motivation when employees can be motivated by other factors. There are many
occasions in work environments when employees work hard even if they aren’t sure if the
outcome will lead to a reward. Moreover, although expectancy theory is well known in the work
motivation literature, this theory is not familiar to leaders outside of the field. To increase
employee motivation, managers should use systems that link rewards closely to performance;
these rewards should be deserved and desired by employees (Montana & Charnov, 2008).
Another process theory is equity theory (Ivancevich et al., 2008), which explains how an
employee’s perception of how fairly he/she is treated at work can influence his/her motivation.
The employee will compare his/her efforts and rewards received to those of co-workers; he/she
will then seek to achieve a balance between his/her efforts and received rewards. Therefore, this
theory asserts that employees’ motivation is driven by being equitably treated at work. If an
employee perceives that his/her leader is rewarding a fellow employee differently, the employee
who feels he/she is treated unfairly will seek to adjust his/her behavior or change his/her
perception of the situation. More specifically, there are six ways an employee can restore equity
in such a situation: (a) changing inputs, such as by putting less effort into work; (b) changing
outcomes, such as by asking for a raise; (c) changing attitudes, such as by convincing oneself
there is not a difference because although the others get paid more, one enjoys one’s projects
25
more and therefore the money is less important than one’s outcome; (d) changing the reference
person to someone who has received equity similar; (e) changing the inputs or outcomes of the
reference person; or (f) deciding to leave one’s job altogether (Ivancevich et al., 2008). If the
employee is able to create or sustain equilibrium, he/she will be more satisfied and motivated
(Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Additionally, there are three types of fairness perceptions within
organizational settings: First, there is distributive justice, which is the perceived equality of an
individual’s outcomes (e.g., how resources and rewards are distributed throughout an
organization). Second, there is procedural justice, which refers to the fairness of the procedures
used to determine one’s outcomes. Lastly, there is organizational justice, which describes how
fairly an individual feels he/she is being treated in the workplace (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
The research on equity theory has been limited because it has focused exclusively on pay
as the basic outcome and on work situations (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Many other fairness and
equitable factors could be involved in the workplace: how well a manager treats employees,
workload given, promotions, resources needed, etc. Equity theory has been applied by Industrial
Organizational Psychologists in business environments, but there have been some criticisms of
the theory. It has been suggested that model is too simple, whereas people’s demographics and
psychological variable are more complex and affect employees’ perceptions of fairness and
interactions with co-workers (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978). Additionally, most of the research has
been done in laboratory environments, which calls into question whether the results would be the
same in the real world work environment (Huseman, Hartfield & Miles, 1987). Another issue to
be considered is whether the comparison person is inside or outside the organization, as well as
the fact that that person could change during the employee’s work career. Regardless of the
26
limitations listed, this theory could be a helpful model in explaining employees’ attitudes about
pay (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
The last process approach to motivation is goal setting. A goal is a specific objective that
an employee is trying to achieve (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Goal setting helps employees drive
their actions and behaviors until they have accomplished their goal. Psychologist Edwin Locke
(as cited in Jex & Britt, 2008) offered several explanations as to why goals are motivating; they
help to focus attention and lead behavior and also help in task persistence and development of
approaches to accomplish goals. Locke also used goal difficulty, goal specificity, and goal
intensity to explain goal setting. Goal specificity is the degree of clarity on the goal, goal
difficulty is the degree of skill or the level of goal performance that is being pursued, and goal
intensity is the process of setting a goal and deciding on how to achieve it. It is important that
goals are clear, meaningful, and challenging. When an employee is unable to complete and
accomplish a goal, he/she will experience a feeling of dissatisfaction (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
Feedback in goal setting is critical for an employee’s success, as it helps to keep him/her focused
and reinforces the behaviors to achieve the goal or supports changes needed in order for him/her
to achieve his/her goal as well (Jex & Britt, 2008).
Empirical studies of both management and students have shown support for goal setting
theory, as well as for the assertion that conscious specific goals regulate behavior (Ivancevich et
al., 2008). Through research, it has been determined that specific goals will lead to a greater
result than vague goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). One area that still needs additional research is
how involved an employee should be in goal setting and what is an optimal level of participation.
Also, individual differences in areas such as personality, training, career development, can have
an impact on goal setting success (Ivancevich et al., 2008).

27
Process theories have a more specific position in comparison to content theories, which
focus on the orientation and characteristics of the individual. Expectancy theory puts emphasis
on the individual, job, and environmental factors, while also acknowledging the differences
among needs, perceptions, and beliefs. Equity theory emphasizes the employee comparing their
work inputs and outputs with co-workers in similar work situations. In contrast, goal-setting
theory emphasizes a tangible action an employee needs to achieve, which leads to motivation.
Content theories have had a profound effect on motivational research. However, these
content theories are weak in comparison to the testing, support, and validation of process
theories. Some implications of content theories are:
1. If specific needs elicit preferred behaviors, how does one identify these needs?
2. If meaningful rewards help individuals satisfy needs, how can one understand these
needs to maximize the motivational impact of programs designed by organizations?
3. If offering appropriate rewards can optimize performance, how can one ensure that
the rewards offered are appropriate?
4. If needs can change based on experiences, life events, and other factors, then how can
organizations design programs to satisfy these changing needs?
There are also some issues with the process theories of motivation: (a) equity is based on
pay as a primary driver; (b) goal-setting theory fails to take into account other motivational
factors and often time’s individual contributors don’t have specific work goals; and (c)
expectancy theory relies on rewards to drive motivation. These process theories fail to take into
account individual differences in motivation. It is clear that there has been quite a bit of research
and theories developed on motivation. Neuroleadership has examined some of these theories and
applied it to the Neuroleadership field and studies of the brain.

28
The Role of Leadership in Motivation
Leadership has been defined as a social influence process in an organizational
environment (Ivancevich et al., 2008) where one person can recruit the help and support of
others in order to accomplish a common work task (Chemers, 1997). In other words, leadership
can be explained as organizing a group of employees, creating effects that are meaningful and
that have an impact on achieving a larger challenging goal (Ivancevich et al., 2008; Kirkpatrick
& Locke, 1991).
Leadership success is dependent on a leader’s ability to motivate employees toward
following and achieving a collective goal, mission, or vision (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper,
1998). Leaders help employees work hard at achieving their goals. An effective leader must have
a basic knowledge of motivational factors, theories, and models. Leaders must also have a basic
understanding of employee needs. Leaders can motivate their employees in many different ways:
rewards and punishments, role modeling, coaching, providing feedback, using leadership styles
known to be effective (e.g., charismatic leadership), assessing employee needs, helping
employees set and achieve goals, increasing team morale, helping to develop employees, being
empathetic, and making the job meaningful and challenging. However, it is important to
determine the most effective ways of motivating employees and adopt a leadership style that can
enhance motivation.
Leadership Styles
Although there are many different leadership styles, effective leaders share common
characteristics: (a) they provide direction and meaning to the people they are leading, reminding
them of what is important and why what they are doing makes a difference; (b) they generate
trust; (c) they favor action and risk taking; and (d) they are sources of hope, reinforcing the belief
29
that success can and will be attained (Bennis, 1997). Four well-known leadership styles
reviewed in this chapter are situational leadership, transactional leadership, transformational
leadership, and charismatic leadership.
Situational leadership theory (SLT). Hersey and Blanchard (1969) stated that the most
effective leaders would adapt their leadership style to their employees’ ability and maturity.
Successful leaders adapt their style to the type of job or task that needs to be accomplished
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). They categorized leaders into four types: S1 is categorized as
telling, involving one-way communication in which the leader defines the employees’ roles
(what to do, and how, when, and where to do the task); S2 is described as selling, in which the
leader still provides direction, but uses two-way communication and provides support for the
employee to buy into the process; S3 is characterized as participating, which involves shared
decision-making, allowing the employee to decide the task behaviors; and S4 is described as
delegating, in which the leader is involved in decisions, but the process and responsibility lie
with the employee. There are also four maturity levels of employees: in M1 level, the employee
is unable to do the task and insecure about his/her abilities; M2 level refers to those who are
willing to do the task but are unable to do so; M3 level refers to employees who are capable but
unwilling because they lack confidence; and M4 level refers to employees who are very capable
and confident in their ability to do the task or job (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). A successful
situational leader selects a style that matches the maturity level of the employee. For example, if
the employee has an M3 level of maturity, then the situational leader adapts an S3 style.
Hersey and Blanchard (1969) proposed that leadership capability relies on the leader’s
ability to alter his/her behavior to the situation and employee. This assertion builds on earlier
Ohio and Michigan studies (Ivancevich et al., 2008) regarding task and relation behaviors
30
(directing and supporting leadership styles). Since the Ohio and Michigan studies, empirical
testing of SLT has been sparse. Since then, many researchers have tried to test and validate the
SLT theory with many results that did not support Hersey and Blanchard’s assumptions (Blank,
Weitzel, & Green, 1990). Researchers from the University of Alabama conducted an empirical
test on Hersey and Blanchard’s work to further examine this theory. Their cross-sectional study
tested the effects of leadership style and employee readiness on perceptions and attitudes. Their
study indicated that all variables are at least moderately associated; however, these correlations
require further analysis. The results were stable across all of their subject groups, across
readiness level subgroups, and when different types of analyses were used (Goodson, McGee &
Cashman, 2009). SLT’s major proposition (the interaction between leader behavior and employee
readiness) was supported. However, Yukl (1989) argued that Hersey and Blanchard supplied
little evidence to back their theory, and the SLT study also failed to support its use as a
conventional tool for leader training (Goodson et al., 2009).
The strength of the situational leadership style is that it focuses on leadership in different
situations and adapting the style accordingly. This is important for real-world application because
leadership should be based on the individual employee. There have been some criticisms of the
situational leadership style, first being that testing of this model has been limited and has failed
to provide significant evidence (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Is this approach actually valid? Does
this leadership style motivate employees? Does this style impact performance? Is this approach
more or less impactful than other leadership theories? Additionally, this leadership style requires
that a leader change or adapt their style to fit an employee. The question that needed to be
researched and validated is, Are people in leadership positions adaptable?

31
Transactional leadership. Transactional leaders help the employee identify what needs
be done to achieve the desired results and makes sure that employees have the resources required
to complete the job. Additionally, they take into account employees’ self-concept and self-esteem
needs (Ivancevich et al., 2008), use rewards, and only get involved when goals are not being
achieved (House, Hanges, Javiden, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Employees working under a
transactional leader will show an increased level of performance and satisfaction because they
accomplish objectives that will lead to receiving desired rewards. Transactional leaders usually
try to maintain success, not change the future (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
A national sample of U.S. employees revealed an interesting find; only 22% of the
employees perceived a direct association between how hard they worked and how much pay they
received. Employees believe there is a connection between their jobs and pay, but according to
this survey they believe good pay is not dependent upon good performance (House et al., 2004;
Ivancevich et al., 2008). This finding creates an issue with transactional leadership; leaders could
potentially be giving rewards, but if the employee does not perceive them to be meaningful or
important, it creates a discrepancy (Ivancevich et al., 2008).
There are some limitations of this theory, the first being that pay and rewards are the
primary motivational factor. Monetary rewards will only be a short-term influence on motivation
in comparison to using other motivational approaches. Pay and rewards should be used in
conjunction with other leadership actions for a prolonged effect on employee motivation.
Another limitation is that this theory does not grow employees, but only maintains performance.
There are no efforts on behalf of the leader to help an employee grow and develop their skills
and abilities to have an influence on motivation and performance. The leader’s primary focus is
to identify what needs to be done to accomplish results and resources needed. The last limitation
32
of this theory is that rewards provided by leaders are not always considered meaningful or
important by employees (Ivancevich et al., 2008). For example, the employee could have been
giving a gift card which the employee takes as insincere or perhaps they don’t even shop at the
location where the gift card is intended for.
Transformational leadership. This leadership style motivates employees to work for
goals instead of short-term interests. These leaders also encourage employees to work for
achievement and self-actualization instead of security. Unlike transactional leadership,
transformational leaders’ rewards are internal (Ivancevich et al., 2008). These leaders stimulate
employees’ interest to perceive their work from different and new perspectives, generate
awareness of the organization’s vision, develop their employees to grow their ability and achieve
their full potential, and inspire employees work to benefit the group rather than their own self-
interest (McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008). Leaders want employees to work hard in order to achieve
their goals; this then motivates employees, which is turn are self-rewarding. Transformational
leaders believe in making major changes to achieve their vision (Ivancevich et al., 2008). The
key behaviors of transformational leaders are: empowerment, role modeling, creating a vision,
acting as change agents, and making the norms and values clear to all (McLaurin & Al Amri,
2008).
Bass (1985) identified five factors that explain how transformational leaders transform
and motivate their employees: (a) charisma, (b) individualized consideration, (c) intellectual
stimulation, (d) contingent rewards, and (e) management by exception. Via charisma, which is
also referred to as idealized influence, the leader is able to impart a sense of admiration, value,
and pride to articulate a vision. In idealized influence, the leader acts as a role model gains the
trust of his/her employees. Individualized consideration is the individual attention to each

33
employee; the leader pays attention to employees’ needs and assigns meaningful work so the
employees develop. The leader becomes a mentor or coach to the employees by listening to their
concerns and needs and providing empathy and support. With individualized consideration, the
leader will instill the belief that the individual employee can make contributions to the team,
creating a drive for success and intrinsic motivation for his/her work. Intellectual stimulation
involves challenging the status quo, taking risks, and asking for employees’ input. The leader
encourages individual employees to be creative and think outside of rational ways and norms;
most crucial is that employees think independently. Then there are contingent rewards, in which
the leader tells employees what they need to do to obtain rewards that they prefer. Lastly, in
management by exception, the leader will only intervene when goals are not being achieved
within a reasonable time.
There have been a few limitations and concerns regarding Transformational Leadership
over time. A great deal of testing and empirical research around transformational leadership has
used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which has problems regarding multicollinearity
and lower than desired reliability (Bass, 1999). There have been issues raised around the
definitions of the sub-dimensions of the model, for example, charisma and inspirational
motivation have become obscured (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004; Barbuto, 1997). The variety of
behaviors included by individualized deliberation have been identified as problematic (Rafferty
& Griffin, 2004; Yukl, 1999). The issues, as mentioned above, mean that empirical research has
provided mixed support for the distinction of components in the transformational model
(Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). Research has not provided conclusive evidence in support of the
transformational leadership model due to the contradictory evidence that has been stated
concerning the factor structure of the model; and very strong relationships have been reported
34
among the leadership factors (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004; Tepper & Percy, 1994). Inconsistent
evidence has been reported related to the factor structure of the model (Avolio, Bass, & Jung,
1999). Some of the other criticisms of this theory include that this theory lacks clarity, and
leadership is treated as a personality trait (McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008).
Charismatic leadership. Without exceptional leaders, companies would not reach their
full potential for success. These leaders play a key role in making crucial changes and in leading
employees to be successful in their work roles. Having a motivated workforce should be a
primary concern to organizations, and this responsibility falls on the companies’ leaders.
Charisma is an important characteristic for leaders who want to motivate their employees.
Although there are many similarities between this style and transformational leadership,
they are distinct. Charisma is one element of transformational leadership, whereas it is the main
component of charismatic leadership (McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008). Both theories describe the
leader as one who inspires employees to give their best effort when working toward goals and
who brings energy and excitement to employees. Both leaders articulate a compelling vision of
the future and influence employees by stimulating strong emotions in support of the vision.
Charismatic leaders do more to nourish their image among employees and display extraordinary
confidence. Transformational leaders can be found more often in organizations, but charismatic
leaders are rare. Charisma is a necessary component of transformational leadership, but a leader
can be charismatic and not transformational. Transformational leaders delegate authority,
develop employees’ skills and self-confidence, and build a culture for self-initiative. Bass (1997)
claimed that studies on both transformational and charismatic leadership have failed to show that
either is a better style (Green, Odom, Bearden & Bazar, 2003; McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008).
35
Charismatic leaders are said to have high self-confidence, possess a clear vision, engage
in unconventional behavior, and act as change agents while also remaining realistic about
environmental constraints (McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008). A leader with charisma is said to
provoke strong positive emotions, influence others, and possess the ability to impact the beliefs
and influence the behaviors of his/her employees because he/she is inspirational and enthusiastic
(McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008; Zaleznik, 1989). Charisma is a specific leadership quality that
affects followers; employees perceive it as desirable and therefore are willing to follow that
leader, sometimes unconditionally (Aleksic, Babic, & Eric, 2012). Charisma is a leadership trait
that empowers employees and impacts team cooperation and innovation (Davidhizar, 1993). A
charismatic leader creates an environment of motivation based on followers’ emotional
commitment to and identity aligned with his/her vision, philosophy, and style (Ivancevich et al.,
2008). Weber dictionary defined charismatic leadership as “resting on devotion to the
exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the
normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him” (“Charismatic Authority”, n.d., p.215).
Charismatic leaders differ from other leaders because of their ability to articulate an inspirational
vision and by demonstrating actions that create an impression that they and their mission are
profound (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Charisma is often established in a crisis when a leader
with specific personal characteristics and a radical vision arises, offering a solution and enticing
employees to believe in his/her extraordinary abilities. Charismatic leaders destroy old
organizational frameworks and re-establish new frameworks, resulting in transformation and
identification with charismatic leadership. Sometimes a crisis may not actually exist, but the
leader can generate a feeling of dissatisfaction with the current situation while at the same time
offering an opportunity to solve it in an unconventional way (Aleksic et al., 2012).

