To whom it may concern,

I am interested in having the:

Introductory section; and

Literature review

…..written for an

Honours thesis/dissertation in psychology

Introductory section: 300 – 600 words

Literature review: 20 – 25 pages at approx. 300 words/page (as a guide. Conciseness is more important than word count). **I have paid for 22 pages and am able to pay for more as needed.

I would like as many references used as practicable (preferably > 80). I can email the research articles I have.
Whilst accurate in-text referencing and compilation of a reference list is important, due to the timeframe, time spent on perfecting APA formatting is not a priority as I can edit this once received.

Thesis topic:

The influence of empowering leadership on subordinates’ autonomous work motivation and their proactivity within a self-determination theory framework.

Variables:

Empowering leadership
Subordinate autonomous work motivation
Intrinsic motivation
Identified regulation
Subordinate proactivity
Individual
Team member
Organisational member

Research aims:

The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of two antecedents on employee proactive behaviour: leadership and motivation. More specifically, the focus of this study was to explore the relationships between empowering leadership, subordinates’ autonomous work motivation, and their proactivity at an individual, team, and organisational level. Also of interest was whether first order factors of autonomous motivation- identified regulation and intrinsic motivation- would mediate the relationship between empowering leadership and subordinate proactivity. That is, whether motivation explained the relationship between the two variables.

Hypotheses:

Empowering leadership predicts subordinates’ autonomous work motivation comprising identified regulation and intrinsic motivation.
Empowering leadership predicts subordinates’ proactivity at an individual, team, and organisational level.
Subordinates’ autonomous work motivation comprising identified regulation and intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and subordinates’ proactivity at an individual, team, and organisational level.

Conceptual model of mediation:

Sections of review (for example):

Empowering leadership
Definitions and measures
Outcomes of empowering leadership
Empowering leadership and subordinate proactivity
Empowering leadership and subordinate (autonomous) work motivation
Empowering leadership and self-determination theory

Subordinate proactive behaviour
Definitions and measures
Antecedents of proactivity
Leadership influence and proactivity
Work motivation and proactivity
Self- determination theory and proactivity

Subordinate work motivation
Definitions and measures
Autonomous work motivation
Self-determination theory and work motivation
Antecedents of autonomous work motivation
Leadership and work motivation
Outcomes of autonomous work motivation

Mediators
Mediators of empowering leadership and subordinate proactivity
(Autonomous) work motivation as a mediator

Uniqueness of my study:

The Empowering Leadership Scale includes two subscales of autonomy support and development support
The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale measures different types of work motivation, including two types of autonomous work motivation.
The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale is founded in self-determination theory. It includes items that ask why workers put effort into their work.
The Work Role Performance Scale measures proactivity at an individual, team member, and organisational member level.
I am interested in subordinates’ proactive behaviour at three levels.
The study sample:
Participants are predominantly Australian.
Participants are from both public and private sectors, in a number of different industries and roles.

Lecture notes on Introductions and Literature Reviews:

Introductions tend to move from the general to the more specific, establishing the context for your research and the specifics of what you are investigating in four broad moves:

What is the topic? (you may have to start a bit broader and move in to specifics so the exact nature of the topic is contextualised)

What is the specific issue within this topic that you are researching? (note you need to establish the contribution your research is making here – consider your literature review – what do we know, what don’t we know, where does your research fit?)

Why is this worth doing? What interest is it to others in your field? (note sometimes this can be part of move 1)

What is/are your aim(s)/hypotheses/argument (if this is relevant to your topic)?

Why is it interesting/topical/important/significant in your discipline?

What do we know about it? (literature review)

What don’t we know about it? (what are the gaps, absences or silences in the literature?)

How will your work seek to address this gap? (your research questions, an overview of your methodology)

What is your argument? (what will your thesis prove/demonstrate?)

How will your thesis proceed? (outline of chapters, sections, process)

Introductory Section

1 – 2 pages

Main variables of interest

Sets the scene

Be careful of jargon

Perhaps the most important section

Flaws and gaps in knowledge

Present methods and findings and state the implications for your theory.

Tell readers how the findings fit in to the theoretical scheme of the paper and how they contribute to the take-home message.

Methodological diversity and implications of presence or absence

Use the first or last sentence of a paragraph to connect with your take-home message.

Identify key points of contention, gaps, absences or silences that you wish to engage with in your thesis.

Show the current state of research on your topic.

Identify where there is a gap/contention/silence/absence in this research to which your project will make a contribution.

Identify particular studies/methodologies/research upon which you are basing your own project.

What are the different positions/debates, and where does your work fit within them?

Your chapter structure should support your argument

Paragraphs have a clear structure. They have:

a topic sentence that states your point,
developing sentences to explain and give evidence for your point, and
a concluding sentence that links to the next idea (or back to the argument).

In order to follow this 3-part structure, paragraphs are usually 100–200 words. This is a rough average only

– but if your paragraph is significantly shorter or longer ask yourself how well you have structured it, and whether you have made only one point or branched off into other ideas.

Structuring chapters: A checklist

Does the introduction clearly state the aim/argument of the chapter and how this relates to the argument of the thesis as a whole?

