Increasing Employee Motivation to Lead Through an Understanding of Communication Apprehension

Abstract

This study expanded on current theoretical understanding of motivation to lead by testing a model that includes communication apprehension as a key predictor of motivation to lead. The hypotheses were tested with hierarchical multiple regression applied to cross-sectional data collected from 170 retail employees at stores on the east coast of the United States. The results revealed a strong, negative relationship between communication apprehension and affective-identity, social-normative, and noncalculative motivation to lead. Communication apprehension was a stronger predictor of motivation to lead than other individual difference variables. The results also revealed that although communication apprehension is significantly negatively related to all dimensions of motivation to lead, it accounts for more variance in the affective-identity dimension than the social-normative and noncalculative dimensions. Theoretical and practical implications for communication and leadership development are presented and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

communication leadership communication apprehension motivation to lead

Due to the need to develop leaders for current and future organizations, researchers have become increasingly interested in factors that influence the motivation of potential leaders (Grant & Shandell, 2022). Understanding motivation to lead (MTL) is especially important when the retiring baby-boomer workforce has sparked widespread interest in the selection and development of leaders. As baby boomers retire, employers must utilize and develop older workers and encourage employees to stay in industries longer. Furthermore, the gradual exodus of a retiring workforce is likely to lead to voids in skills sets and leadership depth. Ultimately, organizations must understand how to utilize and develop their employees effectively to be leaders of the future.

Chan (1999) defined MTL as:

those factors or processes that affect a leader or leader to be’s decisions in relation to the assumption of leadership training, roles and responsibilities, his or her intensity of effort at leading, and his or her persistence as a leader of a group. (p. 4)

Chan developed and tested a multidimensional model of MTL that included three alternative types of leadership motivation. According to Chan, some individuals may be motivated to lead simply because they like to (affective-identity MTL or AIMTL), others because of perceived social duty or responsibility (social-normative MTL or SNMTL), and others may only be motivated to lead if they do not calculate the costs of leading relative to the benefits (noncalculative MTL or NCMTL). Chan (1999) described noncalculative MTL as a “rational approach to leading” (p. 8). Chan and Drasgow (2001) posited that leadership style and desire to lead are learned, and that MTL can change or develop. Therefore, understanding factors that might inhibit employee MTL may provide managers with a basis for providing training and development.

Scholars acknowledge the need to understand the relationship between individual differences and various leadership behaviors. In creating the original MTL model, Chan (1999) found support for personality (chiefly extraversion), social-cultural values (Chan & Drasgow, 2001), leadership self-efficacy, and past leadership experience (Chan, 1999; Chan & Drasgow, 2001) as antecedents. However, other than research by Chan and Drasgow (2001), Chan et al. (2000), Clemmons and Fields (2011), and Amit et al. (2007), most research on individual difference variables as antecedents to MTL has consisted of unpublished dissertations and theses. As a result, empirical evidence on MTL is limited. Furthermore, despite the need to determine factors that impact individual MTL, researchers have not examined the relationships between communication variables and MTL. Flauto (1999) argued that communication is the vehicle in which we exercise leadership. Furthermore, effective communication is the core of leadership (de Vries et al., 2010; Luthra, & Dahiya, 2015). Consequently, it is impossible to fully understand MTL without examining the effects of communication-related variables.

As Miner’s (1978) conceptualization of role motivation theory (motivation to manage) suggested, a managerial or leadership role requires an individual to stand out from the group and to assume a position of high visibility. Miner (1978) asserted, “When this idea of standing out from the group elicits feelings of unpleasantness, then the behavior appropriate to the role will occur less often than would otherwise be the case” (p. 742). Therefore, as communication apprehension (CA) increases, the desire to lead may reduce. This aligns with the findings of Blume et al. (2013) who reported a significant negative relationship between CA and leadership initiative (i.e., willingness to communicate persuasively and influence others). However, the leadership initiative construct is more closely related to willingness to communicate or leader emergence than MTL and is related to externally demonstrated abilities. In contrast, MTL relates to internal processes more directly related to individual differences, including personality. Although Chan (1999) examined several individual difference variables in the original MTL model (leadership self-efficacy, personality, past leadership experience, and values), he did not include communication-related variables. Communication is the vehicle through which individuals exercise leadership (Barge, 1994); therefore, few behaviors are more detrimental to leadership than apprehension about communication, lack of communication, or ineffective communication. Introducing CA as an individual difference variable in the MTL model offers insight into how employee communication traits and behaviors can change to increase individual MTL. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to introduce CA as an individual difference variable that may affect MTL by testing the direct effects of CA on all three dimensions of MTL.

CA is a broad-based personality-type characteristic that has a major effect on an individual’s behavior (Dwyer & Cruz, 1998). Cunningham et al. (2006) noted CA is a widespread disorder that leads to debilitating effects for countless individuals. Individuals with high levels of CA often avoid communication, withdraw from communication, or disrupt the communication of others (Cole & McCroskey, 2003). Furthermore, CA has been cited as a primary detriment to career advancement (Cunningham et al., 2006). Previous research suggested that CA is affected by environmental conditions and social learning; therefore, by providing training and making employees comfortable in communicating, organizations may increase employee MTL. Thus, this study examined the relationship between CA and MTL by testing a model that includes CA as a key individual difference variable in the MTL model.

In this empirical study, the research hypotheses were examined using a sample of retail employees. These employees came from multiple stores owned by a company on the east coast of the United States. A quantitative study was used to test the model of the hypothesized relationships depicted in Figure 1.

Theoretical Foundation and Model Development

This study contributes to the communication, leadership, and management literature by addressing four major problems: (a) limited empirical research on individual differences and motivation to lead, (b) nonexistent research on communication variables as antecedents to motivation to lead, (c) limited research on communication apprehension as a key variable in the motivation to lead model, and (d) limited research on communication apprehension as a key variable in the leadership development literature. The following sections provide a brief literature review of the theoretical foundation that aided in model development.

Motivation to Lead

Chan (1999) posited that motivation “refers to complex within person processes that affect three aspects of behavior: (a) direction; (b) intensity; and (c) persistence” (p. 4). As Bagin and Fulginiti (2005) explained, motivation is not action, but rather a predisposition to act. As Triandis (1977) suggested, intentions are immediate antecedents to behavior. Similarly, MTL is not leadership but rather a construct describing an intention to lead or a predisposition to act. Therefore, when identifying antecedents to MTL, researchers are attempting to understand factors that may inhibit the predisposition or desire to lead.

Using the theoretical frameworks of the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the theory of interpersonal behavior (Triandis, 1977), and the three-dimensional model of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991), Chan (1999) developed a three-factor multidimensional model of MTL covering the motivations of enjoyment, duty, and a lack of concern about the costs of leadership. Chan and Drasgow (2001) stated that the conceptualization of the MTL construct was not a revival of the great man theory of leadership, which suggested that individuals’ traits indicated whether they would become leaders (Carlyle, 1888). Chan and Drasgow (2001) argued, “No assumption is made that people are motivated to lead by birth” (p. 482). They posited that leadership style and desire to lead are learned, and that MTL can change. However, they also argued that, within a group, individual differences (personality variables, values, and self-efficacy) remain relatively stable over time.

Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) original model included personality, social-cultural values, leadership self-efficacy, and past leadership experience as to MTL (Chan, 1999; Chan & Drasgow, 2001). They found that all three MTL factors had their own sets of antecedents that were the same across three samples representing diverse occupational and cultural contexts. Chan and Drasgow (2001) also reported direct and indirect paths through leadership self-efficacy from distal antecedents and MTL. The leader development component of Chan’s (1999) MTL construct stemmed from the theoretical framework of Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. Chan and Drasgow (2001) posited that MTL is a product of social learning processes constructed through past leadership experience and individual difference variables.

After Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) landmark study on MTL, researchers sought out other individual difference variables that may influence individual MTL including values (Clemmons & Fields, 2011), vocational interests (Chan et al., 2000), biculturalism (Cintron, 2004), emotional intelligence (Cintron, 2004; Lee, 2005), and psychological empowerment (Lee, 2005). However, empirical evidence on individual difference variables as antecedents to MTL is limited, and researchers have not examined the relationships between communication variables and individual MTL. This study tested a model of MTL that included CA, values, past leadership experience, and generalized self-efficacy.

Although Chan (1999) tested a model that included leadership self-efficacy, the current study applied findings by Clemmons and Fields (2011) and Chen et al. (2001) and utilized a measure of generalized self-efficacy. Despite several scholars examining self-efficacy through contextually specific beliefs or tasks (Bandura, 1982; Bandura et al., 1999), others have argued for the examination of self-efficacy through a generalized or trait-like orientation (Eden, 2001; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). According to Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995), generalized self-efficacy refers to general beliefs in one’s ability to control and respond to environmental demands or challenges, solve problems, and meet goals. Contrary to Chan (1999) and Chan and Drasgow (2001), the focus of the current study was the examination of generalized characteristics of the individual and how those characteristics impact MTL. For instance, the MTL measure does not relate to a specific task or context, and the CA measure is not related to CA in the context of leadership. Therefore, utilizing the GSE measure offers an opportunity to investigate whether self-efficacy in overall goal setting and problem solving is significantly related to MTL. Ultimately, this study examined self-efficacy as a trait-like belief in one’s competence (Eden, 2001) instead of a state-like belief in one’s competence (Bandura, 1982; Bandura et al. 1999).

Communication Apprehension

Communication apprehension is “the fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). Richmond (1984) extended this definition by reporting that “high CA people experience emotional distress during or anticipating communication, prefer to avoid communication, and are perceived by others and themselves as less competent, skilled, and successful” (p. 101). Furthermore, McCroskey et al. (1986) reported that CA is an internally experienced, affective response to communication. Although CA has behavioral implications, individuals experience CA internally, and the only universal outcome of CA is a feeling of discomfort, which often becomes an extreme dislike or avoidance of communication (McCroskey, 1984).

The most recent conceptualization of CA indicates that CA is best viewed on a continuum, with the most trait-like CA at one end (trait CA) and the least trait-like CA at the other end (state CA). Context-based CA and audience-based CA fall between these points. An underlying assumption of the continuum view of CA is that all four types of CA are interrelated. Both communication theorists (e.g., Marcel, 2016, 2019; McCroskey, 1982) and geneticists (e.g., Condit, 2009; Levitt, 2013; Traynor & Singleton, 2010) have argued that to view all human behavior as a product of either a trait-like predisposition or a situation ignores the powerful interaction of these two sources. Although there is debate concerning whether CA can be managed and overcome by altering the situation and providing training, several empirical studies suggest that like most fears, CA can be reduced or managed over time (e.g., Allen, 1989; Blume et al., 2013; Condit, 2009; Dwyer, 2000; Marcel, 2015, 2019; Yale, 2014).

Consequences of Communication Apprehension

In data from over 40,000 college students and over 3,000 nonstudent adults, the average CA score on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension-24 (PRCA-24) was 65.6 (McCroskey, 1982). Scores between 55 and 83 indicate moderate CA. These findings led McCroskey to posit that CA is a widespread disorder with debilitating effects.

Researchers have found that CA affects many aspects of organizational communication and leadership, including leader-member exchange quality (Jones, 2009; Madlock et al., 2007); leadership emergence (e.g., Hawkins & Stewart, 1991; Limon & La France, 2005); occupational choice, job satisfaction, employment retention, and advancement (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979); effectiveness in the interview process (Ayres et al., 1998); and perceptions of competence and success, perceptions of requiring more training, and difficulty establishing positive relationships with coworkers (Falcione et al., 1977; McCroskey & Richmond, 1979). Furthermore, Shockley-Zalabak and Morley (1984) reported that individuals with high levels of CA usually do not hold management or supervisory positions because of fear of communicating. Cole and McCroskey (2003) reported that supervisors with high CA are viewed as having less source credibility, overall effect, and likeability because this internal fear of communication results in negatively perceived outward behaviors. Ultimately, people with high CA have more difficulty than those with low CA in becoming and remaining members of organizations (Richmond & Roach, 1992).

Meyer-Griffith et al. (2009) reported that emotions and fears such as CA are inseparable from career choice. As a result, individuals with high CA prefer occupations that require little communication and often avoid leadership (Daly & McCroskey, 1975). Although there may be a feeling of social duty or responsibility to lead (i.e., social-normative MTL), individuals with high CA will suppress that calling to lead due to a debilitating fear of communication. Individuals with high CA perceive themselves and others more negatively (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1986), and these negative perceptions impact thoughts about communication. Consequently, individuals with high CA will most likely not have an affective identity toward MTL. Furthermore, individuals with high levels of CA do not perceive themselves as dominant, so they doubt their ability to accomplish tasks requiring communication competence (Hawkins & Stewart, 1991). As Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory suggests, individuals with high CA may view the costs of leadership as far greater than the rewards (i.e., lower noncalculative MTL).

CA may also be a contributing factor regarding inequities in the career advancement of individuals in vulnerable and marginalized groups. Researchers have reported that in samples of working adults, persistent patterns of public speaking anxiety have been found to concentrate among younger, lower income, less educated, and female populations (e.g., Cairney et al., 2007; Marcel, 2019; Stein et al., 1996). Although CA was not specifically examined in these studies, findings regarding public speaking anxiety indicate that examining the relationship between CA and MTL may offer insight regarding the leadership and communication development of employees in vulnerable and marginalized groups (Marcel, 2019).

Although the relationships between CA and MTL and between CA and work motivation have not been explored, CA is a significant predictor of variables closely related to MTL, including leadership emergence (e.g., Hawkins & Stewart, 1991; Limon & La France, 2005) and leadership initiative (Blume et al., 2013). Furthermore, CA is negatively correlated with motivation to learn, which has a correlation with work motivation (Battistelli, 2008). Houser and Frymier (2009) found a significant negative correlation between CA and motivation in an educational context, whereas Rubin (1993) found a significant negative relationship between CA and communication motivation. In an experimental study concerning the effects of CA on perceptions of leadership, Hawkins and Stewart (1991) reported that individuals with high levels of CA saw themselves and others as lower in emergent leadership than those with lower levels of CA. Furthermore, in a group setting, those with high levels of CA chose seating that allowed them to withdraw from the group and showed little tolerance for ambiguity. Hawkins and Stewart acknowledged the limited data on perceptions of leadership and CA and suggested further studies on CA and various facets of leadership.

Communication Apprehension as a Measure of Personality

Previous empirical research has supported the claim that CA has “a broad relationship with an individual’s total personality” (McCroskey et al., 1976, p. 378). McCroskey et al. (1976) found that CA was positively correlated with anxiety, dogmatism (i.e., the expression of an opinion or belief as if it were fact), and external locus of control (i.e., belief about control over success or failure), but negatively correlated with cyclothymia (i.e., a mental state characterized by marked mood swings, cycling from depression and elation), emotional maturity, dominance, surgency (i.e., a personality factor characterized by quickness and cleverness), character, adventurousness, confidence, self-control, tolerance for ambiguity, and need for achievement. Agreeing with McCroskey et al., MacIntyre and Thivierge (1995) reported a significant correlation between global personality traits and CA. In addition, extraversion has been found to be significantly and negatively correlated with CA (as measured by Eysenck’s [1990] big three; McCroskey et al. [2001]; and as measured by Goldberg’s [1992] Big Five Personality Index; Meyers et al. [1993]).