36
Charismatic leaders can have a substantial positive impact and influence their employees’
motivation, job satisfaction, and performance (Crant & Bateman, 2000; House & Howell, 1992).
Employees perceive these types of leaders as possessing superhuman qualities and
unconditionally accept their mission and directives for action (Willner, 1984). Such leaders’
influence comes from their values, personality characteristics, and behavior, as well as followers’
attributions (Sosik, 2005). Certain personality traits that differentiate charismatic leaders from
non-charismatic leaders, including pro-social assertiveness, risk-seeking propensity, self-
confidence, creativity and innovation, social sensitivity, sensitivity to every employee’s needs
(House & Howell, 1992), and dominant and extraverted personality traits (Sosik, 2005). House
and Baetz (1979) also stated that charismatic leaders are likely to engage in impression
management behaviors, create an image of competence, lead by example so they are role models,
and set high expectations for employees’ performance. Charismatic leaders often influence
environmental change, identify opportunities and act on them, take initiative, and persist until
they make significant change. These types of leaders will change the company’s mission, identify
and solve problems, and make an impact on the world around them (Crant & Bateman, 2000).
These are all attributes typically demonstrated by charismatic leaders.
Although there are many traits and factors of a charismatic leader, the following four are
vital:
1. Self-esteem. Having positive self-regard is the most important trait of a successful
leader (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). This type of leader radiates confidence and passion.
Employees want to follow a leader who has confidence in his/her own ability and
plans/goals for the organization. Employees also observe other factors as related to a
leader’s self-esteem, such as the remarks he/she makes about himself/herself and
37
others; his/her nonverbal behavior, eye contact, and posture; and his/her attitudes
toward others (Davidhizar, 1993).
2. Ability to focus on people. A charismatic leader is focused on people and visibly
focuses on employees’ human needs. As leaders, they are skilled in creating
constructive participation in decision-making and problem solving with their
employees. Their vision of the future is focused on human needs being met along
with organizational needs (Davidhizar, 1993).
3. Having a vision. The vision gives employees something to work for and to which
they can commit themselves. The vision allows individuals to see beyond the present
and gives them a purpose that requires extra effort (Davidhizar, 1993).
4. Promoting the vision. First, this type of leader needs to be able to promote the vision
by identifying the problem and offering creative ideas and solutions. He/she is able to
clearly communicate the vision but must also be able to overcome resistance by
responding to employees’ emotions. They need to be able to also implement the
vision by overcoming all obstacles (Davidhizar, 1993).
The amount of charismatic leadership exhibited and its effects on employees may be
intensified depending on the significance and strength of the leader’s personal value system.
Values signify concepts or beliefs about desirable end-states or behaviors that transcend specific
situations, or evaluation of behavior and events, and are ordered by importance (Sosik, 2005).
Values represent concepts about what ought to be, and have both content and intensity attributes;
the content represents what is important, whereas the intensity identifies how important the value
is. Values are strong motivational forces that influence an individual’s behavior (Meglino &
Ravlin, 1998; Sosik, 2005). House (1977) suggested that charismatic leaders model their value
38
system by exhibiting symbolic behaviors that imitate the values inherent in their vision. These
leaders demonstrate behaviors that replicate their employees’ values and engage in symbolic
behaviors aimed at bringing the employees’ values into alignment with the leader’s personal
values (Sosik, 2005).
Shamir (1990) suggested that values can be adopted by an employee and influence their
behavior internally. These values give employees meaning that will help to rationalize their
behavior (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Sosik, 2005) and increase motivation. The greater the
intensity of the value, the greater the chance that the value is internalized (Shamir, 1990). Intense
values put forth motivational influence through their affiliation with established and anticipated
sanctions and social rewards (Sosik, 2005). In order for the value to influence employee
motivation, the employee must first perceive the value as meaningful (Shamir, 1990). This will
require the leader to find out how to make the value meaningful for each individual employee in
order to yield a successful increase in motivation.
Conger and Kanungo (1998) introduced their behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in 1987. According to their model, charismatic leadership is based on the leader behaviors, but it
also relies on the attributions and perceptions of their employees. This model proposed that
employees validate individuals as leaders through a three-stage behavioral process:
(a) environmental analysis, (b) future visions, and (c) achieving the vision. Via environmental
analysis, the leader assesses the status quo to determine the employees’ needs, assesses the
resources that are available within the organization, and articulates a persuasive argument to
stimulate employee interest. Future vision involves the leader articulating a vision of the future
that will motivate employee action to accomplish goals that are influential in fulfilling the vision.
That vision creates employee recognition and affection for the leader because the vision
39
represents a future state that employee’s value. In achieving the vision, leaders demonstrate self-
confidence and competency, signifying that the vision is attainable. Leaders use unconventional
means and expertise to motivate action and demonstrate how goals can be achieved. They serve
as role models to encourage employee action. This three-stage process is hypothesized to
produce high trust in the leader and employee performance that helps the organization to
accomplish its goals.
Conger and Kanungo (1998) stated that this process include five behaviors that can be
measured (Conger Kanungo Scale): (a) environmental sensitivity, (b) strategic vision and
articulation, (c) sensitivity to employee needs, (d) personal risk, and (e) unconventional behavior.
Environmental sensitivity means that the leader is able to identify constraints in the: physical
environment, organization’s social and cultural environment, ability and skills of employees in
the organization, and limitations of employees in the organization. Strategic vision and
articulation means that the leader: provides inspirational strategic and organizational goals, is
able to motivate by articulating the significance of what employees are doing, produces new
ideas for the future, has a vision and can communicate the ideas and possibilities about the
future, and identifies and takes new opportunities to achieve goals. Sensitivity to employee
needs: includes the ability to influence employees by developing reciprocated liking and respect,
demonstrates sensitivity for employees’ needs and feelings, and communicates concern for
employees’ needs and feelings. In terms of personal risk, the leader is able to take high risks for
the organization and takes personal risks when pursuing organizational goals. Lastly, for
unconventional behavior, the leader engages in unconventional behavior to attain goals, uses
nontraditional means to accomplish goals, and demonstrates unique behavior that may shock
40
employees in the organization. These five behavioral dimensions are what make a leader
charismatic.
Attributional approach to charismatic leadership. Charisma is an attributional
phenomenon. When employees work to achieve group objectives, observation of influence
within the group helps them decide their status. The person who exerts maximum power over
other people is perceived as a leader, which is then recognized by the group of employees.
Charisma is an attribution made by employees who observe certain behaviors in their leader.
Employees can interpret the leader’s observed behavior in the organization as charismatic
qualities. Such dispositional attributes are implied from the leader’s observed behavior (Conger
& Kanungo, 1987).
Attribution theory describes a process by which individuals attempt to explain the reason
for events; it is the perceived causes of events, not the actual events themselves, that influence
one’s behavior. An individual will try to analyze an event to determine why it occurred; the
results of that analysis will influence his/her behavior in the future (Ivancevich et al., 2008). An
individual examines three factors to make attributions to external or internal factors:
(a) distinctiveness, which is the degree to which an individual behaves the same way in different
types of situations; (b) consistency, or the degree to which an individual behaves the same way
when faced with the same set of circumstances; and (c) consensus, or the degree to which other
people, if in the same situation, would behave similarly to the individual (Kelley & Michela,
1980). If an individual exhibits the same behavior in a variety of contexts, then distinctiveness is
low; if an individual acts the same way in the same type of situation, consistency is high; if
others behave differently in that type of situation, then consensus is low. Therefore, if
41
consistency is high, distinctiveness is low, and consensus is low, then the individual will perceive
and attribute the cause of behavior to internal factors.
Attribution theories have important applications in the context of leadership. Attribution
of charisma to leaders depends on four variables: (a) the degree of difference between the status
quo and the future vision supported by the leader, (b) the use of innovative and unconventional
methods for achieving change, (c) an accurate analysis of environmental resources and restraints
for bringing about change, and (d) articulation and impression management used to inspire
employees in the pursuit of the vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1987).
Employee perceptions of their leaders as charismatic are influenced by attributional
processes. Positive perceptions help leaders obtain power and help leaders to execute tasks
effectively. Due to the employees’ positive perceptions of the leader, employees will be more
likely to follow leader decisions and increase their organizational commitment (Ensari &
Murphy, 2003; Pfeffer, 1977). In order for leaders to be perceived as charismatic, employees
must make a cognitive attribution (Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Lord & Maher, 1993), meaning the
employees perceptions are established by leader’s traits (Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Lord, De
Vader, & Alliger, 1986) and the outcome of the situation (Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Meindl,
Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985). The employee must perceive a strong fit between the leader’s
characteristics and the notion of what a charismatic leader is, after which then that leader will be
classified as a charismatic leader and given recognition for positive work outcomes (Ensari &
Murphy, 2003; Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). Additionally, if there is a positive work outcome,
then an employee is more likely to perceive the leader as charismatic (Ensari & Murphy, 2003;
Shamir, 1992). This assertion aligns with Kelley’s (1973) attribution theory, which asserted that
when characteristics of a leader are fitting and consistent with a positive outcome, it provides a
42
rationalization for employees who will make attributions of charismatic behaviors to the leader
because they perceive them to be prototypical.
Self-concept theory of charismatic leadership. Another theory was proposed explaining
how leaders engage employees’ self-concepts. Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) argued that
certain assumptions underlie the motivational theories, stating that people are motivated to
sustain and improve their self-esteem and self-worth. A person’s “self-esteem is based on a sense
of competence, power, achievement or ability to cope with and control one’s environment”
(p. 580). A person’s self-worth is built on a sense of moral worth and virtue that is established by
one’s norms and values (Gecas, 1982). Individuals determine their self-worth and self-esteem
through self-evaluations, which are important in an individual’s intrinsic motivation. Self-
evaluations are based on one’s own performance, which leads to rewards and approval (Shamir
et al., 1993). Additionally, individuals are motivated to maintain and enhance their sense of self-
consistency. According to Turner (as cited in Shamir et al., 2003), “Self-consistency refers to
correspondence among components of the self-concept at a given time, to continuity of the self-
concept over time” (p. 580). People derive a sense of meaning from continuity among the past,
present, and projected future (McHugh, 1968) and from the consistency between their behavior
and self-concept (Gecas, 1982).
Arthur (1993) stated that charismatic leaders use their vision as a platform to involve
employees’ self-concept. Based on this theory, leaders have an extraordinary impact on
employees who are motivated by increased levels of self-esteem, self-worth, self-efficacy,
collective efficacy, identification with the leader, social identification, and value internalization.
Shamir et al. (2003) stated that these leaders affect employees as a result of a motivational
system and are persuaded by the leaders’ behaviors, which consist of giving an intellectual
43
reason for action, stressing a collective purpose, referring to historical accounts related to ideals,
emphasizing a collective purpose, referring to historical explanations linked to ideals, linking to
the self-worth and efficacy of employees, and conveying confidence that the employees are able
to fulfill the objectives. The self-concept based theory proposes that employees of charismatic
leaders have a commitment to the leader’s vision, put the group’s interest before their own,
display organizational citizenship behavior, find their work more meaningful, and therefore are
motivated and self-engaged (Bono & Judge, 2003; Shamir et al., 2003). This theory describes
three key ways that charismatic leaders increase employee motivation: (a) increasing employee
self-efficacy, (b) facilitating employee social identification with the work group, and (c) by
linking work values to employee values (Bono & Judge, 2003). In order to increase employee
self-efficacy, the leader must articulate a vision and communicate high expectations and
confidence in the employees’ ability to meet their expectations (Eden, 1992). The second way to
increase motivation is through social identification: the process by which an individual identifies
with a group, takes pride in belonging to that group, and sees membership in the group as
important to their identity. Leaders need to increase employee social identification with the work
group. The last component addresses the alignment of the employees’ values and their work
values; this alignment of values will create self-engagement at work because the employee feels
their work is more meaningful (Bono & Judge, 2003). Charismatic leaders are able to motivate
employees by appealing to shared ideals and moral values (Burns, 1978) while also raising
employee self-esteem, collective identity, and intrinsic value of the work (Shamir et al., 1993).
How do these leaders increase employees’ self-esteem and self-worth? Leaders improve
self-esteem by communicating high expectations while also expressing confidence that the
employee can meet those expectations (Shamir et al., 1993; Yukl, 1989). When the employee
44
successfully meets the expectations, his/her perceived self-efficacy (defined as one’s capability
to accomplish work performance), which is a major source of motivation, increases (Bandura,
1986; Shamir et al., 1993). Charismatic leaders increase employee self-worth through
highlighting the connection between effort and important values. Self-worth also increases self-
efficacy (Shamir et al., 1993). Charismatic leaders increase effort-accomplishment expectations
by improving employee self-esteem and self-worth (Shamir et al., 1993).
Shamir et al. (1993) proposed that charismatic leaders motivate their employees by
increasing the intrinsic valence of effort, increasing effort-accomplishment expectancies,
increasing the intrinsic valence of goal accomplishment, instilling faith in a better future, and
creating personal commitment. Charismatic leaders enhance their employees’ intrinsic
motivation by encouraging them to stand up and count in the organization. Charismatic leaders
use current their identities and highlight their distinctiveness of superiority. Leaders may also
generate new desirable social categories for the employees.
A charismatic leader enhances the intrinsic disposition of goal achievement through
communicating the vision and mission as well as the values and goals. If the goals are
meaningful and consistent with the employees’ self-concept, it will increase the employees’
accomplishment of these goals. If the charismatic leader demonstrates how the new or current
goals are consistent with the past and its future, it will increase the meaningfulness of the goals
and increases the self-consistency. These leaders also stress the importance of the goals in regard
to the group identity, connecting the employee to a larger system (Shamir et al., 1993).
The last important aspect of motivational influence is the charismatic leaders’ ability to
create a high level of personal unconditional commitment toward the vision, mission, or goals
(House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1993). Unconditional commitment is a motivational disposition to

45
persist in a role, relationship, or action and to continue efforts regardless of the balance of costs
and benefits. Doing so shows that an employee’s role or relationship becomes a component of
his/her self-concept (Shamir et al., 1993).
Based on this theory, House and Shamir (1993) proposed a seven-factor model of
leadership that included: (a) visionary behavior, (b) positive self-presentation, (c) empowering
behaviors, (d) risk taking and self-sacrificial behavior, (e) intellectual stimulation, (f) supportive
leader behavior, and (g) adaptive behavior.
Goal orientation and charismatic leadership. Conger and Kanungo discuss goal setting
in charismatic leadership, which is an important part of motivation. Charisma, coupled with goal
setting and ambitious goals, greatly impacts motivation. The goals that are executed by
employees create the context for their understanding and response to events or outcomes (Button
& Mathieu, 1996). Goal orientation is a continuum with performance goal orientation and
learning goal orientation (Button & Mathieu, 1996). Employees will have a tendency to favor
one over the other, but some individuals can by highly motivated by both goals (Button &
Mathieu, 1996). Learning goal orientation will generate greater perceived control over results
because it comes from the belief that the skills that impact results can be improved through effort
(Button & Mathieu, 1996). It is important that the goals that are encouraged by the charismatic
leader focus on learning goals instead of performance goals. This was also mentioned previously,
when discussing intrinsic motivation. Learning goals increase intrinsic motivation and learning
goals are part of the mastery component of intrinsic motivation (Pink, 2009). When employees
have a learning goal orientation and fail at a goal, they take this as a positive learning
opportunity and feel that this is beneficial feedback (Button & Mathieu, 1996). They act with
46
solution focus orientation and are able to maintain performance or improve future performance
(Button & Mathieu, 1996).
Additionally, Shamir et al. (1993; 2003) discuss the importance of charismatic leadership
influencing self-esteem and self-worth in employee motivation. Dweck and Leggett (1988)
proposed that each goal orientation leads to a different cause of self-esteem. For those with
learning goal orientation, self-esteem is improved by accomplishment or development, or
mastery of challenging tasks (Button & Mathieu, 1996). Those with performance goal
orientation and self-esteem are improved by performance free of errors and performance that is
superior to others (Button & Mathieu, 1996). Self-esteem is positively correlated with learning
goal orientation, which shields self-esteem from the negative effects of failure (Button &
Mathieu, 1996). Instead, failure signifies an opportunity to increase competence through extra
effort (Dweck, 1986; 1989). The alignment between charismatic leadership and goal orientation
is imperative for employee motivation.
Why charismatic leaders motivate their employees. Choi (2006) examined charismatic
leadership and its three core behavioral components that are used when interacting with and
motivating employees: envisioning, empathy and empowerment. The first behavior, envisioning,
includes sharing a big picture of the desired future state, which will allow employees to identify
with and get excited about the future. The formation and communication of a vision is one of the
most important characteristics of a charismatic leader. The vision will explain the ideal goals for
the company while also communicating the values that entice the employees (Conger &
Kanungo, 1998). When communicating the vision, the leader creates a sense of purpose and
intrinsic appeal for employees (Conger, 1989). The purpose of a charismatic leader’s visions are
to create change within the organization while going against the status quo, which makes the
47
charismatic leader inspiring and will more likely lead to employees following their vision.
Charismatic leaders make extremely convincing arguments by using metaphors, analogies, and
stories for their main ideas, which has a profound impact on employees. They show extreme
commitment to the vision while engaging in unconventional behavior, making personal
sacrifices, and communicating confidence in their employees to achieve the vision, thus inspiring
employees to adopt the vision and move toward the collective goal (Choi, 2006).
The second behavior that influences employee motivation is the leader’s empathy, which
refers to an individual’s ability to: recognize another person’s values, emotions, and motives
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990); understand that person’s perspective; and be sensitive to that person’s
needs (Choi, 2006). Charismatic leaders tend to show sensitivity to their employees’ needs and
emotions (Conger & Kanungo, 1998); these leaders focus their attention on what their employees
want and what is important to them (Pillai, Williams, Lowe, & Jung, 2003). Charismatic leaders
also share their employees’ feelings, which generates an emotional bond between them (Salovey
& Mayer, 1990) and creates a feeling of oneness with employees. Charismatic leaders want to
help their employees to recognize their objectives, so they take their employees’ interests into
account when making decisions (Choi, 2006).
The third behavioral component that influences charismatic leadership is empowerment
(Choi, 2006). According to Conger and Kanungo (1988), “Empowerment is a process which
leads to enhanced perceptions of self-efficacy among employees by identifying conditions that
foster a sense of powerlessness and removing them through both formal organizational practices
and informal techniques.”
Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one’s capability to perform work tasks with skill (Gist,
1987). Charismatic leaders influence employee empowerment by either delegating or sharing

48
power with employees, while also allowing employees to feel a sense of choice in their work and
outcomes at work (Choi, 2006). These lower level employees are being developed by increasing
their confidence as a result of making them feel powerful and capable (Choi, 2006; Tichy &
DeVanna, 1986); this empowerment enables employees to take an active orientation in their work
roles and become independent (Choi, 2006; Spreitzer, 1996). Charismatic leaders have several
techniques by which to empower their employees. One is that they structure goals and tasks so
that employees can easily experience success before moving on to more difficult tasks (Choi,
2006); the initial success increases self-efficacy in their task performance (Bandura, 1986).
Another technique occurs when charismatic leaders verbally persuade and recognize employees,
which increases employee confidence in their abilities (Conger, 1989). Lastly, charismatic
leaders can be role models by showing their ability in performing the same tasks as their
employees (Choi, 2006)In sum, the three behavioral components of charismatic leadership
(envisioning, empathy, and empowering) are the key behaviors that influence the motivational
effects of charismatic leaders on their employees (Choi, 2006).
Emotional process of charismatic leadership. Charismatic leaders also influence
employee motivation through emotional processes (Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, 2006), using intense
emotions to provoke comparable feelings in their employees (Conger & Kanungo, 1998) and
raise employees’ self-confidence (Shamir et al., 1993). Charismatic leaders are able to motivate
employees naturally through their own enthusiasm and energy, which then energizes their
employees (Ilies et al., 2006). Ilies et al. (2006) proposed that leaders transfer their emotions
through an interpersonal process of emotional contagion; emotions are infectious to employees
(Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). These positive emotions influence motivation by
49
affecting the amplitude, direction, and persistence components of motivation, also indirectly
through effects on self-efficacy and self-set goals (Ilies et al., 2006).
Cognitive process of charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership also influences
employee motivation through cognitive process. High quality visions that are clear, brief, future-
oriented, well communicated, and focused on growth are associated with business success (Ilies
et al., 2006). A vision is a description of overarching future idealized goals (Conger & Kanungo,
1998; Sashkin, 1986). Conger and Kanungo (1998) stated that creating a vision is a rational
process that includes an assessment of the current situation and environment, as well as an
expression of how the vision offers a solution to problems in the current status quo. Visions
provide employees with a cognitive map that constructs their activities and leads them to
challenging goals; these goals then increase motivation because employees want to perform well
due to the visions (Ilies et al., 2006).
Another motivational component of cognitive processes is learning. Employees seek a
higher level of learning under charismatic leaders. This could be because they are inspired to
achieve a high level of performance, so they want to further develop their skills and abilities
(Ilies et al., 2006). Charismatic leaders help to increase employees’ self-esteem and confidence,
which gives employees a safe space to learn and enhance their performance in new skills and
abilities.
The last cognitive process that will be discussed is goal setting and motivation. Goal
setting, as mentioned previously, leads to employee self-efficacy and self-set goals (Ilies et al.,
2006). The reason for this is because these goals will show that the leader has confidence in the
employee, which increases self-efficacy (Locke, 1997). Additionally, employees are more likely
to embrace their leader’s goals as their own if they feel the goals are realistic and desirable (Ilies
50
et al., 2006). Close alignment of the goal with the employees’ values will cause intrinsic
motivation, increasing employees’ intensity and persistence to achieve the goal (Ryan & Deci,
2000).
Summary
In conclusion, motivation is a process based on the interaction between the individual
employee and the environment. The motivation process determines how energy is used to satisfy
individual needs but also determines where resources such as time and energy are distributed to a
range of work tasks. Motivation is critical to organizational success and leaders are key in
motivating employees because they must know an employee’s needs in order to motivate him/her
within his/her work role. Needs-based theories explain why an individual must act but does not
specify why actions are chosen. Content approach theories focus on factors within an employee
that motivate his/her behavior, whereas process approach theories describe and analyze how
behavior is motivated and sustained.
Charismatic leaders successfully motivate their employees by appealing to shared ideals
and moral values, thereby increasing employee self-esteem, collective identity, and intrinsic
value of work. Employees follow charismatic leaders’ inspirational vision and goals even if they
go against the status quo because of the leader’s ability to motivate employees. Charismatic
leaders are different from other types of leaders because of their ability to articulate an
inspirational vision and by engaging in actions that create an impression that their mission is
profound. Charismatic leaders are known for the positive impact they have on their employees’
motivation and performance. Charisma is an attributional phenomenon; attributions are made by
employees who observe certain behaviors within their leader. The leader’s observed behavior
within the organization can be interpreted by employees as charismatic qualities. Attribution

51
theory is the process by which individuals attempt to explain the reason for events; it is the
perceived causes of events, not the actual events themselves, that influence one’s behavior.
Leadership is a complicated part of a manager’s job. The leaders expectation is to
accomplish tasks in the right manner, which requires trusting the team and having them follow
the leader’s vision and determining what work will be assigned to them (Manzoor, 2011). In
order for employees to follow the manager, they need to be motivated (Baldoni, 2005). It is the
required leadership behavior of the manager to raise the level of employee motivation (Manzoor,
2011; Rukhmani, Ramesh, & Jayakrishnan, 2010). Based on my argument that charismatic
leadership can increase employee motivation, I propose one of my hypotheses: Participants will
score higher on work motivation under the charismatic leadership condition in comparison to the
non-charismatic leadership condition (hypothesis 1).
Providing feedback effectively as a leader is also key in employee motivation. However,
it does not take a specific leadership style to provide feedback; this will be discussed further in
the next section.
Feedback and Motivation
Providing feedback to employees on their performance is one of the most essential tasks
for any leader. Giving and receiving feedback is often challenging for both leaders and
employees; most leaders are worried that any criticism will lead to feelings of hurt or anger, and
employees fear they will hear only negative feedback (Ringleb & Rock, 2008). Feedback is
defined as a process where individuals receive or give information about the past or present,
which then influences the same phenomenon in the present and future (“Feedback,” n.d.).
Feedback is defined as the actions taken by an employee’s manager to deliver information
concerning the employee’s task performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Feedback is generally
52
broken into two different types: positive and negative. Giving feedback alters one’s actions and
affects one’s behaviors; if one receives positive feedback, one feels a sense of reward or
recognition that reinforces one’s behavior and actions to continue. If one receives negative
feedback, one feels it as a punishment and will alter one’s actions in order to avoid feeling a
sense of punishment or discomfort. Often, leaders are unsure of how to provide feedback or the
best way to provide feedback that will lead to effective results. Feedback can tend to be
incorrect, skewed to be excessively critical or flattering, correct but hurtful, or unclear and of
little value in yielding anticipated behavioral change. It is also common for employees to
experience strong emotional reactions to both quantitative and qualitative feedback (Nowack,
2009).
As stated previously feedback can cause negative reactions, but there are also many
benefits of feedback for employees. When employees receive feedback about their work, the
feedback can be used to make specific changes in networking opportunities, skill development,
personal development, and job characteristics. If the feedback comes from a trusted source it can
result in noticeable changes and improvement (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Feedback helps to
increase employees’ learning and knowledge, especially if their performance needs
improvement, and they can take action to help improve their task performance (Belschak & Den
Hartog, 2009). Feedback is imperative for employee improvement and development; one cannot
change unless he/she knows and understands the problem and has an action plan to help him/her
change his/her current behavior to the desired behavior. Most often, employees want to know
how they are doing on the job, how they can make modifications to perform better, and how their
coworkers perceive them (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Ultimately, the goal of feedback is to increase
employee performance and benefit the employee overall.