If subheadings are used, are they consistent in format, clear and specific?

Are you writing in academic paragraphs (topic sentence, development and evidence, summary and link)?

At the end of each ‘section’ or ‘chunk’ of information, is there a clear summary of the overall point being made, and a clear link to the next section?

Does the conclusion to the chapter summarise the argument of the chapter, relate this to the overall thesis argument, and link to the next chapter?

Is your writing clear, concise, academic in tone and grammatically correct?

I have included the marking criteria for the introduction and literature review on the following page.

I have included the Method section of the study following the marking criteria.

I can provide the Results section if required.

Marking Criteria
HD A B C F
Introduction/ Literature Review

(20)
17+

-Purpose and context for the research is clear and provides a strong basis for the current research.

-Theoretical and/or empirical literature clearly and critically discussed.

-Strong rationale for the current research provided and leads logically from the literature discussed.

-Succinct hypotheses and/or research question/s that are directly related to the literature reviewed.
15-16

-Purpose and context for the research is clear.

-Relevant theoretical and/ or empirical literature described in sufficient detail.

-Rationale for the current research provided and leads logically from the literature discussed.

-Appropriate and clear hypotheses and/or research question/s.
13-14

-Purpose and context for the research is stated but lacking some clarity.

-Some relevant theoretical and/or empirical literature discussed but links to current research unclear at times/ some detail missing/ lack of critical engagement.

-Rationale for the current research provided but lacking some clarity/ linkage to the literature discussed.

-Hypotheses and/or research question/s appropriate but inclusion of some irrelevant detail/lack of clarity.
10-12

-Purpose and context for the research is stated but lacking clarity.

-Some theoretical and/or empirical literature reviewed but missing information and unclear at times.

-Weak rationale for the current research and does not lead logically from the reviewed literature.

-Hypotheses and/or research question/s present but lacking clarity/ not linked to the literature reviewed.
<10 -Purpose and context for the research missing or is stated but inappropriate -Limited review of theoretical and/or empirical literature with major omissions and/ or lack of relevance to the research. -Absent or weak rationale (with no link to literature reviewed). -Hypotheses and/or research question/s present but not based in the literature or missing entirely. Clarity and succinctness of writing style (10) 8.5+ -Written expression is clear and concise -Presentation is without errors (spelling, grammar, etc.) 7.5-8 -Written expression is mostly clear and concise -Only minor presentation errors 6.5-7 -At times written expression lacks clarity and conciseness -A number of presentation errors 5-6 -Imprecise written expression and lack of clarity -Poor presentation <5 -Very poor written expression -Very poor presentation Method Participants Eligibility for participation required individuals to be at least 18 years of age, have paid employment, and not be self-employed. The sample was predominantly represented by Australian residents (88.7%), with participants also from the UK, Canada, UAE, Germany, Italy, Russia, India, and Thailand. Females accounted for the majority of respondents (68.6%) and seventy participants were in the 41-50 year age category (36.1%). Employment status was mainly permanent full-time (63.4%) followed by permanent part-time (20.1%). The majority of the sample worked between 30-39 hours per week (44.3%), with 77.8% of the sample working more than 30 hours per week. The public and private sector were equally represented with 46.4% and 45.4% respectively with the remainder represented by the not for profit sector. The Education and Training industry was the most represented (12.9%) followed by Transport, Postal, and Warehousing (10.3%), Health Care and Social Assistance (9.8%), Retail Trade, and Administration Support (both 9.3%), and Public Admin and Safety (8.8%). Large organisations were primarily represented with 52.28% of participants working at an organisation employing 1,000 or more employees. Most participants had worked for the current organisation for 3-5 years (24.23%), with the majority of the sample being at the organisation for less than 10 years (63.93%). Participants have spent between 3-5 years in their current role (28.35%), with the majority of the sample working less than 5 years in their current role (74.74%). Table 1 displays a summary of participant demographic characteristics. Table 1 Summary of Participant Demographic Characteristics (N = 195) Frequency Characteristics n % Gender Male 60 30.90 Female 133 68.60* Age range (years) <21-30 50 25.80 31-40 54 27.80 41-50 70 36.10 >51 20 10.30
Country of residence Australia 172 88.70
Other** 18 9.30
Employment status Full-time 137 70.60
Part-time 41 21.1
Av. No. of paid hours per week <30 43 22.2 >30 151 77.8
Type of organisation Public sector 90 46.4
Private sector 88 45.4
Not for profit 10 5.20
Industry*** Administrative and Support Services 18 9.30
Education and Training 25 12.90
Health Care and Social Assistance 19 9.80
Retail Trade 18 9.30
Transport, Postal and Warehousing 20 10.30
Unidentified 23 11.90
No. of employees in organisation <500 77 39.69 >500 107 59.58
Time in organisation (years) 1-10 124 63.92
>10 49 25.26
Time in role (years) 1-5 145 74.74
>5 49 25.26

Note: *Missing data **Other countries: UK, Germany, UAE, Russia, NZ, Italy, Canada, Thailand, India. ***Top five industries (by frequency).
Procedure