Despite CA being viewed as a personality-type variable, personality measures such as Cattell’s 16 PF, MMPI, Eysenck’s big three, and the Big Five Personality Index do not include a dimension designed specifically to measure CA. McCroskey et al. noted:

Since these widely administered personality inventories have undergone years of testing, refinement, and validation, the absence of a communication apprehension dimension suggests that communication apprehension may not represent a single, unique personality variable but rather may be related to a number of previously isolated dimensions of personality. (p. 477)

Consequently, a more parsimonious way to examine the relationships between personal characteristics and MTL may be to introduce a communicate-related variable to the MTL model by including CA as a key individual difference variable.

Although Chan and Drasgow (2001) included personality measures in their original model, the primary effects of personality characteristics on MTL may occur because they affect communication skills and tendencies of individuals. Clemmons and Fields (2011) reported that extraversion is the only dimension of Goldberg’s Big 5 that is consistently related to MTL. CA is significantly negatively related to extraversion and can be a product of neuroticism and extraversion (Beatty et al., 1998). Therefore, CA may be a key predictor of MTL. As Richmond (1984) explained, individuals with high levels of CA prefer to avoid communication and are perceived as less competent and skilled in communication. Therefore, although CA is most likely a significant predictor of all dimensions of MTL, CA is predicted to account for more variance in the affective-identity dimension than the other two dimensions. Individuals with high levels of CA would most likely avoid leadership opportunities and certainly would not lead because they have an affective orientation toward leadership. Therefore, individuals’ MTL may be predicted by their communication-related anxiety over and above other individual difference variables, and although negatively related to all three dimensions, CA will account for more variance in affective-identity MTL.

H1: Communication apprehension accounts for significant additional variance in all three types of motivation to lead (affective identity, social-normative, and noncalculative motivation to lead) after controlling for individual difference predictors.

H2: Communication apprehension accounts for more variance in affective-identity motivation to lead than in social-normative and noncalculative motivation to lead.

Methods

For this study, data came from retail employees at multiple stores owned by a company on the east coast of the United States. The primary rationale for this sample was to increase the generalizability of previous findings by expanding MTL beyond military and educational settings. In addition, utilizing retail employees extends the work of Porter et al. (2016), who examined MTL across industries (including MBA students). However, retail is also one of the largest industries in the United States, employing roughly 18% of the labor force. Therefore, retail is an important industry for MTL.

Study hypotheses were tested using data gathered through quantitative, self-administered, single-source surveys. One survey was used to collect all the data. Participation was voluntary and confidential. This study utilized a cross-sectional survey design. Participants were selected using a single-stage sampling procedure. In addition, the sampling procedure involved convenience sampling. In order to reduce the likelihood and magnitude of common method variance, several proactive techniques were utilized in the development and administration of the survey instrument, including (a) protecting rater anonymity; (b) reducing rater apprehension regarding responses by communicating that there were no right or wrong answers to the survey questions; (c) providing a survey instrument that clearly defined terms, maintained simplicity, and avoided complex syntax and double-barreled questions; and (d) pretesting the survey instrument with a group of practitioners and academics to validate the instrument’s readability, clarity, length and appropriateness and making changes to the survey based on feedback (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).

Sample and Sampling Procedures

As of this study, the company had 200 employees. Of that number, 170 usable surveys were received, a response rate of 85%. The 30 missing cases were due to failure to submit the surveys or incomplete surveys.

The sample comprised 87 males (51%) and 83 females (49%). Participants fell into five age categories with most participants in the 40 to 50 (28%) or over 50 (26%) age groups. The participants comprised five noted ethnicities with the vast majority (91%) registering as Caucasian. Four educational groups were reflected in the population with the largest portion (47%) having a high-school education or GED. Participants comprised two different categories of job level with 39% in management positions and 61% in nonmanagement positions. Finally, participants were surveyed for employment status, with 33% being part-time employees and 67% being full-time employees. The demographic characteristics of the sample were consistent with the demographics of the total sampling frame. In addition, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in May 2022, the demographic characteristics in this study were also consistent with demographics from the American workforce as well as the retail industry.

Measures

The survey had 72 items, including 27 items that measured three dimensions of MTL (Chan & Drasgow, 2001), 24 items that measured four dimensions of CA (i.e., the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension; PRCA-24; McCroskey, 1982), eight items that measured self-efficacy (i.e., the New Self-Efficacy Scale; Chen et al., 2001), two items that measured past leadership experience (Clemmons & Fields, 2011), five items that measured values (i.e., Self-Efficacy Toward Service; Weber et al., 2004), and six categorical questions that measured demographic information, including job level, full- or part-time status, age, gender, race, and education level. The survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete.

Dependent variables

MTL was the criterion or dependent variable. MTL was measured using the 27-item self-report MTL measure (Chan, 1999), which assesses three aspects or dimensions of MTL (affective-identity, social-normative, and noncalculative). In addition, the 27 items can be computed to create an overall MTL measure. The MTL measure uses a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The affective-identity MTL subscale is a 9-item scale consisting of such statements as “Much of the time I prefer being a leader rather than a follower when working in a group.” The 9-item social-normative subscale consists of such statements as “I feel that I have a duty to lead others if I am asked.” The 9-item subscale for noncalculative MTL consists of such statements as “I am only interested to lead a group if there are clear advantages for me.” The reliability scores for these subscales range from .78 to .89, and α = .89 for the composite MTL scale (e.g., Chan, 1999; Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Clemmons & Fields, 2011). In this study sample, the reliability scores for affective-identity MTL, social-normative MTL, and noncalculative MTL were α = .89, α = .85, and α = .78, respectively. The composite MTL scale had α = .90. The reliability scores in this study are consistent with Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) work.

Independent variable

CA was measured with PRCA-24 (McCroskey, 1982). The PRCA-24 is a 24-item Likert-type scale that assesses CA in four communication contexts: public, small group, meeting, and interpersonal-dyadic. Sample questions include “Ordinarily, I am very tense and nervous in conversations with my supervisor” and “Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions.” These items have responses on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Researchers have reported that the PRCA-24 is internally consistent and reliable. McCroskey (1984) reported alpha coefficients from .93 to .94 for the 24-item scale, and the PRCA-24 has been validated in over 1,000 studies in the United States. The PRCA-24 also has strong construct and predictive validity and cross-situational consistency (McCroskey & Beatty, 1984; McCroskey & Richmond, 1982), discriminant validity, and content validity (McCroskey et al., 1985). For the current study, the reliability score for the PRCA-24 was α = .96.

Control variables

This study controlled for individual difference variables and demographic variables that Chan (1999) and Chan and Drasgow (2001) found were significant predictors of MTL. The individual difference variables included as control variables in this study were generalized self-efficacy (GSE; an impression that one is capable of performing or attaining certain goals), values (willingness to serve, defined as rule following and altruistic thinking), and past leadership experience (defined as individuals’ self-reports of whether previous leadership roles motivate them to accept newer, more challenging leadership roles).

Generalized self-efficacy

This study used the 8-item New General Self-Efficacy measure developed by Chen et al. (2001) to measure generalized self-efficacy. A sample item is “Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.” The responses are based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Coefficient alphas ranged from .76 to .83 (Clemmons & Fields, 2011). Reliability for this study was α = .85.

Past leadership experience

Following guidelines from Chan and Drasgow (2001), two self-report items were used to measure past leadership experience (“I consider myself successful in regard to my previous leadership experiences” and “My previous leadership experiences motivate me to consider accepting newer, more challenging leadership roles”). In this study, the interitem correlation for the two past leadership items was .68.

Values

Following Clemmons and Fields (2011), the Self Efficacy Toward Service Scale (Weber et al., 2004) was used to measure values. This scale measures respondents’ willingness to serve. Specifically, Weber et al.’s (2004) measure of Self-Efficacy Toward Service Scale “examines self-efficacy to contribute time and service to the public good” (p. 361). Clemmons and Fields reported a significant positive relation between willingness to serve and all three dimensions of MTL. The measure is a 5-item, 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample statement is “I can have a positive impact on social problems.” Cronbach’s alphas were .87 or higher for the measure (Clemmons & Fields, 2011). In this study, the reliability of the Self-Efficacy Toward Service Scale was α = .81.

Demographic variables

This study also controlled for age, race, gender, employment status (full-time or part-time), education level, and job level, based Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) original study of MTL.

Results

This study utilized a quantitative nonexperimental exploratory design. This allowed for the prediction of MTL from CA beyond individual difference variables tested by Chan and Drasgow (2001), as well as this study’s demographic variables. Using SPSS statistical software, hierarchical multiple regressions were used to determine the degree of support for study hypotheses. In addition to preemptive measures taken to reduce the likelihood and magnitude of common method variance, the Harman (1960) single factor technique was used to test for common method variance. This statistical technique used exploratory factor analysis where all variables were loaded onto a single factor and constrained so there was no rotation. According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), if the newly introduced common factor explains more than 50% of the variance, then common method variance may be present. However, in the present study, the single factor did not account for a majority of the variance (35%).

The correlations among the variables are in Table 1. These zero-order correlations indicate that affective-identity MTL is negatively related with CA (r = −.59, p < .01). Social normative MTL is also negatively correlated with CA (r = −.40, p < .01) and positively correlated with willingness to serve (r = .47, p < .01), GSE (r = .41, p < .01), and past leadership experience (r = .42, p < .01). Noncalculative MTL is negatively correlated with CA (r = −.30, p < .01). None of the correlations were above .60, indicating that multicollinearity would not be a concern in regression analysis.

Table 1.

Correlations Among the Study Variables (N = 170).

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Affective-identity MTL	31.42	7.04	—	.55**	.36**	−.59**	.40**	.36**	.50**
2. Social-normative MTL	32.5	5.75		—	.29**	−.40**	.47**	.41**	.42**
3. Noncalculative MTL	34.91	5.21			—	−.30**	.20**	.19**	.26**
4. Communication apprehension	58.03	17.78				—	−.20**	−.18**	−.47**
5. Willingness to serve	20.88	2.62					—	.55**	.53**
6. Self-efficacy	33.29	3.77						—	.62**
7. Past leadership experience	7.65	1.66							—

**p < .01.

Hypothesis 1

To assess Hypothesis 1, hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted to determine whether, after controlling for gender, race, age, education, job level, employment status, self-efficacy, values, and past leadership experience, CA predicted MTL and offered the greatest contribution to the model. The independent variable was CA, and the control variables were individual differences and demographic variables. There was one regression per dependent variable.

Communication apprehension and affective-identity MTL

The covariates were entered into Model 1, and CA was entered into Model 2. As Table 2 indicates, the control variables (gender, race, age education, job level, employment status, self-efficacy, values, and past leadership experience) explain 30.6% of the variance in affective-identity MTL. After CA is included, the model as a whole explains 43.3%, which means that CA explains an additional 12.7% of the variance in affective-identity MTL. This is a significant contribution as indicated by the Sig. F change value of p = .00. The model (which includes both blocks of variables) is also significant (F (10,159) = 12.15, p < .001). In the final model, only two measures were statistically significant, with CA recording a higher beta value (β = −.46, p = .00) than past leadership experience (β = .28, p = .00).

Table 2.

Coefficients Table: Communication Apprehension and AIMTL.

Variables	B	SE B	β
Model 1
Gender	0.04	0.96	.00
Race/ethnicity	−0.11	0.68	−.01
Age	−0.28	0.39	−.05
Education level	−8.65	0.44	−.13
Job level	−0.1.67	1.05	−.02
Employment status	−0.22	1.21	−.00
WTS-Values	0.45	0.23	.17
SE	0.01	0.17	.01
PLE	1.7	0.38	.41
R² = .30, significant
Model 2
Gender	0.49	0.87	.04
Race/ethnicity	−0.03	0.62	−.00
Age	−0.69	0.36	−.13
Education level	−0.50	0.40	−.08
Job level	−1.69	0.94	−.12
Employment status	0.02	0.95	.00
WTS-values	0.19	0.21	.07
SE	−0.18	0.16	−.09
PLE	1.16	0.36	.28**
CA	−0.18	.03	−.46**
∆R² = .19
Total R² = .433, p = 000

Note. Model 1 R² = .31. Model 2 R² = .43.

**p < .01. Sig. F Change = .000.

Communication apprehension and social-normative MTL

As Table 3 indicates, the control variables explain 30.02% of the variance in social- normative MTL. CA explained an additional 1.9% of the variance in social-normative MTL. CA makes a significant contribution to the model as indicated by the Sig. F change value, p = .035. The final model was significant with F(10, 159) = 7.537, p = .00. In the final model, Values and CA were the only statistically significant measures, recording beta values of (Values [WTS], β = .24, p = .01; CA, β = −.18, p = .04).

Table 3.

Coefficients Table: Individual Differences predicting SNMTL.

Variables	B	SE B	β
Model 1
Gender	0.71	0.78	.06
Race/ethnicity	0.60	0.64	.07
Age	−0.49	0.36	−.11
Education level	0.09	0.41	.02
Job level	−0.21	0.98	−.02
Employment status	−1.50	0.98	−.12
WTS-values	0.61	0.19	.28
SE	0.14	0.14	.09
PLE	0.77	0.31	.22
R² = .032, significant
Model 2
Gender	0.71	0.78	.06
Race/ethnicity	0.38	0.56	.05
Age	−0.51	0.32	−.11
Education level	0.24	0.36	.05
Job level	0.34	0.84	.03
Employment status	−1.34	0.85	−.11
WTS-values	0.53	0.19	.24**
SE	0.08	0.14	.05
PLE	0.59	0.32	.17
CA ∆R² = .02 Total R² = .32	−0.06	0.03	−.18*

Note. Model 1 R² = .30. Model 2 R² = .32.

p < .05. **p < .01. Sig. F Change = .035.

Communication apprehension and noncalculative MTL

As Table 4 indicates, the control variables explain 12.5% of the variance in noncalculative MTL. CA explained an additional 2.1% of the variance in noncalculative MTL. CA makes a significant contribution as indicated by the Sig. F change value, p = .04. The final model was significant with F(10, 159) = 2.734, p = .00. In the final model, CA and Education Level were the only statistically significant measures, recording beta values of (CA, β = −.19, p = .04; Education Level, β = −.16, p = .04).

Table 4.

Coefficients Table: Individual Differences predicting NCMTL.

