INFLUENCIA DE LA DIABETES SOBRE LA RESPUESTA DE LA ARTERIA RENAL A LA 5-HT Y LOS MECANISMOS IMPLICADOS EN

The data analysis revealed that the quality of LMX between a manager and an employee is positively related to the perceived effectiveness of managerial coaching. The relationship remains strong and significant even after including other variables in the equation, such as employees’ LGO and managers’ LGO. This lies in accordance with the study of Scaduto et al. (2008), who found that the quality of exchange between a manager and an employee influenced the motivation of the latter to participate in training interventions and also, impacted on the transfer of training. Indeed, in high-quality exchanges, the manager provides more resources and support to the employees per se (Liden et al., 2006) and in turn, the employees trust the manager (e.g. Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Graen & Uhl-bien, 1995; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008) and believe that coaching initiated by the latter is for their own benefit (Sue-Chan et al., 2011). Hence, the analysis provides supports for hypothesis 2.

Further, in line with the perspective that individual differences play an important role in the contemporary workplace (Day, 2000), the findings yielded a significant positive relationship between employees’ LGO and the perceived

effectiveness of managerial coaching, after controlling for LMX. This is in agreement with the theoretical foundations of LGO theory developed by Dweck (1999), according to which, individuals who score high on LGO, believe that intelligence is malleable and thus, are willing to involve with interventions to improve their knowledge, skills and abilities. In other words, employees, who scored high on LGO, were willing to

consciously involve themselves with developmental activities, including coaching, as they believed that they would be able to develop themselves through these practices. Hence, by being more attentive to developmental opportunities, they benefited the most out of coaching offered by their line manager. Indeed, meta-analytic results signify a positive relationship between motivation to learn and transfer of training (Blume et al., 2010), while holding accountability of own development contributes in further sustaining the newly acquired knowledge, skills or abilities (Armstrong, 2009). The above indicates that hypothesis 1 was, also, supported.

According to past empirical research managers who hold an incremental theory, i.e. they believe that intelligence is malleable, are more willing to coach their team members (Heslin et al., 2006) and in turn, those willing to coach are more prone to offer support to older workers (Leisink & Knies, 2011). Drawing on this, the study hypothesised a direct relationship between a team leader’s LGO and coaching effectiveness. Nevertheless, the results could not provide support for this hypothesis.

Taking into consideration the underlying reasoning, that is, incremental implicit theory is positively related to LGO (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), the following explanations are proposed to elucidate the lack of a significant direct relationship.

Firstly, team leader’s high levels of LGO may be a distal antecedent of effective managerial coaching and thus, a team or an individual-level variable may mediate the relationship. Taking into account that self-regulation is related to LGO (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011), self-regulation tactics may serve as proximal constructs that mediate the relationship between team leader’s LGO and coaching effectiveness. For example, VandeWalle et al. (1999) demonstrated that the self-regulation tactics of goal setting, effort and planning act as mediators in the relationship between LGO and sales performance. Likewise, in the education sector, teacher’s LGO was found to relate positively to the process of planning and goal setting of students’ questioning and help seeking behaviour (Butler & Shibaz, 2008), as well as students’ effort and progress (Retelsdorf, Butler, Streblow, & Schiefele, 2010). Indeed, having argued that team leader’s coaching is a regulating mechanism that helps employees develop their own self-regulating mechanisms, it may be seconded that self-regulating tactics mediate the relationship between team leaders’ LGO and coaching effectiveness.

A second explanation for the absence of a significant direct relationship may be ascribed to the context of the particular study. Specifically, as discussed above, since formal team leader coaching procedures were not in place in the participating organisations, coaching was not included in the leaders’ job description nor did they receive additional organisational support or resources for its exercise. Thus, it is possible that those managers, who exercised coaching, were engaging in the practice more as an informal or naturally occurring practice rather than as a formal

intervention. Furthermore, the determinant factors for the effectiveness of informal or incidental practices entail “need, motivation, and opportunity for learning” (Marsick & Watkins, 2001: 28), which may be reflected in the abovementioned two other variables of the study, namely employees’ LGO (need, and motivation for learning) and quality of LMX (opportunity for learning). Hence, it is likely that due to the prevalence of informal managerial coaching in the present study, a team leader’s LGO was not significantly related to coaching effectiveness and as a result, hypothesis 2a could not be supported. Having discussed the findings on the antecedents of effective

Finally, the study hypothesised that the relationship between an employee’s LGO and effective managerial coaching is stronger when the manager scores high rather than low on LGO. The underlining rationale was the fact that when both members of a dyad (manager and employee) score high on LGO, there is mutual understanding, goal congruence and involvement in learning opportunities that

increases the likelihood of engaging in effective coaching conversations. However, the results of the data analysis could not support the hypothesised moderation.

Specifically, the findings demonstrated that the relationship between employee’s LGO and effective managerial coaching is insignificant for moderate to high levels of a manager’s LGO and significant only for low levels of a manager’s LGO. The author offers the below explanation for this counter-intuitive result.

As it has been already discussed, managers with a high LGO are more prone to formally engage in developmental interventions. However, in all three participant organisations, coaching was practised informally. This may indicate that when both employees and managers score high on LGO, formal learning interventions already in place (instead of coaching) are preferred to promote and satiate the need for learning. On the other hand, managers with a low LGO are less willing to formally develop their team members and thus, the team members with a high LGO need to look for

developmental opportunities outside formal interventions. LGO has been linked with self-regulation processes that explain the ways, in which learners adapt their

behaviour during training in order to achieve their learning goals (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Specifically, employees with a high LGO, who do not receive adequate formal development, look more intensively for developmental opportunities at the workplace and thus, welcome any situation as a chance for additional learning. Hence, it is likely that the relationship between employees’ LGO and managerial coaching is significant only for teams with a manager who scores low on LGO, since they have to self- regulate their learning to a greater extent than employees in teams with a manager, who scores high on LGO. Indeed, encouragement/motivation by the manager plays a less significant role in the informal practice of managerial coaching. In contrast, learner’s motivation for learning is a key factor for the effectiveness of informal or incidental practices (Marsick & Watkins, 2001: 28).

In line with the above, social learning theory and role modelling (Bandura, 1988, 1991; Davis & Luthans, 1980) posit that employees model themselves on the behaviour of their leaders. Hence, it is possible that the lower the LGO of a line manager, the less conducive the team environment is to learning. On the other hand,

employees for learning and thus, the team members understand that learning is a significant behaviour that needs to be exhibited within the team. Under this line of reasoning, it is likely that the employees with a high LGO, who are in teams with a manager also with a high LGO, are given plenty of formal learning opportunities and therefore, they pay less attention to instances of informal coaching by their line

manager – especially, given that the team environment is highly conducive to learning. On the other hand, those team members with a high LGO, who are in teams with a manager with a low LGO, need to pursue learning and development through informal and incidental interventions, including informal coaching sessions by their line

manager. Hence, it is likely that these employees perceive informal coaching as an opportunity for further learning and development. As a result, they pay significant attention to instances of coaching and their active engagement contributes to the effectiveness of the practice.