Participants were recruited via a cross-sectional convenience sampling method and snowballing technique. Primarily, personal, professional, and social networks available to the researchers were accessed within Australia. Members of the general public were also invited to participate. Verbal, written, and electronic invitations were extended to individuals by means of personal approach, email, advertisement on social networking sites and in newspapers, and paper flyers on public community noticeboards. Within these invitations, participants were provided with an internet address to access an online survey that could be completed at their convenience. Information regarding the purpose and aims of the research and the procedures involved in participation was provided. Participants were required to acknowledge they understood their involvement by providing informed consent before being permitted to proceed to the survey. Instructions were supplied for participants to generate a unique identification code comprising personal information only known to them, thus maintaining confidentiality. The purpose of the code was to allow participants to withdraw their data from the study. A demographic questionnaire was completed before responding to seven self-report scales measuring empowering leadership, work motivation, work-related psychological needs, work-role performance, affective commitment, well-being, and prosocial motivation. Four of these measures were included in the online survey for the purpose of collecting data for other research projects. Data was collected electronically and securely stored on a password-protected server at the “University”. On completion of the survey, information was provided for participants to contact the researchers indicating they would like to receive a copy of the results. Participation was voluntary and no incentives were offered. Ethical approval was granted for these procedures (H15REA049) by the “University” Human Research Ethics Committee. Data was analysed using SPSS version 22.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire

Questions regarding demographic characteristics included gender, age, country of residence, employment status, number of hours worked per week, occupation, industry, type and size of organisation (e.g., public or private sector with 50 employees), and period of time worked at organisation and in current role.

For the following three measures, the mean response to items within each scale was calculated to provide an overall scale score.

Empowering leadership

The Empowering Leadership Scale (ELS; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2013) is an 18-item, two-dimensional scale measuring the extent to which subordinate’s perceive their leader to be engaging in and demonstrating empowering leader behaviours. The autonomy support subscale contains items relating to leader behaviours of delegating, coordinating and informing, inspiring, giving efficacy support, encouraging initiative, and goal focus (twelve items, e.g., “My leader conveys that I shall take responsibility”). The development support subscale contains items relating to leader behaviours of modelling and guidance (six items, e.g., “My leader shows me how I can improve my way of working”). Responses were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = never to 7 = always). Higher scores indicate a subordinate’s greater perception of their leader engaging in and demonstrating empowering leader behaviours. Cronbach’s alphas for autonomy support range between .93-.95 and .91-.94 for development support. The ELS demonstrates factorial, concurrent, discriminant, and incremental validity (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2013). Cronbach’s ? for the current study was .97.

Autonomous motivation

Two subscales of the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS; Gagné, Forest, Vansteenkiste, Crevier-Braud, Van den Broeck, Aspeli et al., 2014) were used to measure autonomous work motivation pertaining to employees putting effort into their job. Identified regulation refers to doing an activity because one identifies with its value or meaning and accepts it as one’s own (three items, e.g., “Because I personally consider it important to put efforts in this job”). Intrinsic motivation is defined as doing an activity for its own sake, that is, because it is interesting and enjoyable in itself (three items, e.g., “Because the work I do is interesting”). Each item had the stem: “Why do you or would you put efforts into your current job?” Responses were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 7 = completely). Higher scores indicate greater levels of autonomous work motivation. Cronbach’s alphas for intrinsic motivation range between .88-.94 and .65-.94 for identified regulation (Of the seven samples reliability coefficients were provided for in the development of the scale, six of the samples had a Cronbach’s ? >.75). The MWMS demonstrates factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity cross-culturally (Gagne et al., 2014). Cronbach’s ? for the current study were .87 for identified regulation and .94 for intrinsic motivation.

Proactivity

The self-report version of the proactivity subscale of the Work Role Performance scale (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007) measures “the extent to which individuals take self-directed action to anticipate or initiate change in the work system or work roles” (p. 332). The subscale contains nine items measuring performance behaviours across three levels which role behaviours can contribute to effectiveness. Individual task proactivity refers to engaging in self-starting, future-oriented behaviour to contribute to individual effectiveness (three items, e.g., “Initiated better ways of doing your core tasks”). Team member proactivity refers to the extent to which an individual engages in self-starting, future-directed behaviour to contribute to team effectiveness (three items, e.g., “Developed new and improved methods to help your work unit perform better”). Organisation member proactivity refers to extent to which an individual engages in self-starting, future-directed behaviour to contribute to organisational effectiveness (three items, e.g., “Involved yourself in changes that are helping to improve the overall effectiveness of the organization”). Each statement had the stem: “Over the past month, how often have you carried out this behaviour?” Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very little to 5 = a great deal). Higher scores indicate greater levels of proactive behaviour. Cronbach’s ? for the three levels of proactivity range from .89-.92. Cronbach’s ? for the current study were .93, .91, and .92 for individual, team member, and organisation member proactivity respectively.

find the cost of your paper
Is this question part of your assignment?
Place order
Posted on May 12, 2016Author TutorCategories Question, Questions

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW