Leader Trait Self-control and Follower Trust in High-Reliability Contexts: The Mediating Role of Met Expectations in Firefighting

Abstract

Drawing from the theory of met expectations, this study aims to create new knowledge on the antecedents of follower trust in leaders in the context of high-reliability organizations. We hypothesize that highly self-controlled leaders instill more trust than leaders with less self-control, as the former tend to meet follower expectations. This work combines data from a field survey (N = 256) and a multi-wave field study (N = 106), using samples of professional firefighters to support our hypotheses that met follower expectations mediate the relationship between leader trait self-control and follower trust in the leader. Our research highlights the importance of met expectations in high-reliability contexts and demonstrates the value of leader trait self-control in building trustful relationships.

Keywords

self-control leadership trust met expectations high-reliability contexts firefighters

Introduction

While interpersonal trust is necessary for nearly any organization’s functioning, it is indispensable to the safety and performance of high-performance organizations (HROs), such as fire brigades, hospitals, and the military (Burtscher et al., 2018). These organizations operate virtually error-free for long periods in highly complex, unpredictable, and dangerous contexts (Baker et al., 2006; Vogus et al., 2014). Research has demonstrated that followers’ trust in their leaders enhances the safety and performance of HROs, maximizing follower cooperation (Sweeney et al., 2009) and reducing follower stress (Collins & Jacobs, 2002; Madera & Smith, 2009). Therefore, it is unsurprising that researchers and practitioners alike have attempted to identify factors that promote follower trust in HROs (Lapidot et al., 2007; Sweeney, 2010).

A potentially meaningful but currently unexamined antecedent of interpersonal trust in high-reliability organizations is the leader’s trait self-control. This is an element of general self-regulation in which people exert control over responses to achieve goals and conform to standards when facing stressful situations (Finkenauer et al., 2015; Tangney et al., 2004). Over the past decade, there has been an ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of self-control (Baumeister & Alquist, 2009; Block, 2002; Letzring et al., 2005; Röseler et al., 2021; Zabelina et al., 2007; Zuo et al., 2020). Previous research has typically considered non–high-reliability research contexts and samples (e.g., Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011) and yielded mixed results (Baumeister & Alquist, 2009). Some scholars have argued that individuals’ self-control is associated with a greater degree of personality consistency (Block, 2002; Zabelina et al., 2007), predictability (van Steenbergen et al., 2014), and displays of normative behavior (DeBono et al., 2011). Individuals behaving in a highly self-controlled manner are perceived as more calm, consistent, and reliable than those with low self-control (Baumeister et al., 2006; Zabelina et al., 2007). However, other scholars have argued that individuals’ self-control is associated with a less rich affective life because they experience less emotional and bodily states (Zabelina et al., 2007) and “hidden” relationship costs (Zuo et al., 2020). For example, Koval et al. (2015) found that highly self-controlled individuals bear a greater burden from the reliance of their partners, which may decrease their relationship satisfaction. Moreover, individuals behaving in a highly self-controlled manner are perceived as less spontaneous, less exciting, and more restricted than those with low self-control (Block, 2002; Letzring et al., 2005; Zabelina et al., 2007). Because HROs operate in uncertain circumstances where the consequences of failure are extreme (Geier, 2016), it is entirely plausible that, under high-reliability conditions, the potential costs and benefits may differ from those in non–high-reliability contexts. Thus, this study aims to elucidate how leader trait self-control is an antecedent to follower trust in this context.

Moreover, to better understand why self-control creates positive or negative effects when working in high-reliability contexts, we seek to determine underlying mechanisms that explain the relationship between leader trait self-control and follower trust. One theoretical framework particularly useful in explaining this link is the theory of met expectations (Porter & Steers, 1973), which explains that meeting followers’ expectations produces more positive attitudes and behaviors toward leaders in the workplace (Padgett et al., 2005). Based on this theory, this article examines the mediating role of met expectations––a key determinant in trusting a leader (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002)—in the relationship between leader trait self-control and follower trust in high-reliability contexts.

Our research offers several theoretical and practical contributions. First, we answer a call in the self-control literature to address when self-control is likely to have positive or negative effects (Röseler et al., 2021). In doing so, we advance the ongoing debate regarding the costs and benefits of self-control (Block, 2002; Letzring et al., 2005; Zabelina et al., 2007; Zuo et al., 2020) by investigating leader trait self-control in the context of HROs. Our findings shed light on the relevance of trait self-control for leaders by demonstrating that, under high-reliability conditions, trait self-control enhances follower trust in the leader. Second, by demonstrating the critical role of leader trait self-control in high-reliability contexts, we respond to a call in the leadership literature to provide further evidence on effective leadership in HROs (Eberly et al., 2017; Hannah et al., 2009, 2010; Martínez-Córcoles, 2018; Yun et al., 2005). Third, we construct a new framework to integrate fragmented research on met expectations, self-control, and leadership to move forward the trust literature by demonstrating an underlying mechanism of the relationship between self-control and trust (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011). We test our model (see Figure 1) in the specific context of HRO research: firefighting operations (e.g., emergency rescue, fire suppression; Baumann et al., 2011; Burtscher et al., 2018).

Figure 1.

Visual depiction of the proposed research model.

Background and Hypotheses Development

Leader Trait Self-Control and Follower Trust

Trust in a leader is a follower’s psychological state of willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations toward the leader’s behaviors (Schoorman et al., 2007). Trust enables followers to be confident that the leader can provide a secure environment (Colquitt et al., 2011; Sweeney, 2010), is benevolent, and can attend to their needs (Burke et al., 2007; McAllister, 1995; De Zilwa, 2016; Zhang & Zhou, 2014). As followers’ performance and safety depend on the leader’s behaviors, feeling safe is essential for building and maintaining trustful relationships in high-reliability contexts (Klein et al., 2006). To determine safety in a leader-follower relationship, followers search for trust indicators, signaling that a leader acts beneficially toward them and can perform appropriate behaviors, even when the situation is stressful or dangerous (Buyukcan-Tetik et al., 2015). Research has suggested that the factor followers look for in leaders to determine trust is self-control (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011).

Trait self-control is a person’s ability to regulate and alter spontaneous impulses to act according to situational requirements across various domains and contexts (Tagney et al., 2004; Sosik et al., 2019; Yam et al., 2016). Individuals differ in their dispositional capacity to exert self-control. Across different times and situations, some individuals are more effective at altering internal states and forgoing unwanted thoughts and emotions (Baumeister et al., 2006; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). The ability to exhibit self-control appears to be stable across the lifespan, predicting a broad range of desirable outcomes (Gailliot et al., 2012). People high in self-control are more empathic toward others and less aggressive than those with low self-control (Tangney et al., 2004), are more reliable and better able to keep promises (Finkel & Campbell, 2001; Peetz & Kammrath, 2011), and are more likely to accomplish their goals (Duckworth et al., 2016).