53
As discussed previously, 40% of the time, performance gets worse after receiving
feedback, and 30% of the time it stays the same (D. Felicitas, personal communication, January
10, 2012; Nowack, 2009). According to these statistics, it is essential for managers to understand
how employees process feedback (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Effective managers will give their
employees performance feedback regularly (Locke & Latham, 2002). Feedback impacts the
employees’ emotions first before affecting their behaviors and actions. Once the feedback has
affected the employees’ emotions, it then might alter their work attitudes and behavioral
objectives (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009). Research has shown that giving positive feedback to
employees will lead to positive emotions, such as pride and happiness. In contrast, negative
feedback will cause negative emotions, such as disappointment or guilt (Belschak & Den Hartog,
2009; Lazarus, 1991). When negative emotions arise in the employee as a result of receiving
feedback, behaviors to deal with the emotions take priority over other behaviors, which can
detract from an employee’s ability to focus on work behaviors (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009).
Negative or improper feedback can result in social and physical pain that leads to poor
performance. Neuroleadership is an emerging approach that focuses on the neurological impact
of pain on human brain and provides a new conceptual model for providing effective feedback.
Neuroleadership and Feedback
Neuroleadership is an emerging field of study that links neuroscience with leadership and
feedback. It helps organizations and individuals better understand how the human brain functions
and helps leaders understand how best to provide feedback and become more effective based on
neuroscience research.
Eisenberger and Liberman’s (2004) popular Neuroleadership study focused on what
happens in the brain when people feel rejected by others. Her experiment was designed with a
54
computer game called Cyberball that participants played while having their brains scanned by an
fMRI machine. These participants played virtual catch with two other players and were told that
they were playing with other participants in the study. In reality, that participant was playing with
a computer (avatar) and not an actual person. Halfway through the experiment, the two fictitious
avatar (computer) players eventually started to exclude the participant from the game of catch. It
showed that the same part of the brain that experiences physical pain experienced social pain as
well. The study found that people experience social pain as they experience physical pain; this
was hypothesized because both social and physical pain are needed for an evolutionary
mechanism because to any mammal pain is necessary for survival. Even after participants had
discovered that there were no human players involved, they still felt mad, rejected, or judged
(Rock, 2009), as if the other avatars excluded them because they didn’t like something about
them. Eisenberger (2004) stated,
We saw activity in the dorsal portion of the anterior cingulate cortex — the neural region
involved in the distressing component of pain, or what is sometimes referred to as the
“suffering” component of pain. Those people who felt the most rejected had the highest
levels of activity in this region. (p. 1)
Physical pain is “unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or
potential tissue damage” (Merskey & Bogduk, 1994, p.210). Social pain, in contrast, refers to
distressing experiences arising from the perception of actual or potential psychological distance
from others or a social group. In other words, both types of pain are used to identify cues that
might pose a threat to survival that requires immediate attention and coping resources to
minimize the threat (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004).

55
In their studies, Eisenberger and Lieberman found that when people feel rejected, they
suffer from social as well as physical pain. Therefore, certain types of feedback could cause
social pain, which act as physical pain within the brain (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004; Rock,
2009) because the brain experiences the workplace as a social system. People who feel betrayed
or unrecognized at work experience a neural impulse that causes pain and makes them less
motivated and engaged (Rock, 2009).
When an employee feels pain, he/she then operates in a threat and reward response, a
neurological mechanism that directs human behavior. Individuals in this state direct their efforts
toward decreasing (minimizing) danger and increasing (maximizing) reward; this is the primary
organizing principle of the brain. This response then triggers neurons in the human brain and
releases hormones as the person seeks to learn whether there will be a reward or a potential
threat (Rock, 2009). Although the approach (reward)-avoid (threat) responses are survival
mechanisms intended to help people stay alive by swiftly and easily remembering what is good
and bad in the environment (Rock, 2008), threats are mentally exhausting, use up oxygen and
glucose in the blood, divert energy from other areas of the brain, and lead to distraction (Rock,
2009). If a person perceives a threat, then “the amygdala is hijacked,” and he/she develops an
avoidance response leading to reduced analytical thinking, creative insight, problem solving, and
other mental capabilities (Rock & Schwartz, 2007, p. 12). “The amygdala, a small almond-
shaped object that is part of the limbic system, plays a central role in remembering whether
something should be approached or avoided” (Rock, 2008, p. 2). Threat responses occur in social
situations and are more intense and last longer than a reward response (Rock, 2009).
An example of how approach responses can positively impact employees is when a
leader makes an employee feel good about the work he/she does and clearly communicates
56
expectations, which then creates a reward response. The employee feels motivated, effective,
open to ideas, and more creative (Rock, 2009). Leaders who understand approach and avoid
responses can more effectively motivate and engage their employees.
The aforementioned research determined that there are five domains that can send an
employee into a threat or reward state. By keeping an employee in a reward state one can better
motivate the individual. The five particular domains that activate either threat or reward states in
the brain are: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. These domains can drive
employee engagement at work (Rock, 2009).
SCARF model. Human motivation driving social behavior is governed by the will to
minimize threat and maximize reward. From the Neuroleadership perspective, the human brain
will perceive feedback either as a threat or reward state depending on how the feedback is given
(Rock, 2008). As mentioned previously, the SCARF domains can trigger a threat or reward state.
Each domain will be discussed in this section. Those who are in a reward state are able to think
clearly; have better access to long term memory; are generally more creative; have more insights,
which are required for complex problem-solving; come up with more ideas for action; and have a
broader perspective on issues (D. Felicitas, personal communication, January 10, 2012).
Therefore, when a leader provides positive feedback and supports and praises the employee
genuinely, the employee is more motivated. In contrast, if they are in a state of threat, employees
will only be able to focus on the feedback and are deterred from functioning at a higher level,
which will then lead the individual to be unproductive, unmotivated, and unable to strive for
success at a high level. For example, if a leader provides negative feedback and diminishes an
employee, his/her brain releases cortisol, shuts down, and closes off to new ideas and any
motivation to change or work.

57
The brain domains can be articulated by using the word SCARF: status is the relative
importance to others, certainty is the ability to predict the future, autonomy is the sense of
control over events, relatedness is the sense of safety with others, and fairness is the perception
of fair exchanges (Rock, 2008). Each of these goals is briefly described subsequently.
Status (the S in SCARF model) occurs is in relation to other people (perceived status);
when one’s perceived status goes up, it activates reward circuitry (D. Felicitas, personal
communication, January 10, 2012). Status is defined as our relative importance to others. When
one’s leader says Can I give you some feedback? it decreases one’s feeling of status and one
starts fighting for one’s life because the person offering him/her advice shows superiority.
He/she is not listening at this point because his/her limbic system is aroused, so his/her ability to
think and give attention is hampered. When employees realize that they might be seen at a lower
status in comparison to someone else, the threat response releases cortisol and other stress
hormones within the brain (Rock, 2009). These status threats can occur relatively easy, such as
through giving advice or instructions or letting an employee know that he/she is somewhat
unsuccessful at a task (Rock, 2008). Performance reviews can send someone’s status into threat
as well; 360 reviews, unless designed very well, can be ineffective in changing behaviors.
Leaders can increase the perception of status by increasing the praise given to employees.
Recognizing them for learning and improving will increase status. Status can also be increased
when a leader can help their employees master a new skill, and then the organization recognizes
the employee for it (Rock, 2009). In regard to feedback, it is recommended that feedback be
given by the manager outside of the office or on the same side of the manager’s table (D.
Felicitas, personal communication, January 10, 2012), as perceived status will decrease if the
manager is sitting opposite of the employee.

58
The brain naturally craves certainty (the C in the SCARF model) since it is a prediction
machine. Certainty is defined as one’s ability to predict the future. When an employee is dealing
with a familiar situation, his/her brain is able to save energy and rely on their autopilot mode.
Dealing with an unfamiliar situation, project, or task can send that employee into threat mode
and registers as an error in the brain, and his/her working memory, performance, and
attention/focus is weakened because it requires extra neural energy. Mental capabilities will
continue to be weakened until the uncertainty is corrected (Rock, 2009). The majority of life and
the work people do occur in a state of uncertainty, but the employees’ perception of too much
uncertainty will affect their motivation and performance. One of the most important ways of
creating certainty for employees is through setting expectations; it is also recommended that a
leader tells an employee what to do instead of what not to do (D. Felicitas, personal
communication, January 10, 2012). Leaders must help to create a perception of certainty within
the client, for example, by explaining reasoning for changes, creating a map of what is to be
worked on, being specific, stating clear objectives, being transparent, answering any and all
employee questions, and breaking complex projects into small pieces (Rock, 2009).
Autonomy is defined as one’s sense of control over events. Autonomy (the A in the
SCARF model), the feeling of having a choice, regardless of whether a person actually has one,
dramatically reduces stress levels. If there is no control over a situation, for example, as when an
employee has a perception that he/she is being micromanaged, then his/her ability to function is
diminished (Rock, 2009). As long as the employee feels he/she has a choice and is able to
execute his/her own decisions, he/she does not feel a sense of stress. When a leader gives
feedback, he/she should give options and let the employee make the final decision. Presenting
employees with choices, or allowing them to organize how they want to develop, incites a much
59
less stressed response. The choices themselves are not important; it is the perception of
autonomy that matters (Rock, 2009). The following hypothetical question, “Here are two options
that could work, which would you prefer?” will get a better response than “here is what you have
to do now” (Rock, 2008). The leader could also provide the employee with self-directed learning
systems, or the employee could design his/her own development curriculum (e.g., talent
accelerator), both of which would provide choices (Rock, 2008). These are all examples of how
to increase employee autonomy.
Relatedness refers to one’s sense of safety with others. Relatedness (the R in SCARF
model) means friend or foe, trust or distrust, connects or does not connect with others. The
ability to feel trust and empathy toward others is formed as result of whether they are perceived
to be part of the same social group. Each time an employee meets someone new, the brain makes
quick friend-or-foe decisions; he/she then experiences that person based on the classification
they made (friend-or-foe). In order for a new person to go from a stranger to friend, it requires
time and continual social interaction (Rock, 2009). The human threat response is aroused when
people feel lonely and isolated from social interaction (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008). Leaders can
minimize threat situations in which people feel rejected by making them feel part of the same
social group with the team or with the organization. Overall, a leader needs the employee to feel
like a part of the team, department, and organization as a whole. By demonstrating empathy,
leaders can impact employees’ sense of relatedness (D. Felicitas, personal communication,
January 10, 2012). Additionally, the leader can focus on task specific feedback rather than
feedback that targets the employee’s personal characteristics.
Fairness (the F in SCARF model) is the perception of fair exchanges and that one is being
treated like everyone else. The perception that a situation has been unfair creates a strong
60
response in the limbic system, leading to hostility and a decline in trust. The perception of
unfairness creates an environment in which trust and collaboration will not thrive (Rock, 2009).
Like certainty, fairness is served by transparency. Leaders who share information in a timely
manner can keep people engaged and motivated. Leaders can also reinforce the fact that they
have the same expectations of all their employees and help each employee the same with no
favoritism. Perceived unfairness can be reduced by having transparency and increasing
communication and involvement. Establishing clear expectations and ground rules and
remaining objective and sticking to the facts in every situation can also decrease perceived
unfairness (Rock, 2008).
Each employee’s brain will crave a different element of SCARF; not all employees will
want to receive feedback the same way. It is important for leaders to work with employees
regarding how they prefer to receive feedback. There is even an online assessment that can
determine, in rank order, how employees prefer to work and receive feedback. Leaders should
also be able to give feedback in a general way to minimize the chance of sending employees into
threat mode. There are three types of feedback that managers usually give: (a) self-feedback,
which focuses on personal characteristics, such as poor interpersonal skills; (b) task feedback,
which is more general guidance, such as telling an employee to create strategy for
implementation of new processes; and (c) detailed feedback, which falls in line with a micro-
management style. Task feedback is the best way to minimize threat when giving employee
feedback. As a leader during a feedback session, one should focus on recognizing and leveraging
the employee’s interpersonal strengths and identifying and outlining functional tasks to help each
employee achieve work goals. It is also important for leaders to ask solution-focused questions
during feedback sessions instead of giving advice or solutions (D. Felicitas, personal
61
communication, January 10, 2012), the reason being that using solution focused questions
triggers self-insight, which is needed for complex problem solving (Rock, 2011).
The SCARF model has important implications for how feedback should be given
effectively in organizations. This model should guide interaction and communication between a
leader and his/her employees. As a leader, every action and decision made either strengthens or
weakens the perceived levels of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness within the
team. This is why being a leader is extremely challenging. A leader’s words, sentences, gestures,
are examined by the employee to determine the meanings that the leader may or may not have
intended. The SCARF model brings awareness to leader-employee conversations and
interactions. It helps a leader to understand how to calibrate words and actions to better influence
the employee. Leaders can work to reduce threats by changing their actions to align with the
SCARF model. They can also have their employees take the online SCARF assessment to know
which SCARF domains are most important to that employee and tailor their interactions to fit the
individual.
Leaders who understand the SCARF model can motivate and engage their employees
more effectively and create an environment of productivity. The purpose of this study is to
determine the impact this model has on employee motivation. According to SCARF model
research, when the leader gives feedback and interacts with employees according to their SCARF
brain domains, they will decrease threat and increase employee motivation. Based on this
research, I propose one of my hypotheses: Participants will score higher on work motivation
under the high compatibility condition then the low compatibility condition or no feedback
condition (hypothesis 2).