Variables	B	SE B	β
Model 1
Gender	0.18	0.80	.02
Race/ethnicity	0.57	0.57	.08
Age	−0.56	0.32	−.18
Education level	−0.87	0.37	.14
Job level	−0.57	0.86	−.05
Employment status	0.46	0.87	.04
WTS-Values	0.15	0.19	.08
SE	0.09	0.14	.07
PLE	0.50	0.32	.16
R² = .13, significant
Model 2
Gender	0.32	0.79	.03
Race/ethnicity	0.58	0.58	.08
Age	0.44	0.33	.11
Education level	−0.76	0.37	−.16*
Job level	0.53	0.86	.05
Employment status	0.53	0.86	.05
WTS-values	0.07	0.19	.04
SE	0.03	0.14	.02
PLE	0.33	0.33	.11
CA ∆R² = .02 Total R² = .15	−0.06	0.03	−.19*

Note. Model 1 R² = .13. Model 2 R² = .15.

p < .05. **p < .01. Sig. F Change = .004.

Hypothesis 2

To assess Hypothesis 2, hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted to determine whether, after controlling for gender, race, age, education, job level, and employment status, self-efficacy, values, and past leadership experience, CA accounts for more variance in affective-identity MTL than social-normative MTL and noncalculative MTL. There was one regression per dependent variable. The control variables were entered in the first block, and CA was entered into the second block.

Tables 2 to 4 show the results of the regression analysis for each regression model. Hypothesis 2 was supported. CA accounted for more variance in affective-identity MTL than for social-normative MTL and noncalculative MTL. CA explained an additional 12.7% of the variance in affective-identity MTL, ΔR² = .127, an additional 1.9% of the variance in social-normative MTL, ΔR² = .019, and an additional 2.1% of the variance in noncalculative MTL, ΔR² = .021.

Discussion

The regression analyses indicate that communication apprehension is significantly related to all three types of motivation to lead (affective-identity MTL, social-normative MTL, and noncalculative MTL), and that CA also accounts for significant additional variance in all three types of MTL after controlling for individual predictors and demographic variables (see Tables 2 –4). Furthermore, the regression analyses indicate that although CA is significantly negatively related to all dimensions of MTL, it accounts for more variance in the affective-identity dimension than the other dimensions.

According to Chan (1999), affective-identity MTL represents an individual’s liking to lead. In this study, CA was a significant predictor of affective-identity MTL. In fact, leadership experience and CA were the only significant predictors of affective-identity MTL, with CA making the most significant incremental contribution to the prediction of affective-identity MTL. Findings regarding CA and affective-identity are consistent with previous research by Clemmons and Fields (2011) and Chan (1999), which found that extraversion was a significant predictor of affective-identity MTL. Furthermore, findings are also consistent with Clemmons and Fields’ report that values are not a significant predictor of affective-identity MTL. This study used a generalized self-efficacy (GSE) measure instead of the leadership self-efficacy measure developed by Chan (1999). In this study, generalize self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of affective-identity MTL.

Communication apprehension had a direct negative relationship with affective-identity MTL and was a stronger predictor of the affective-identity dimension than the social-normative and noncalculative dimensions. The negative relationship between CA and affective-identity MTL is consistent with research by Daly and McCroskey (1975), which indicated that individuals with high CA prefer occupations that require little communication and often avoid leadership. Previous assertions regarding the relationship between CA and leadership avoidance primarily stemmed from anecdotal evidence. However, the current study offers empirical evidence that individuals with high CA often avoid leadership, as higher levels of CA may lead to lower levels of like or desire to lead.

According to Chan (1999), social-normative MTL relates to an individual’s willingness to lead based on a sense of duty or calling. This study’s findings indicate that as CA increases, social-normative MTL reduces. Findings regarding CA and social-normative MTL are consistent with previous research by Clemmons and Fields (2011). Willingness to serve, which served as the measure of values in the current study, and CA were the only significant predictors of social-normative MTL, with CA making the most significant contribution to the prediction of socia-normative MTL. This finding indicates that although there may be a feeling of social duty or responsibility to lead, individuals with high CA will suppress them because of a debilitating fear of communication. In the current study, values was operationally defined using the U.S. Air Force’s conceptualization of willingness to serve (i.e., rule following, respect for others, and an altruistic perspective). Therefore, the relationship between values and social-normative MTL is logical, as an individual who is more willing to serve is also more likely to feel a social duty or calling to serve. As with affective-identity MTL, in this study, generalized self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of social-normative MTL.

Referring to the noncalculative dimension of MTL, Chan and Drasgow (2001) explained that leadership usually involves certain costs; therefore, “the less calculative one is about leading others, the less one would wish to avoid leadership roles” (p. 482). The results indicate that CA is negatively related to noncalculative MTL. As individual CA increases, noncalculative MTL decreases. In other words, as communication apprehension increases, individuals become more calculative about leadership. The findings of the hierarchical regression analyses were consistent with previous findings by Chan and Drasgow (2001) that past leadership experience and self-efficacy were not significant predictors of noncalculative MTL. However, the current study’s findings were inconsistent with Clemmons and Fields’s (2011) report that willingness to serve was a significant predictor of noncalculative MTL. In the current study, willingness to serve was not significantly related to noncalculative MTL. In fact, CA and education level were the only variables that made a significant incremental contribution to the prediction of noncalculative MTL. For the latter, there was a significant negative relationship between noncalculative MTL and education level; therefore, as educational level increases, noncalculative MTL decreases. This indicates that better educated individuals are more calculative than others regarding leadership.

Chan (1999) described the noncalculative MTL dimension as a “rational approach to leading” (p. 8). The negative relationship between education level and noncalculative MTL supports Chan’s conceptualization of noncalculative MTL. As individuals become more educated, they begin to question and rationalize leadership more than others. From an educational perspective, this is logical. As Socrates argued, the scholar should question everything. As education increases, individuals should learn not to take information at face value, but to calculate the benefits and consequences of actions.

Thus, it seems logical to conclude that CA makes a significant negative contribution to a person’s affective-identity, social-normative, and noncalculative MTL over and above the individual differences (past leadership experience, willingness to serve, and general self-efficacy) identified by Chan and Drasgow (2001). In previous studies, extraversion, which is negatively related to CA, was the only personality dimension significantly related to MTL (e.g., Clemmons & Fields, 2011). Therefore, based on this study’s findings, communication apprehension should be included as a key individual difference variable in the motivation to lead model.

Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the leadership and communication literature by addressing the lack of research on communication variables and motivation to lead and by introducing communication apprehension as a key individual difference variable in motivation to lead research. Prior to this study, researchers had not examined the relationships between communication variables and MTL. As Northouse (2021) explained, communication is leadership. Therefore, as predicted in the literature review, an individual’s MTL cannot be fully understood without investigating the effect of communication traits and behaviors on MTL. This study introduced CA as a key individual difference variable in the model of MTL, and the results indicated that CA is a key variable in predicting an individual’s MTL.

Aligning with the model presented by Chan and Drasgow (2001), this study found that each of the three MTL factors had its own set of antecedents, including values and past leadership experience. However, generalized self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of any dimension of MTL. One theoretical implication is the need for consistency in measurement of MTL research and the conceptualization of the MTL model. For instance, using recommendations from Chen et al. (2001) and Clemmons and Fields (2011), the current study utilized the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen et al., 2001) as the measure of self-efficacy. However, previous studies, including those conducted by Chan (1999) and Chan and Drasgow (2001) used a measure of leadership self-efficacy developed by Chan. This is one reason for the inconsistent findings on self-efficacy and MTL. Future tests of MTL models should utilize the same measures as the original MTL model to draw comparisons. Furthermore, the distinction between the relationship between generalized self-efficacy (trait-like self-efficacy) and leadership self-efficacy (state-like or situation-specific self-efficacy) and MTL may shed light on the need to investigate situational variables in relation to MTL.

Practical Implications

The practical implications of this study are (a) organizations should address communication apprehension in human resource development to prepare the next generation of leaders, and (b) organizations should determine how to address the link between motivation to lead and communication apprehension over the life cycle of employees. In the current study, participants fell into five age categories with most participants in the 40 to 50 (28%) or over 50 (26%) age groups. This is consistent with the overall sampling frame, in which 55% of employees are 40 and over. This study utilized a sample of retail employees. In addition to consistency with the sampling frame, the sample demographics are consistent with national worker demographics in the United States as well as the age demographics of retail employees in the United States.

This study’s sample reflects the increasing challenge of workforce aging. As the number of people retiring exceeds those entering the labor market, employers must find ways to utilize and develop older workers and retain employees. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022), over the next decade, the current retail workforce will age, and these aging workers will be more susceptible to health issues and workplace hazards. Furthermore, retail is no longer the preferred industry for younger adults looking for an after-school job or summer paycheck (Desilver, 2022). Due to a projected shortage of retail workers, many retail businesses are offering increased incentives, including more competitive benefits and paid time off as well as tangible rewards and non-cash incentives (Choi & Preslee, 2022). Incentives used to recruit employees and to increase employee engagement and retention may need to be implemented across industries as the workforce ages (Schneider, 2022).

Finally, the exodus of a retiring workforce may lead to a void in skill sets and leadership depth. Ultimately, organizations must understand how to use and develop their employees effectively. Introducing CA as a key individual difference variable in the MTL model offers insight into how employee communication traits and behaviors may increase an individual’s motivation to lead.

Another important finding relates to gender, age, and motivation to lead. Although not the focus of this study, an examination of the data showed no significant difference in MTL between males and females until age 40. At 40, there was a significant increase in MTL for male participants and a significant reduction in MTL for female participants. This not only suggests the possibility of differences in MTL between genders at different ages and stages of career development, but also suggest the possibility of cultural influence or gender differences in MTL. Elprana et al. (2015) found significantly higher levels of reported MTL for males than females in a sample of German undergraduate students. However, the relation between culture, gender, age, and MTL needs to be investigated further.

Individuals with high levels of CA often avoid communication, withdraw from communication, or disrupt the communication of others (Cole & McCroskey, 2003). The current study indicates that CA must be recognized as a significant obstacle in functional organizational leadership and human resource development. Although some scholars have suggested that extreme CA requires cognitive therapy and medication, several less invasive ways of minimizing and managing the effects of CA also exist (Marcel, 2016, 2019; Richmond & McCroskey, 1989). For instance, leaders can assist employees in managing CA by helping them to identify and recognize their apprehension and by providing them with opportunities for communication skills training and experience. Therefore, from a practical perspective, understanding the effects of CA on MTL may offer a powerful means of reducing the damaging effects of CA, while also developing employee MTL.

Table 5 includes a concise review of the practical and theoretical implications of the study’s findings.

Table 5.

Summary of Key Findings and Theoretical and Practical Implications.

Key findings	Theoretical implications	Practical implications
CA is a key variable in predicting an individual’s MTL. Regression analyses indicate that CA is significantly related to all three types of MTL (AIMTL, SNMTL, and NCMTL), and that CA also accounts for significant additional variance in all three types of MTL after controlling for individual predictors and demographic variables.	• Contributes to the leadership and communication literature by addressing the lack of research on communication variables and MTL and by introducing CA as a key individual difference variable in MTL research.	• Understanding the effects of CA on MTL may offer a powerful means of reducing the damaging effects of CA, while also developing employee MTL.• Organizations should address CA in human resource development to prepare the next generation of leaders.
Each of the three MTL factors has its own set of antecedents, including values and past leadership experience. In addition to the lack of consistency in the measurement of antecedents to MTL, the 27-item MTL measure has also been used inconsistently.	• Suggests the need for consistency in measurement of MTL and the conceptualization of the MTL model.• Indicates that subsequent researchers should factor analyze Chan and Drasgow’s MTL measure to determine accurate dimensions. They should then use consistent measures for the dimensions of MTL.• Future researchers may also consider using the one-dimensional MTL measure to provide clarity. The MTL measure seems unnecessarily complex, and researchers often have difficulty fully understanding the three dimensions of the measure.	• Clarifying the MTL model may provide an opportunity to utilize the MTL measure in leadership development training within organizations.
GSE was not a significant predictor of any dimension of MTL.	• Suggests the relationship between generalized self-efficacy (trait-like self-efficacy) and leadership self-efficacy (state-like or situation-specific self-efficacy) and MTL may shed light on the need to investigate situational variables in relation to MTL.• Future tests of MTL models should utilize the same measures as the original MTL model to draw comparisons.	• Suggests goal and process clarity as well as situation specific self-efficacy, which can be fostered through supervisor support and supervisor-subordinate communication, may be critical in leadership development.
Study utilized a sample of retail employees, which increased generalizability of previous findings in MTL research.	• Using a sample of retail employees offered an opportunity to increase the generalizability of previous findings by expanding MTL beyond military and educational settings.• Utilizing retail employees also extends the work of Porter et al. (2016), who examined MTL across industries (including MBA students).	• Utilizing a sample of retail employees offers practical information because retail is an important industry for MTL. Retail is one of the largest industries in the United States, employing roughly 18% of the labor force.
Study sample reflects the increasing challenge of workforce aging. As the number of people retiring exceeds those entering the labor market. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021), over the next decade, the current retail workforce will continue to age, and retail is no longer the preferred industry for younger adults looking for an after-school job or summer paycheck. This may lead to a shortage in the retail workforce.	• Extends communication research suggesting that communication training and development is an important component of leadership and employee development.	• Suggests that employers must find ways to utilize and develop older workers and retain employees.• Suggests that all industries, including retail organizations, must explore strategies and incentives to recruit employees and to increase employee engagement and retention.
Regression analyses indicate that although CA is significantly negatively related to all dimensions of MTL, it accounts for more variance in the affective-identity dimension than the other dimensions.In the final model of CA and AIMTL (motivation to lead based on affective identity), leadership experience and CA were the only significant predictors of affective-identity MTL.	• Extends communication research suggesting that communication training and development is an important component of leadership and employee development.• Extends leadership development research by supporting the importance of leadership development opportunities even in early career stage.• Extends previous research, which indicated individuals with high CA prefer occupations that require little communication and often avoid leadership.• Previous assertions regarding the relationship between CA and leadership avoidance primarily stemmed from anecdotal evidence. The current study offers empirical evidence that individuals with high CA often avoid leadership, as higher levels of CA may lead to lower levels of liking or desire to lead.	• Reinforces the importance of communication skills training and experience.• Leaders can assist employees in managing CA by helping them to identify and recognize their apprehension and by providing them with opportunities for communication skills training and experience.• Organizations should determine how to address the link between MTL and CA over the life cycle of employees.

Limitations

A general limitation of the study was the use of self-report measures, which may have resulted in socially desirable responses. Although steps were taken to limit social desirability response bias, such as guaranteeing that survey responses would be confidential and anonymous, some participants may have responded according to who they would like to be rather than who they are.

Bhal (2006) reported that data collected from a single source raises concerns for common method variance. Common method variance may have played a role in the relationships among variables; however, Fuller et al. (2016) argued that common method variance “does not represent a grave threat to the validity of research findings” (p. 3192). Furthermore, through data simulation, Fuller et al. (2016) demonstrated that a relatively high level of common method variance must be present to bias true relationships among variables at typically reported reliability levels. As indicated by the Harman one-factor test conducted in data analyses, common method variance was most likely not a problem in the present study (i.e., single factor did not account for the majority of the variance). Furthermore, motivation and communication apprehension are perceptual variables. Therefore, although another weakness of the study is the use of single-source ratings and the single focus on individual outcomes of the employee, reliance on self-report measures was considered necessary because of the variables under study.

An additional limitation relates to the sample size and sampling method. The sampling procedure involved convenience sampling from multiple stores within the same corporation. Using a nonprobability sample, along with the sample size, could limit external validity. Furthermore, conducting a nonrandom sample could introduce potential threats to internal validity. All employees of the company were provided an opportunity to participate in the study. As of this study, the company had 200 employees; of that number, 170 usable surveys were received, a response rate of 85%.

A final limitation of this study is that due to utilizing cross sectional data, collected at one point in time, causality cannot be confirmed.

Directions for Future Research

One future direction is to add consistency to measures in studies on motivation to lead. In addition to the lack of consistency in the measurement of antecedents to motivation to lead, the 27-item MTL measure has also been used inconsistently. Cerff (2006) developed two new dimensions of MTL (group centered MTL and individual MTL) instead of the three dimensions developed by Chan and Drasgow (2001). Other studies have suggested low reliability of the noncalculative MTL measure and researchers have often reverse scored items differently than Chan recommended. The current study reverse coded items using Chan’s guidelines and found an acceptable reliability for all subscales of MTL, including noncalculative MTL. Prior to conducting additional studies on MTL, subsequent researchers should factor analyze Chan and Drasgow’s MTL measure to determine accurate dimensions. They should then use consistent measures for the dimensions of MTL. Future researchers may also consider using the one-dimensional MTL measure to provide clarity. The MTL measure seems unnecessarily complex, and researchers often have difficulty fully understanding the three dimensions of the measure.

Another direction would be to investigate the relationship between other communication traits and behaviors and MTL. Organizations continuously aspire to motivate and develop employees as leaders of the future. As indicated in this study, CA is a key variable in predicting an individual’s MTL. This study begins this line of research on communication variables and MTL; however, future research should test models of MTL with alternative communication-related variables. For instance, future research could examine the relationship between leader and follower communication practices (i.e., frequency, content, mode, and direction) as predictors of MTL. Additional studies on communication traits and behaviors and MTL may offer critical insight for theoreticians and practitioners on how communication training and development can influence leader development.

The potential pervasive effects of CA on various organizational outcomes, including MTL suggests the practical and theoretical need to continue exploring this relationship. Jones (2009) argued that CA is an under-researched variable in the management literature and should be researched further. Blume et al. (2013) echoed this call by explaining that Pate and Merker’s (1978) suggestion to study CA in relation to leadership is long overdue. We must continue to research CA in relation to leadership and human resource development. Understanding CA may provide guidance in the training and development of future leaders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Joy Jones-Carmack

Author Biography

Joy Jones-Carmack is an Associate Professor of Business Studies-Management at Stockton University. Her research focuses on communication apprehension, political communication apprehension, motivation to lead, and organizational communication and leadership in the context of feminist and liberation theology. Most recently, she developed and introduced the political communication apprehension (PCA) construct, published in the Journal of Leadership Studies, and featured by Psychology Today. She is currently working on the development of a measure of PCA. Joy has served as a keynote speaker and leadership developer for conferences, leadership forums, corporations, and non-profit organizations throughout the United States. She also serves as the Management Education and Development Track Chair for the Eastern Academy of Management.

References

Allen

(1989). A comparison of self-report, observer, and physiological assessments of public speaking anxiety reduction techniques using meta-analysis. Communication Studies, 40(2), 127–139.

Amit

Lisak

Popper

Gal

(2007). Motivation to lead: Research on the motives for undertaking leadership roles in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Military Psychology, 19(3), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600701386317

Ayres

Keereetaweep

Chen

P. E.

Edwards

P. A.

(1998). Communication apprehension and employment interviews. Communication Education, 47(1), 1–17.

Bagin

Fulginiti

(2005). Practical public relations: Theories and techniques that make a difference (5th ed.). Kendall Hunt.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

Bandura

Freeman

W. H.

Lightsey

(1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13, 158–166.

Barge

J. K.

(1994). Leadership communication skills for organizations and groups. St. Martin’s Press.

Battistelli

(2008). The influence of the organizational context on training motivation. Journal of e-Learning, 4(1), 199–209.

10.

Bhal

K. T.

(2006). LMX citizenship behavior relationship: Justice as a mediator. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 106–117.

11.

Beatty

M. J.

McCroskey

J. C.

Heisel

A. D.

(1998) Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm, Communication Monographs, 65(3), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376448

12.

Blume

B. D.

Baldwin

T. T.

Ryan

K. C.

(2013). Communication apprehension: A barrier to students’ leadership, adaptability, and multicultural appreciation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0127

13.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, March). National industry-specific occupational employment and wage estimates: NAICS 482100. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/home.htm

14.

Cairney

McCabe

Veldhuizen

Corna

L. M.

Streiner

Herrmann

(2007). Epidemiology of social phobia in later life. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15(3), 224–233.

15.

Carlyle

(1888). On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history. Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother.

16.

Cerff

(2006). The role of hope, self-efficacy and motivation to lead in the development of leaders in South Africa in the college student context (Document No. 3243508) [Doctoral dissertation, Regent University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

17.

Chan

K. Y.

(1999). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead (Publication No. 9944813) [Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

18.

Chan

K. Y.

Drasgow

(2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481–498.

19.

Chan

K. Y.

Rounds

Drasgow

(2000). The relation between vocational interests and the motivation to lead. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(2), 226–245.

20.

Chen

Gully

S. M.

Eden

(2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004

21.

Choi

J. W.

Presslee

(2022). When and why tangible rewards can motivate greater effort than cash rewards: An analysis of four attribute differences. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2022.101389

22.

Cintron

(2004). The effects of biculturalism, emotional intelligence, and acculturation on motivation to lead of expatriate Latina business leaders and entrepreneurs: An exploratory investigation (Document No. 3140596) [Doctoral dissertation, Regent University) ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

23.

Clemmons

Fields

(2011, April). Values as determinants of motivation to lead [Paper presentation]. 2011 International Conference of the Association of Global Management Studies, Las Vegas, NV.

24.

Cole

J. G.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2003). The association of perceived communication apprehension, shyness, and verbal aggression with perceptions of source credibility and affect in organizational and interpersonal context. Communication Quarterly, 5(1), 101–110.

25.

Condit

(2009). Culture and biology in human communication: Toward a multi-causal model. Communication Education, 49(1), 7–24.

26.

Cunningham

Lefkoe

Sechrest

(2006). Eliminating fears: An intervention that permanently eliminates the fear of public speaking. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13(3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.487

27.

Daly

J. A.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1975). Occupational desirability and choice as a function of communication apprehension. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22(4), 309–313.

28.

Desilver

(2022, June 21). After dropping in 2020, teen summer employment may be poised to continue its slow comeback. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/21/after-dropping-in-2020-teen-summer-employment-may-be-poised-to-continue-its-slow-comeback/

29.

de Vries

R. E.

Bakker-Pieper

Oostenveld

. (2010). Leadership = communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2

30.

Dwyer

(2000). The multidimensional model: Teaching students to self-manage high communication apprehension by self-selecting treatments. Communication Education, 49(1), 72–81.

31.

Dwyer

K. K.

Cruz

A. M.

(1998). Communication apprehension, personality, and grades in the basic course: Are there correlations? Communication Research Reports, 15(4), 436–444.

32.

Eden

(2001). Means efficacy: External sources of general and specific efficacy. In Erez

Kleinbeck

(Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy (pp. 73–85). Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Elprana

Felfe

Stiehl

Gatzka

(2015). Exploring the sex difference in affective motivation to lead: Furthering the understanding of women’s underrepresentation in leadership positions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000137

34.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In Pervin

L. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244–276). Guilford Press.

35.

Falcione

R. L.

McCroskey

J. C.

Daly

J. A.

(1977). Job satisfaction as a function of employees’ communication apprehension, self-esteem, and perceptions of their immediate supervisors. Communication Yearbook, 1(1), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1977.11923692

36.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

37.

Flauto

F. J.

(1999). Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and communication competence. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1–2), 86–97.

38.

Fuller

C. M.

Simmering

M. J.

Atinc

Babin

B. J.

(2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198.

39.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

40.

Grant

A. M.

Shandell

M. S.

(2022). Social motivation at work: The organizational psychology of effort for, against, and with others. Annual review of psychology, 73, 301–326.

41.

Harman

H. H.

(1960). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

42.

Hawkins

K. W.

Stewart

R. A.

(1991). Effects of communication apprehension on perceptions of leadership and intragroup attraction in small task-oriented groups. Southern Communication Journal, 57(1), 1–10.

43.

Houser

Frymier

(2009). The role of student characteristics and teacher behaviors in students’ learner empowerment. Communication Education, 58(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520802237383

44.

Jones

(2009, March). Mediating effect of follower communication apprehension in the relationship between demographic dissimilarity and LMX [Paper presentation]. Conference of the North Eastern Association of Business, Economics, and Technology, Penn State University, State Park, PA.

45.

Lee

P. C.

(2005). Cognition and affect in leader behavior: The effects of spirituality, psychological empowerment, and emotional intelligence on the motivation to lead (Document No. 3188227). [Doctoral dissertation, Regent University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

46.

Levitt

(2013). Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour. Life Sciences Society and Policy, 9(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

47.

Limon

M. S.

La France

B. H.

(2005). Communication traits and leadership emergence: Examining the impact of argumentativeness, communication apprehension, and verbal aggressiveness in work groups. Southern Communication Journal, 70(2), 123–133.

48.

Luthra

Dahiya

(2015). Effective leadership is all about communicating effectively: Connecting leadership and communication. International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 5(3), 43–48.

49.

MacIntyre

P. D.

Thivierge

K. A.

(1995). The effects of speaker personality on anticipated reactions to public speaking anxiety. Communication Research Reports, 12(2), 125–133.

50.

Madlock

P. E.

Martin

M. M.

Bogdan

Ervin

(2007). The impact of communication traits on leader–member exchange. Human Communication, 10(4), 451–464.

51.

Marcel

(2015). What’s the best course? Evidence from alumni on the value of business presentations preparation. Journal of Education for Business, 90, 10–17.

52.

Marcel

(2016, October 19–22). Does frequency decrease anxiety? Accounting majors and presentations. In Whittle

L. A

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 81st Annual Conference of the Association for Business Communication, Albuquerque, NM.

53.

Marcel

(2019). Communication apprehension across the career span. International Journal of Business Communication, 10(2), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419856803

54.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00599.x

55.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

56.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1984). Self-report measurement. In Daly

J. A.

McCroskey

J. A.

(Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 81–94). SAGE.

57.

McCroskey

J. C.

Beatty

M. J.

(1984). Communication apprehension and communication state anxiety experiences: A research note. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 79–84.

58.

McCroskey

J. C.

Beatty

M. J.

Kearney

Plax

T. G.

(1985). The content validity of the PRCA–24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication context. Communication Quarterly, 33(3), 165–173.

59.

McCroskey

J. C.

Daly

J. A.

Sorensen

(1976). Personality correlates of communication apprehension: A research note. Human Communication Research, 2(4), 376–380.

60.

McCroskey

J. C.

Heisel

A. D.

Richmond

V. P.

(2001). Eysenck’s big three and communication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs, 68(4), 360–366.

61.

McCroskey

J. C.

McCroskey

L. L.

(1986). The affinity-seeking of classroom teachers. Communication Research Reports, 3, 158–167.

62.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

(1979). The impact of communication apprehension on individuals in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 27(3), 55–61.

63.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

(1982). Communication apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and operational distinctions. Central States Speech Journal, 33(3), 458–468.

64.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

Davis

L. M.

(1986). Apprehension about communicating with supervisors: A test of a theoretical relationship between types of communication apprehension. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50(2), 171–182.

65.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z

66.

Meyer-Griffith

Reardon

Hartley

S. L.

(2009). An examination of the relationship between career thoughts and communication apprehension. Career Development Quarterly, 58(2), 171–180.

67.

Meyers

H. H.

McCallum

Domingue

(1993). Punishment, personality, and communication apprehension, TCA Journal, 21(2), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564223.1993.12034423

68.

Miner

J. B.

(1978). Twenty years of research on role-motivation theory of managerial effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 739–760.

69.

Northouse

P. G.

(2021). Leadership (9th ed.). SAGE.

70.

Pate

L. E.

Merker

G. E.

(1978). Communication apprehension: Implications for management and organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 4(2), 107–119.

71.

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.

72.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

73.

Porter

T. H.

Riesenmy

Fields

(2016). Work environment and employee motivation to lead: Moderating effects of personal characteristics. American Journal of Business, 31(2), 66–84.

74.

Richmond

V. P.

(1984). Implications of quietness: Some facts and speculations. In Daly

J. A.

McCroskey

J. C.

(Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 145–155). SAGE.

75.

Richmond

V. P.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1989). Communication: Apprehension, Avoidance, and Effectiveness, 2nd edition. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

76.

Richmond

V. P.

Roach

K. D.

(1992). Willingness to communicate and employee success in U.S. organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20(1), 95–115.

77.

Rubin

A. M.

(1993). The effect of locus of control on communication motivation, anxiety, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 41(2), 161–171.

78.

Schneider

J. C.

(2022). Improving healthcare worker retention through decreasing burnout and increasing employee engagement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).

79.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Weinman

Wright

Johnston

(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.

80.

Shockley-Zalabak

Morley

D. D.

(1984). High apprehensives within the organization: How and with whom do they talk. Communication Research Reports, 1(1), 97–103.

81.

Stein

M. B.

Walker

J. R.

Forde

D. R.

(1996). Public-speaking fears in a community sample: Prevalence, impact on functioning, and diagnostic classification. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(2), 169–174.

82.

Traynor

B. J.

Singleton

A. B.

(2010). Nature versus nurture: Death of a dogma, and the road ahead. Neuron, 68(2), 196–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.10.002

83.

Triandis

H. C.

(1977). Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole.

84.

Vroom

V. H.

(1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.

85.

Weber

P. S.

Weber

J. E.

Sleeper

B. J.

Schneider

K. C.

(2004). Self-efficacy toward service, civic participation and the business student: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), 359–369.

86.

Yale

R. N.

(2014). The impromptu gauntlet: An experiential strategy for developing lasting communication skills. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 281–296.