This study examines the link between leader trait self-control and follower trust in a high-reliability context using implicit leadership theory (ILT; Calder, 1977; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004, 2005; Kenney et al., 1994; Lord & Maher, 1991; Lord et al., 1986)). According to Lord (1985), followers possess a particular prototype of leaders’ abilities. Followers compare the abilities displayed by a given leader with those in their leader prototype (Lord et al., 1984). When leaders more closely match the prototype expectations, they are perceived as more effective and ideal (Shondrick et al., 2010). Drawing on ILT, we argue that leader trait self-control is a prototypical leadership ability that enhances follower trust within high-reliability contexts. In this respect, research has shown that in a high-reliability context, followers prefer to be with a leader who is determined, effective (Eberly et al., 2017; Waldman et al., 2001), and in control (Gladstein and Reily, 1985; Isenberg, 1981), partly because in environments requiring high reliability, individuals usually seek to reestablish a sense of control and mastery (Lazarus, 1966). Given that self-controlled leaders are equipped to enhance followers’ sense of control and mastery (Sosik et al., 2019), these leaders can help followers to work effectively in high-reliability settings such as emergencies (Donner et al., 2017). Hence, leader trait self-control should positively relate to follower trust.

Recent empirical evidence has started to support the relationship between leader trait self-control and follower trust in the leader. Outside organizational settings, the positive relationship between high trait self-control and interpersonal trust has been demonstrated (e.g., Buyukcan-Tetik et al., 2015; Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011; Shea et al., 2013). For example, in a combined laboratory and field study, highly self-controlled individuals were more likely to be perceived as less risky and more trustworthy than individuals with low self-control (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011). Similarly, Buyukcan-Tetik et al.’s (2015) study on parent–child interactions demonstrated that perceptions of someone’s self-control help infer whether a person is trustworthy. Therefore, we propose that this evidence extends to leadership in high-reliability contexts. Based on the above rationale and evidence, we hypothesize the following:

Leader trait self-control positively relates to follower trust in the leader in high-reliability contexts.

Met Follower Expectations as a Mediator

Drawing on the theory of met expectations (Porter & Steers, 1973), we posit that leader trait self-control positively relates to follower trust in the leader by helping to meet followers’ expectations. A met expectation is defined as the “discrepancy between what a person encounters on the job in the way of positive and negative experiences and what he expected to encounter” (Porter & Steers, 1973, p. 152). Followers who join a high-reliability organization likely have several expectations about their job or organization (e.g., workload, leadership, and culture; Irving & Meyer, 1994; Irving & Montes, 2009; Wanous et al., 1992). These expectations emanate from several possible sources (e.g., social standards, previous work experience, and friends’ references from similar jobs; Kim et al., 2019). Followers develop their perceptions of how their expectations are met through experiences within their jobs and organizations (Bottger, 1990; Gkorezis and Kastritsi, 2017). When followers’ experiences are similar to their initial expectations, their expectations are met (Padgett et al., 2005; Porter & Steers, 1973). In contrast, when followers’ actual experiences differ from their expectations, they are likely to experience a state of unmet expectations (Porter & Steers, 1973). Prior work has shown that a match between employees’ expectations and experiences increases job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Bottger, 1990; Kim et al., 2019; Wanous et al., 2002).

Drawing on ILT (Calder, 1977; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004, 2005; Kenney et al., 1994), we argue that leader trait self-control matches follower prototype expectations in high-reliability contexts because it fulfills functions critical to followers’ needs in this context (Zaccaro et al., 2001). As several scholars have pointed out (Morgeson, 2005; Myers, 2005), high-reliability context such as firefighting operations are hazardous, unpredictable, and demand a quick response. To meet followers’ expectations in this context, leaders must engage in behaviors that reflect adequate emotional reactions (Teng et al., 2009) and effective problem-solving (De Lucio et al., 2000; Weick, 1988). In contrast, leaders lacking self-control are unlikely to be seen as constructively responding to high-reliability settings (Weick, 1988, 1993), which likely results in followers’ expectations toward their leaders being unmet. Thus, we hypothesize that leaders displaying high self-control in settings requiring high reliability meet follower expectations more than leaders with low levels of self-control. Accordingly, we predict the following:

Leader trait self-control positively relates to followers’ met expectations in high-reliability contexts.

Met expectations are positively associated with follower trust in the leader (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kenney et al., 1994; McKnight et al., 1998; Whitener et al., 1998, 1993). Followers hold expectations regarding what a leader should or should not do within their organization (Marginson & Bui, 2009; Wong & Giessner, 2018). Previous research has suggested that followers develop strong positive emotions toward leaders under conditions of met expectations, fostering significant trust (Mayer et al., 1995). When expectations are met, followers believe their leaders will remain true to their word, contributing to building and maintaining trust (Robinson, 1996; Sweeney et al., 2009). In contrast, when a leader’s behavior does not fulfill followers’ expectations, followers will likely expend time and energy monitoring the leader’s behavior, compromising the development of trust (Golembiewski et al., 1976; Sweeney, 2010). Consequently, we predict that leader trait self-control positively relates to follower trust through meeting follower expectations. Accordingly, we predict the following:

Met follower expectations mediate the positive relationship between leader trait self-control and follower trust in the leader in high-reliability contexts.

Research Overview

Following recommendations for corroborating our results’ robustness (Wright & Sweeney, 2016), we tested our proposed mediation model using a multi-study design. In a pilot study, we tested the scale reliabilities and correlations (student sample; see Appendix). We also used our experimental pilot study data to test the basic direct effect specified in H1. We then conducted two field studies to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012) and enhance external validity. In Study 1, we replicated and extended the results from the pilot study to field setting of HROs. We gathered cross-sectional data from a sample of 256 professional firefighters to test the hypotheses in a high-reliability context. In Study 2, using a multi-wave research design, we collected temporally lagged data from a sample of 106 professional firefighters. We also ruled out an alternative explanation for our results (i.e., leader competence). Together, the studies enabled us to test the hypotheses across different samples, proving greater confidence in the validity of our results.

Study 1: Cross-Sectional Field Study

Method

Sample

The participants were employees of firefighting departments in Germany recruited via professional firefighting conferences, newsletters, word of mouth, and blogs. The multiple recruitment methods hindered the calculation of an exact response rate. However, 544 individuals showed interest in participating by clicking on the link to the online survey. Among them, 256 individuals (47%) then completed the survey. The sample consisted of 218 men (85%) and 37 women (15%). The firefighters were an average of 36 years of age (SD = 12.40) with 18 years of work experience in firefighting response (SD = 11.65). Participation was voluntary and confidential.

A particular sample size was required to obtain a statistical power sufficient to accurately estimate the hypothesized effects (Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009). We argued that the large effect of our pilot study (see Appendix) should translate into a medium effect in the field. Hence, we calculated an a priori G*Power analysis (version 3.1; Faul et al., 2009) with five predictors (two predictors in the model and three demographic characteristics as control variables). This study required a minimum sample of 65 participants to allow for a sufficient statistical power of 99% (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007) to detect a medium effect size of .35 with a 5% probability of error. Thus, the sample size of 256 was acceptable for this study.

Research Design

Building on prior research using the critical incident technique (Aquino et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2018), we asked participants to consider their last 6 months as a firefighter. They recalled the most recent incident during which they experienced a firefighting operation and indicated how their leader responded.