62
Self-determination theory and SCARF model. It is important to note that there are
similarities and some overlap between Deci and Ryan’s (1990) self-determination theory of
motivation and the SCARF model of Neuroleadership. SDT focuses on the notion of universal
human needs and argues that there are three innate psychological needs: competence, autonomy,
and relatedness. When these three innate needs are satisfied, the individual is more motivated,
productive and happy (Pink, 2009). SCARF model argues that there are five human brain
cravings: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness. When these brain preferences are
satisfied, individuals are also motivated and productive. Additionally, SDT believes we should
focus our efforts on creating environments for our innate psychological needs to flourish (Pink,
2009; Deci & Ryan, 1990). While this paper also argues that managers are to create a feedback
environment between manager and employee based on SCARF for the individual to flourish.
These two theories align closely to create motivated and productive individuals. Both SDT and
SCARF have autonomy and relatedness as a required human “need”. There is a bit of overlap
between competence in SDT and the SCARF model. SCARF feedback and SCARF interactions
between a manager and employee can create competence through developing and altering
behaviors based on feedback. Therefore, the similarities between self-determination dimensions
and the SCARF model are worth mentioning.
McClelland’s needs theory and the SCARF model. These two theories have alignment in
the needs of the individual. McClelland’s needs theory may be related to the SCARF model. The
need for achievement includes setting and accomplishing goals, wanting to work alone, and
needing regular feedback on progress and performance; this aligns with autonomy, which is the
sense of control over events and self, the preference to have control over work and prefer to work
independently, and a choice over what to work on and how to work on it. But the need for
63
achievement also aligns with certainty; those with this brain domain preference want to set goals
and expectations. The need for affiliation -- which is the desire to interact socially with others,
the need for collaboration and wanting to be liked and to belong -- aligns with relatedness, which
is the sense of safety and belonging with others, the want to feel part of the team along with a
focus on relationships. Lastly is the need for power, where the individual wants to gain power
and authority over others, also the individual want rewards and recognition; this aligns with
status, which is the relative importance to others and their positioning in comparison to others,
these individuals also need praise and recognition. These theories exhibit motivational needs of
the individual that are aligned, but the biggest difference is McClelland argues these needs are
learned, whereas the SCARF model implies that these needs are based on your brain preference
and neuroscience.
The Implications of Neuroleadership on Employee Motivation
According to Neuroleadership, the first step in understanding motivation is to understand
how the brain has developed. Human brains have evolved to identify biologically prominent
stimuli and follow a plan of action. The basic mechanisms of motivation are located in the oldest
parts of the brain. The field of neuroscience wanted to know what brain systems motivate an
individual to act in a certain manner. They found that when the pleasure centers of the brain are
stimulated, the behavior is positively reinforced, demonstrating that motivation and
reinforcement have a primary neural basis. Evolution has shaped motivation systems that are
evident in individuals’ approaching or withdrawing behaviors. Approaching occurs in the form
of exploring and foraging, which is related to reward processes (Mobbs & McFarland, 2010).
These behaviors are led by the brain’s dopaminergic system, which originates in the
midbrain ventral tegmental area (VTA) and substantia nigra pars compacta (SNC). The
64
VTA axons extend to the nucleus accumbens, amygdala and hippocampus via the
mesolimbic pathway while the prefrontal cortex receives dopamine via the mesocoritcal
pathway. The caudate and putamen receive dopamine via the nigostriatal pathway from
the SNC. The dopamine system is associated with many types of rewards and is thought
to increase motivation and vigor. (Mobbs & McFarland, 2010, p. 47)
The motivation to avoid a stimulus threat activates distinctive neural systems; these
neurotransmitters are associated with serotonin (5-HT; Mobbs & McFarland, 2010).
In relation to aversion, it has been proposed that defensive avoidance of a threat is
associated with a cascade of regions that reflect distal and proximal danger. This network
of systems, which are associated 5-HT expression, involves the midbrain periaqueductal
gray (PAG) and hypothalamus when the threat is close and amygdala and ventral
prefrontal cortex when the threat is distant (Deakin & Graeff, 1991; Mobbs et al., 2007).
While these reward and fear networks overlap (Daw, Kakade, & Dayan, 2002; Öngür,
Ferry & Price, 2003), neuroscience research clearly illustrates that a set of hard-wired
neural systems motivate avoidance and approach to stimuli. (Mobbs & McFarland, 2010,
p. 50)
The Role of Feedback in Motivation
Feedback is a subcategory of accessible information in the work environment that
specifies how well an individual is meeting his/her goals. It describes which behaviors are
preferred by the organization and includes an assessment of the quality of employee work
behaviors. Feedback oriented organizational cultures demonstrate the importance of feedback
and support the use of feedback by employees while also encouraging the quality of feedback. In
organizational cultures where feedback is supported, feedback is easily obtainable, relevant, and
65
more likely to have an impact employee beliefs and behaviors within their everyday work
environment. Expectancy theory proposes that feedback will increase employees’ performance
outcomes and expectancy perceptions by specifying which behaviors must be performed in order
for the employee to be rewarded. Employees who receive more feedback are more likely be
motivated to meet the expectations of good performance, and will be motivated by knowing the
feedback will increase their own performance (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006).
Leader communication has been proven to be crucial in work motivation and
performance (Levering, 1998; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002); more explicitly, feedback is a
motivational technique and has the potential to influence employee motivation (Kim, 1984;
Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002). High performing companies have five principal leadership
feedback qualities in common: (a) managers explained why decisions were made; (b) feedback
occurred in a timely manner; (c) essential information flowed continuously; (d) managers
explained the effects of organizational changes to each level or workers and their roles;
(e) employee responses were validated by leaders (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002; Young & Post,
1993). Another common and important factor in the feedback process is effective listening. In
order to validate employees’ responses and emotions accurately, leaders must be participating in
active listening (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002). Active listening involves empathetic body
language, helpful questions, validating employee expression, taking turns when speaking, and
paraphrasing to confirm mutual understanding (Robbins & Hunsaker, 1996). Employee
motivation is increased by employees receiving constructive and beneficial feedback and also by
being able to give constructive feedback to their leader (Reina & Reina, 1999).
The purpose of feedback can be instructional and motivational for the employee being
evaluated. Feedback is instructional when it targets improvement in an area and teaches new
66
behaviors. Feedback on performance is motivational when it provides a reward or promises a
future reward (Ivancevich et al., 2008). Feedback usually seeks to facilitate some sort of change
(Ringleb & Rock, 2008). When performance feedback is given in a meaningful and constructive
way, it can increase work motivation (Kaymaz, 2011). Leaders with the ability to motivate
employees do so to enhance organizational change and performance (Pfeffer, 1998; Ringleb &
Rock, 2008). Even if it is meant to create positive change, feedback might not always have the
same impact as the leader intended. Feedback sometime leads to a negative state of emotions that
influences employees’ motivation level and then leads to a negative impact on their work
behaviors (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009). The reason for this is because performance feedback
creates greater sensitivity because it is based on personal data about the individual employee
(Kaymaz, 2011). When an individual is strong emotional reactions, his/her behaviors to cope
with those emotions take priority over motivation and work behaviors (Belschak & Den Hartog,
2009). Researchers Maertz, and Griffeth (as cited in Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009) proposed
that an emotional affect is a motivational force that can drive an individual’s decision about
whether to leave or stay at his/her job. Positive and negative feedback lead to positive or
negative emotional responses toward the manager and the organization. Negative emotions cause
psychological discomfort, which motivates avoidance and quitting, whereas positive emotions
cause psychological comfort, which motivates approach and staying in the organization
(Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009; Hanisch & Hulin, 1990).
One way to help increase motivation following feedback is to decrease the perceived
ambiguity related to the employee’s performance (Kaymaz, 2011). An employee wants to know
whether or not he/she is meeting the level of performance required by the manager, so feedback
is needed (Bennett, Herold, & Ashford, 1990). Previous performance plays an important factor in
67
the perceived uncertainty; employees, who previously had a low level of performance, will
usually need performance feedback because of the performance uncertainty (Audia & Locke,
2003). When performance feedback removes ambiguity, this creates motivation, whereas when
there is no feedback, motivation is affected negatively. It has also been stated that performance
feedback is one of the most important factors affecting internal motivation (Kaymaz, 2011).
The relationship between the manager and subordinate is the next factor that is important
in feedback and its ability to affect employee motivation. Without developing a work
relationship and good two-way communication, the feedback process will not be successful; if
the manager and subordinate do not have a solid relationship, the employee will not trust the
feedback that is given. The employee needs to trust the manager and their relationship by being
able to express his/her own expectations, complaints, and feelings (Kaymaz, 2011). The ability
for employees to express themselves in a safe environment in turn increases the employee’s
motivation (Nathan, Morhman, & Milliman, 1991).
The facilitation of goal achievement is another important feedback factor that can
increase employee motivation. The manager must be able to give the employee a clear
explanation of the expected goals, the goals must be understood and accepted by the employee,
and the employee must be able to give feedback and make suggestions on the goals (Kaymaz,
2011). Employees need to be able to know they can achieve the goals, support the goals they are
expected to complete in the organization, have realistic goals, and be able to achieve the goals
successfully. Task-goal attributes (e.g., goal specificity, feedback) improve the employee’s
knowledge of what is expected of him/her and lessen the employee’s unnecessary search for job-
relevant behavior in the work environment. Performance feedback will serve as a cueing function
68
when behavior needs to change, but it can also facilitate goal setting and goal clarifying
functions, which increase one’s motivation to perform (Kim, 1984).
Personal development and change is the last area of feedback that can increase employee
motivation. There is a constant need for personal growth, and people naturally want to grow and
develop in their work life and personal life (Kaymaz, 2011). Feedback is imperative to help
identify target areas, develop a plan of action, and get help in achieving the change. Personal
development will have a positive impact on performance because a manager can support the
employee with continued feedback and help direct him/her (Greller, 2003). There are three main
motivating components for the feedback supported change process. The first is increased
awareness; the employee needs to be aware of existing problems and possible solutions. The
second component is their emotions; it is very satisfying for an employee to be at the preferred
level of performance and to receive positive feedback, where negative emotions can cause an
employee to withdraw. The last component is the reevaluation of the environment, which is the
awareness of whether their social and work environment will respond in a positive manner to
his/her personal development and change (London, 2003). If employees begin to resist the
change, the manager should give constructive feedback to help continue lead the change
(Kaymaz, 2011); this helps to support a healthy process of change and increases employee
motivation (Greguras, Ford, & Brutus, 2003).
Feedback intervention theories. The law of effect states that a positive feedback
intervention is associated with reinforcement, whereas a negative intervention is associated with
punishment. Reinforcement and punishment feedback interventions facilitate learning,
motivation, and performance. Both positive and negative feedback interventions should increase
motivation and performance because one reinforces the correct behavior, whereas the other one
69
diminishes the incorrect behavior (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Feedback intervention theory has
five components to its argument:
(1) Behavior is regulated by comparisons of feedback to goals or standards; (2) goals or
standards are organized hierarchically; (3) attention is limited and therefore only
feedback-standard gaps that receive attention actively participate in behavior regulation;
(4) attention is normally directed to a moderate level of the hierarchy; and (5) feedback
interventions change the focus of attention and therefore affect behavior. (p. 259)
There are several feedback intervention theories, such as: control theory, goal setting
theory, social cognition theory, and learned helplessness theory. These theories have been used
to test feedback intervention effects with little success, yet these theories are often applied to
motivation and learning. Goal setting theory states that behaviors are goal directed, and in order
to achieve these goals, people use feedback to evaluate their performance relative to their goals.
Employees are motivated to achieve the goal. According to control theory, when there is a
discrepancy between his/her perception of his/her performance and the feedback given, the
employee is motivated to reduce the discrepancy. The discrepancy can be removed by altering
the behavior to change future feedback, or by avoiding/escaping the situation related to the
discrepancy. Most often, people try to alter their behavior (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
According to Motivating Language Theory, directing leaders in communication tactics
can improve employee motivation and outcomes (Sullivan, 1988). There are three types of
speech that meet this theory in an organizational setting: (a) direction-giving language, which
occurs when a manager helps enhance employee performance by clarifying and specifying goals,
tasks, and rewards while decreasing ambiguity; (b) empathetic language, which takes place when
leaders express compassion to employees, such as complimenting their performance; and (c)
70
meaning-making language, which happens when a leader clarifies the organizational norms,
values, and behaviors that make the organization unique, such as sharing stories that also help
with making change (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002; Sullivan, 1988). This theory also states that
leaders must practice what they preach; whatever forms of feedback they give, they must follow
themselves (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002). The more actions of the theory the leader
demonstrates, the more effective the leader will be in achieving the best outcomes (Mayfield &
Mayfield, 2002; Sullivan, 1988).
Summary of Leadership and Feedback
To summarize, feedback is a process by which individuals receive or give information
about the past or present, which then influences the same phenomenon in the present and future.
Feedback is an action that managers take to deliver information concerning the employee’s task
performance. Giving feedback alters actions and affects behaviors; depending on how feedback
is given it can have a positive or negative affect on followers’ behavior. When managers give
feedback, the goal is to change behavior and improve employee performance. The problem is
that when most managers give feedback it ends up having an adverse effect on employees’
behavior. Neuroleadership is an emerging field of study that links neuroscience with leadership;
one area in particular area of Neuroleadership is feedback. Neuroleadership helps organizations
and individuals better understand how the human brain functions at an individual and team level.
What Neuroleadership has found is that receiving feedback will either send the brain into a threat
or reward state. When in a threat state, the employee can feel physical pain because social pain is
experienced the same way as physical pain, neurologically. When an employee is in a threat
state, he/she is demotivated and less productive. Therefore, it is very important for managers to
71
keep their employees in a reward state when giving feedback; they can do this by using David
Rock’s SCARF model.
The Relationship among Neuroleadership, Feedback, and Charismatic Leadership
Neuroleadership and charismatic leadership. Neuroscience provides important data
and information in understanding the underlying brain patterns associated with charismatic
leadership. Leadership has been linked to certain types of brain activity. More specifically,
neuronal coherence has been examined with charismatic leadership. Coherence is a common
metric in social cognitive neuroscience research that is used to measure and track corresponding
activity or communication between different areas of the brain (Waldman, Balthazard &
Peterson, 2009). The reason for this method of applied metrics is because this type of leadership
requires different parts of the brain to work together (Cacioppo, Berntson, & Nusbaum, 2008).
With charismatic leadership, there would be a high degree of coherence, showing a high degree
of coordinated activity between two different parts of the brain (Waldman et al., 2009).
A specific area of neuroscience that is used by charismatic leaders is emotional
intelligence, which has a basis in brain circuitry and stems from how cortical regions of the brain
interpret and manage neurotransmitter signals from the brain’s limbic system (Goleman,
Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001). The affective and emotional components of visionary
communication are important for charismatic leaders because they make direct appeals to the
personal values, beliefs, and needs of their employees in order to help them feel optimistic about
and committed to the future (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001; Waldman et al., 2009). Not only do
charismatic leaders need to trigger the emotional experience of their employees toward the leader
and their vision, but also they must be able to regulate their own emotions (Barsade & Gibson,
2007; Waldman et al., 2009). These types of leaders must be able to understand and know how to
72
influence their employees’ positive emotions through hope and inspiration even when there is
ambiguity or fear (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Morse (2006) proposed that a leader’s use of
emotions for the purpose of communicating and championing a vision has a basis in the limbic
system (Waldman et al., 2009). Naqvi, Shiv, and Bechara (2006) asserted that some areas of the
brain, such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, may help a leader to balance emotions in
decision making, even when outcomes are ambiguous (Waldman et al., 2009). Research has also
shown that regions of the cortex may aid in assessing risk and direct behaviors in expectancy of
emotional consequences, such as fear (Paulus, Rogalsky, Simmons, Feinstein, & Stein, 2003;
Waldman et al., 2009). The front part of the brain is involved in the regulation and expression of
emotions, in addition to higher cognitive functioning, for example, goal-directed or visionary
behavior (Hagmann, Cammoun, Gigandet, Meuli, & Honey, 2008). Charismatic leaders will
have a heightened right frontal lobe activity but will also have a higher degree of coherence with
areas in this portion of the brain (Waldman et al., 2009).
Feedback and charismatic leadership. Leaders need to extend beyond performance-
reward transactions in order to have an impact on their employees since leaders are a major force
in creating new visions and change. Charismatic leaders are able to have profound effects on
followers, the organizational vision, and changes within the organization because of their
communication skills (Conger & Kanungo, 1998).
Feedback is critical because employees often have an inaccurate perception of how they
are performing on the job. Employees’ self-ratings are less accurate than manager ratings. The
ratings that managers provide for the employee are usually able to predict team performance, and
employees who have inflated self-ratings overestimate their influence and are likely to misjudge
their own need for improvement (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998). Charismatic leaders are responsible for
73
creating change within the organization and among their employees. Research shows that
communication and feedback help employees work through change. Through feedback and
communication, charismatic leaders are able to change organizational employees’ thinking away
from a resistive orientation and toward a receptive goal orientation (Ringleb & Rock, 2008).
Research has suggested that both charismatic leadership and feedback will increase
employee motivation. However, certain research studies have argued that when employees are
exposed to charismatic leadership, employees were motivated and performed well regardless of
feedback; employees exposed to non-charismatic leadership varied in their performance
contingent on whether or not they received feedback (Shea & Howell, 1999). Therefore, the
impact of feedback on motivation and performance becomes almost insignificant when
employees have a charismatic leader. Based on this research, I propose my next hypothesis;
when the leader is charismatic, feedback compatibility will not affect work motivation. However,
when the leader is non-charismatic, high feedback compatibility will result in higher work
motivation than low feedback compatibility or no feedback (hypothesis 3).
Bass (1985) proposed that when feedback about employee performance is absent,
charismatic leadership is likely to be more important in motivating employees to perform.
Shamir et al. (1993) argued that in order to motivate employees to accomplish a high level of
performance, a leader must increase employees’ perceptions of self-efficacy by enhancing their
self-esteem and self-worth (Shea & Howell, 1999). Shamir et al. asserted that charismatic leaders
can do this, whereas Bandura (1997) asserted that feedback can also influence self-efficacy
positively. These factors then increase employees’ motivation through self-efficacy, which is
defined as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required
in producing given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Brown et al. (2001) established that
74
employees with high self-efficacy use feedback to increase motivation, task focus, and effort, as
well as to reduce anxiety and unproductive thoughts that are self-debilitating.
Returning to the previous findings on how charismatic leadership and feedback create
employee motivation, charismatic leaders motivate employees by communicating expectations of
high performance, communicating confidence in their abilities to execute the mission, and
stressing their effort and connection to important values (Shamir et al., 1993). Feedback, in
contrast, enhances self-efficacy and motivation via the leader giving information on his/her
explicit expectations on the standard of performance; this allows employees to compare their
own behavior to the leader’s expectations. They are then able to identify and eliminate their own
errors and adjust their actions. This feedback should encompass cues that support learning and
bring attention to the feedback and employee perception inconsistencies (Shea & Howell, 1999).
Shea and Howell (1999) conducted a study to determine whether leadership style
(charismatic and non-charismatic) or feedback had an impact or effect on individuals’ motivation
and performance. The researchers found a significant interaction effect of leadership style and
feedback on motivation and performance. As Shea and Howell predicted, motivation and
performance decreased substantially when no feedback was given on performance and increased
when feedback was given. This finding supports Shamir et al.’s (1993) statement that non-
charismatic leaders can impact employee performance by using feedback to motivate their
performance. However, divergent from the study’s prediction, individuals exposed to charismatic
leaders performed equally, well regardless of feedback (Shea & Howell, 1999). The study also
found that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between feedback and performance, supporting
Bandura’s (1997) argument that in order for individuals to succeed, leaders must influence self-
efficacy, motivation, and performance. When feedback was specific, timely, and addressed
75
differences between employee behavior and the leader’s expectations, it enhanced the
participants’ performance by increasing their self-efficacy beliefs about their ability to perform
the tasks. Self-efficacy also mediated the relationship between the interaction effect of leadership
style and feedback on performance. This finding is consistent with Bandura’s theory, which
proposed that self-efficacy and performance can be improved via efforts to motivate individuals
by expressing that they have the ability to perform a task. This study noted that charismatic
leadership is most likely to be successful at inspiring confidence in employees, regardless of
whether they received feedback on their performance (Shea & Howell, 1999).
An important reason for studying both charismatic leadership and feedback is to
determine its effects on employee motivation. Motivation can make or break a company’s ability
to be sustainable and successful. Motivation is essential to increase employee performance, but it
also helps grow the organization for the better in the long-term.
The Present Study
The main purpose of the study is to examine some of the key factors that influence
employee motivation. Specifically, the independent variable of this study is feedback
compatibility between the type of feedback the leader gives and the type of feedback the
employee prefers. High compatibility reflects a case where the leader gives feedback in which an
employee prefers to receive; while low compatibility refers to a case where the leader gives a
certain type of feedback that the employee does not want to receive. The relationship between
feedback compatibility and employee motivation is predicted to be moderated by leadership style
(see Figure 1).

76
Charismatic
Leadership
Feedback Employee
Compatibility Motivation
Figure 1. The Present Study.
Based on the literature review, I proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Participants will score higher on employee motivation under the
charismatic leadership condition in comparison to the non-charismatic leadership
condition. This hypothesis is being proposed, based on my argument from the literature
review, that charismatic leadership can increase employee motivation more than other
leadership theories.
Hypothesis 2: Participants will score higher on employee motivation under the high
compatibility condition then the low compatibility condition or no feedback condition
Based on the research in my literature, I proposed this hypothesis because according to
SCARF model research, when the leader gives feedback and interacts with employees
according to their SCARF brain domains, they will decrease threat and increase
Hypothesis 3: When the leader is charismatic, feedback compatibility will not affect
employee motivation. However, when the leader is non-charismatic then high feedback
compatibility will result in higher employee motivation then low compatibility or no
feedback. This last hypothesis was proposed because research has suggested that both
charismatic leadership and feedback will increase employee motivation. However, certain
research studies have argued that when employees are exposed to charismatic leadership,
77
employees were motivated and performed well regardless of feedback. Therefore, the
impact of feedback on motivation and performance becomes almost insignificant when
employees have a charismatic leader

78
CHAPTER III
Methods
Research Design
The research methodology used an online experiment with 6 conditions in which
participants were randomly assigned to (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). The design was a 3
(Feedback compatibility: high vs. low compatibility vs. no feedback) x 2 (leadership style:
charismatic vs. non-charismatic leadership) between subjects design. Employee motivation is
the dependent variable.
100%
90%
80%
70%
Employee Motivation
60%
50%
Charismatic Leadership
40% Non-Charismatic Leadership
30%
20%
10%
0%
No Feedback Low High
Compatibility Compatibility
Feedback Feedback
Figure 2. Predicted Model

79
Low Feedback High Feedback No feedback
Compatibility Compatibility Control
Charisma A B C
X = 22 X = 21 X = 21
Non-Charisma D E F
X = 22 X = 21 X = 21
N = 128
Figure 3. Research Design.
Participants
The participants in this study consisted of 143 participants, which surpassed the sample
size which was estimated to be 128 provided by G*Power Analysis in order to achieve an effect
size of .25, and a power of .80. The G*Power analysis with an alpha .05 meant a minimum of
21-22 participants for each experimental condition.
I used purposive and snowball sampling utilizing my personal and professional contacts
who were contacted through email, and asked to forward the email to fellow co-workers or peers
in other organizations. The email provided an explanation about the study, the researcher, the
time to complete study, participation is voluntary and anonymous, and the two phases to the
study and the researchers contact information (Appendix A). Participation requirements were the
following: at least 18 years of age, currently employed with minimum two years of employment,
and working under a manager/supervisor/boss.
Procedures
This study was an online experiment conducted using Qualtrics. First, the participants
who are my personal and professional contacts were contacted via email (Appendix A). Those
who agreed to participate clicked on the first of two links at the end of the email. The first link
connected them to Stage 1, the SCARF assessment and the second link connected them to Stage
2, the online experiment utilizing Qualtrics online tool.

80
Stage 1: First, the participants were asked to complete the SCARF self-assessment which
is an independent, free, assessment tool obtained from the NeuroLeadership Group. This
assessment was accessed online through the NeuroLeadership Group
(http://www.scarf360.com/individuals/scarf-self-assessment.shtml). The first page of the
assessment explained the following (see Figure 4):
Figure 4. SCARF Self-Assessment Instructions.
After reading the initial explanation, the participants clicked on the “begin” button at the
bottom of the page to continue to the demographics section, which asked about their name, email
address, age group, gender, country, and industry (see Figure 5).
81
Figure 5. SCARF Self-Assessment Demographics.
Once they completed, they were directed to the SCARF assessment which consisted of 14
multiple choice questions with 5 choices (Appendix B). The SCARF assessment measured
status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness. The goal of this assessment is to show the
individual which SCARF elements matter most to an individual. These preferences apply to why
we act the way we do, how we respond to change, why some things bother individuals and others
do not, and for the purpose of this study, what we prefer in feedback from our manager.
After completing these questions, participants were directed to the results page in which
they were given their five SCARF domains in rank order with the percentage of preference and
an explanation for what each SCARF domain result means (see Figure 6).
82
Figure 6. SCARF Self-Assessment Results.
The participants were instructed in the email invitation, that results should be saved with
a screen shot or have their results emailed to them by the NeuroLeadership Group. Their results
were needed for stage two of the experiment. Once participants reviewed their results, they had
the option to click the button “send me my results” to have their results emailed to them. They
83
exited the assessment by closing out of the web browser. This instrument is currently being
tested for reliability and validity by the NeuroLeadership Group. My rationale for using this
instrument even though it has not been validated is justified by my research and expertise from
my studies on NeuroLeadership and the SCARF model. I have personally completed the
instrument on three separate occasions and my results have been consistent and accurate.
Additionally, I had asked a few voluntary participants to complete the assessment and provide
feedback. All participants found their results to be accurate from their perspective.
Stage 2: On the initial email invitation to this study, the participants had the link to Stage
2, which was initiated after Stage 1 was completed. When the participant clicked on the link to
Stage 2, the first page presented the informed consent form (Appendix C). Participants were not
able to move forward in the study until the box has been checked yes, indicating their consent to
participate in the study and acknowledging they met the requirements. Upon agreeing to the
consent form, the participants moved onto to the main experiment.
Once they agreed with the informed consent form, they received instructions on how to
complete the study. The instructions stated:
“Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. This study consists of 6 parts:
1. In part 1, you will be asked to report the results of your SCARF Self-Assessment you
took in stage 1 of this study (http://www.scarf360.com/individuals/scarf-self-
assessment.shtml). If you have not completed stage 1 please follow the link and
complete. Do not close this window/online study while you complete.
2. In part 2, you will be asked to read a manager’s profile.
3. In part 3, upon reading the profile, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire.
4. In part 4, you will read further description of the same manager.

84
5. In part 5, you will answer more questions.
6. The final notes section will be presented at the end.”
In part 1, the participant reported their results from their SCARF self-assessment for
Stage 1. They provided their highest rated SCARF domains based on their preference results
from their SCARF self-assessment. In part 2, they read a description of a manager, which was
used to manipulate feedback compatibility. In part 3, they answered 2 questions that served as
manipulation check of feedback compatibility. In part 4, they read further about the manager.
This additional information was used as manipulation check of leadership style. In part 5, they
answered 4 questions as manipulation check of leadership style (see Figure 7). There were
additional questions assessing employee motivation and the demographic questions. At the end,
they read the debriefing page (Appendix D).

85
Part 1
Report the results of the SCARF assessment
Part 2
Read a manager's profile (manipulation of
feedback compatibility)
Part 3
Answer questions on the profile (manipulation
check of feedback compatibility)
Part 4
Read more on the manager's profile
(manipulation of leadership style)
Part 5
Answer more questions
(manipulation check of leadership style)
Part 6
Answer final set of questions (employee
motivation questionnaire, and demographics)
Figure 7. Process of the experiment. This figure illustrates the process that participants will go
through when participating in the experiment.
Manipulation of feedback compatibility. Feedback compatibility was manipulated
using a vignette describing a manager at an Airline Organization providing feedback to
employees around the corporate environment and changes in the organization. Each vignette had
two characters, a manager and an employee. The vignette either described a manager who gives
feedback that was highly compatible with the type of feedback that the participant preferred to
86
receive or a manager whose feedback was not compatible with the type of feedback that the
participant preferred. The following instructions preceded the vignette:
“You will now read a description of a manager who works for an Airline Organization.
This description first tells you about how this manager facilitates a conversation with an
employee. It also tells you about his leadership. You will be asked to answer 3 questions
in the middle of the description and 5 more afterwards.”
The participants’ preferred style was determined by the results of the SCARF assessment
previously taken in Stage 1. In the high compatible condition, the manager’s feedback style
matched the participant’s preferred style. In the low compatible condition, the manager’s
feedback style did not match the participant’s preferred style. For example, if the participant’s
SCARF assessment indicates that s/he prefers “Status” type of feedback, than s/he received a
vignette that described a manager whose feedback style is “Status” (high compatibility
condition), or who feedback style is the opposite of “Status” (low compatibility condition). The
participants in the control condition read a vignette that did not contain any information about
the manager’s feedback style (i.e., no feedback condition). Assignment of the participant to either
high compatibility, low compatibility or no feedback condition was randomly assigned.
The manipulation of feedback compatibility was checked by asking the participant the
degree to which the manager’s feedback style was compatible with his/her own on a five-point
Likert Scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely). Additionally, at the end of the vignettes are the
descriptions of the behavioral components that were used to create the SCARF vignettes. The
participants were asked to read the list of behavioral components and to rate the hypothetical
leader’s feedback, the degree that leader gave SCARF feedback according to the model.
87
In sum, There were 10 vignettes in all, but each participant was assigned to only one of
them (Appendix E). The questions following the vignette determined whether the individual
prefers that type of feedback described in the vignette; whether the manager in the vignette meets
the components of the SCARF model; and whether they felt motivated by that leader. The
behavioral components for SCARF Feedback can be found in Appendix F. This instrument
consists of three items on a five-point Likert Scale. The first two questions were a manipulation
check, asking the degree that leader gave SCARF feedback and the degree to which the
managers were SCARF compatible or non-SCARF compatible. There were 5 types of feedback
assessed by SCARF; the participant received one of the following vignettes:
1. Status Vignette – High Compatibility
2. Status Vignette – Low Compatibility
3. Certainty Vignette – High Compatibility
4. Certainty Vignette – Low Compatibility
5. Autonomy Vignette – High Compatibility
6. Autonomy Vignette – Low Compatibility
7. Relatedness Vignette – High Compatibility
8. Relatedness Vignette – Low Compatibility
9. Fairness Vignette – High Compatibility
10. Fairness Vignette – Low Compatibility
Manipulation of leadership style. The same vignette also described the manager’s
leadership style as being charismatic or non-charismatic. These vignettes were developed by
Lopez and Ensari (2014). At the end of the vignettes were the descriptions of the behavioral
components identified by Conger and Kanungo (1998) that were used to create the charismatic
88
vignette. The control vignette was also developed by Dr. Ed Lopez and was intended to not
communicate any significant information about the manager’s leadership style. There are two
vignettes, one representing a charismatic leader (Appendix G) and the other a non-charismatic
leader (Appendix G), but participants were only assigned to one. Permissions to use this
instrument and questions can be found in Appendix H. The manipulation check questions
following the vignette were to determine whether that manager is considered a charismatic leader
based on the behavioral components identified by Conger and Kanungo (1998), if the leader was
charismatic and likeable based on their own opinion (Lopez & Ensari, 2014); but also whether
the participant preferred that leadership style. The leadership behavior components used to
define a charismatic leader can be found in Appendix I. This instrument is used to assess
leadership preference for an employee and if they felt motivated by the leader’s style. This is
relevant to the study because it is proposed in hypothesis 2 and 3.When the leader is charismatic,
feedback compatibility will not affect employee motivation, therefore, we will ask participant
preference for both leadership and feedback. This instrument consists of five items on a five-
point Likert Scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely).
Dependent measure. The dependent variable is employee motivation which is measured
by the item, “to what degree are you motived by this manager’s leadership style”. I also used the
Work Preference Inventory (WPI) as part of the study (also see Appendix J) (Amabile, Hill,
Hennessey & Tigje, 1994). Permissions to use this instrument can be found in Appendix K. This
instrument is being used to assess intrinsic and extrinsic employee motivation orientations
toward the work. This instrument consists of 30 items on a Likert Scale, which five items were
removed. There were five “challenge” items (Intrinsic motivation), 10 “enjoyment” items
(Intrinsic motivation), 10 “recognition” items (Extrinsic motivation), and the five

89
"compensation” items (Extrinsic motivation) were excluded because they are not conceptually
relevant for this study. The reliability for intrinsic motivation items is .66, while extrinsic
motivation items are .75. Each alpha value is at an adequate level, but low overall for the entire
scale at .a 56. The correlations between the behavioral measures with the WPI scales largely
support the validity on the instrument (Amabile et al., 1994).
Following WPI, the participants completed the demographics questionnaire (Appendix L)
including gender, educational level, age, tenure, race/ethnicity, type of industry/organization,
department, size of the organization, and organization name. After completion, they read the
following “Thank you for your time. Your response has been recorded. Please now close your
browser window.”
Overall, the study included 57 questions and a vignette, and took approximately 20-35
minutes to complete.
Responses and identity were confidential and anonymous, and participants were given
contact information in case they had any questions or concerns. There are no items that would
identify the participant. All responses were automatically transferred onto a statistical software
SPSS without any of their personal information. Deception was used for this study but
participants were informed of intent for deception once the study is completed. The reason for
omitting information about the real purpose of the research was to avoid influencing the
participant’s responses in order to accurately test the hypotheses. Before and during the
experiment, we did not reveal the complete truth of the study until the study was completed.
There was an explanation of the deception used and the purpose at the end of the study.
The common method bias is the variance that is attributable to the measurement method
instead of the constructs the measure represents (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff,
90
2003). Past research suggests that participants try to maintain consistency between their attitudes,
perceptions and behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). One question could
influence how the participant answers the following question. The common method bias is a
potential problem in research because it could have an effect and alter the results and research
findings. To account for the common method bias, participants were instructed to complete stage
one and then complete stage two within 24 hours to avoid Stage 1 of the experiment impacting or
altering how they answer the questions from Stage 2 of the study.
Method of Analysis
Data was collected electronically using Qualtrics and data analysis in this study consisted
of three phases. In the first phase, preliminary analyses were conducted to test for outliers,
normality, skewness, kurtosis, and reliability. Descriptive statistics were also analyzed during the
first phase. The second phase of data analysis was hypotheses testing. All hypotheses were tested
using two-way ANOVA and correlations were examined at this time. The third phases consisted
of additional analysis after hypotheses testing to further explore the descriptive statistics and if
they had any impact on the hypotheses.

91
CHAPTER IV
Results
This chapter presents the results of the data analyses in three sections: Preliminary
analyses include descriptive statistics, normality, reliability, manipulation checks; main analyses
include hypotheses testing, and finally post-hoc analyses.
Preliminary Analysis
The purpose of this study was to determine (a) the main effect of charismatic leadership
on employee motivation; (b) the main effect of feedback compatibility on employee motivation;
and (c) the interaction between charisma and feedback. These effects were tested in a two-way
ANOVA between subjects design.
Descriptive statistics. The sample of this study consisted of 143 participants (69.9 %
females, See Table 1). The majority of the participants were between the ages of 26 to 36
(60.1%, n = 86), with the age range of over 47 years following second (23.1%, n = 33). The
ethnicity of participants was predominantly Caucasian (Non-Hispanic) making up of 69.9% (n =
100) of participants. In this study, education level ranged from high school graduate to graduate
school. But over half of the participants were college/university graduates 59.4% (n = 85).
Tenure/work history for participants’ demographics was the highest in the category: over 11
years (44.1%, n = 63), with the tenure of 7 to 11 years following second (28.0%, n = 40). For
company size, the most common categories were companies under 100 employees (31.5%) and
companies over 5001 employees (32.9%). Please reference Table 1 for the remaining
demographics, including industry and type of position.

92
Table 1
Analysis of Demographics (N = 143)
________________________________________________________________________
Variable Category n %
________________________________________________________________________
Sex
Male 43 30.1
Female 100 69.0
Education
High School Graduate 20 14.0
College Graduate 85 59.4
Graduate School 38 26.6
Age Range
18-25 years 7 4.9
26-36 years 86 60.1
37-46 years 17 11.9
Over 47 years 33 23.1
Work History
2-3 years 16 11.2
4-6 years 24 16.8
7-11 years 40 28.0
Over 11 years 63 44.1
Race/Ethnicity
Native American or American Indian 1 0.7
Asian or Asian American 17 11.9
Black or African American 3 2.1
Hispanic or Latino 8 5.6
Non-Hispanic White 100 69.9
Other 14 9.8
Company Size
Under 100 45 31.5
101-300 13 9.1
301-500 10 7.0
501-1,000 9 6.3
1,001-5,000 19 13.3
Over 5,001 47 32.9
________________________________________________________________________
Table 1 Continued
93
Table 1 Continued
________________________________________________________________________
Variable Category n %
________________________________________________________________________
Industry
Entertainment 11 7.7
Healthcare 16 11.2
Finance 4 2.8
Retail 10 7.0
Sales/Advertising 13 9.1
Consulting 6 4.2
Automotive 1 0.7
Education 16 11.2
Manufacturing 25 17.5
Other 41 28.7
Position
Intern 2 1.4
Front Line or Individual Contributor 55 38.5
Supervisor or Manager 37 25.9
Director 14 9.8
Other 35 24.5
________________________________________________________________________
Tests of normality. Normality for the dependent variable was assessed in several ways.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test was significant at the p < .001 level (Table 2), showing not
normal distribution. Despite the non-normal distribution, skewness and kurtosis were within
acceptable ranges for the variables (between -1 to +1). Inspection of histograms and Q-Q plots
suggested an adequate distribution of scores and box plots found no outliers in the motivation
measure. In addition, the Levene’s tests for equality of error variances were non-significant.
Considering that the K-S test is overly sensitive to a Type I error in large samples (N = 143)
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007), no transformation was made to the data, and the original scores
were retained in the analyses.

94
Table 2
Tests for Normality

_______________________________________________________________________
Construct Kolmogorov-Smirnov Skewness Kurtosis
_______________________________________________________________________
Std. Std.
Construct Stat df Sig. Stat Error Stat Error
_______________________________________________________________________
Employee Motivation .19 143 .00 .13 .20 -1.3 .40

_______________________________________________________________________
Reliability tests. The Cronbach alpha coefficient is used to measure reliability and was
calculated for the WPI measure used in this study. The WPI instrument consisted of 20 items in
total, more specifically, 11 items measuring extrinsic motivation (α = .69) and nine items
measuring intrinsic motivation (α = .73). Cronbach’s Alpha was run separately on extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation. Table 3 displays the psychometric characteristics for the two summated
scale scores. This suggested that both scales (extrinsic and intrinsic) had adequate levels of
reliability among items, a reliability of 0.70 or higher (Nunnally, 1978).
Table 3
Psychometric Characteristics for the Work Preference Inventory Scales (N = 143)
_______________________________________________________________________
Number
Construct of Items M SD Low High α
_______________________________________________________________________
Extrinsic Motivation 9 2.36 0.46 1.00 3.78 .69
Intrinsic Motivation 11 2.85 0.40 1.00 3.73 .73
_______________________________________________________________________
95
Manipulation checks. Manipulation checks for feedback compatibility and charismatic
leadership were conducted to determine whether manipulation of feedback compatibility (2 items
on a 5-point scale) and manipulation of charismatic leadership (4 items on a 5-point scale) were
successful. One-way ANOVA was conducted on each of the manipulation check item for
charismatic leadership. The first item stated: “Given the behavioral components described above,
to what degree do you think this manager is a charismatic leader?” (Charismatic condition M =
3.70, p <.001; Non-Charismatic condition M = 2.97, F(1, 137) = 3.48, p = .001; the next item,
“How charismatic do you think the manager is?” (Yes condition M = 3.64, F(1, 137) = 3.44, p =
.001; No condition M = 2.92, p < .001); the third item, “How likeable do you feel this manager
is?” (Yes condition M = 3.44, F(1, 137) = 2.93, p =.003; No condition M = 2.95, p < .003); and
the last item, “To what degree do you think you prefer this manager’s leadership style?” (Yes
condition M = 3.24, F(1, 137) = 3.11, p =.002; No condition M = 2.66, p < .002). As expected
the means for the charismatic leader condition (p < .01) was higher than the means of the non-
charismatic leadership condition. These results provide evidence for a successful manipulation of
charismatic leadership.
There were two manipulation check items for feedback compatibility. The results of one-way
ANOVA analyses indicated that the participants perceived the leader to give compatible
feedback and preferred them as a leader in the high feedback compatibility condition. The first
item stated: “Given the behavioral components described above, to what degree do you think this
manager gives (Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness) feedback?” (High
compatibility M = 3.94, F(2, 137) = 1.12, p =.001; low compatibility M = 2.06 p < .001; No
feedback M = 2.03, p < .001). The next item, “To what degree do you think this manager’s
feedback style is compatible with how you prefer to receive feedback?” (High condition M =
96
2.60, p < .001; Low condition M = 2.04, F(2, 137) = 2.86, p = .001; None condition M = 1.86, p
< .001). These results also confirm the successful manipulation of feedback compatibility. It is
important to note that for the low feedback compatibility and no feedback conditions, the means
did not differ when we were expecting they should. Therefore participants were not able to
differentiate between these conditions.
Hypotheses Testing
To test the proposed hypotheses, a two-way ANOVA between subjects factorial design
was conducted. The design was a 3 (Feedback compatibility: High vs. low compatibility vs. no
feedback) x 2 (Leadership style: Charismatic vs. non-charismatic leadership) between subjects
design. Employee motivation was the dependent variable. (See Tables 4-5).
Hypothesis 1. I hypothesized that the participants would score higher on employee
motivation under the charismatic leadership condition in comparison to the non-charismatic
leadership condition. A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of charismatic
leadership, F(1, 137) = 13.08, p = .001, eta squared = .09. Those in the charismatic leadership
condition indicated stronger motivation (M = 3.27) than those in the non-charismatic condition
(M = 2.60). These findings provided support for Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2. I hypothesized that the participants would score higher on employee
motivation under the high feedback compatibility condition then the low compatibility condition
or no feedback condition. A two-way ANOVA revealed a main effect of feedback compatibility
on employee motivation, F(2, 137) = 35.04, p = .001, eta squared = .34. Bonferroni post hoc tests
showed that employee motivation was higher under the high compatibility condition than under
the no feedback (p = .001) and the low compatibility conditions (p = .001). However, the low
compatibility and no feedback conditions did not differ (p = .44). Those in the high feedback
97
compatibility condition indicated a stronger motivation (M = 3.73), than those in the low
feedback compatibility condition (M = 2.26) and no feedback condition (M = 1.91). These
findings provided support for Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3. I hypothesized that, when the leader is charismatic, feedback compatibility
will not affect employee motivation. However, when the leader is non-charismatic, then high
feedback compatibility will result in higher employee motivation then low compatibility or no
feedback. A two-way ANOVA showed that the interaction between charismatic leadership and
feedback compatibility was not significant F(2, 137) = 0.03, p = .97. Specifically, when
charismatic leadership information was provided, the feedback conditions rated similarly to
charismatic leadership and high feedback compatibility (M = 3.88) in comparison to non-
charismatic leadership and high feedback compatibility (M = 3.58). These findings did not
provide support for Hypothesis 3.
Table 4
Two-Way ANOVA (N = 143)
____________________________________________________________________________
Partial
Eta
Source SS df MS F p Squared
____________________________________________________________________________
Full Model 94.59 5 18.92 14.94 .001 .353
Charismatic Leadership 15.59 1 15.59 13.08 .001 .087
Feedback Compatibility 88.74 2 44.37 35.04 .001 .338
Interaction 0.07 2 0.03 0.03 .97 .000
Error 173.48 137 1.27
Total 268.07 142
______________________________________________________________________________
98
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and Post Hoc Tests (N = 143)

______________________________________________________________________________
Effect Category M SD N
______________________________________________________________________________
Main Effect Charismatic Leadership

No Charismatic Leadership 2.60 1.22 73
Charismatic Leadership 3.27 1.01 70
Main Effect Feedback Compatibility a
No feedback 1.91 1.20 37
Low Compatibility 2.26 1.18 54
High Compatibility 3.73 1.01 52
Interaction Effect
No Charismatic-No Feedback 1.70 1.08 20

No Charismatic -Low
Compatibility 2.07 1.17 27
No Charismatic -High
Compatibility 3.58 1.14 26
Charismatic-No Feedback 2.12 1.32 17
Charismatic-Low Compatibility 2.44 1.19 27
Charismatic-High Compatibility 3.88 0.86 26
______________________________________________________________________________
a
Bonferroni post hoc tests: High > No (p = .001); High > Low (p = .001); Low ≈ No (p = .44).
Additional Analyses
There are proposed guidelines for inferring the strength of correlations (Cohen, 1988).
Cohen (1988) suggested that a value of r = .10, is a weak correlation, r = .30 is a moderate
correlation, and r = .50 is a strong correlation. The upcoming table will highlight those
correlations. But it is important to note that this study will highlight correlations of at least
moderate strength to lessen the potential of Type 1 errors stemming from inferring and forming
conclusions based on potentially spurious correlations. Tables 6 will provide the Spearman
correlations between all measures used in this study. A Correlation illustrates the relationship
99
between variables. For example, a strong positive correlation means that when variable X
increases Y increases as well, and it is a strong relationship. Only the strong correlations will
have an explanation describing what the correlation means.
Extrinsic motivation did not have any significant moderate or strong correlations.
Extrinsic motivation was significantly correlated with 1 of 6 variables at the p < .05 with the
variable being weak strength (r = -.18) using the Cohen (1988) criteria. Additionally, intrinsic
motivation did not have any significant moderate or strong correlations. Intrinsic motivation was
significant correlated with 1 of 6 variables at the p < .05 with the variables being weak strength.
Specifically, intrinsic motivation had a significant weak strength correlation with company size
(r = .24, p = .01). For the resulting correlations, three were significant at the p < .05 level, but
none were of at least moderate strength using the Cohen (1988) criteria.
The Spearman’s rho correlation for six selected variables with compatibility and
motivation items, two were significant at the p < .05 level both were considered to be strong
correlations using the Cohen (1988) criteria. Feedback compatibility (none, low, high) had
positive correlations with both compatibility (rs = .60, p = .001) and motivation (rs = .56, p =
.001). This shows a strong positive correlation for each. This means that when feedback
compatibility increases, for example when there is high feedback compatibility between the
leader and employee, then the employee’s perception of compatibility increases. We expect to
see a strong correlation here because when there is a high level of compatibility in the leader-
employee relationship then we expect the employee’s perception of compatibility would increase
as well. Additionally, there was a strong positive correlation between the feedback compatibility
and motivation, when there is a high level of feedback compatibility between the leader and
employee then motivation increases. There is a relationship between feedback compatibility and
100
motivation. There were two additional correlations that were significant at the p < .05 level but
none were of at least moderate strength using the Cohen (1988) criteria.
Last correlations examined were perceived charismatic leadership and perceived
likeability. Five were significant at the p < .05 level but none were of at least moderate strength
using the Cohen (1988) criteria.
Table 6
Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix (N = 143)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variable Extrinsic Intrinsic Compatibility Motivation Charismatic Likeable
_____________________________________________________________________________
Charismatic
.07 .09 .26 *** .28 **** .29 *** .25 ***
Leadership
Feedback
.01 .07 .60 **** .56 **** .12 .20 *
Compatibility
Education -.10 .11 -.12 -.14 .01 .05
Age -.18 * -.03 -.02 -.08 -.10 -.09
Work History -.11 .09 -.09 -.10 -.18 * -.18 *
Company Size .05 .24 *** -.06 -.02 .01 .05
_____________________________________________________________________________*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .005. **** p < .001.
Additionally, an Independent Samples t-test was conducted to analyze gender and
ethnicity, male versus female and Caucasian versus Non-Caucasian. In conducting a t-test, no
difference was found between the ratings of the male and female mean scores which are shown
in Table 7. Additionally, no significant differences were found between the Caucasian and Non-
Caucasian groups, mean scores are shown in Table 8.

101
Table 7
Gender t Tests for Independent Means (N = 143)
________________________________________________________________________
Variable Demographic n M SD p
________________________________________________________________________
Extrinsic .78
Male 43 2.34 0.53
Female 100 2.36 0.42
Intrinsic .11
Male 43 2.93 0.47
Female 100 2.81 0.35
Compatibility .37
Male 43 2.79 1.34
Female 100 2.57 1.34
Motivation .30
Male 43 2.88 1.40
Female 100 2.62 1.36
________________________________________________________________________
102
Table 8
Caucasian t Tests for Independent Means (N = 143)
________________________________________________________________________
Variable Caucasian n M SD p
________________________________________________________________________
Intrinsic .27
Yes 100 2.33 0.39
No 43 2.42 0.57
Extrinsic .58
Yes 100 2.86 0.37
No 43 2.82 0.46
Compatibility .72
Yes 100 2.61 1.33
No 43 2.70 1.35
Motivation .70
Yes 100 2.67 1.39
No 43 2.77 1.36
________________________________________________________________________
In summary, this study used data from 143 participants to determine (a) the main effect of
charismatic leadership; (b) the main effect of feedback compatibility; and (c) to determine the
interaction effect between charismatic leadership and feedback compatibility. Hypothesis 1
(charismatic leadership and motivation) was supported. Hypothesis 2 (feedback compatibility
and motivation) was supported. Hypothesis 3 (interaction of charismatic leadership and feedback
compatibility with motivation) was not supported. In the final chapter, these findings will be
compared to the literature; conclusions and implications will be drawn, and a series of
recommendations will be suggested.

103
CHAPTER V
Discussion
To better understand employee motivation, the present study examined two key drivers:
leadership style and feedback compatibility. More specifically, the role of charismatic leadership
and feedback compatibility on motivation was examined using the Neuroleadership approach
and David Rock’s SCARF model. The results of this study are encouraging for both researchers
and practitioners in the field of leadership. This chapter summarizes and interprets the results, it
also presents implications along with strengths, limitations and future research needed.
Summary and Interpretation of the Results
Charismatic leadership and motivation. It was hypothesized that employee motivation
is higher under charismatic leadership. The results provided support for this hypothesis. The
notion of a charismatic leader contributing to an employee’s level of motivation is supported by
the leader appealing to their values, breaking the status quo, and creating a vision that inspires
employees to follow their goals. Additionally, they have charisma which brings energy and
excitement, while inspiring employees to give their best effort when working toward their goals.
The study’s vignettes used the charismatic leadership behavioral components proposed by
Conger and Kanungo (1998). The results supported that when these behaviors are present, the
leader is seen as charismatic which, in turn, motivates employees. These findings are important
because organizations absolutely must figure out what leadership styles and approaches work
best in organizations. The goal of the leader should be to use motivational techniques to help
alter an employee’s behavior. The findings suggest that employees’ motivation can be enhanced
through the demonstration of key behavioral components. Based on these results, one
recommendation for organizations is to train and coach their leaders accordingly in order to get
104
the greatest results from their employee, which in turn, impacts the bottom line. It is already
noted that most employees leave their job because of their direct manager. Essentially, employee
motivation can help to retain these employees by improving employee engagement.
Charismatic leaders can elevate and transform an entire company or group of people.
Employees under a charismatic leader identify with group goals and a shared vision; in turn,
employees adapt their individual norms, values and behaviors (Bass, 1985; Gecas, 1982
McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008). Therefore, if they are motivated by this leadership style, they will
be committed to improving their behaviors. They have the ability to sense the gaps that exist
between what an organization is delivering to its employees, and what the employees need from
an organization. This allows the leader to create a vision of a future that everyone believes will
be better than today’s environment. In turn, the employees see the leader as the one that possess
the ability to visualize the future with clarity, while also understanding how they fit into the
future state and believe it will be better. Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and Steve Jobs
are all great charismatic leaders who have made a great impact and had significant contributions
to their followers.
Within the organization where I currently work, our previous president was an extremely
charismatic leader who demonstrated a majority of the behavioral components associated with
this leadership style. I know from personal experience as I felt a great increase in intrinsic
motivation in comparison to other leaders I have seen and worked with. This leader challenged
the status quo, attempted to change it, created an idealized vision, was likeable, was inspirational
and articulate in sharing the future vision, motivated to lead, and is an expert in the business. I
felt that I could fully understand how I could contribute to the company, his vision, and our
organizational goals. I felt I could also integrate my personal beliefs with the values expected
105
and tried to adhere my behavior to meet all that he was expecting. This motivated me to reach
my full potential, I felt a sense of purpose and felt an unconditional commitment to the
organization. Overall, I had a great increase in my intrinsic motivation. I also witnessed the
impact it had on the employees’ (within the organization) motivation around an essential product
that required integrating innovative technology into a tight product timeline release that had
many hiccups along the way. Through his charismatic leadership and using the behavioral
components, people gave every ounce of their work-self to delivering on this massive project
which has turned out to be one of the company’s most successful products. Personally, I have felt
the impact of charismatic leadership on my motivation within the workplace; it is beneficial that
my hypothesis supports this notion and what a profound impact this type of leader can make.
One potential explanation for this study’s finding (charismatic leadership impact on
employee motivation) may have to do with the generational differences. A large portion of the
participants in the present study fell within the Millennial and Gen Y age group (born between
1980 and mid-2000s), specifically, the Millennial age range of 18 to 34. Mean scores indicated
that employee motivation was higher in the Millennial age group. The highest mean was
represented in the Millennial age group. The highest mean was participants between 18 to 26
years old (M = 4.5), with the age range of 26 to 36 following second (M = 3.85). The age range
of over 47 years (M = 3.60) and 37 to 46 (M = 3.00) were the lowest mean scores. The
Millennial group of working individuals now represents the largest population in the Unites
States (Balda & Mora, 2011). Millennials want a culture where they feel valued, respected and
are contributing toward a greater purpose. They prefer forward progression and challenging the
status quo. They want to be excited about their work (Deal et al., 2014; Reuteman, 2015). This
group leaves an organization because of their leaders, not because of the organization
106
(Reuteman, 2015). They have no problem job-hopping until they find a compatible leader.
Considering that 60 percent of the participants in the present study fell into the millennial age
range, it is reasonable to deduct that they feel motivation heavily depends on leaders who acquire
charismatic qualities.
Feedback compatibility and motivation. The results also provided support for
Hypothesis 2 which proposed that employee motivation is higher when the manager’s feedback
style aligns with the participant’s preferred style (i.e., high feedback compatibility). This finding
supports the premise of Neuroleadership, which is the understanding of the neuroscience and
applying towards leadership and human performance improvement. Overall, Neuroleadership
improves leader efficiency and effectiveness in organizations and helping their employees
succeed. The SCARF model accounts for the different preferences of employees and using
multiple approaches to motivate. Within Neuroleadership, the SCARF model is used for
motivational purposes. Therefore, the results from the study support the use of the behavioral
components proposed by David Rock for each brain domain. When an employee is given
feedback on their specific brain domain their motivation will increase in comparison to receiving
feedback that is not in alignment with their preference or no feedback at all. The findings imply
that focusing on the employee, how they want to receive feedback and the feedback that focuses
on the task and developmental feedback, will increase employee motivation. Again, all of this is
dependent on the leader giving feedback that is compatible with the employee’s brain preference.
It is important to explore that feedback compatibility impacts employee motivation
because providing feedback to employees on their performance is one of the most essential tasks
for any leader. Performance feedback is one of the most important factors affecting internal
motivation (Kaymaz, 2011). The employees are also motivated by knowing the feedback will
107
increase their own performance (Rosen at al., 2006). Feedback is a mechanical system that we
are trying to apply to a living system. When we give feedback, 40 percent of the time
performance actually ends up getting worse and 30 percent of the time performance stays the
same (D. Felicitas, personal communication, January 10, 2012). Clearly, leaders must pay close
attention on how to give proper feedback so it motivates employees to achieve more and do
better. From my personal observations within three different organizations (and across various
functional groups), leaders do not know how to give effective feedback, especially feedback that
follows the SCARF model. Leaders have a tendency to give feedback that doesn’t focus on task
feedback or development feedback. The first common mistake, leaders unintentionally give
feedback on the employee’s personal characteristics. The second common mistake is the leader
will give task feedback that is at a high-level and doesn’t provide specific examples of the
employee’s behavior. The third common mistake, they give the same style feedback to every
employee instead of customizing their approach to the employee. Leaders then wonder and often
times come to me to ask what they should do because their employee’s performance isn’t
improving or the employee isn’t applying the feedback they received. That means these leaders
are probably contributing to the 70 percent of the time the intent of feedback does not match with
the results that are needed. Again, the SCARF model determines how the employee prefers to
receive feedback, but it is also focused on the task and development.
This study (feedback compatibility increases employee motivation) supports previous
research in that feedback impacts employee motivation. High performance organizations
demonstrate five elements: Managers explain why decisions were made; feedback occurs in a
timely manner; essential information flows continuously; managers explain the effects to
organizational changes to each level of workers and their roles; and employees’ responses are
108
validated to leaders (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002; Young & Post, 1993). These factors motivate
employees’ work effort and increased performance. These five elements are embedded within
the SCARF model. Again, if these elements lead to a successful organization, there is probably a
correlation with employee performance, motivation, and alignment to the SCARF model.
Although it is becoming repetitive, training and coaching leaders are essential for them to
understand and practice the SCARF model and Neuroscience to get the most out of the employee
population. According to the results, in order to have motivated employees, there needs to be
highly compatible feedback between the leader and employee.
Although our findings supported that when high feedback compatibility is occurring, then
employee motivation will be higher in comparison to low feedback compatibility or no feedback,
we had one interesting result that was surprising. Our results also showed that contrary to the
expectation, there was no significant difference between the low compatibility and no feedback
conditions. This can partially be explained by the generational differences. The millennial group
wanted encouragement and regular feedback. They expect their leaders to provide constant and
constructive feedback, flexibility, clear directions and the freedom to do work - all of which
align with the SCARF model as well (Kultalahti, Edinger, & Brandt, 2013). Harvard Business
Review and Oxford Economics conducted a global survey in 2014 with 1,400 millennials.
Overall, the results showed that this group wanted feedback from their leaders (Willyerd, 2015).
Statistics showed that 50 percent wanted feedback monthly, 30 percent wanted quarterly
feedback, but only 46 percent felt their leader delivered on their expectation for feedback
(Willyerd, 2015). That is, 54 percent of employees felt the leader did not deliver feedback to
their satisfaction. The results of this study suggest that it is because leaders did not give feedback
according to the behavioral components within the SCARF model or did not give compatible
109
feedback to their employee sending them into threat mode. Additionally, millennials wanted
feedback 50 percent more often than other employees. They also acknowledge in the survey that
the top source for development is the direction from their leader in order to move ahead in their
career (Willyerd, 2015). Therefore, because 60 percent of my participants fell into the millennial
age range, it would make sense that they felt more motivated by high feedback compatibility in
comparison to low feedback compatibility and no feedback.
To further discuss that there was no significant difference between the low compatibility
and no feedback conditions, the question becomes why. It was the assumption that there would
still be a difference in employee motivation; specifically that we should see low feedback
compatibility having higher employee motivation scores in comparison to the no feedback
condition. According to the SCARF model, all five SCARF domains are how the brain is
organized in threat and reward responses. The researcher assumed that a participant in the low
feedback compatibility condition would still feel more motivation because it was assumed to be
better than no feedback at all from the leader. This was not the case which leads to the
conclusion that a brain threat response is more detrimental to employee motivation than to not
receive any leader feedback at all. The threat response does in fact reduce motivation and
performance, even when the employee has no feedback on their performance. Therefore, we can
assume that a leader who does not give feedback is better than a leader giving incompatible
SCARF feedback.
Charismatic leadership, feedback compatibility and motivation. Hypothesis 3
proposed that when the leader is charismatic, feedback compatibility will not affect employee
motivation. However, certain research studies have argued that when employees are exposed to
charismatic leadership, employees were motivated regardless of feedback. This hypothesis

110
predicted there would be an interaction effect between charisma and feedback. This last
hypothesis was proposed because research suggested that both charismatic leadership and
feedback will increase employee motivation. However, certain research studies have argued that
when employees are exposed to charismatic leadership, employees were motivated well
regardless of feedback. Therefore, the assumption was made that the impact of feedback on
motivation and performance becomes irrelevant when employees have charismatic leadership.
Shea and Howell (1999) conducted a study to determine whether leadership style
(charismatic and non-charismatic) or feedback had an impact or effect on individuals’ motivation
and performance. They found a significant interaction effect. As Shea and Howell predicted,
motivation and performance decreased substantially with no feedback, and increased when
feedback was given. This finding supports Shamir et al.’s (1993) statement that non-charismatic
leaders can impact employee performance by using feedback to motivate their performance.
However, divergent from the study’s prediction, individuals exposed to charismatic leaders
performed equally well regardless of feedback (Shea & Howell, 1999). The goal of this study
was to determine which variable would be most impactful on employee motivation. Our results
did not support this assertion. In our analyses, it appears that high feedback compatibility will
have a greater impact on employee motivation regardless of the type of leader (when examined
charismatic leadership and non-charismatic leadership). This is a significant finding because it
goes against findings of previous research, but we can also make assumptions about which
variable will have a great motivational effect. Feedback is absolutely critical more so than the
leader’s style.
This hypothesis does not state that charismatic leadership is not important to employee
motivation, but instead, that feedback compatibility will impact employee motivation greater in
111
comparison. The lack of support for Hypothesis 3 and why feedback compatibility is more
critical can be attributed to the millennial generation. The generation’s discussion is very
relevant and regularly discussed within organizations. Leaders want to better understand
different generations and how to lead accordingly. From my personal interpretation of results,
contrary to this hypothesis and past research, I think I found these results because feedback is
more critical and it matters more to the millennial generation. The primary engagement and goals
of millennials are: (1) career opportunities, (2) learning and development, (3) managing
performance, (4) corporate social responsibility and company reputation, (5) work-life balance
for health and well-being (Gilbert, 2011). If you look at the first three items listed, all are more
impacted by feedback then the leader’s style/approach. It is most important for this generation to
advance in their career and develop themselves in order to better themselves in the workplace.
When feedback is compatible between the employee and leader, there will be a greater impact to
motivation and performance leading to career opportunities, development and improvement in
performance. Feedback will help in all three areas. If the millennial can incorporate the feedback
and work on their areas of opportunity with their performance, then they have a greater chance of
advancing their career. Again, I predict that feedback matters most to millennials, but I would
attribute the lack of feedback compatibility to the 54 percent that were not satisfied with their
leader’s feedback.
Although the results of this study highlight the importance of feedback compatibility, it is
also important to discuss the importance of goal setting of the leaders, especially charismatic
leaders. When feedback compatibility methods are not effective for leaders, the goal setting
would be an important component. Within the literature review, it was discussed that charisma,
coupled with goal setting and ambitious goals, greatly impacts motivation. Shamir et al. (1993;
112
2003) discuss the importance of charismatic leadership influencing self-esteem and self-worth in
employee motivation. The alignment between charismatic leadership and goal orientation is
imperative because it impacts the self-esteem and self-worth which then influences employee
motivation. It is critical that when a leader’s SCARF feedback skills are weak that they
potentially use goal-setting to help direct behavior and increase employee motivation.
The results of this study are encouraging for both researchers and practitioners in the field
of leadership. First, a key finding of this dissertation is that both charismatic leadership and
feedback compatibility impacts employee motivation. The second key finding is that feedback
compatibility will have a greater influence on employee motivation. Employees are motivated
because there are tangible actions they can take to increase their behavior and performance
instead of having a leader that exhibits charismatic behaviors.
Additional findings. As mentioned previously in the methods and results chapter, we
used Amabile’s (1994) Work Preference Inventory scale to examine extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation in this study. We ended up excluding this from the study due to three reasons: (1) low
reliability with the scales, (2) nine outliers that occurred within this scale, and (3) there were not
any findings within the study with this instrument. I was able to exclude this because extrinsic
and intrinsic motivation were an additional dependent variable within this study.
When looking at the correlations between the study’s variables and demographics
information, there was nothing significant that stood out that is worth discussing in this chapter.
Implications of the Results
This study contributes to the existing literature, which states that feedback influences
motivation. This study also added further findings that challenge previous research on feedback,
charismatic leadership and motivation. The findings introduced the idea that employees prefer
113
high compatibility feedback over charismatic leadership and that this type of feedback has a
great impact on employee motivation. The results are not stating that charismatic leadership is
not an important component, but studies have shown that leadership does matter. However, when
comparing the two variables, feedback has a greater chance of influencing employee motivation.
The variables in this study were selected for their practical application in organizations.
From my personal experience within organizations, I have witnessed the impact leadership and
feedback can have on the employee population. Currently in organizations, leaders disregard
different personalities and the unique attributes of employees while using a singular approach to
motivate employees. I have worked in various organizations and with various client groups and
from my observations, the “one size fits all approach” has not been effective. Instead, a
successful leader customizes the motivational approach to fit the employee’s needs and
determines their triggers and energizers. This can be a challenge for most leaders to have
different approaches, but through proper leadership coaching and training, organizations can
provide the tools and resources so leaders can impact employee motivation and increase
productivity for the organization’s bottom line. Companies are constantly seeking to find the best
way to motivate their employees; it is continually changing and known as the “flavor of the
month.” But, making a case for training that is based on neuroscience will help provide
consistency. Organizations will benefit greatly from applying the Neuroleadership Theory and
SCARF model within their leader-employee feedback conversations and communication. Using
the talent and skills within the organization will increase productivity, which helps achieve
organizational goals and metrics. This leads to increased profits, retaining employees, and ends
up saving time and money for the organization. Leaders should still work to understand and
apply how to integrate the SCARF model into their regular interactions and dialogue with
114
employees. We would want leaders, for example, to provide feedback using the Neuroleadership
concept and the SCARF model, which proposes a method to provide feedback in a way that
aligns with the employee’s preference on brain domains. The leaders should also determine
which SCARF brain domain preferences work for each of their employees using the SCARF
online assessment.
Based on the findings from this study, if an organization was looking to invest in a
comprehensive program which includes training and coaching, I would recommend an
intervention focused on Neuroleadership approaches and the SCARF model over general
leadership training. By creating a comprehensive organizational approach based on
Neuroleadership and the SCARF model, there will be a more significant impact to employee
motivation and productivity. Leaders and employees will come to live and breathe the
terminology and have a shared understanding of its approach. The program would include the
following: (1) Communication strategy and implementation, (2) Leader training with toolkits and
resources, (2) leader coaching, (3) company-wide initiative SCARF assessment, (4) and
integration of SCARF model into 360 and performance management systems and programs. The
first phase of the program would be to develop and roll out an entire communication strategy
around the implementation. The communication would educate all individuals within the
organization about the new program, basic concepts to create a general understanding, and
introduce the SCARF self-assessment that will be required for all to complete. These
communications would then be places on the learning management system of the organization.
An entire roadmap through the implementation of the program would all be loaded onto a
roadmap in the LMS. The second phase would be to conduct a company-wide training program
to all levels of leadership on the SCARF model, Neuroleadership, demonstration of behavioral

115
components, practical applications, toolkits and resources. It is important to include all levels of
leadership because anyone who leads will be giving feedback to their direct report at some point
in time. Some managers who give feedback will need more training in comparison to others.
Often times, higher levels of management are included in leader training but not lower levels of
leadership, this could create a disastrous situation. In order for the SCARF model to become the
norm, all leaders must go through the program. As required in the original communications, we
would have employees and leaders complete the SCARF assessment that outlines the preferences
of the brain domains for each individual. Once leaders have completed training, the leader and
employees would discuss results during one-on-one meetings. The next phase would include
high potential leaders who have been identified during Succession Planning or Talent Review
meetings who would then act as a program champion. These individuals would also go through
one-on-one coaching so they become experts and are able to successfully exhibit and practice
with their teams as well as help coach others on the SCARF model and NeuroLeadership
approaches. The goal would be to utilize these high potential leaders to build a culture of
feedback and support facilitation of coaching other leaders. The last phase would be to integrate
the SCARF model into the organization’s 360 programs and performance management systems
and processes to reinforce the expectations and behaviors. The overall program should
emphasize the importance of integrating the SCARF model into employee feedback sessions,
general dialogue and ability of the leader.
This program should also incorporate the same methodology with upward feedback,
which is the employee giving feedback to their leader. This SCARF model would be very helpful
in the upward feedback process. In every element of the organization, Neuroleadership and
SCARF would be the expectation.

116
If implemented, the intervention outlined will benefit an organization. The goal of the
program would be to enhance leader ability and increase employee motivation and productivity.
It involves all employees at the individual, leadership and organizational level. This model is
reflective of the 70-20-10 learning and development model. Individuals learn best when 70
percent of learnings occur through on-the-job, experience-based practice; 20 percent of learning
occurs through peers or their leader and 10 percent from formal training. This program should be
applied across the entire organization regardless of location/region. Overall, this program would
save the organization time, money and resources by focusing on the SCARF model and
Neuroleadership, giving an organization a return on their investment.
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research
Strengths of the study. This study has yielded several strengths. It was able to create a
virtual role-playing environment for participants. The study laid out specific instructions and
detailed vignettes in which we asked participants before and after each vignette to put themselves
in place of the employee and think of how they would feel or act if they were that employee.
Participants were able to apply role playing to their personal experience. The second strength
was that vignettes measured what they were supposed to measure. The vignettes were written
very carefully using the Conger and Kanungo (1998) behavioral components to create the
charismatic and non-charismatic leadership vignettes and David Rock’s SCARF model (2008;
Eisenberger & Liberman, 2003) behavioral components were used to create the feedback
vignettes. Through writing the vignettes based on the behavioral components and examples, the
statistical analysis showed that the vignettes measured what they were supposed to measure. The
third strength was that the sample population covered a wide variety of business industries; this
could imply that these results could be generalized across U.S. business industries. The last
117
strength is that the results for charismatic leadership and feedback added significant findings to
the literature that helped build further research on employee motivation and also for
organizations to use these concepts for practical application.
Limitations of the study. It is also important to note the limitations of this study. The
first limitation was the use of snowball sampling. Participants were asked to forward the study
invitation to peers that met the requirements to participate. The disadvantages of this are that it
creates a loss of control over the sampling method on behalf of the researcher; while there is also
a potential of sampling bias because the participants tend to forward to people they know well. It
is possible that the participants share the same characteristics, which can lead to the sample being
only a small subgroup of the entire population. It can also impact the researcher’s ability to make
inferences about the population based on the sample.
The second limitation is in regards to some areas in the demographics, which were
largely skewed. The following demographics sample were largely women (70 percent), majority
Caucasian (70 percent), majority college or graduate school educated (80 percent) and majority
age range 26-36 years old (60 percent). This could impact my ability to generalize my results.
Even though the age range was predominantly 26-36 years, these individuals had over 11 years
of work tenure (40 percent). Although the age range was on the younger end of the spectrum, at
least the sample of participants were largely tenured with work experience. Overall, the results
were skewed because it was a majority of women with the high end of work tenure and high
education levels. The results then came from a similar group, with a similar work and education
background, and potentially a similar perspective which could have skewed my results.
Additionally, data was collected in the U.S., representing western culture values. For the future, I
118
would recommend a larger sample size that has a global participant sample to have a more
generalizable population data set.
The third limitation of this study is that SCARF assessment has not been validated by the
NeuroLeadership Group. This is due to it being a newer assessment; also, the group is in the
process of undergoing validation and reliability testing. My rationale for using this instrument,
even though it has not been validated, is justified by my research and expertise from my studies
on Neuroleadership and the SCARF model. The model was developed from four years of
research with 30 neuroscientists. These five domains have been shown in many studies to
activate threat and reward responses (http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/360-assessments/). For
reliability testing, they are having the same participants retake the assessment several times to
ensure the results are consistent (http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/360-assessments/). I have
personally completed the instrument on three separate occasions and my results have been
consistent and accurate. Additionally, I have asked a few voluntary participants to complete the
assessment and provide feedback - this was prior to collecting data for this study. All participants
had found their results to be accurate from their perspective.
The fourth limitation of this study is only being able to report on one of the five brain
domains in the second phase of the study. The first part of the second phase of the study had the
participant enter in their highest rated brain domain which then determined the SCARF vignette
category they were given. For example, if the participant had a 65% status brain preference, the
participant would report that domain, then would have been randomly assigned to either status
high feedback compatibility condition, status low feedback compatibility condition, or no
feedback condition. The participant was not allowed to enter the rank order of their self-
assessment results in the study. Another challenge is occasionally a participant will have two
119
brain domains that are weighted equally. For example, a participant could have 35% certainty
preference and 35% fairness preference; this would then force the participant to pick which
preference they would want to report-out in phase two of the study. This could have potentially
impacted the results of their study and make this a limitation.
The next limitation was on the no feedback condition and low feedback compatibility
condition. It was predicted that high feedback compatibility would impact motivation more than
low feedback compatibility and no feedback conditions, this was true. Based on this, the
assumption was made that low feedback compatibility would impact motivation more than the
no feedback condition because it would be predicted that some feedback, even though not
compatible, would still be superior to none. This was not the case. The participants could not tell
the difference between the two conditions and the impact to motivation although they differed
slightly, it was not significant. Another limitation is that the sample size could have been higher.
If the study had doubled the sample size, then this could have potentially impacted the
significance of this finding along with Hypothesis 3.
The last limitation was around the dependent variable motivation. Motivation was only
measured by one item from the vignette. The use of multiple measures of a single construct gives
you the best chance of fully representing a construct. The Amabile (1994) WPI instrument was
used to measure extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, but this instrument was a poor choice due to
reliability that fell on the lower end of the acceptable scale. Additionally, the means of extrinsic
(2.36) and intrinsic motivation (2.85) were within the 2 range of a 4-point Likert scale, why
implies this is not a good measure to use. The study had nine outliers, but these participants only
showed as outliers for the WPI instrument. We decided to retain the outliers since the WPI
120
instrument was not measuring a primary variable and only impacted this instrument. During data
analysis, when excluding the outliers, it decreased reliability even more for the WPI scale.
Future research. Based on the results of the study, there are several areas that would be
useful for future research. Other researchers and also new doctoral students can potentially gain
insight and use this study as a possible dissertation topic. The most obvious area to further
explore would be to have a larger and more diverse sample population. But the study should also
include more inclusive sample with less highly educated people. There needs to be a better
motivation scale and one that measures more than one item. The WPI scale had low reliabilities
and as mentioned in the limitations, the means were within the 2 range on a 4-point Likert scale;
taking these items into account it may not be a good measure to use in the future. A future
research idea would be moving from motivation to studying and measuring the impact on
employee engagement. I would also recommend, a longitudinal study looking at the impacts to
motivation, engagement, and productivity of employees under charismatic leaders and leaders
who practice the SCARF model with compatibility to the employees SCARF preferences; while
also taking self-reports of leaders and employee perception. Researchers could actually observe
behaviors and impacts of employees’ motivation, engagement and productivity on their job.
Another future research idea would be to analyze the SCARF dimensions in a path model, for
example, similar to the big-five personality traits. This would help us determine the magnitude
and significance of hypothesized causal connections between the sets of variables. The next item
I would add to future research would be to determine if there are differences between feedback
and motivation within the different generations. The last research idea would be to examine
authentic leadership and the SCARF model and the impact to employee motivation. After
121
hypothesizing that my results might be due to my participant population being majority
millennials, it would be important to test this theory.
Conclusions
The objective of the current study was to examine the effects of charismatic leadership
and feedback compatibility on employee motivation. The present study not only supported
previous research, but it also attempted to offer new insights as to why the results of this study
showed that feedback compatibility is extremely significant in employee motivation. This study
also highlights the newer concept of Neuroleadership and the SCARF model. Organizations have
stressed the importance of leadership style, but feedback in practical applications has not been
seen as important as leadership style. With a huge shift to employee motivation being critical in
organizations in the US and globally, this study will be able to contribute to future research
relating to feedback compatibility, charismatic leadership and employee motivation because
there is still a great deal of research to be explored in this area. The research study leads the
researcher to conclude that feedback compatibility is a critical element in employee motivation,
one that has not been taken as seriously within organizations. This change in organizational
perception will take more research, literature and study findings for there to be a shift in what
organizations train their leaders on. It is imperative for further research and studies. But, the
next recommended step to increasing employee motivation within organizations is implementing
formal training programs and coaching focused on leadership style and feedback.
122
References
Adair, J. (2005). How to grow leaders. New York, NY: Kogan Page.
Aleksic, V. S., Babic, V., & Eric, J. (2012) Why charisma matters? Technologies Education
Management, 7(2), 698-705.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 6(1), 35-44.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference
inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
Ambrose, M., & Kulik, C. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s.
Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-92.
Arnolds, C.A., & Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, esteem valence and job performance: An
empirical assessment of Alderfer’s ERG theory. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 13(4), 697—719.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & 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, 441-462.
Audia, P. G., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Benefiting from negative feedback. Human Resource
Management Review, 13, 631-646.
Balda, J. B., & Mora, F. (2011). Adapting leadership theory and practice for the networked,
millennial generation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 13-24.
Baldoni, J., (2005). Motivation secrets. Great motivation secrets of great leaders. Retrieved from
http://govleaders.org/motivation_secrets.htm
123
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social-cognitive view.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and
Company.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Bedeian, A. G. (1993). Management (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Dryden Press.
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. (2009). Consequences of positive and negative feedback: The
impact on emotions and extra-role behaviors. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 58(2), 274-303.
Bennett, N., Herold, D. M., & Ashford, S. J. (1990). The effects of tolerance for ambiguity on
feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 343-348.
Bennis, W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Reading MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1955). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper
and Row.
Blank, W., Weitzel, J. R., & Green S. G. (1990). A test of the situational leadership theory.
Personnel Psychology, 43, 579-597.

124
Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 515-549.
Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (5), 554-571.
Buckingham M., & Coffman C. (1999). Break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers
do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a
condition of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research:
A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 67, 26-48.
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., &Nusbaum, H. C. (2008). Neuroimaging as a new tool in the
toolbox of psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(2),
62-67.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social
connection. New York: W. W. Norton.
Case study: Kellogg’s motivation of staff. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.qbd-sa.com/case-
study-kellogs-motivation-of-staff/
Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological
considerations, and new directions. The Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 202-210.
Charismatic authority. (n.d.). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
125
Chemers, M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd Ed.). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and
empowerment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(1), 24-43.
Conger J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings. Academy of Management, 12(4), 637-647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of
proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development and change (9th ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Daw, N. D., Kakade, S., & Dayan, P. (2002). Opponent interactions between serotonin and
dopamine. Neural Networks, 15 , 603-616.
Davidhizar, R. (1993). Leading with charisma. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 675-679.
Deal, J.J., Stawski, S., Gentry, W.A. & Cullen, K.L. (2014). What makes a leader effective? U.S.
Boomers, Xers, and Millennials Weigh In. Center for Creative Leadership White Paper.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R.
Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation
(pp.237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

126
DeHoogh, A. H. B., Ren Hartog, D., Koopman, P., Thierry, H., Van Den Berg, P. T., Van Der
Weide, V., & Wilderom, C. (2005). Leader motives, charismatic leadership and
subordinates work attitudes in profit and voluntary sector. The Leadership Quarterly, 16,
17-38.
Dickson, W. J. (1973). Hawthorne experiments. In C. Heyel (Ed.), The encyclopedia of
management (2nd ed., pp. 298-302). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling
prophecies in organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 271-305.
Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and
attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 92, 52-66.
Eisenberger, N. I., & Liberman, M. D. (2003). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm
system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 294-300.
Feedback. (n.d.). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://
http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Feedback
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33.
Gilbert, J. (2011). The millennials: A new generation of employees, a new set of engagement
policies. Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved from
http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-millennials-a-new-generation-of-
employees-a-new-set-of-engagement-policies/
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.

127
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primal leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Goodson, J. R., McGee, G. W., & Cashman, J. F. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of
leadership Prescriptions. Group & Organizations Studies, 14(4), 446-461.
Deakin, J. F. W., & Graeff, F. G. (1991). 5-HT and mechanisms of defense, Journal of
Psychopharmacol, 5, 305-315.
Greguras, G. J., Ford, J. M., & Brutus, S. (2003). Manager attention to multisource feedback.
Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 345-361.
Greller, M. M. (2003). Managing feedback systems to facilitate change in acquisitions: The
introduction of a model and explanation of its application. Human Resource Management
Review, 13, 647-673.
Hagmann, P., Cammoun, L., Gigandet, X., Meuli, R., & Honey, C. J. (2008). Mapping the
structural core of human cerebral cortex. PLOS Biology, 6, 1-15.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An
examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 37, 60-78.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and
Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human
resources (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

128
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new
research directions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 341-423.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javiden, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership,
and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 3, 81-108.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The
equity sensitivity construct. The Academy of Management Review. 12(2), 222-234.
Ilies, R., Judge, T., & Wagner, D. (2006). Making sense of motivational leadership: The trail
from transformational leaders to motivated followers. Journal of Leadership
Organizational Studies, 13(1), 1-22.
Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2008). Organizational behavior and
management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Jacobsen, C. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model,
and tests. Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 75-112.
Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2008). Organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
129
Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.
Kaymaz, K. (2011). Performance feedback: Individual based reflections and the effect on
motivation. Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(4), 115-134.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31, 457-501.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalization: Three processes of attitude
change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
Kim, J. S. (1984). Effect of behavior plus outcome goal setting and feedback on employee
satisfaction and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 139-149.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of
Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
Kultalahti, S., Edinger, P., & Brandt, T. (2013). Expectations for leadership-generation Y and
innovativeness in the limelight. Proceedings of the European Conference on
Management, 2013, 152-160. Retrieved from http://academic-
conferences.org/ecmlg/ecmlg2013/ecmlg13-home.htm
Latham, G., & Pinder, C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.

130
Lawler, E. E., & Jenkins, G. D. (1992). Strategic reward systems. In M. D. Dunnette and L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., 1009-55).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Levering, R. (1988). A great place to work. New York, NY: Avon.
Locke, E. A. (1991). Goal theory versus control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding
work motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 9-28.
Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational psychology (pp. 1-36).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
London, M. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance
improvement (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lopez, E.S. & Ensari, N. (2014). The effects of leadership style, organizational outcome, and
gender on attributional bias toward leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 19-37.
Lord R. G., De Vader, C., & Alliger, G. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
Lord R. G., Foti, R. G., & De Vader, C. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory:
Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational
behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343-378.

131
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. (1993). Leadership and information processing. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Manzoor, Q. (2012). Impact of employees motivation on organizational effectiveness. Business
Management and Strategy, 3(1), 1-13.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2002). Leader communication strategies critical paths to
improving employee commitment. American Business Review, 20, 89-94.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, CA: Scott Foresman.
McHugh, P. (1968). Defining the situation: The organization of meaning in social interaction.
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merril.
McLaurin, J. R., & Al Amri, M. B. (2008). Developing an understanding of charismatic and
transformational leadership. Proceedings of the Allied Academies, 15(2), 333-337.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts,
controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351-389.
Meindl J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
Merskey, H., & Bogduk, N. (Eds.) (1994). Classification of chronic pain: Description of chronic
pain syndromes and definition of pain terms (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.iasp-
pain.org/files/Content/ContentFolders/Publications2/FreeBooks/Classification-of-
Chronic-Pain.pdf
Minzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.
Mitroff, I. I. (2004). Crisis in leadership. New York, NY: Wiley.
Mobbs, D., & McFarland, W. (2010). The neuroscience of motivation. Neuroleadership Journal,
3, 43-52.
132
Mobbs, D., Petrovic, P., Marchant, J., Hassabis, D. Weiskopf, N., Seymour, B., Dolan, R. J., &
Frith, C. D. (2007). When fear is near: Threat imminence elicits prefontal-
periaquaeductal grey shifts in humans. Science, 317, 1079-1083.
Montana, P. J., & Charnov, B. H. (2008). Management. New York, NY: Barron’s Educational
Series.
Motivation. (n.d.). In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation
Motivation. (1989). In The Macmillan Dictionary of Quotations. Foster City: CA: IDG Books
Worldwide, Inc.
Morse, G. (2006). Decisions and desire. The Harvard Business Review, 84, 42-51.
Nathan, B. R., Morhman, A. M., & Milliman, J. (1991). Interpersonal relations as a context for
the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study.
The Academy of Management Journal, 34 (2), 352-369.
Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The role of emotion in decision making: A cognitive
neuroscience perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 260-264.
Nowack, K. (2009). Leveraging multirater feedback to facilitate successful behavioral change.
Consulting Psychological Journal: Practice and Research, 61(4), 280-297.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Öngür, D., Ferry, A. T., & Price, J. L. (2003). Architectonic subdivision of the human orbital and
medial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Comp Neurol, 460, 425-449.
Paulus, M. P., Rogalsky, C., Simmons, A., Feinstein, J. S., & Stein, M. B. (2003). Increased
activation in the right insula during risk-taking decision making is related to harm
avoidance and neuroticism. NeuroImage, 19, 1439-1448.

133
Pinder, C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd edition). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (1998). Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voter
perceptions of candidates’ transformational and charismatic leadership and the 1996 U. S.
presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 397-416.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational
leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2),
161-192.
Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead
Books.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pritchard, R. D., & Payne, S. C. (2003). Motivation and performance management practices. In
D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard (Ed.), The new workplace:
People, technology and organization: A handbook and guide to the human impact of
modern working practices (pp. 219-244). New York, NY: Wiley.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual
and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329-354.
Reina, D. S., & Reina, M. L. (1999). Trust and betrayal in the workplace. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Reuteman, R (2015). This is how mellinnials want to be managed. Entrepreneur.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242507
Ringleb, A., & Rock, D. (2008). The emerging field of Neuroleadership. Neuroleadership
Journal, 1, 3-19.
134
Robbins, S. P., & Hunsaker, P. L. (1996). Training in interpersonal skills: TIPS For managing
people at work (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others.
Neuroleadership Journal, 1, 44-52.
Rock, D. (2009). Managing with the brain in mind. Strategy + Business Magazine, 56, 58-67.
Rock, D. (2010). Impacting Leadership with Neuroscience. HR People & Strategy, 33(4), 6-7.
Rock, D. (2011, February). Neuroscience provide fresh insight into the ‘aha’ moment. Training
& Development, 44-49.
Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2007). The neuroscience of leadership. Reclaiming Children & Youth,
16(3), 10-17.
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context of
the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 211-220.
Rukhmani, K., Ramesh, M., & Jayakrishnan, J., (2010). Effect of leadership styles on
organizational effectiveness. European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(3), 365-369.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self- determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 427-456.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
Sashkin, M. (1986). True vision in leadership. Training and Development Journal, 40, 58-61.
135
Sharma A., & Grant D. (2011). Narrative, drama, and charismatic leadership: The case of Apple’s
Steve Jobs. Leadership, 7(1), 3-26.
Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values and identities: The sources of collectivistic work
motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313-333.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader
behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors'
appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 1-17.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence
and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257-283.
Shea, C. M., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory
study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
10(3), 375-396.
Shultz, K. S., & Whitney, D. J. (2005). Measurement theory in action: Case studies and
exercises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sosik, J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers:
A model and preliminary field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 221-244.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.
Sullivan, J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management
Review, 13, 104-115.

136
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354-365.
Tepper, B. J., & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734-744.
Tichy, N. M., & DeVanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need
hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 212-240.
Waldman D. A., Balthazard P. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2009). Leadership and Neuroscience: Can
we revolutionize the way that inspirational leaders are identified and developed?
Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 60-75.
Willner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Willyerd, K. (2015). Millennials want to be coached at work. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2015/02/millennials-want-to-be-coached-at-work
Young, M., & Post, J. E. (1993). Managing to communicate, communicating to manage: How
leading companies communicate with employees. Organizational Dynamics, 22(1), 31-
43.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
137
Zaleznik, A. (1989). The managerial mystique: Restoring leadership in business. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.

138
APPENDIX A
Email Invitation
139
Dear _(Name of the participant)___________________:
My name is Elena Gutierrez-Shackelford, and I’m a graduate student at the California

School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University. I am currently conducting
a research study on feedback, leadership and employee work motivation. I’m conducting this
study to better understand how to motivate employees within an organization and develop
training programs for leaders, therefore, would greatly appreciate your input by participating in a
brief study. Please note that your participation is completely anonymous and voluntary.
Participation requirements: at least 18 years of age, currently employed with a minimum

of two years of employment, and working under a manager/supervisor/boss. This study will be
conducted online and take approximately 25-35 minutes. If you would like to receive the results
of this study there is a link at the end of the study to enter your contact information. The final
report will include an analysis of the major themes from the study.
If you would like to participate in this study, please follow the links to complete the two-
part study. The study comes in two stages (1) http://www.scarf360.com/individuals/scarf-self-
assessment.shtml please save your results before exiting this first stage; (2)
https://alliant.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_eyetYjyBhs2swXb you will enter your saved results in
this stage along with completing the rest of the study.
Stage 1 is a free online assessment that includes 14 questions. Stage 2 will have you input
your results from stage 1 and complete additional questions. Please make sure to complete stage
1 and then stage 2 in that order. After completion of stage 1, please complete stage 2 within 24
hours. This study will not be finalized unless both stages are completed.
I also ask that you forward this study to any colleagues or peers who would be willing to
participate as well. If you have any questions, please contact me at 5305155277 or
eshackelford@alliant.edu. If you have any questions about rights of research participants you
can contact Rebecca Novick at rnovick@alliant.edu. Thank you for your time and input.
Sincerely,
140
APPENDIX B
SCARF Self-Assessment
141
1. Several members of a team you are part of are in disagreement, and come to you for help.
To get started, do you:
a. Clarify what they expect of you
b. Speak with both parties separately to hear their point of view
c. Look for a solution that will suit all parties
d. Try to solve it without talking to anyone
e. Wish you were in charge so you could tell them what to do
2. Someone is late for a meeting with you. What is your most likely response?
a. You are annoyed because you worked hard to be on time for them
b. You make sure you have the time, date and place correct
c. You wonder what has happened to keep them late
d. You wish you had brought your laptop so you could use the time well
e. You feel let down by them
3. Your boss has given you feedback that you didn’t do well on a major project. Do you:
a. Think the feedback was one-sided
b. Ask for more detail around the feedback
c. Resolve to run projects your way in the future
d. Feel awkward with your boss and avoid them for the rest of the week
e. Feel disappointed to have let down your boss
4. You have been put on hold for some important technical help. Do you:
a. Get annoyed that they are not dealing with you straight away
b. Want to know how long you will have to wait
c. Use the time to answer emails
d. Feel sorry for the person who has put you on hold as they sound stressed
e. Wait patiently – everyone is in the same boat
5. It’s the first day of your new management job and you are thinking about your new team.
The first meeting you schedule is:
a. A relaxed ‘get to know each other’ lunch, with the whole team
b. With your boss to find out what’s important to them
c. With the whole team to clarify expectations
d. With HR to compare your salary to the rest of the team
e. With each person to find out how they want to be managed
6. You are going on a long haul overseas flight. Do you:

a. Get to the airport with plenty of time to spare – being late stresses you out
b. Get to the airport just in time – the plane won’t leave without you
c. Wish you had a wider choice of movies and meals
d. Hope you sit next to someone you feel comfortable with
e. Hope you get upgraded due to your frequent flyer miles
7. Your family is pressuring you to spend more time with them. Do you:
a. Wish you knew how to make them happy
142
b. Feel bad that you have upset them
c. Feel frustrated, as they don’t understand how busy you are
d. Agree but ask them to leave the arrangements up to you
e. Feel annoyed, as they don’t give you any credit for the effort you do make
8. You are looking for a new car to buy. How do you decide which car to buy?
a. Read and compare industry reviews
b. No decision needed you already know the car you want
c. Go to the biggest dealers with the widest range
d. Your family has a great relationship with a local dealer – you will buy through
them
e. You shop around online to find the best deal
9. You have enrolled in a new training program. Are you:

a. Pleased to be increasing your qualifications
b. Excited about meeting a new set of people
c. Nervous about what might be expected of you
d. Worried you might have to do things you don’t want to do
e. Hoping everyone puts in the same amount of effort
10. You are taking an old friend to dinner. Are you more likely to:
a. Go to your favorite local bistro where everyone knows each other
b. Want to check out the newest restaurant in town
c. Find out the kind of food your friend likes and then choose
d. Ring your friend and decide together
e. Go where the reviews are consistently good
11. Friends are coming to stay for the weekend. Do you:

a. Spend all week planning the itinerary
b. Look forward to spending quality time together
c. Spend your friends suggestions of what to do and get them to pick the ideas that
most appeal to them
d. Wish they were coming in autumn when your town and garden look its best
e. Hope you will get some time to yourself to recharge over the weekend as well
12. Your boss wants to take you out to celebrate a recent win. Do you:
a. Feel really pleased to be recognized for your good work
b. Think it’s great that your boss shares the good fortune
c. Hope you get to choose where to go
d. Suggest you do something with the whole team instead
e. Clarify with your boss exactly what you did that pleased them
13. Your team is working on an important project that is stalled waiting on decisions from
other departments. Do you:
a. Feel handicapped by all the red tape
b. Speak with the other managers to find out more details
143
c. Wish the others understood how much this slows down your team
d. Worry about the impact this will have on morale in your team
e. Stress about the impression this gives to your credibility
14. You find it hard to connect with some of the younger members of your team. Do you:
a. Ask them how you could work on this together
b. Read online to find out some ideas to implement
c. Take them out to lunch to find a connection
d. Speak to other managers to find out what worked for them
e. Give them a pep talk about respecting you as their manager
144
APPENDIX C
Consent Form
145
I have been informed that this study involves research, which will be conducted by Elena
Gutierrez-Shackelford, a student of Industrial-Organizational Psychology at California School of
Professional Psychology, Alliant International University. I understand that this project is
designed to gather data on feedback preference, leadership and their effects on work motivation
of individuals. I have been asked to participate in this study because: currently employed with a
minimum of two years of employment, with a supervisor/manager and at least 18 years of age. I
understand that my participation in this study will involve taking an online survey that includes
answering questions about my feedback preferences, leadership and work motivation. I am aware
that my involvement in this study will take approximately 25-35 minutes of my time. At the
beginning of the experiment I understand that I am able to print a screen shot of the consent form
in order to retain a copy.
I understand that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from this study before
submission of the responses to be collected in this study without any penalty or loss of services
that I am entitled to. I understand that my identity as a participant in this study will be kept
confidential, and that no information that identifies me in any way will be released without my
separate written approval. I am aware that all information that identifies me will be protected to
the limits allowed by law. I have been informed that only PhD student Elena Gutierrez-
Shackelford and her adviser Dr. Nurcan Ensari, will have access to data collected. I have been
informed that all individual data collected about me for the purposes of this study will be
destroyed by Elena Gutierrez-Shackelford within five (5) years of the date of the signing of this
document.
I am aware that although I may not directly benefit from this study, my participation in this
project may benefit the research on work motivation of individuals in organizations.
I understand that there may be a minimal risk or discomfort involved in this study. I have
been informed that if my participation makes me feel uncomfortable, I can request to withdraw at
any point. I also understand that the primary investigator of this project, Elena Gutierrez-
Shackelford, will be available to discuss my feelings and concerns with me. I understand that I
may contact Elena Gutierrez-Shackelford, 1000 South Fremont Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803,
Phone: (530) 515-5277, email: EGutierrez-Shackelford@alliant.edu, if I have any questions
about this project or my participation in this study. You can also contact adviser Dr. Nurcan
Ensari at nensari@alliant.edu. I am aware that I may also contact IRB to ask any questions about
the rights of the participants, you can contact LA IRB at irbla@alliant.edu or 858-635-4741. I
understand that at the end of the study I may request a summary of results or additional
information about the study from Elena Gutierrez-Shackelford.
I have read this form and understand what it says, and I can print this page to keep a copy
of this consent form. I am 18 years or older and voluntarily agree to participate in this research
project.
I understand that by clicking YES on the button below, I will be providing an electronic
signature and therefore will begin the survey. By clicking NO, I have chosen not to participate.
YES NO
146
APPENDIX D
Debrief Statement
147
Thank you for your participation in the study. The purpose of this study is to examine
feedback compatibility and its effect on employee motivation. While also looking at charismatic
leadership and its effect on employee motivation. We also believe that when charismatic
leadership is present, feedback becomes less important in motivating employees. But when non-
charismatic leadership is present, feedback becomes imperative in motivating employees. Slight
deception was used in this study. Your response to your top-scoring SCARF domain (SCARF
assessment result) led to being randomly assigned to one of three vignette options that were
connected to your response. The reason for omitting information about the real purpose of the
research was to avoid influencing your responses in order to accurately test the hypotheses of
this study.
All of the information that was collected will be kept in complete confidentiality and
there will be no way of identifying your responses with your identity. We are not interested in
any one participant’s responses by themselves. Rather, we are interested in the general responses
of all participants when they are combined together. If you have any questions please feel free to
contact Elena Shackelford at eshackelford@alliant.edu. If you would like to receive the results of
this study once the researcher is complete, click on the link below to provide your contact
information. This link is separate from this study and your information provided cannot be
connected to the data from this study.
https://alliant.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9Hav0HmJ3BCj2Rf
Your participation is greatly appreciated and will help in furthering our understanding of
148
APPENDIX E
SCARF Vignettes
149
Please read the following scenario between a manager and employee. As you read the
scenario, put yourself in the place of this employee and think of how you would feel, think or act
if you were him. That is, we are asking you to play the role of this employee, and answer the
questions below as if you are in his place.
David Sterling is the manager of one of the five Airframe Parts Departments at Allied
Airlines. Each of the five Airframe Parts Departments is located in five different cities across the
country. Depending on the season, some parts departments in some areas of the country were
busier than others. All of these departments compete against one another to see which one can
produce the most work with the least cost. Every six months, a report is released by the company
ranking these departments from #1 to #5 in terms of performance. David has been a department
manager at Allied Airlines for 10 years and has recently taken over the #3 ranked parts
department.
In the airline industry, parts departments play a critical role in the maintenance process
for all aircraft. Even the smallest nut and bolt must be catalogued and warehoused so they can be
made available to aircraft mechanics on an as needed basis. Each airline maintains a vast
inventory of parts and the more airplane types that the airline uses the greater the number of
parts. Some airlines fly as many as five different types of airplanes.
In order to maintaining an adequate number of on-hand parts for all aircraft, the airlines
must depend on the plane’s manufacturers for support. The airlines try to utilize just-in-time
delivery strategies in order to avoid expanding their warehouse facilities. This means that each
airline must solicit the cooperation of their planes manufacturers. The largest domestic
manufacturer of aircraft in America is Boeing Aircraft.
Three months after taking over the department, David’s department was asked to handle
the parts for the new Boeing 777 aircraft which Allied had recently purchased. He took on this
additional workload because he wanted to demonstrate his ability to manage his department and
to move it up from its current #3 position to #1 parts department in the company.
Status: High Compatibility
He was known as a manager who regularly gives feedback to his employees. He believes
that his employees need to be sensitive to their corporate environments before making changes.
Shortly after taking over, he sat down with his employee Brian (or Beth) to give feedback around
how things are currently working.
He stated, “Can I give you some feedback? Would you like to chat over coffee?” Once
they sit down, they sit on the same side of the table. He explained his belief that the department
had grown stagnant and complacent and that in order to be successful the employees in the
department needed to make dramatic changes in the way they related to their customers, the
company, and each other. He also asked, "What is working well and what would you want to
change?". He additionally stated, “I just want to thank you for your success around the most
recent changes that we have gone through and you have made such strides to improve. Would
you mind if I recognized you at the next team meeting?” He then wrapped up the feedback
conversation with the final areas for improvement.
150
Status: Low Compatibility
He stated, “Let’s meet quickly so I can give you some feedback around the current
changes. Why don’t we sit in my office, just take a seat in the chair across my desk.” He
explained his belief that the department had grown stagnant and complacent and that in order to
be successful the employees in the department needed to make dramatic changes in the way they
related to their customers, the company, and each other. He additionally stated, “You have had
success around the most recent changes that have gone through but I feel there is still room to
improve. After we meet today, I will send you an email with advice on what I would do to
improve and I can also provide some instructions.” He wrapped up the feedback conversation
with the unsuccessful accomplishment of recent tasks and areas to improve in.
Certainty: High Compatibility
He explained that his belief was that the department had grown stagnant and complacent
and that in order to be successful the employees in the department needed to make dramatic
changes in the way they related to their customers, the company, and each other. He gave details
for why each change was critical and the reasoning for the decision. He stated, “Are there any
questions that you have for me? Do you have any follow-up questions around the changes and
my rationale? We have plenty of time to talk through all of your questions.” He wrapped up the
feedback conversation giving you the upcoming goals and tasks while also breaking them down
to specifics. While also letting you know, “If you have any questions or need clarification feel
free to pop into my office or send me an email.”
Certainty: Low Compatibility
He explained his belief that the department had grown stagnant and complacent and that
in order to be successful the employees in the department needed to make dramatic changes in
the way they related to their customers, the company, and each other. He gave a list of tasks that
needed to be completed and gave Brian (Beth) the freedom to figure out how to complete them.
He also gave instructions on what not to do. He then stated, “If you have any questions that you
can’t figure out, you can email me. I won’t be able to answer your questions right now because I
151
have some projects due today.” He wrapped up the feedback conversation letting you know,
“feel free to execute the tasks how you see fit.”
Autonomy: High Compatibility
He had scheduled a meeting for 1:00 pm. He dropped by Brian's (Beth's) desk to ask,
“does the 1:00 pm time still work for you?” Once the meeting begin he explained, his belief that
the department had grown stagnant and complacent and that in order to be successful the
employees in the department needed to make dramatic changes in the way they related to their
customers, the company, and each other. He gave a list of tasks that would help with a list of
changes that need to be made. He stated, “Out of all the tasks listed here and from what we
discussed, do you have a preference on which two you would like to work on? Please feel free to
begin executing when you have made a decision. ” He also reviewed some areas for
improvement that Brian (Beth) could work on. Additionally stating, “why don’t you decide on
what you want to put into your development plan and let me know.” He also mentioned, " I
know a lot is going on and it is pretty busy and noisy, if you feel more comfortable book our
conference room so you have a quiet space to work and think through the changes or you can
have a flex work schedule and figure out when is best for you to do this work." He wrapped up
the feedback conversation asking for Brian (Beth) to set a follow-up meeting to review the
development plan that you created.
Autonomy: Low Compatibility
He explained, his belief that the department had grown stagnant and complacent and that
in order to be successful the employees in the department needed to make dramatic changes in
the way they related to their customers, the company, and each other. He gave a list of tasks that
you would need to work on and how to work through the project step-by-step. He also reviewed
some areas for improvement that would be beneficial to work on. Additionally stating, “I will go
ahead and create your development plan for improvement and what steps you need to take to
achieve it” He wrapped up the feedback conversation letting you know, “here’s what you have
to do now and you should be good to move forward.”
Relatedness: High Compatibility
152
He at the beginning of the meeting asked, “do you mind leading the meeting with the Sr.
Director this afternoon, I trust that you can do the job.” He then asked about how things are
going on the job and if there is anything new going on with work or in general. He mentions that
they are working on getting a monthly team lunch on the calendar to help the group feel more
like a team. Once the feedback meeting actually begins, He explained, his belief that the
department had grown stagnant and complacent and that in order to be successful the employees
in the department needed to make dramatic changes in the way they related to their customers,
the company, and each other. He reviews some specific changes that the team will start to make
but then opens the conversation up by asking, “Is there anything additional you would like to add
or discuss?” He gives you feedback around the tasks that you have completed, and both
successes and challenges with those tasks. He states, "I can really relate and understand how you
are feeling and where you are coming from. Feel free to talk to me at any time even if it's just to
vent, my doors always open." He wrapped up the feedback conversation by asking how you are
feeling about the changes and the feedback that you were given.”
Relatedness: Low Compatibility
He goes right into a meeting and focuses on work related items only, no “small talk” and
doesn’t make the conversation personal. He explained, his belief that the department had grown
stagnant and complacent and that in order to be successful the employees in the department
needed to make dramatic changes in the way they related to their customers, the company, and
each other. He gives you feedback around the tasks that you have completed, while also giving
you feedback on your interpersonal and decision making skills and how they affect the job. He
drives the entire discussion and ends the conversation after all his agenda items have been
discussed.
Fairness: High Compatibility
He has scheduled the entire team to have feedback sessions with him during a one week
period. He gives everyone on the team the same amount of time and the same agenda items to be
discussed. He at the beginning of the meeting states, “all employees will have regular feedback
conversations, with the same amount of time, and in a timely and consistent manner.” Once the
meeting begins he explained, his belief that the department had grown stagnant and complacent
and that in order to be successful the employees in the department needed to make dramatic
changes in the way they related to their customers, the company, and each other. He gives you
feedback around the tasks that you have completed, and sticks to the facts while remaining
objective. During the meeting he is open and transparent in his conversations and that his is how
153
he communicates regularly. He wrapped up the feedback conversation by reiterating that he will
be distributing work evenly to all employees and wants to make sure all actions are fair to the
entire team.
Fairness: Low Compatibility
He has scheduled time to go have feedback sessions with his team over a two month
period. He gives everyone on the different amounts of time and the agenda items to be discussed
are dependent upon the person. Once the meeting begins he explained, his belief that the
department had grown stagnant and complacent and that in order to be successful the employees
in the department needed to make dramatic changes in the way they related to their customers,
the company, and each other. He gives Brian (Beth) feedback around performance but know that
what is being covered in the discussion has been different then what has been discussed with
other team members. He lists who will be working on what tasks and Brian (Beth) realize the
priority tasks are given to his "favorite" employees. He does not give feedback consistently with
all employees.
154
APPENDIX F
SCARF Leadership Behavior Components and Questions

155
Instructions: you were this employee, what would you do? How would you think? Please answer
these questions as if you’re this employee.
The Behavioral Components of Status

1. Leader asks employee if they would like to receive feedback
2. Leader conducts performance discussions in an informal setting (ex: out of the leader's
office)
3. Leader would sit on the same side of the table as employee when giving feedback
4. Leader recognizes and praises employee for improvement and successes.
5. Leader gives positive feedback.
The Behavioral Components of Certainty
1. Leader states the objective and gives all possible details on a task or project
2. Leader gives the reasoning/rationale for their decisions
3. Leader asks employees if they have any questions
4. Leader takes the time to answer any questions an employee may have
5. Leader is specific and breaks down complex tasks or projects into smaller pieces
The Behavioral Components of Autonomy
1. Leader gives employee options on tasks and lets the individual make the final decision
2. Leader has employee make self-directed development plans for improvement
3. Leader will let employee manage their own work hours
4. Leader will let employee organize their workflow
5. Leader is respectful of employee's time
The Behavioral Components of Relatedness
1. Leader has trusting and open relationship with employees
2. Leader makes an attempt to connect with their team and help employees feel like a team
3. Leader focuses on task feedback instead of personal feedback (leadership skills,
interpersonal skills, employee characteristics, etc.)
4. Leader spends time with employees outside of the office (ex: going to lunch)
5. Leader checks in with employee on how they are doing and their feelings
6. Leader demonstrates empathy
The Behavioral Components of Fairness
1. Leader treats employees equally and that all actions are fair to the entire team
2. Leader is timely and consistent with feedback to all employees
3. Leader is open and transparent
4. Leader establishes clear expectations
5. Leader sticks to the facts and remains objective when giving feedback
Instructions: If you were this employee, what would you do? How would you think? Please
answer these questions as if you’re this employee.
Question: Given the behavioral components described above, to what degree do you think this
manager gives ____ (status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, or fairness) feedback?
Question: To what degree do you think this manager’s feedback style is compatible with how
you prefer to receive feedback?
Question: To what degree are you motivated by this manager’s feedback style?
156
APPENDIX G
Leadership Vignettes
157
Please read the following scenario between a manager and employee. As you read the scenario,
put yourself in the place of this employee and think of how you would feel, think or act if you
were him. That is, we are asking you to play the role of this employee, and answer the questions
below as if you are in his place.
Depicting the Charismatic Leader
David was known as an unconventional manager who sometimes used counter-

normative management methods. He has stated that managers need to be sensitive to their
corporate environments before making changes in the status quo. Shortly after taking over, he
visited with every assistant manager in his new department and then delivered to the employees
the “state-of-the-department” address.
His state-of-the-department address was an inspirational speech where he clearly

articulated his idealized vision, which was highly discrepant from the status quo, for the future of
the department. He explained his belief that the department had grown stagnant and complacent
under the previous leadership and that in order to be successful the employees in the department
needed to make dramatic changes in the way they related to their customers, the company, and
each other.
He further explained how being satisfied with the status quo was not going to get the
department where it wanted to go. “For years we have been mired down in mediocrity, content to
be an underperforming department. Starting today we will out-work, and out-perform the other
four parts departments.” His employees liked him/her for sharing his perspective and vision, and
admired him/her for being a passionate advocate for the department. Many of the department’s
employees said they identified with him/her and hoped they could acquire the kind of expertise
and power He demonstrated in changing the department’s operating strategy.
additional workload because He wanted to demonstrate his ability to manage his department and
Depicting Non-Charismatic Leadership - “No Leadership” Condition
In the airline industry, parts departments play a critical role in the maintenance process
for all aircraft. Even the smallest nut and bolt must be catalogued and warehoused so they can be
made available to aircraft mechanics on an as needed basis. Each airline maintains a vast
inventory of parts and the more airplane types that the airline uses the greater the number of
parts. Some airlines fly as many as five different types of airplanes.
In order to maintaining an adequate number of on-hand parts for all aircraft, the airlines
must depend on the plane’s manufacturers for support. The airlines try to utilize just-in-time
delivery strategies in order to avoid expanding their warehouse facilities. This means that each
airline must solicit the cooperation of their planes manufacturers. The largest domestic
manufacturer of aircraft in America is Boeing Aircraft.
158
additional workload because He wanted to demonstrate his ability to manage his department and
159
APPENDIX H
Permissions for Use of Leadership Vignettes and Questions

160
From: EDWARD LOPEZ <smithlopez@email.phoenix.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 8:45 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Elena Gutierrez-Shackelford
Subject: Re: Requesting permission to use instrument
Hi Elena
Yes, you may use the vignettes. Just be sure to properly cite the source.
Say hi to Nurcan for me.
Good luck,
Ed
161
APPENDIX I
The Behavioral Components of Charismatic Leadership Style and Questions

162
1. Environmental sensitivity: High need for environmental sensitivity for changing status
quo.
2. Relation to status quo: Essentially opposed to status quo and strives to change it.
3. Future goals: Idealized vision that is highly discrepant from status quo.
4. Likableness: Shared perspectives and idealized vision make him likable and an honorable
hero worthy of identification and imitation.
5. Articulation: Strong and/or inspirational articulation of future vision and motivation to
lead.
6. Behavioral novelty: Unconventional or counter normative.
7. Trustworthiness: Passionate advocacy by incurring great personal risk and cost.
8. Expertise: Expert in using unconventional means to transcend the existing order.
9. Power base usage: Personal power (based on expert power; respect and admiration for a
unique hero).
10. Leader-follower relationship: exemplary, transforms people to share the radical changes
advocated.
Instructions: If you were this employee, what would you do? How would you think? Please
answer these questions as if you’re this employee.
Question: Given the behavioral components described above, to what degree do you think this
manager is a charismatic leader?
Question: How charismatic do you think the manager is?
Question: How likeable do you feel this manager is?
Question: To what degree do you think you prefer this manager’s leadership style?
Question: To what degree are you motivated by this manager’s leadership style?
163
APPENDIX J
Work Preference Inventory

164
1) I enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to me.
2) I enjoy trying to solve complex problems.
3) The more difficult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it.
4) I want my work to provide me with the opportunities for increasing my knowledge and
skills.
5) Curiosity is the driving force behind much of what I do.
6) I want to find out how good I really can be at my work.
7) I prefer to figure things out for myself.
8) What matters most to me is enjoying what I do.
9) It is important for me to have an outlet for self-expression.
10) I prefer work I know I can do well over work that stretches my abilities.
11) No matter what the outcome of a project, I am satisfied if I feel I gained a new
experience.
12) I am more comfortable when I can set my own goals.
13) I enjoy doing work that is so absorbing that I forget about everything else.
14) It is important for me to be able to do what I most enjoy.
15) I enjoy relatively simple, straight forward tasks.
16) I am keenly aware of the promotion goals I have for myself.
17) I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people.
18) I want other people to find out how good I really can be at my work.
19) To me, success means doing better than other people.
20) I believe that there is no point in doing a good job if nobody else knows about it.
21) I’m concerned about how other people are going to react to my ideas.
22) I prefer working on projects with clearly specified procedures.
23) I’m less concerned with what work I do than what I get for it.
24) I am not concerned about what other people think of my work.
25) I prefer having someone set clear goals for me in my work.
165
APPENDIX K
Permissions for Use of Work Preference Inventory
.
166
From: Finan, Thomas <tfinan@hbs.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:32 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Elena Shackelford
Subject: Re: Request to use Work Preference Inventory
Hi Elena,
My name is Tom Finan and, as Teresa Amabile’s assistant, I am replying to your request.
Thank you for your interest in the Work Preference Inventory (WPI). You have permission to
use the WPI, for research purposes only. I have attached the WPI and its scoring instructions,
along with a corrected copy of the original JPSP article on the psychometrics of the WPI (which
had two serious typographical errors in a table).
Kind Regards,
Thomas M. Finan
Harvard Business School
Faculty Assistant , Entrepreneurial Management Unit
Rock Center 120C | tfinan@hbs.edu | 617.384.7807
167
APPENDIX L
Demographic Questions
168
1. Sex / Gender (Male, Female)
2. Educational Level (High School Graduate, College/University Graduate, Graduate

School)
3. Age (Under 25 years, 26-36, 37-46, over 47 years)
4. Tenure / Work History (2-3 years, 4-6 years, 7-11 years, over 11 years)
5. Race / Ethnicity (Native American or American Indian, Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander , Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino,
Non-Hispanic White, other)
6. Number of employees within the company (under 100, 101-300, 301-500, 501-1000,
1001-5000, over 5001)
7. Industry (Entertainment, Healthcare, Finance, Retail, Sales/Advertising, Consulting,

Automotive, Education, Manufacturing, other)
8. Position (Intern, front line or individual contributor, supervisor or manager, director,

other)

The Impact of Neuroleadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Neuroleadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEEDBACK AND LEADERSHIP ON MOTIVATION

The Impact of Neuroleadership Brain Domains versus Charismatic Leadership on Employee

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the

California School of Professional Psychology

Alliant International University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial-Organizational Psychology

Elena Gutierrez-Shackelford, M.S.

Nurcan Ensari, Ph.D., Chairperson

Louise Kelly, Ph.D.

Toni Knott, Ph.D.

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

© Elena M. Gutierrez-Shackelford, 2016

during your graduate classes.

completing our M.S. program.

Employee motivation is an essential aspect of business and can lead to positive

factors of employee motivation: Charismatic Leadership and Feedback compatibility.

Charismatic leadership was hypothesized to have a great influence on employee motivation in

comparison to the non-charismatic leadership condition.

more of an impact on employee motivation in comparison to low feedback compatibility and no

Charismatic Leadership was hypothesized to moderate the relationship between feedback

compatibility and no feedback conditions.

two-way ANOVA indicated that charismatic leadership increased employee motivation in

comparison to non-charismatic leadership; and high feedback compatibility increased employee

moderate the relationship between feedback compatibility and employee motivation.

Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER I. Introduction ............................................................................................................1

The Impact of Leadership on Employee Motivation ...........................................................5

Charismatic leadership .............................................................................................6

The Role of Feedback on Employee Motivation .................................................................9

The Purpose of the Present Study ......................................................................................12

CHAPTER II. Literature Review ...............................................................................................13

Motivation Theories ...........................................................................................................16

Content approach theories......................................................................................17

Process approach theories ......................................................................................23

The Role of Leadership in Motivation ...............................................................................28

Leadership Styles ...............................................................................................................28

Situational leadership theory..................................................................................29

Transactional leadership ........................................................................................31

Transformational leadership ..................................................................................32

Attributional approach to charismatic leadership ....................................40

Self-concept theory of charismatic leadership ..........................................42

Goal orientation and charismatic leadership ...........................................45

Why charismatic leaders motivate their employees ..................................46

Emotional process of charismatic leadership ...........................................48

Cognitive process of charismatic leadership ............................................49

Feedback and Motivation ...................................................................................................51

Neuroleadership and Feedback ..........................................................................................53

SCARF model ........................................................................................................56

Self-determination theory and SCARF model .......................................................62

McClelland’s needs theory and the SCARF model ...............................................62

The Implications of Neuroleadership on employee motivation.........................................63

The Role of Feedback in Motivation .................................................................................64

Feedback intervention theories ..............................................................................68

The Summary of Leadership and Feedback .......................................................................70

The Relationship among Neuroleadership, Feedback, and Charismatic Leadership.........71

Neuroleadership and charismatic leadership .........................................................71

Feedback and charismatic leadership.....................................................................72

The Present Study ..............................................................................................................75

CHAPTER III. Methodology ......................................................................................................78