Measures

Unless otherwise stated, all measures were based on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). German versions of the study instruments were developed using standardized back-translation techniques (Brislin, 1986; Hambleton et al., 2005; McKay et al., 1996). All study instruments were translated into German by a professional bilingual translator, then the German measures were back-translated into English by another bilingual, professional translator. After that, we compared the back-translated versions with the original English versions for discrepancies, which were iteratively removed in further back-translations by the translators until the versions were semantically identical (Hagger et al., 2021).

Leader Trait Self-Control

A 14-item measure from Tangney et al.’s (2004) self-control scale was used in Study 1. Sample items included “My team leader never allows himself/herself to lose control” and “My team leader gets carried away by his/her feelings” (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree). The Cronbach’s alpha was .94. Notably, Study 1 used a different instrument to measure leader trait self-control than the pilot study (a nine-item scale based on the big five inventory [BFI-2; Soto & John, 2017]). This approach helped to show that the conceptually similar scales of self-control provided equivalent empirical results (Hallikainen & Laukkanen, 2021; Van Berkel & Crandall, 2018).

Met Follower Expectations

A three-item measure from Wellman et al. (2016) was used for met follower expectations. The items were as follows: “Given this leader’s formal position and level of authority, his/her actions were ‘reasonable,’ ‘appropriate,’ and ‘made sense.’” The Cronbach’s alpha was .94.

Follower Trust in the Leader

To assess follower trust in the leader, we used the same three-item trust scale (Giessner & Van Knippenberg, 2008) as the pilot study. The items were as follows: “I trust this leader absolutely”; “I think this leader does the right things”; and “I think this leader is trustworthy.” The Cronbach’s alpha was .95.

Control Variables

We controlled for the firefighters’ gender, age, and job tenure to avoid potential confounding influences on the mediation analysis because these factors can play an essential role in influencing trust (Nichols et al., 2009). Age and job tenure were indicated in years, and gender was classified into two coded categories (1 = male, 2 = female). The findings remained similar to the supported hypotheses when including and excluding these controls from the analysis.

Data Analysis Strategy

We analyzed our data in several steps. First, we assessed whether leader trait self-control, met follower expectations, and follower trust in the leader were empirically distinct (Conway & Lance, 2010) and performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using R software. Second, we investigated the presence of common method variance by adding an unmeasured latent factor to our measurement model (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Third, we used an ordinary least squares regression analysis to test H1 and H2. Fourth, we tested the mediating effect of met follower expectations (H3) using PROCESS in SPSS (Model 4, Hayes, 2012). As recommended (Hayes & Preacher, 2014), we used 5000 bootstraps and a confidence interval of 95% to estimate the respective effects.

Results and Discussion

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We assessed model fit with criteria for small samples with values above 0.90 for the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis-Index (TLI) and below 0.09 for the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) considered adequate.(Browne & Cudeck, 1989; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Ritzenhófer et al., 2017). The analysis of the three-factor measurement model revealed an acceptable fit to the data (χ2 (df) = 558.18 (167), p < .001, SRMR = .06, CFI = .91, TLI = .90). In addition, the presence of common method variance was examined by testing a model where we added a latent common method factor to the three-factor model (CMV model; Martinescu et al., 2021; Vantilborgh et al., 2016). The fit of the CMV model was not significantly better than the fit of the three-factor model (Δχ² (0) = 108.83, p > .01). This analysis implied that common method variance was not substantively influenced the validity of the factor structure.

Hypotheses Testing

Our descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of all variables appear in Table 1. Table 2 reports the results of the regression analyses. The results support H1, as leader trait self-control was positively associated with follower trust in the leader (ß = 0.81, SE = 0.05, p < .01). There was also support for H2, as leader trait self-control was positively associated with met follower expectations (ß = 0.71, SE = 0.05, p < .01). Additionally, met follower expectations mediate the relationship between leader trait self-control and follower trust in the leader (effect = 0.47, 95% CI [0.36, 0.58], supporting H3.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations (Study 1).

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	35.89	12.40	—
2. Gender^a	1.15	.37	−.09	—
3. Tenure	18.40	11.65	.78**	−.22**	—
4. Leader trait self-control	5.01	1.28	−.01	.06	−.12	—
5. Met follower expectations	5.65	1.38	−.11	.09	−.16*	.71**	—
6. Trust in the leader	5.56	1.52	−.09	.10	−.13*	.80**	.85**	—

Note. N = 256; *p < .05; **p < .01

^a1 = male; 2 = female.

Table 2.

Effects of leader trait self-control on met follower expectations and trust in the leader (Study 1).

	Met Follower Expectations	Trust in the Leader
Variables	Met Follower Expectations	Step 1	Step 2
Age	−.15*	−.13*	−.05
Gender^a	.02	.04	.03
Tenure	.05	.08	.06
Leader trait self-control	.71**	.81**	.41**
Met follower expectations			.56**
R²	.52	.66	.81
Adjusted R²	.51	.65	.80

Note. N = 256.

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01; standardized regression coefficients are reported.

^a1 = male; 2 = female

Discussion

We conducted Study 1 to validate the findings from the pilot study using a field study among professional firefighters. Supporting our first hypothesis, we obtained corroborative evidence that leader trait self-control is positively related to follower trust in high-reliability contexts. In addition, our results suggested that leader trait self-control positively relates to follower trust by meeting follower expectations.

Study 2: Multi-Wave Field Study

In Study 1, we used a cross-sectional study design, which has the limitation that participants rate all survey items simultaneously, raising concerns about common method variance (Conway & Lance, 2010). Thus, the purpose of Study 2 was to validate the results from Study 1 using a different study design. In Study 2, using a multi-wave longitudinal research design, we assessed our survey items at different time points to account for common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Furthermore, to ensure that the relation between our study variables was not attributable to alternative processes, such as leader competence (Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman et al., 2016; Shao, 2019), we also performed our main analyses controlling for leader competence.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of professional firefighters from several fire departments in an eastern German city. From a total of 432 firefighters, 280 participated in the first wave (T1), 177 firefighters participated in the second wave (T2), and 136 firefighters finished all three survey waves (T3). The data of 30 firefighters were removed because these participants did not accurately remember the leader to whom they reported in the previous wave(s). Among the 106 firefighters in our final sample, 54% were men, and 42% had obtained an undergraduate degree or above. The average age was 35 years (SD = 10.54), with an average of 17 years of work experience in firefighting response (SD = 10.99).

As in Study 1, we used the G*Power analysis tool (version 3.1; Faul et al., 2009) to determine the required sample size and achieve sufficient statistical power for producing meaningful results (Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009). We calculated an a priori power analysis with six predictors (two predictors and four control variables). As in Study 1, we found that this study required a minimum sample of 65 participants to reach a statistical power of 99% for detecting a medium effect size of .35 with a 5% probability of error. Hence, our sample size of 106 participants in Study 2 was adequate for this study.

Procedure

To test our hypotheses, we conducted a multi-wave field study. Firefighters were asked to complete web-based surveys during three time points to minimize the potential for common method bias (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2012). The data was collected between January and April 2021. Participation was voluntary and confidential. As in Study 1, we employed the critical incident technique to capture leaders’ roles in relevant high-reliability contexts. At T1, we asked participants to complete a short online questionnaire with demographic questions and the leader trait self-control scale. As traits are relatively stable, we measured self-control only once at the beginning of the study (Righetti & Finkenauer, 2011). At T2, approximately one week after T1, participants were asked to consider their last six months as firefighters. Following this, they were asked to recall the most recent incident during which they experienced a firefighting operation, indicating how their leader responded to it. After describing the incident of a high-reliability situation, followers completed measures of leader competence and met follower expectations. At T3, approximately 1 week after T2, followers rated their trust in the leader. In this wave, the respondents were advised to repeat the incident they described at T2, assessing how their unit leader (the same as in T2) responded to the incident to ensure that the same incident was being considered.

Research Context

To further understand respondents’ high-reliability contexts, we asked participants to describe the firefighting operation to which they responded (for similar procedures, see Bacharach & Bamberger, 2007; Monnier et al., 2002). Respondents described the following four categories for firefighting operations: fire operations (e.g., building fire, car fire; 61.3%), technical support (e.g., road accident; 32.1%), hazardous materials operations (3.8%), and water operation (2.8%).¹ The firefighting operations occurred an average of four months before the survey (SD = 1.89) and took an average of four hours (SD = 3.86). We also asked participants to rate the intensity of the firefighting operations in terms of their perceived unpredictability, danger, and stress on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = extreme). The firefighting operations were, on average, perceived as moderately unpredictable (M = 3.07, SD = 1.04), dangerous (M = 3.03, SD = 1.03), and stressful (M = 3.31, SD = 1.03).

Measures

As in the previous study, unless otherwise stated, all measures were based on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Leader Trait Self-Control

Leader trait self-control was assessed using the 14-item scale developed by Tangney et al. (2004) as in Study 1. The Cronbach’s alpha was .91.

Met Follower Expectations

For met follower expectations, we used the same three items by Wellman et al. (2016) used in Study 1. To capture specific follower expectations regarding leader behavior, we added one item: “Given this leader’s formal position and level of authority, his/her self-control met my expectations.” The Cronbach’s alpha was .94.

Follower Trust in the Leader

We measured follower trust in the leader using the same three-item trust scale as in Study 1, developed by Giessner and Van Knippenberg (2008). The Cronbach’s alpha was .95.

Control Variables

As in Study 1, we controlled for gender, age, and job tenure. Age and job tenure were indicated in years, and gender was classified into two categories (1 = male, 2 = female). In addition, we controlled for perceived leader competence because it relates to follower trust in the leader (Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman et al., 2016; Shao, 2019). We used a five-item scale developed by Mayer and Davis (1999). A sample item is “The leader is very capable of performing his/her job” (α = 0.97). We changed the referent from “my manager” to “the leader” to reflect the firefighter’s perspective and remain consistent regarding term usage. The findings supported the hypotheses when including and excluding these controls from the analysis.

Results and Discussion

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The analysis of the three-factor measurement model revealed an acceptable fit in regard to some of the fit indices (x² (df) = 436.46 (186), p < .001; SRMR = .07; CFI = .87; TLI = .85). As CFI and TLI were somewhat low, we followed previous studies (Byrne, 2001; Keeping & Levy, 2000; Pundt, 2015; Salanova et al., 2005) and inspected the suggested modification indices. Error correlations were suggested between three items of the leader trait self-control scale: “My team leader is impulsive”, “My team leader gets carried away by his/her feelings”; and “My team leader loses his/her temper too easily.” As these three items were negatively worded, they likely included covariates (Tomas et al., 2013). Hence, in the revised three-factor model, these three items were allowed to correlate, but error correlations were not allowed (Byrne, 2001). The analysis showed an adequate fit to the data (x² (df) = 348.23 (183), p < .001; CFI = .91; SRMR = .06; TLI = .90).

Hypotheses Testing

Table 3 provides the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the study variables. We conducted a linear regression analysis to test H1 and H2 while controlling for the alternative explanation (leader competence). In support of H1, leader trait self-control at T1 was positively associated with follower trust in the leader at T3 (ß = .18, p < .05; Table 4). In support of H2, leader trait self-control at T1 was positively associated with met follower expectations at T2 (ß = .37, p < .05). To test H3, we conducted a bootstrapping-based mediation test using the PROCESS macro (Model 4, Hayes, 2012) while also controlling for the alternative explanation (leader competence). As recommended by Hayes and Preacher (2014), we used 5000 bootstraps and a confidence interval of 95% to estimate the effects. Met follower expectations mediated the relationship between leader trait self-control and follower trust (effect = 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.30]), thus supporting H3.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among study variables (Study 2).

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age	34.95	10.54	—
2. Gender^a	1.21	0.41	−.30**	—
3. Job tenure	17.08	10.99	.90**	−.35**	—
4. Leader trait self-control (T1)	5.03	1.05	−.20*	.16	−.25*	—
5. Met follower expectations (T2)	5.44	1.38	−.16	.16	−.18	.76**	—
6. Perceived leader Compentence (T2)	5.61	1.45	−.23*	.20*	−.25*	.67**	.83**	—
7. Trust in the leader (T3)	5.55	1.31	−.24*	.12	−.26**	.74**	.84**	.84**	—

Note. N = 106; *p < .05; **p < .01

^a1 = male; 2 = female.

Table 4.

Summary of regression results (Study 2).

	Met Follower Expectations (T2)						Trust in the leader (T3)
Variable	Model1			Model 2			Model 3
Variable	B	SE	ß	B	SE	ß	B	SE	ß
Control Variables
Age (T1)	.01	.02	.05	−.00	.02	−.02	−.01	.01	−.07
Gender^a (T1)	.01	.21	.00	.01	.18	.00	−.24	.16	−.07
Job tenure (T1)	−.00	.02	−.02	.01	.02	.07	−.00	.01	−.01
Perceived leader competence (T2)	.80	.06	.83**	.56	.06	.59**	.39	.07	.43**
Predictors
Leader trait self-control (T1)				.49	.09	.37**	.23	.09	.18*
Met follower expectations (T2)							.33	.09	.35**
R²	.69			.76			.80
Adjusted R²	.67			.75			.79

Note. N = 106; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; 1 = male; 2 = female.

Discussion

Study 2 provided additional support for our hypothesized research model. We found a mediating role of met follower expectations in the relationship between leader trait self-control and follower trust in a high-reliability context. These associations held when controlling for leader competence. The multi-wave field design employed in Study 2 also allowed us to address the limitations of the previous study. However, Study 1 assessed the study variables at one time point, likely raising correlations between the scales, Study 2 used a multi-wave study to minimize common method bias. Hence, the findings for Study 2 further suggested the replicability and robustness of our proposed research model.

General Discussion

We examined whether and through what mechanism leader trait self-control relates to follower trust in high-reliability contexts. As hypothesized, our two-study approach found that leader trait self-control enhances follower trust in the leader. Drawing on the theory of met expectations (Porter & Steers, 1973), we found that met follower expectations is an important mediator in this relationship. Thus, we determined the following: (1) followers expect self-control in their leader in a high-reliability context; and (2) when leaders are self-controlled, it positively relates to trust in the leader due to meeting follower expectations.

Theoretical Implications

Our study provides several theoretical contributions to the literature. First, our findings advance the ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of self-control (Block, 2002; Letzring et al., 2005; Röseler et al., 2021; Zabelina et al., 2007; Zuo et al., 2020). Prior work has shown inconsistencies regarding the costs and benefits of self-control (Baumeister & Alquist, 2009). However, by drawing on the met expectations theory (Porter & Steers, 1973), we clearly show the beneficial effects of self-control in a high-reliability context, demonstrating the relevance of trait self-control for leaders’ building follower trust by meeting their expectations. To resolve possible inconsistencies regarding the consequences of self-control, we establish these effects in a high-reliability context and further bolstered other authors’ findings on the relevance of self-control. The few existing studies have found that, although self-control is associated with multiple positive outcomes, the effects of self-control depend on context (Zuo et al., 2020). For instance, Lösch and Rentzsch (2018) and Röseler et al. (2021) found that people prefer partners with high self-control during duty situations (e.g., doing homework). However, in social situations (e.g., leisure time), people with low levels of self-control were preferred. By focusing on a high-reliability setting, we contribute to understanding contexts in which self-control is effective.

Second, our study contributes to the leadership literature by advancing understanding of the key components of leading effectively in HROs. By examining the effects of leader trait self-control on follower trust in high-reliability contexts, we respond to the call for further evidence regarding effective leadership in high-reliability contexts (Eberly et al., 2017; Hannah et al., 2009, 2010; Martínez-Córcoles, 2018; Yun et al., 2005). While researchers have already shown that the source of error-free operations is a culture of reliability (Vogus et al., 2014; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001), our findings add to this literature by clarifying that leadership plays a pivotal role. We also find that leaders in high-reliability contexts must maintain self-control to enable a highly reliable performance. Our findings imply that a leader’s capability to regulate impulses and cognition is critically important in settings where it is necessary to avoid severe failures.

Third, we construct a new framework to integrate fragmented research on met expectations, self-control, and leadership to advances research on trust by elucidating met expectation processes underlying the self-control-trust relationship. By expanding Righetti and Finkenauer’s (2011) hypothesis that trait self-control promotes individual trust, we show that met follower expectations represent a meaningful underlying mechanism that links leader trait self-control and follower trust. In particular, met follower expectations have a significant mediating effect on follower trust, even when controlling for perceived leader competence (as an alternative explanation). These findings empirically support Porter and Steers’ (1973) met expectations theory, which proposes that a match between follower expectations and subsequent experiences leads to desirable work outcomes. Our findings also indicate that met expectation processes significantly impact leader-follower relationships in high-reliability settings. In addition, our findings corroborate ILT (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; 2005; Lord, 1985), which argue that followers hold cognitive schemas of effective leaders who are considered worthy of influence. Thus, this study empirically examines the central tenet of met expectations theory and clarifies, based on ILTs, that followers expect self-control from their leaders in a high-reliability context. When these expectations are met, it translates into beneficial outcomes.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has limitations, highlighting certain avenues for future research. First, because we test our model in a single context of HRO research, our study may have limited generalizability (O’Neill & Rothbard, 2017). Nevertheless, our study builds on prior work demonstrating similarities in theoretically relevant dimensions of high-reliability occupations (Burtscher et al., 2018).

Second, although the context of a firefighting operation is typical in HRO research (Colquitt et al., 2011; Hannah et al., 2009), the predictability of operations changes from one HRO to another (Baker et al., 2006). While firefighting units frequently work in unpredictable (unstable) operations where timing is critical (Bigley & Roberts, 2001), other HROs may face situations with relatively more predictable (stable) operating conditions (Vogus et al., 2014). For example, the work of nuclear power facilities is often tightly controlled and highly regulated with standardized settings (Martínez-Córcoles et al., 2012), characterized by low volatility and strong safety rules and procedures (Martínez-Córcoles, 2018). Thus, future research may focus on examining leadership and, specifically, leader trait self-control in the predictable (stable) operating conditions of HROs, such as nuclear power facilities and the aviation industry (Krenz & Burtscher, 2021).

Third, the number of reports of extreme events, such as war violence, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and pandemics, has increased in recent years (Hällgren et al., 2018), illustrating the uncertainty prevalent in many of today’s business landscapes (Holenweger et al., 2017). In this respect, prior work has suggested that nearly all organizations may face a certain level of unpredictability (instability) at some point, either by design (e.g., a merger) or change (e.g., a pandemic; DuBrin, 2013; Eberly et al., 2017). Consequently, we encourage future research to investigate leader characteristics in these organizations that may potentially work in high-reliability contexts (Hannah et al., 2009; Hannah and Parry, 2014).Consequently, we encourage future research to investigate leader characteristics in these organizations that may potentially work in high-reliability contexts.

Fourth, another limitation of this research is the imbalanced gender ratio across the studies. Indeed, we have significantly more men (85%) than women in Study 1, while the opposite is true in our pilot study (18% men). However, Study 2 is more balanced in gender, including a relatively equal number of participating male (54%) and female firefighters. While the sample of Study 1 is representative of the firefighting population, which is often male-dominated (O’Neill & Rothbard, 2017; Wu et al., 2019), Study 2 and the pilot study do not represent the actual gender ratio in the fire service population (Park & Hahn, 2014). Thus, questions of generalizability arise concerning Study 2 and the pilot study. However, the results are consistent across the studies, offsetting the limitations. Future studies should account for gender ratio imbalances in HRO research.

Fifth, in Study 1, we collect data from the same source at one time point, raising concerns about common method variance (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2012). Therefore, we measure our variables at multiple time points and account for common method variance in our analyses. Our findings supported the measurement of our constructs and the low likelihood that common method variance was a concern in the present research (Gibson et al., 2007). Moreover, while separating the measurement of our variables in Study 2 increases confidence regarding temporal ordering, this study’s correlational design does not allow for a controlled test of our full mediation model (Mai et al., 2021). Thus, future research should conduct laboratory-based experiments that manipulate leader trait self-control and met follower expectations concurrently to establish causality.

Sixth, the current research represents a first step in understanding why leader trait self-control promotes follower trust in high-reliability contexts. While this study assesses only one mediator that accounts for this relationship, other underlying mechanisms such as behavioral integrity or self-monitoring may exist. For example, research has shown that leaders with higher levels of behavioral integrity meet positive expectations among followers (e.g., Shao 2019). Furthermore, research into self-monitoring has found an interplay of leaders’ ability for self-control and self-monitoring (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; Snyder, 1974; Zhao et al., 2019). In this vein, leader self-monitoring and leader behavioral integrity should be integrated in future research.

Practical Implications

The current study has practical implications. First, our findings may help HROs in selecting and training leaders. In particular, our findings suggest that HROs should select leaders based on their self-control capabilities. Leaders with high self-control enhance follower trust in high-reliability contexts, so organizations need to consider candidates’ ability to exert self-control systematically. Therefore, assessment centers, structured interviews, simulations, and exercises during the selection process may act as useful selection methods for this purpose (Dayan et al., 2002; Heimann et al., 2020).

Moreover, since interpersonal trust is necessary for HROs to function effectively (Colquitt et al., 2011), we encourage HROs to include methods that ensure the successful use of leader trait self-control in their leadership development training (for an overview of German firefighter leadership training, see Schulte & Thielsch, 2019). Based on our findings, trainers and human resource managers should pay increased attention to leader self-control. Given that self-control can be enhanced through practice (Baumeister et al., 1998, 2006), organizations should offer programs to help enhance leader self-control, involving, for example, the ability to regulate emotions through reflection and self-awareness (Finkenauer et al., 2005, 2015). These training programs should also stress the importance of clarifying followers’ expectations for appropriate leadership.

Finally, our study provides a better understanding of leader self-control and can be used to guide HROs who desire to strengthen their culture of reliability. In light of our findings, HROs should stress the importance of leader self-control, meeting follower expectations, and fostering follower trust in the leader. The relevance of these findings becomes apparent, considering that follower trust is a critical predictor of safety and performance in high-reliability occupations (Burtscher et al., 2018).

Conclusion

Interpersonal trust is important to achieving and maintaining safety and performance in the context of HROs. Based on two complementary studies, we have developed a theory and provided evidence that leader trait self-control promotes follower trust in high-reliability contexts. Thus, we illuminate the importance of met follower expectations as a mechanism underlying this relationship. We hope that our findings spark additional research on the potential of self-control for building trustful relationships and improving the selection and training practices of leaders in HROs by considering self-control as a vital antecedent of trust.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Florian Rosing

Note

Associate Editor: Yannick Griep

Appendix 1:Pilot Study

Author Biographies

Florian Rosing, Dr. Phil., Postdoctoral-Researcher, Institute of Psychology, University of Koblenz, Germany.

Diana Boer, PhD, professor of Social and Organizational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Koblenz, Germany.

Claudia Buengeler, Dr. Phil., Professor of Human Resource Management and Organization, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Kiel University, Germany.

References

Aguinis

Bradley

K. J.

(2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952

Antonakis

d’Adda

Weber

R. A.

Zehnder

(2021). “Just words? Just speeches?” On the economic value of charismatic leadership. Working Paper. University of Lausanne.

Appel

(2012). Are heavy users of computer games and social media more computer literate? Computers & Education, 59(4), 1339–1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.004

Aquino

Tripp

T. M.

Bies

R. J.

(2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653

Bacharach

S. B.

Bamberger

P. A.

(2007). 9/11 and New York City firefighters’ post hoc unit support and control climates: A context theory of the consequences of involvement in traumatic work-related events. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 849-868. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279180

Baker

D. P.

Day

Salas

(2006). Teamwork as an essential component of high‐reliability organizations. Health Services Research, 41(4p2), 1576–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x

Baumann

M. R.

Gohm

C. L.

Bonner

B. L.

(2011). Phased training for high-reliability occupations: Live-fire exercises for civilian firefighters. Human Factors, 53(5), 548–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811418224

Baumeister

R. F.

Alquist

J. L.

(2009). Is there a downside to good self-control? Self and Identity, 8(2–3), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802501474

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Muraven

Tice

D. M.

(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252

10.

Baumeister

R. F.

Gailliot

DeWall

C. N.

Oaten

(2006). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1773–1802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00428.x

11.

Bigley

G. A.

Roberts

K. H.

(2001). The incident command system: Organizing for high reliability in complex and unpredictable environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1281–1299. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069401

12.

Block

(2002). Personality as an affect-processing system. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Bonanno

G. A.

Burton

C. L.

(2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116

14.

Bottger

P. C.

(1990). Voluntary turnover: An empirical test of the met expectations hypothesis. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 28(3), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841119002800302

15.

Brislin

R. W.

(1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Lonner

W. J.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.). Field methods in educational research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

16.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(4), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4

17.

Burke

C. S.

Sims

D. E.

Lazzara

E. H.

Salas

(2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006

18.

Burtscher

M. J.

Meyer

Jonas

Feese

Tröster

(2018). A time to trust? The buffering effect of trust and its temporal variations in the context of high-reliability teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1099–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2271

19.

Buyukcan-Tetik

Finkenauer

Siersema

Vander Heyden

Krabbendam

(2015). Social relations model analyses of perceived self-control and trust in families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12154

20.

Byrne

B.M.

, 2001. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

21.

Calder

B. J.

(1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In Staw

Salancik

(Eds.). New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179–204). Chicago, St. Clair Press.

22.

Collins

Jacobs

(2002). Trust in the profession of arms (Vol. 468). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

23.

Colquitt

J. A.

LePine

J. A.

Zapata

C. P.

Wild

R. E.

(2011). Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: Building and reacting to trust among firefighters. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.0241

24.

Conway

J. M.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

25.

Dayan

Kasten

Fox

(2002). Entry‐level police candidate assessment center: An efficient tool or a hammer to kill a fly? Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 827–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00131.x

26.

De Lucio

L. G.

López

F. J. G.

López

M. T. M.

Hesse

B. M.

Vaz

M. D. C.

(2000). Training programme in techniques of self‐control and communication skills to improve nurses’ relationships with relatives of seriously ill patients: a randomized controlled study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(2), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01493.x

27.

De Zilwa

(2016) The strengths and capacities of authentic followership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 37(3) 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-01-2014-0010

28.

DeBono

Shmueli

Muraven

(2011). Rude and inappropriate: The role of self-control in following social norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210391478

29.

Dembinski

R. J.

(1979). The reliability of the Self-Control Behavior Inventory. Behavioral Disorders, 4(2), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874297900400202

30.

Dirks

K. T.

Ferrin

D. L.

(2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611

31.

Donner

C. M.

Maskaly

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

(2017). Quick on the draw: Assessing the relationship between low self-control and officer-involved police shootings. Police Quarterly, 20(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116688066

32.

DuBrin

A. J.

(Ed.). (2013). Handbook of research on crisis leadership in organizations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

33.

Duckworth

A. L.

White

R. E.

Matteucci

A. J.

Shearer

Gross

J. J.

(2016). A stitch in time: Strategic self-control in high school and college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000062

34.

Eberly

M. B.

Bluhm

D. J.

Guarana

Avolio

B. J.

Hannah

S. T.

(2017). Staying after the storm: How transformational leadership relates to follower turnover intentions in extreme contexts. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.004

35.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293

36.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader–member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659

37.

Evans

A. M.

Dillon

K. D.

Goldin

Krueger

J. I.

(2011). Trust and self-control: The moderating role of the default. Judgment & Decision Making, 6(7), 697–705.

38.

Fagen

S. A.

Long

N. J.

Stevens

D. J.

(1975)Teaching children self control. Columbus, OH: C. Merrill, 19.

39.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

40.

Finkel

E. J.

Campbell

W. K.

(2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.2.263

41.

Finkenauer

Buyukcan-Tetik

Baumeister

R. F.

Schoemaker

Bartels

Vohs

K. D.

(2015). Out of control: Identifying the role of self-control strength in family violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415570730

42.

Finkenauer

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2005). Parenting behaviour and adolescent behavioural and emotional problems: The role of self-control. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000333

43.

Fritz

M. S.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x

44.

Gailliot

Gitter

Baker

Baumeister

(2012). Breaking the rules: Low trait or state self-control increases social norm violations. Psychology, 3(12), 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.312159

45.

Geier

M. T.

(2016). Leadership in extreme contexts: Transformational leadership, performance beyond expectations? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815627359

46.

Gibson

C. B.

Porath

C. L.

Benson

G. S.

Lawler

E. E.

III (2007). What results when firms implement practices: The differential relationship between specific practices, firm financial performance, customer service, and quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1467–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1467

47.

Giessner

S. R.

van Knippenberg

(2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.002

48.

Gkorezis

Kastritsi

(2017). Employee expectations and intrinsic motivation: Work-related boredom as a mediator. Employee Relations, 39(1), 100–111.

49.

Gladstein

D. L.

Reilly

N. P.

(1985). Group decision making under threat: The tycoon game. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.5465/256117

50.

Golembiewski

R. T.

Billingsley

Yeager

(1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637601200201

51.

Granlund

, 2003. Monitoring experiences from command and control research with the C3Fire microworld. Cognition, Technology & Work 5(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-003-0129-8

52.

Haddon

Loughlin

McNally

(2015). Leadership in a time of financial crisis: what do we want from our leaders? Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 36(5), 612–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-12-2013-0166

53.

Hagemann

Kluge

(2017). Complex problem solving in teams: the impact of collective orientation on team process demands. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01730

54.

Hagger

M. S.

Zhang

C. Q.

Kangro

E. M.

Ries

Wang

J. C.

Heritage

Chan

D. K.

(2021). Trait self-control and self-discipline: Structure, validity, and invariance across national groups. Current Psychology, 40(3), 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0021-6

55.

Hällgren

Rouleau

De Rond

(2018). A matter of life or death: How extreme context research matters for management and organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 111–153.

56.

Hallikainen

Laukkanen

(2021). Trustworthiness in e-commerce: A replication study of competing measures. Journal of Business Research, 126, 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.033

57.

Hambleton

R. K.

Merenda

P. F.

Spielberger

C. D.

(2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment, 1, 3–38.

58.

Hannah

S. T.

Campbell

D. J.

Matthews

M. D.

(2010). Advancing a research agenda for leadership in dangerous contexts. Military Psychology, 22(1), S157–S189. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995601003644452

59.

Hannah

S. T.

Parry

K. W.

(2014). Leadership in extreme contexts. In Day

D. V.

(Ed.). The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 613–637. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.030

60.

Hannah

S. T.

Uhl-Bien

Avolio

B. J.

Cavarretta

F. L.

(2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.006

61.

Hayes

A. F.

(2012). Process: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.

62.

Hayes

A. F.

Preacher

K. J.

(2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028

63.

Heimann

A. L.

Ingold

P. V.

Kleinmann

(2020). Tell us about your leadership style: A structured interview approach for assessing leadership behavior constructs. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(4), 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101364

64.

Holenweger

Jager

M. K.

Kernic

(Eds.). (2017). Leadership in extreme situations. Cham: Springer.

65.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

66.

Irving

P. G.

Meyer

J. P.

(1994). Reexamination of the met-expectations hypothesis: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 937–949. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.937

67.

Irving

P. G.

Montes

S. D.

(2009). Met expectations: The effects of expected and delivered inducements on employee satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908x312650

68.

Isenberg

D. J.

(1981). Some effects of time-pressure on vertical structure and decision-making accuracy in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(81)90042-8

69.

Johns

(2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 396–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687

70.

Keeping

L. M.

Levy

P. E.

(2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708

71.

Kenney

R. A.

Blascovich

Shaver

P. R.

(1994). Implicit leadership theories: Prototypes for new leaders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15(4), 409–437. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1504_2

72.

Kim

Lee

Andrew

D. P.

(2019). Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Management Review, 22(4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

73.

Klein

K. J.

Ziegert

J. C.

Knight

A. P.

Xiao

(2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590–621. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.4.590

74.

Koval

C. Z.

Vandellen

M. R.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Ranby

K. W.

(2015). The burden of responsibility: interpersonal costs of high self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(5), 750–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000015

75.

Krenz

H. L.

Burtscher

M. J.

(2021). Investigating voice in action teams: A critical review. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(3), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00646-9

76.

Lapidot

Kark

Shamir

(2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers’ trust in their leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004

77.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw.

78.

Letzring

T. D.

Block

Funder

D. C.

(2005). Ego-control and ego-resiliency: Generalization of self-report scales based on personality descriptions from acquaintances, clinicians, and the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(4), 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.06.003

79.

Lord

R.G.

(1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 87–128.

80.

Lord

R.G.

De Vader

C.L.

Alliger

G.M.

(1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leader perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410.

81.

Lord

R.G.

Foti

R.J.

De vader

C.L.

(1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378.

82.

Lord

R. G.

Maher

K. J.

(1991). Leadership & information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

83.

Lösch

Rentzsch

(2018). Linking personality with interpersonal perception in the classroom: Distinct associations with the social and academic sides of popularity. Journal of Research in Personality, 75, 83–93.

84.

Madera

J. M.

Smith

D. B.

(2009). The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of leadership in a crisis situation: The role of anger and sadness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.007

85.

Mai

K. M.

Welsh

D. T.

Wang

Bush

Jiang

(2021). Supporting creativity or creative unethicality? empowering leadership and the role of performance pressure. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–21. [Epub ahead of print].

86.

Marginson

Bui

2009. Examining the human cost of multiple role expectations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 21(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2009.21.1.59

87.

Martinescu

Jansen

Beersma

(2021). Negative gossip decreases targets’ organizational citizenship behavior by decreasing social inclusion. a multi-method approach. Group & Organization Management, 46(3), 463–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120986876

88.

Martínez-Córcoles

Schöbel

Gracia

F. J.

Tomás

Peiró

J. M.

(2012). Linking empowering leadership to safety participation in nuclear power plants: A structural equation model. Journal of Safety Research, 43(3), 215–221.

89.

Martínez‐Córcoles

(2018). High reliability leadership: A conceptual framework. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(2), 237–246.

90.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123

91.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335

92.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727

93.

McCullough

M. E.

Willoughby

B. L.

(2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014213

94.

McKay

R. B.

Breslow

M. J.

Sangster

R. L.

Gabbard

S. M.

Reynolds

R. W.

Nakamoto

J. M.

Tarnai

(1996). Translating survey questionnaires: Lessons learned. New Directions for Evaluation,1996(70), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1037

95.

McKnight

D. H.

Cummings

L. L.

Chervany

N. L.

(1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926622

96.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

97.

Monnier

Cameron

R. P.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Gribble

J. R.

(2002). The impact of resource loss and critical incidents on psychological functioning in fire-emergency workers: A pilot study. International Journal of Stress Management, 9(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013062900308

98.

Morgeson

F. P.

(2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.497

99.

Muraven

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247

100.

Myers

K. K

. (2005). A burning desire: Assimilation into a fire department. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(3), 344–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318904270742

101.

Nichols

Danford

Tasiran

A. C.

(2009). Trust, employer exposure and the employment relation. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(2), 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x09102429

102.

O’Neill

O. A.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2017). Is love all you need? The effects of emotional culture, suppression, and work–family conflict on firefighter risk-taking and health. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 78–108.

103.

Padgett

Gjerde

K. P.

Hughes

S. B.

Born

C. J.

(2005). The relationship between pre-employment expectations, experiences, and length of stay in public accounting. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501200108

104.

Park

Hahn

K. H.

(2014). Perception of firefighters’ turnout ensemble and level of satisfaction by body movement. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 7(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2014.889763

105.

Peetz

Kammrath

(2011). Only because I love you: Why people make and why they break promises in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 887–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021857

106.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

107.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

108.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

(1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034829

109.

Pratt

M. G.

Lepisto

D. A.

Dane

(2019). The hidden side of trust: Supporting and sustaining leaps of faith among firefighters. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(2), 398–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218769252

110.

Pundt

(2015). The relationship between humorous leadership and innovative behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 878–893. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-03-2013-0082

111.

Righetti

Finkenauer

(2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 874–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021827

112.

Ritzenhöfer

Brosi

Spörrle

Welpe

I. M.

(2017). Leader pride and gratitude differentially impact follower trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(6), 445–459.

113.

Robinson

S. L.

(1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393868

114.

Röseler

Ebert

Schütz

Baumeister

R. F.

(2021). The upsides and downsides of high self-control: Evidence for effects of similarity and situation dependency. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 17(1), 1–16.

115.

Ruben

B. D.

Lederman

L. C.

(1982). Instructional simulation gaming: Validity, reliability, and utility. Simulation & Games, 13(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003755008201300207

116.

Salanova

Agut

Peiró

J. M.

(2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217

117.

Scherbaum

C. A.

Ferreter

J. M.

(2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308906

118.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344−354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410

119.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(2016). Empowerment in veterinary clinics: the role of trust in delegation. Journal of Trust Research, 6(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1153479

120.

Schulte

Thielsch

M.T.

(2019). Evaluation of firefighter leadership trainings. International Journal of Emergency Services, 8(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijes-03-2018-0020

121.

Shao

(2019). Moral anger as a dilemma? An investigation on how leader moral anger influences follower trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.10.002

122.

Shea

C. T.

Davisson

E. K.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

(2013). Riding other people’s coattails: Individuals with low self-control value self-control in other people. Psychological Science, 24(6), 1031–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612464890

123.

Shondrick

S. J.

Dinh

J. E.

Lord

R. G.

(2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004

124.

Snyder

(1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039

125.

Sosik

J. J.

Chun

J. U.

Ete

Arenas

F. J.

Scherer

J. A.

(2019). Self-control puts character into action: Examining how leader character strengths and ethical leadership relate to leader outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(3), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3908-0

126.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096

127.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

128.

Sweeney

P. J.

(2010). Do soldiers reevaluate trust in their leaders prior to combat operations? Military Psychology, 22(S1), S70–S88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995601003644312

129.

Sweeney

P. J.

Thompson

Blanton

(2009). Trust and influence in combat: An interdependence model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(1), 235–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00437.x

130.

Tangney

J. P.

Baumeister

R. F.

Boone

A. L.

(2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x

131.

Teng

C. I.

Chang

S. S.

Hsu

K. H.

(2009). Emotional stability of nurses: impact on patient safety. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(10), 2088–2096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05072.x

132.

Tomas

J. M.

Oliver

Galiana

Sancho

Lila

(2013). Explaining method effects associated with negatively worded items in trait and state global and domain-specific self-esteem scales. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(2), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.769394

133.

Van Berkel

Crandall

C. S.

(2018). Conceptual replication of the automaticity of hierarchy: Multiple methods to test a hypothesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

134.

Van Kleef

G. A.

Homan

A. C.

Beersma

van Knippenberg

(2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1827–1834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610387438

135.

van Steenbergen

Langeslag

S. J.

Band

G. P.

Hommel

(2014). Reduced cognitive control in passionate lovers. Motivation and Emotion, 38(3), 444–450.

136.

Vantilborgh

Bidee

Pepermans

Griep

Hofmans

(2016). Antecedents of psychological contract breach: The role of job demands, job resources, and affect. PloS one, 11(5), e0154696. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154696

137.

Vogus

T. J.

Rothman

N. B.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Weick

K. E.

(2014). The affective foundations of high‐reliability organizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1922

138.

Waldman

D. A.

Ramirez

G. G.

House

R. J.

Puranam

(2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069341

139.

Walter

Lam

C. K.

Van Der Vegt

G. S.

Huang

Miao

(2015). Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1056–1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038513

140.

Wang

Restubog

Shao

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2018). Does anger expression help or harm leader effectiveness? The role of competence-based versus integrity-based violations and abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1050–1072. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0460

141.

Wanous

J. P.

Poland

T. D.

Premack

S. L.

Davis

K. S.

(1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.288

142.

Weick

K. E.

(1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317.

143.

Weick

K. E.

(1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393339

144.

Weick

K.E.

Sutcliffe

K.M.

(2001) Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass,

145.

Wellman

Mayer

D. M.

Ong

DeRue

D. S.

(2016). When are do-gooders treated badly? Legitimate power, role expectations, and reactions to moral objection in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000094

146.

Whitener

E. M.

Brodt

S. E.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Werner

J. M.

(1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926624

147.

Woelfling

Mueller

K. W.

Beutel

(2011). Reliability and validity of the scale for the assessment of pathological computer-gaming (CSV-S). Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 61(5), 216–224.

148.

Wong

S. I.

Giessner

S. R.

(2018). The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership: An expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management, 44(2), 757–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315574597

149.

Wright

T. A.

Sweeney

D. A.

(2016). The call for an increased role of replication, extension, and mixed‐methods study designs in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(3), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2059

150.

T. J.

Yuan

K. S.

Yen

D. C.

(2019). Building up resources in the relationship between work–family conflict and burnout among firefighters: Moderators of guanxi and emotion regulation strategies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(3), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1596081

151.

Yam

K. C.

Fehr

Keng-Highberger

F. T.

Klotz

A. C.

Reynolds

S. J.

(2016). Out of control: A self-control perspective on the link between surface acting and abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000043

152.

Yun

Faraj

Sims

H. P.

(2005). Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1288–1296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1288

153.

Zabelina

D. L.

Robinson

M. D.

Anicha

C. L.

(2007). The psychological tradeoffs of self-control: A multi-method investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.015

154.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Rittman

A. L.

Marks

M. A.

(2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(01)00093-5

155.

Zhang

Zhou

(2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.02.002

156.

Zhao

Meng

Sun

Geng

Han

(2019). The relationship between self-control and procrastination based on the self-regulation theory perspective: The moderated mediation model. Current Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00442-3

157.

Zuo

P. Y.

Karremans

J. C.

Scheres

Kluwer

E. S.

Burk

W. J.

Kappen

Ter Kuile

(2020). A dyadic test of the association between trait self-control and romantic relationship satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 594476. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.594476