CHAPTER12 Leadership LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, students should be able to: Summarize the conclusions of trait theories of leadership. Identify the central tenets and main limitations of behavioral theories. Contrast contingency theories of leadership. Describe the contemporary theories of leadership and their relationship to foundational theories. Discuss the roles of leaders in creating ethical organizations. Describe how leaders can have a positive impact on their organizations through building trust and mentoring. Identify the challenges to our understanding of leadership. INSTRUCTOR RESOURCES Instructors may wish to use the following resources when presenting this chapter: Text Exercises Career Objectives: How Can I Get My Boss To Be A Better Leader? Myth or Science?: “Top Leaders Feel the Most Stress” Personal Inventory Assessments: Ethical Leadership Assessment An Ethical Choice: Holding Leaders Ethically Accountable Point/Counterpoint: CEOs Start Early Questions for Review Experiential Exercise: What Is Leadership? Ethical Dilemma: Smoking Success Text Cases Case Incident 1: My Holiday the Virgin Way Case Incident 2: Leadership Traits Instructor’s Choice This section presents an exercise that is NOT found in the student's textbook. Instructor's Choice reinforces the text's emphasis through various activities. Some Instructor's Choice activities are centered on debates, group exercises, Internet research, and student experiences. Some can be used in class in their entirety, while others require some additional work on the student's part. The course instructor may choose to use these at any time throughout the class—some may be more effective as icebreakers, while some may be used to pull together various concepts covered in the chapter. Web Exercises At the end of each chapter of this Instructor’s Manual, you will find suggested exercises and ideas for researching OB topics on the Internet. The exercises “Exploring OB Topics on the Web” are set up so that you can simply photocopy the pages, distribute them to your class, and make assignments accordingly. You may want to assign the exercises as an out-of-class activity or as lab activities with your class. Summary and Implications for Managers Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior, because it’s the leader who usually directs us toward our goals. Knowing what makes a good leader should thus be valuable in improving group performance. The Big Five personality framework show strong and consistent relationships between personality and leadership. The behavioral approach’s major contribution was narrowing leadership into task-oriented (initiating structure) and people-oriented (consideration) styles. By considering the situation in which the leader operates, contingency theories promised to improve on the behavioral approach. Contemporary theories have made major contributions to our understanding of leadership effectiveness, and studies of ethics and positive leadership offer exciting promise. Specific implications for managers are below: For maximum leadership effectiveness, ensure that your preferences on the initiating structure and consideration dimensions are a match for your work dynamics and culture. Hire candidates who exhibit transformational leadership qualities and who have demonstrated success in working through others to meet a long-term vision. Personality tests can reveal candidates higher in extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness, which may indicate leadership readiness. Hire candidates whom you believe are ethical and trustworthy for management roles and train current managers in your organization’s ethical standards in order to increase leadership effectiveness. Seek to develop trusting relationships with followers, because, as organizations have become less stable and predictable, strong bonds of trust are replacing bureaucratic rules in defining expectations and relationships. Consider investing in leadership training such as formal courses, workshops, rotating job responsibilities, coaching, and mentoring. The chapter begins with a discussion about the leadership style of Jack Ma. Charismatic leaders like Jack Ma possess a “special something” that sets them apart. However, theirs is not the only type of effective leadership. In this chapter, we’ll look at all types of leaders, and what differentiates leaders from non leaders. We’ll present trait theories of leadership. Then, we’ll discuss challenges to the meaning and importance of leadership. But before we begin, let’s clarify what we mean by the term leadership. We define leadership as the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals. But not all leaders are managers, nor are all managers leaders. Just because an organization provides its managers with certain formal rights is no assurance they will lead effectively. Leaders can emerge from within a group as well as by formal appointment. Non sanctioned leadership—the ability to influence that arises outside the formal structure of the organization—is often as important, or more important, than formal influence. Organizations need strong leadership and strong management for optimal effectiveness. We need leaders to challenge the status quo, create visions of the future, and inspire organizational members to achieve the visions. We need managers to formulate detailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and oversee day-to-day operations. BRIEF CHAPTER OUTLINE Trait Theories Strong Leaders Trait theories of leadership focus on personal qualities and characteristics. A comprehensive review of the leadership literature, when organized around the Big Five, has found extraversion to be the most important trait of effective leaders, but it is more strongly related to the way leaders emerge than to their effectiveness. Leaders who like being around people and are able to assert themselves (extraverted), who are disciplined and able to keep commitments they make (conscientious), and who are creative and flexible (open) do have an apparent advantage when it comes to leadership, suggesting good leaders do have key traits in common. Another trait that may indicate effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EI), discussed in Chapter 4. A core component of EI is empathy. The link between EI and leadership effectiveness may be worth investigating in greater detail. Based on the latest findings, we offer two conclusions. First, we can say that traits can predict leadership. Second, traits do a better job predicting the emergence of leaders and the appearance of leadership than actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders. Behavioral Theories Introduction Behavioral theories of leadership implied we could train people to be leaders. Ohio State Studies The most comprehensive theories resulted from the Ohio State Studies, which sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior. Beginning with more than a thousand dimensions, the studies narrowed the list to two that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behavior described by employees: initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure is the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. Consideration is the extent to which a person’s job relationships are characterized by mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. A leader high in consideration helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, treats all employees as equals, and expresses appreciation and support. GLOBE Study Some research from the GLOBE study suggests there are international differences in preference for initiating structure and consideration. Based on the values of Brazilian employees, a U. S. manager leading a team in Brazil would need to be team-oriented, participative, and humane. Leaders high in consideration would succeed best in this culture. A leader high in initiating structure (relatively task-oriented) will do best and can make decisions in a relatively autocratic manner. Summary of Trait Theories and Behavioral Theories Leaders who have certain traits and who display culturally appropriate consideration and structuring behaviors do appear to be more effective. As important as traits and behaviors are in identifying effective or ineffective leaders, they do not guarantee success. The context matters too. Contingency Theories Introduction Tough-minded leaders seem successful in difficult times, but tend to be dismissed when the environment improves. Situational factors that influence success or failure need to be explored further. Fiedler Model Introduction The first comprehensive contingency model for leadership was developed by Fred Fiedler, who proposed that effective group performance depends upon the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. Identifying leadership style Fiedler believed that a key factor in leadership success is the individual’s basic leadership style. He created the least preferred coworker(LPC) questionnaire for this purpose. It purports to measure whether a person is task- or relationship-oriented. The questionnaire contains 16 contrasting adjectives (such as pleasant-unpleasant, efficient-inefficient, open-guarded, supportive-hostile). It asks respondents to describe the one person they least enjoyed working with by rating him or her on a scale of one-to-eight for each of the 16 sets of contrasting adjectives. Fiedler assumes that an individual’s leadership style is fixed. Defining the situation Leader-member relations—the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in their leader. Task structure—the degree to which the job assignments are procedural. Position power—the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases. The next step is to evaluate the situation in terms of these three contingency variables. Fiedler states the better the leader-member relations, the more highly structured the job, and the stronger the position power, the more control the leader has. Matching leaders and situations (Exhibit 12-1) Altogether, by mixing the three contingency variables, there are potentially eight different situations or categories in which leaders could find themselves. The Fiedler model proposes matching them up to achieve maximum leadership effectiveness. Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders tend to perform better in situations that were very favorable to them and in situations that were very unfavorable. Fiedler would predict that when faced with a category I, II, III, VII, or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better. Relationship-oriented leaders, however, perform better in moderately favorable situations—categories IV, V, and VI. Fiedler has condensed these eight situations to three. Given Fiedler’s findings, you would seek to match leaders and situations. Because Fiedler views an individual’s leadership style as being fixed, there are only two ways to improve leader effectiveness. Evaluation of Fiedler There is considerable evidence to support at least substantial parts of the model. There are problems and the practical use of the model that need to be addressed. Other contingency theories Situational leadership theory Situational leadership is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers. Successful leadership is achieved by selecting the right leadership style, which is contingent on the level of the followers’ readiness. SLT has an intuitive appeal. Yet, research efforts to test and support the theory have generally been disappointing. Path-goal theory The theory: One of the most respected approaches to leadership is the path-goal theory developed by Robert House. It is a contingency model of leadership that extracts key elements from research on initiating structure and consideration and the expectancy theory of motivation. According to path–goal theory, whether a leader should be directive or supportive or should demonstrate some other behavior depends on complex analysis of the situation. Leader-participation model The final contingency theory we cover argues that the way the leader makes decisions is as important as what she or he decides. Leader-participation model relates leadership behavior and participation in decision making. Like path–goal theory, it says leader behavior must adjust to reflect the task structure. Contemporary Theories of Leadership The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory argues that because of time pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers. These individuals make up the in-group—they are trusted, get a disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention, and are more likely to receive special privileges. The theory proposes that early in the history of the interaction between a leader and a given follower, the leader implicitly categorizes the follower as an “in” or an “out” and that relationship is relatively stable over time. How the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear. The leader does the choosing on the basis of the follower’s characteristics. In groups have similar characteristics. (Exhibit 12-2) The theory and research surrounding it provide substantive evidence that leaders do differentiate among followers. Charismatic Leadership Introduction View leaders as individuals who inspire followers through their words, ideas, and behaviors. Charismatic Leadership What is charismatic leadership? According to House’s charismatic leadership theory, followers make attributes of heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when they observe certain behaviors, (Exhibit 12-3) Charismatic leaders have vision, are willing to take personal risk, are sensitive to followers’ needs, and exhibit extraordinary behaviors. Are charismatic leaders born or made? Individuals are born with traits that make them charismatic. People can learn to be a charismatic leader. First, an individual needs to develop the aura of charisma by maintaining an optimistic view; using passion as a catalyst for generating enthusiasm; and communicating with the whole body, not just with words. Second, an individual draws others in by creating a bond that inspires others to follow. Third, the individual brings out the potential in followers by tapping into their emotions. How charismatic leaders influence followers Articulating an appealing vision. Vision statement High performance expectations A new set of values Does effective charismatic leadership depend on the situation? A strong correlation between charismatic leadership and high performance and satisfaction exists among followers. Does Effective Charismatic Leadership Depend on the Situation? Charisma appears to be most appropriate when the follower’s task has an ideological component or when the environment involves a high degree of stress and uncertainty. This may explain why, when charismatic leaders surface, it’s more likely to be in politics, religion, wartime; or when a business firm is in its infancy or facing a life-threatening crisis. Another situational factor apparently limiting charisma is level in the organization. Finally, people are especially receptive to charismatic leadership when they sense a crisis, when they are under stress, or when they fear for their lives. The dark side of charismatic leadership. Don’t necessarily act in the best interest of their companies. Many have allowed their personal goals to override the goals of the organization. The results at companies such as Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and HealthSouth were leaders who recklessly used organizational resources for their personal benefit and executives who violated laws and ethical boundaries to inflate stock prices and allow leaders to cash in millions of dollars in stock options. It’s not that charismatic leadership isn’t effective; overall, it is. Transactional and Transformational Leadership Introduction A stream of research has focuses on differentiating transformational and transactional leaders. Transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the organization. (Exhibit 12-4) Transactional and transformational leadership complement each other. The best leaders are transactional and transformational. Full range of leadership model (Exhibit 12-5) Laissez-faire is the most passive and least effective type. Management by exception is slightly better. Contingent reward leadership can be effective. The remaining four correspond to transformational leadership: Individualized consideration Intellectual stimulation Inspirational motivation Idealized influence How transformational leadership works Organizations with transformational leaders generally have greater decentralization of responsibility, managers with more propensity to take risks, and compensation plans geared toward long-term results—all of which facilitate corporate entrepreneurship. Transformational leaders are more effective because they are more creative, but also because they encourage those who follow them to be creative, too. Companies with transformational leaders also show greater agreement among top managers about the organization’s goals, which yields superior organizational performance. Transformational leaders are able to increase follower self-efficacy, giving the group a “can do” spirit. Just as vision helps explain how charismatic leadership works, it also explains part of the effect of transformational leadership. Finally, transformational leadership engenders commitment on the part of followers and instills greater trust in the leader. Evaluation of transformational leadership Transformational leadership has been impressively supported at diverse job levels and occupations (school principals, teachers, marine commanders, ministers, presidents of MBA associations, military cadets, union shop stewards, sales reps). Transformational leadership isn’t equally effective in all situations. Transformational leaders also obtain higher levels of trust, which reduces stress for followers. In short, transformational leadership works through a number of different processes. Transformational leadership theory is not perfect. Contingent reward leadership may not characterize transactional leaders only. In summary, transformational leadership is more strongly correlated than transactional leadership with lower turnover rates, higher productivity, lower employee stress and burnout, and higher employee satisfaction. Like charisma, it can be learned. The GLOBE team concluded “effective business leaders in any country are expected by their subordinates to provide a powerful and proactive vision to guide the company into the future, strong motivational skills to stimulate all employees to fulfill the vision, and excellent planning skills to assist in implementing the vision. ” Transformational versus Transactional Leadership When comparing transformational leadership with transactional leadership, research indicates transformational leadership is more strongly correlated than transactional leadership with lower turnover rates, higher productivity, lower employee stress and burnout, and higher employee satisfaction. However, transformational leadership theory is not perfect. The full range of leadership model shows a clear division between transactional and transformational leadership that may not fully exist in effective leadership. And contrary to the full range of leadership model, the four I’s of transformational leadership are not always superior in effectiveness to transactional leadership; contingent reward leadership, in which leaders dole out rewards as certain goals are reached by employees, sometimes works as well as transformational leadership. More research is needed, but the general supportable conclusion is that transformational leadership is desirable and effective, given the right application. Transformational versus Charismatic Leadership Charismatic leadership places somewhat more emphasis on the way leaders communicate (are they passionate and dynamic?), while transformational leadership focuses more on what they are communicating (is it a compelling vision?). Still, the theories are more alike than different. At their heart, both focus on the leader’s ability to inspire followers, and sometimes they do so in the same way. Because of this, some researchers believe the concepts are somewhat interchangeable. Responsible Leadership Authentic Leadership Authentic leaders know who they are, what they believe in and value, and act on those values and beliefs openly and candidly. The result: people come to have faith in them. Recent research indicates that authentic leadership especially when shared among top management team members, created a positive energizing effect (see affective events theory in Chapter 4) that heightened firm performance. Ethical Leadership Ethics touches on leadership at a number of junctures. Leaders who treat their followers with fairness, especially by providing honest, frequent, and accurate information, are seen as more effective. A recent research review found that role modeling by top leaders positively influenced managers throughout their organizations to behave ethically and fostered a climate that reinforced group-level ethical conduct. The findings suggest that organizations should invest in ethical leadership training programs, especially in industries with few ethical regulations. The researchers furthermore advised that ethical leadership training programs to teach cultural values should be mandated for leaders who take foreign assignments or manage multicultural work teams. To convey their beliefs, leaders should learn to express their moral convictions in statements that reflect values shared with their organization’s members. Leaders can build on this foundation of trust to show their character, enhance a sense of unity, and create buy-in from followers. Leadership effectiveness needs to address the means that a leader uses in trying to achieve goals as well as the content of those goals. Leadership is not value free. Efforts have been made to combine ethical and charismatic leadership into an idea of socialized charismatic leadership. Servant Leadership Scholars have recently considered ethical leadership from a new angle by examining servant leadership. Because servant leadership focuses on serving the needs of others, research has focused on its outcomes for the well-being of followers. Servant leadership may be more prevalent and more effective in certain cultures. Positive Leadership Trust Trust is a psychological state that exists when you agree to make yourself vulnerable to another because you have positive expectations about how things are going to turn out. Trust is a primary attribute associated with leadership. When trust is broken, it can have serious adverse effects on a group’s performance. Followers who trust a leader are confident their rights and interests will not be abused. In a simple contractual exchange of goods and services, your employer is legally bound to pay you for fulfilling your job description. But today’s rapid reorganizations, diffusion of responsibility, and collaborative team-based work style mean employment relationships are not stable long-term contracts with explicit terms. Rather, they are more fundamentally based on trusting relationships than ever before. The Outcomes of Trust Trust encourages taking risks. Whenever employees decide to deviate from the usual way of doing things, or to take their supervisors’ word on a new direction, they are taking a risk. Trust facilitates information sharing. One big reason employees fail to express concerns at work is that they don’t feel psychologically safe revealing their views. Trusting groups are more effective. When a leader sets a trusting tone in a group, members are more willing to help each other and exert extra effort, which further increases trust. Trust enhances productivity. The bottom-line interest of companies also appears positively influenced by trust. Employees who trust their supervisors tend to receive higher performance ratings. Trust Development Trust isn’t just about the leader; the characteristics of the followers will also influence the development of trust. What key characteristics lead us to believe a leader is trustworthy? Evidence has identified three: integrity, benevolence, and ability. (Exhibit 12-6) Trust Propensity Trust propensity refers to how likely a particular employee is to trust a leader. Some people are simply more likely to believe others can be trusted. Trust and Culture Does trust look the same in every culture? Using the basic definition of trust, certainly it does. However, in the work context, trust in an employment relationship may be built on very different perceptions from culture to culture. In individualistic societies, we might expect that paternalistic leadership will rankle many employees who prefer not to see themselves as part of a hierarchical family workgroup. The Role of Time Time is the final ingredient in the recipe for trust. Trust doesn’t happen immediately: we come to trust people based on observing their behavior over a period of time. Trust can also be won in the ability domain simply by demonstrating competence. Regaining Trust Managers who break the psychological contract with workers, demonstrating they aren’t trustworthy leaders, will find employees are less satisfied and less committed, have a higher intent toward turnover, engage in less OCB, and have lower levels of task performance. Leaders who betray trust are especially likely to be evaluated negatively by followers if there is already a low level of leader–member exchange. Once it has been violated, trust can be regained, but only in certain situations and depending on the type of violation. If the cause is lack of ability, it’s usually best to apologize and recognize you should have done better. When lack of integrity is the problem, apologies don’t do much good. Regardless of the violation, saying nothing or refusing to confirm or deny guilt is never an effective strategy for regaining trust. Trust can be restored when we observe a consistent pattern of trustworthy behavior by the transgressor. However, if the transgressor used deception, trust never fully returns, not even after apologies, promises, or a consistent pattern of trustworthy actions. Mentoring A mentor is a senior employee who sponsors and supports a less-experienced employee (a protégé). Successful mentors are good teachers. (Exhibit 12-7) The protégé will often be tested with a particularly challenging assignment. If a mentor is not well connected or not a very strong performer, the best mentoring advice in the world will not be very beneficial. Challenges to Our Understanding of Leadership Introduction Much of an organization’s success or failure is due to factors outside the influence of leadership. In many cases, success or failure is just a matter of being in the right or wrong place at a given time. Leadership as an Attribution As you may remember from Chapter 6, attribution theory examines how people try to make sense of cause-and-effect relationships. The attribution theory of leadership says leadership is merely an attribution people make about other individuals. Attribution theory suggests what’s important is projecting the appearance of being a leader rather than focusing on actual accomplishments. Substitutes and Neutralizers to Leadership (Exhibit 12-8) Data from numerous studies collectively demonstrate that, in many situations, whatever actions leaders exhibit are irrelevant. Experience and training are among the substitutes that can replace the need for a leader’s support or ability to create structure. Neutralizers make it impossible for leader behavior to make any difference to follower outcomes. Sometimes the difference between substitutes and neutralizers is fuzzy. Online Leadership The questions of how do you lead people who are physically separated from you and with whom you communicate electronically? These questions need research. Today’s managers and employees are increasingly linked by networks rather than geographic proximity. We propose that online leaders have to think carefully about what actions they want their digital messages to initiate. In electronic communication, writing skills are likely to become an extension of interpersonal skills. Identification-based trust, based on a mutual understanding of each other’s intentions and appreciation of the other’s wants and desires, is particularly difficult to achieve without face-to-face interaction. We believe good leadership skills will soon include the ability to communicate support, trust, and inspiration through electronic communication and to accurately read emotions in others’ messages. In electronic communication, writing skills are likely to become an extension of interpersonal skills. Selecting Leaders The entire process that organizations go through to fill management positions is essentially an exercise in trying to identify individuals who will be effective leaders. Items of consideration during selection include: Reviewing the specific requirements for the position such as knowledge, skills, and abilities that are needed to do the job effectively. Personality tests can identify traits associated with leadership—extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. High self-monitors are better at reading situations and adjusting their behavior accordingly. Candidates with high emotional intelligence should have an advantage, especially in situations requiring transformational leadership. Experience is a poor predictor of leader effectiveness, but situation-specific experience is relevant. Since nothing lasts forever, the most important event an organization needs to plan for is a change in leadership. Some organizations seem to spend no time on leadership succession and are surprised when their picks turn out poorly. Training Leaders Billions are spent on leadership training and development every year. Here are some things management can do to get the maximum effect from their leadership-training budgets: Leadership training is likely to be more successful with individuals who are high self-monitors than with low self-monitors. Second, organizations can teach implementation skills. We also can teach skills such as trust building, mentoring, and situational-analysis skills. There is evidence suggesting that behavioral training through modeling exercises can increase an individual’s ability to exhibit charismatic leadership qualities. Recent research also indicates that leaders should engage in regularly reviewing their leadership after key organizational events as part of their development. Finally, leaders can be trained in transformational leadership skills that have bottom-line results. Summary and Implications for Managers Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior, because it’s the leader who usually directs us toward our goals. Knowing what makes a good leader should thus be valuable in improving group performance. The Big Five personality framework show strong and consistent relationships between personality and leadership. The behavioral approach’s major contribution was narrowing leadership into task-oriented (initiating structure) and people-oriented (consideration) styles. By considering the situation in which the leader operates, contingency theories promised to improve on the behavioral approach. Contemporary theories have made major contributions to our understanding of leadership effectiveness, and studies of ethics and positive leadership offer exciting promise. Specific implications for managers are below: For maximum leadership effectiveness, ensure that your preferences on the initiating structure and consideration dimensions are a match for your work dynamics and culture. Hire candidates who exhibit transformational leadership qualities and who have demonstrated success in working through others to meet a long-term vision. Personality tests can reveal candidates higher in extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness, which may indicate leadership readiness. Hire candidates whom you believe are ethical and trustworthy for management roles and train current managers in your organization’s ethical standards in order to increase leadership effectiveness. Seek to develop trusting relationships with followers, because, as organizations have become less stable and predictable, strong bonds of trust are replacing bureaucratic rules in defining expectations and relationships. Consider investing in leadership training such as formal courses, workshops, rotating job responsibilities, coaching, and mentoring. EXPANDED CHAPTER OUTLINE Trait Theories Strong Leaders Trait theories of leadership focus on personal qualities and characteristics. A comprehensive review of the leadership literature, when organized around the Big Five, has found extraversion to be the most important trait of effective leaders, but it is more strongly related to the way leaders emerge than to their effectiveness. Sociable and dominant people are more likely to assert themselves in group situations, but leaders need to make sure they’re not too assertive—one study found leaders who scored very high on assertiveness were less effective than those who were moderately high. Unlike agreeableness and emotional stability, conscientiousness and openness to experience also showed strong relationships to leadership, though not quite as strong as extraversion. Leaders who like being around people and are able to assert themselves (extraverted), who are disciplined and able to keep commitments they make (conscientious), and who are creative and flexible (open) do have an apparent advantage when it comes to leadership, suggesting good leaders do have key traits in common. One reason is that conscientiousness and extraversion are positively related to leaders’ self-efficacy, which explained most of the variance in subordinates’ ratings of leader performance. People are more likely to follow someone who is confident she’s going in the right direction. Another trait that may indicate effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EI), discussed in Chapter 4. A core component of EI is empathy. A leader who effectively displays and manages emotions will find it easier to influence the feelings of followers, by both expressing genuine sympathy and enthusiasm for good performance and by using irritation for those who fail to perform. The link between EI and leadership effectiveness may be worth investigating in greater detail. Recent research has demonstrated that people high in EI are more likely to emerge as leaders, even after taking cognitive ability and personality into account. Based on the latest findings, we offer two conclusions. First, contrary to what we believed 20 years ago and thanks to the Big Five, we can say that traits can predict leadership. Second, traits do a better job predicting the emergence of leaders and the appearance of leadership than actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders. The fact that an individual exhibits the traits and that others consider him or her a leader does not necessarily mean the leader is successful at getting the group to achieve its goals. Behavioral Theories Introduction Behavioral theories of leadership implied we could train people to be leaders. Ohio State Studies The most comprehensive theories resulted from the Ohio State Studies in the late 1940s, which sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior. Beginning with more than a thousand dimensions, the studies narrowed the list to two that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behavior described by employees: initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure is the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It includes behavior that attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. A leader high in initiating structure is someone who “assigns group members to particular tasks, ” “expects workers to maintain definite standards of performance, ” and “emphasizes the meeting of deadlines. ” Consideration is the extent to which a person’s job relationships are characterized by mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. A leader high in consideration helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, treats all employees as equals, and expresses appreciation and support. In a recent survey, when asked to indicate what most motivated them at work, 66 percent of employees mentioned appreciation. GLOBE Study Some research from the GLOBE study suggests there are international differences in preference for initiating structure and consideration. Based on the values of Brazilian employees, a U. S. manager leading a team in Brazil would need to be team-oriented, participative, and humane. Leaders high in consideration would succeed best in this culture. As one Brazilian manager said in the GLOBE study, “We do not prefer leaders who take self-governing decisions and act alone without engaging the group. That’s part of who we are. ” Compared to U. S. employees, the French have a more bureaucratic view of leaders and are less likely to expect them to be humane and considerate. A leader high in initiating structure (relatively task-oriented) will do best and can make decisions in a relatively autocratic manner. A manager who scores high on consideration (people-oriented) may find that style backfiring in France. According to the GLOBE study, Chinese culture emphasizes being polite, considerate, and unselfish, but it also has a high performance orientation. Thus, consideration and initiating structure may both be important. Summary of Trait Theories and Behavioral Theories Leaders who have certain traits and who display culturally appropriate consideration and structuring behaviors do appear to be more effective. Future research is needed to integrate these approaches. As important as traits and behaviors are in identifying effective or ineffective leaders, they do not guarantee success. The context matters too. Contingency Theories Introduction Tough-minded leaders seem successful in difficult times, but tend to be dismissed when the environment improves. Situational factors that influence success or failure need to be explored further. Fiedler Model Introduction The first comprehensive contingency model for leadership was developed by Fred Fiedler, who proposed that effective group performance depends upon the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. Identifying leadership style Fiedler believed that a key factor in leadership success is the individual’s basic leadership style. He created the least preferred coworker (LPC) questionnaire for this purpose. After assessing leadership style, it is necessary to match the leader with the situation. Fiedler has identified three contingency dimensions: Leader-member relations—the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in their leader. Task structure—the degree to which the job assignments are procedural. Position power—the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases. The Fiedler model proposes matching them up to achieve maximum leadership effectiveness. Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders tend to perform better in situations that were very favorable to them and in situations that were very unfavorable. Fiedler would predict that when faced with a category I, II, III, VII, or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better. Relationship-oriented leaders, however, perform better in moderately favorable situations—categories IV, V, and VI. Evaluation of Fiedler There are problems and the practical use of the model that need to be addressed. Situational leadership theory Situational leadership is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers. Successful leadership is achieved by selecting the right leadership style, which is contingent on the level of the followers’ readiness. The term readiness refers to “the extent to which people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task. ” A leader should choose one of four behaviors depending on follower readiness. If followers are unable and unwilling to do a task, the leader needs to give clear and specific directions. If they are unable and willing, the leader needs to display high task orientation to compensate for followers’ lack of ability and high relationship orientation to get them to “buy into” the leader’s desires. If followers are able and unwilling, the leader needs to use a supportive and participative style. If they are both able and willing, the leader doesn’t need to do much. SLT has an intuitive appeal. Yet, research efforts to test and support the theory have generally been disappointing. Path-goal theory The theory One of the most respected approaches to leadership is the path-goal theory developed by Robert House. It is a contingency model of leadership that extracts key elements from the Ohio State leadership research on initiating structure and consideration and the expectancy theory of motivation. It is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining their goals and to provide the necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their goals are compatible with the overall Objectives of the firm. The term path-goal is derived from the belief that effective leaders clarify the path to help their followers achieve their work goals. According to the path–goal theory, whether a leader should be directive or supportive or should demonstrate some other behavior depends on complex analysis of the situation. It predicts the following: Directive leadership yields greater satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous or stressful than when they are highly structured and well laid out. Supportive leadership results in high performance and satisfaction when employees are performing structured tasks. Directive leadership is likely to be perceived as redundant among employees with high ability or considerable experience. Other research has found that goal-focused leadership can lead to higher levels of emotional exhaustion for subordinates who are low in conscientiousness and emotional stability. These studies demonstrate that leaders who set goals enable conscientious followers to achieve higher performance and may cause stress for workers who are low in conscientiousness. Leader-participation model The final contingency theory we cover argues that the way the leader makes decisions is as important as what she or he decides. Leader-participation model relates leadership behavior and participation in decision making. Like path–goal theory, it says leader behavior must adjust to reflect the task structure. As one leadership scholar noted, “Leaders do not exist in a vacuum”; leadership is a symbiotic relationship between leaders and followers. Contemporary Theories of Leadership The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory argues that because of time pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers. These individuals make up the in-group—they are trusted, get a disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention, and are more likely to receive special privileges. The theory proposes that early in the history of the interaction between a leader and a given follower, the leader implicitly categorizes the follower as an “in” or an “out” and that relationship is relatively stable over time. How the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear. The leader does the choosing on the basis of the follower’s characteristics. In groups have similar characteristics. (Exhibit 12-2) The theory and research surrounding it provide substantive evidence that leaders do differentiate among followers. Research to test LMX theory has been generally supportive, with substantive evidence that leaders do differentiate among followers. These disparities are far from random; and followers with in-group status will have higher performance ratings, engage in more helping or “citizenship” behaviors at work, and report greater satisfaction with their superior. One study conducted in both Portugal and the United States found that leader–member exchange was associated especially strongly with followers’ commitment to the organization when the leaders were seen as embodying the values and identity of the organization. These positive findings for in-group members shouldn’t be surprising, given our knowledge of self-fulfilling prophecy (see Chapter 6). Leaders invest their resources with those they expect to perform best. And believing in-group members are the most competent, leaders treat them as such and unwittingly fulfill their prophecy. Charismatic Leadership and Transformational Leadership Introduction View leaders as individuals who inspire followers through their words, ideas, and behaviors. Charismatic Leadership What is charismatic leadership? Charismatic leadership theory proposed by Robert House. Followers make attributes of heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when they observe certain behaviors. (Exhibit 12-3) General characteristics are they have vision, are willing to take personal risk, are sensitive to followers’ needs, and exhibit extraordinary behaviors. Are charismatic leaders born or made? Individuals are born with traits that make them charismatic. Most experts believe individuals can learn to be charismatic leaders. A three-step process is suggested: First, an individual needs to develop the aura of charisma by maintaining an optimistic view; using passion as a catalyst for generating enthusiasm; and communicating with the whole body, not just with words. Second, an individual draws others in by creating a bond that inspires others to follow. Third, the individual brings out the potential in followers by tapping into their emotions. How charismatic leaders influence followers Articulating an appealing vision. Vision statement High performance expectations A new set of values Does effective charismatic leadership depend on the situation? A strong correlation between charismatic leadership and high performance and satisfaction among followers. Charisma appears to be most appropriate when the follower’s task has an ideological component or when the environment involves a high degree of stress and uncertainty. This may explain why, when charismatic leaders surface, it’s more likely to be in politics, religion, wartime; or when a business firm is in its infancy or facing a life-threatening crisis. Another situational factor apparently limiting charisma is level in the organization. Finally, people are especially receptive to charismatic leadership when they sense a crisis, when they are under stress, or when they fear for their lives. The dark side of charismatic leadership Don’t necessarily act in the best interest of their companies. Many have allowed their personal goals to override the goals of the organization. The results at companies such as Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and HealthSouth were leaders who recklessly used organizational resources for their personal benefit and executives who violated laws and ethical boundaries to inflate stock prices and allow leaders to cash in millions of dollars in stock options. It’s not that charismatic leadership isn’t effective; overall, it is. But a charismatic leader isn’t always the answer. Success depends, to some extent, on the situation and on the leader’s vision. Transformational Leadership Introduction A stream of research has focuses on differentiating transformational and transactional leaders. Transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the organization. They change followers’ awareness of issues by helping them to look at old problems in new ways; and they are able to excite, arouse, and inspire followers to put out extra effort to achieve group goals. Transformational leadership is built on top of transactional leadership—it produces levels of follower effort and performance that go beyond what would occur with a transactional approach alone. (Exhibit 12-4) Transactional and transformational leadership complement each other. They aren’t opposing approaches to getting things done. Transformational leadership builds on transactional leadership and produces levels of follower effort and performance beyond what transactional leadership alone can do. The best leaders are transactional and transformational. Full range of leadership model (Exhibit 12-5) Laissez-faire is the most passive and least effective type. Management by exception is slightly better. Contingent reward leadership can be effective. The remaining four correspond to transformational leadership: Individualized consideration Intellectual stimulation Inspirational motivation Idealized influence How transformational leadership works Companies with transformational leaders have greater decentralization of responsibility, managers have more propensities to take risks, and compensation plans are geared toward long-term results—all of which facilitate corporate entrepreneurship. One study of information technology workers in China found empowering leadership behavior led to feelings of positive personal control among workers, which increased their creativity at work. Companies with transformational leaders also show greater agreement among top managers about the organization’s goals, which yields superior organizational performance. The Israeli military has seen similar results, showing that transformational leaders improve performance by building consensus among group members. Evaluation of transformational leadership Transformational leadership has been impressively supported at diverse job levels and occupations (school principals, teachers, marine commanders, ministers, presidents of MBA associations, military cadets, union shop stewards, sales reps). One study of R&D firms found teams whose project leaders scored high on transformational leadership produced better-quality products as judged 1 year later and higher profits 5 years later. A review of 117 studies testing transformational leadership found it was related to higher levels of individual follower performance, team performance, and organizational performance. Transformational leadership isn’t equally effective in all situations. It has a greater impact on the bottom line in smaller, privately held firms than in more complex organizations. Transformational leadership may be most effective when leaders can directly interact with the workforce and make decisions than when they report to an external board of directors or deal with a complex bureaucratic structure. Transformational leaders also obtain higher levels of trust, which reduces stress for followers. In short, transformational leadership works through a number of different processes. One study examined how different types of transformational leadership can be effective depending on whether work is evaluated at the team or the individual level. Individual-focused transformational leadership is behavior that empowers individual followers to develop, enhance their abilities, and increase self-efficacy. Team-focused transformational leadership emphasizes group goals, shared values and beliefs, and unified efforts. In summary, transformational leadership is more strongly correlated than transactional leadership with lower turnover rates, higher productivity, lower employee stress and burnout, and higher employee satisfaction. Like charisma, it can be learned. The GLOBE team concluded that “effective business leaders in any country are expected by their subordinates to provide a powerful and proactive vision to guide the company into the future, strong motivational skills to stimulate all employees to fulfill the vision, and excellent planning skills to assist in implementing the vision. ” Transformational versus Transactional Leadership When comparing transformational leadership with transactional leadership, research indicates transformational leadership is more strongly correlated than transactional leadership with lower turnover rates, higher productivity, lower employee stress and burnout, and higher employee satisfaction. However, transformational leadership theory is not perfect. The full range of leadership model shows a clear division between transactional and transformational leadership that may not fully exist in effective leadership. And contrary to the full range of leadership model, the four I’s of transformational leadership are not always superior in effectiveness to transactional leadership; contingent reward leadership, in which leaders dole out rewards as certain goals are reached by employees, sometimes works as well as transformational leadership. More research is needed, but the general supportable conclusion is that transformational leadership is desirable and effective, given the right application. Transformational versus Charismatic Leadership Charismatic leadership places somewhat more emphasis on the way leaders communicate (are they passionate and dynamic?), while transformational leadership focuses more on what they are communicating (is it a compelling vision?). Still, the theories are more alike than different. At their heart, both focus on the leader’s ability to inspire followers, and sometimes they do so in the same way. Because of this, some researchers believe the concepts are somewhat interchangeable. Responsible Leadership What Is Authentic Leadership? Authentic leaders know who they are, what they believe in and value, and act on those values and beliefs openly and candidly. The result: People come to have faith in them. Recent research indicates that authentic leadership, especially when shared among top management team members, created a positive energizing effect (see affective events theory, Chapter 4) that heightened firm performance. Ethical Leadership Ethics touches on leadership at a number of junctures. Leaders who treat their followers with fairness, especially by providing honest, frequent, and accurate information, are seen as more effective. A recent research review found that role modeling by top leaders positively influenced managers throughout their organizations to behave ethically and fostered a climate that reinforced group-level ethical conduct. The findings suggest that organizations should invest in ethical leadership training programs, especially in industries with few ethical regulations. The researchers furthermore advised that ethical leadership training programs to teach cultural values should be mandated for leaders who take foreign assignments or manage multicultural work teams. To convey their beliefs, leaders should learn to express their moral convictions in statements that reflect values shared with their organization’s members. Leaders can build on this foundation of trust to show their character, enhance a sense of unity, and create buy-in from followers. Leadership effectiveness needs to address the means that a leader uses in trying to achieve goals as well as the content of those goals. Leadership is not value free. Efforts have been made to combine ethical and charismatic leadership into an idea of socialized charismatic leadership. Servant Leadership Scholars have recently considered ethical leadership from a new angle by examining servant leadership. Servant leaders go beyond their own self-interest and focus on opportunities to help followers grow and develop. They don’t use power to achieve ends; they emphasize persuasion. Characteristic behaviors include listening, empathizing, persuading, accepting stewardship, and actively developing followers’ potential. Because servant leadership focuses on serving the needs of others, research has focused on its outcomes for the well-being of followers. What are the effects of servant leadership? A study of 123 supervisors found servant leadership resulted in higher levels of commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, and perceptions of justice, which all were related to organizational citizenship behavior. This relationship between servant leadership and follower OCB appears to be stronger when followers are focused on being dutiful and responsible. Second, servant leadership increases team potency (a belief that one’s team has above-average skills and abilities), which in turn leads to higher levels of group performance. Third, a study with a nationally representative sample found higher levels of citizenship associated with a focus on growth and advancement, which in turn was associated with higher levels of creative performance. Servant leadership may be more prevalent and more effective in certain cultures. When asked to draw images of leaders, U. S. subjects tend to draw them in front of the group, giving orders to followers. Singaporeans tend to draw leaders at the back of the group, acting more to gather a group’s opinions together and then unify them from the rear. This suggests the East Asian prototype is more like a servant leader, which might mean servant leadership is more effective in these cultures. Positive Leadership Trust and Leadership Trust is a psychological state that exists when you agree to make yourself vulnerable to another because you have positive expectations about how things are going to turn out. Trust is a primary attribute associated with leadership. When trust is broken, it can have serious adverse effects on a group’s performance. Followers who trust a leader are confident their rights and interests will not be abused. Transformational leaders create support for their ideas in part by arguing that their direction will be in everyone’s best interests. People are unlikely to look up to or follow someone they perceive as dishonest or likely to take advantage of them. Thus, as you might expect, transformational leaders do generate higher levels of trust from their followers, which in turn is related to higher levels of team confidence and, ultimately, higher levels of team performance. In a simple contractual exchange of goods and services, your employer is legally bound to pay you for fulfilling your job description. But today’s rapid reorganizations, diffusion of responsibility, and collaborative team-based work style mean employment relationships are not stable long-term contracts with explicit terms. Rather, they are more fundamentally based on trusting relationships than ever before. You have to trust that if you show your supervisor a creative project you’ve been working on, she won’t steal the credit behind your back. You have to trust that the extra work you’ve been doing will be recognized in your performance appraisal. In contemporary organizations, where less work is closely documented and specified, voluntary employee contribution based on trust is absolutely necessary. And only a trusted leader will be able to encourage employees to reach beyond themselves to a transformational goal. The Outcomes of Trust Trust encourages taking risks. Whenever employees decide to deviate from the usual way of doing things, or to take their supervisors’ word on a new direction, they are taking a risk. Trust facilitates information sharing. One big reason employees fail to express concerns at work is that they don’t feel psychologically safe revealing their views. Trusting groups are more effective. When a leader sets a trusting tone in a group, members are more willing to help each other and exert extra effort, which further increases trust. Trust enhances productivity. The bottom-line interest of companies also appears positively influenced by trust. Employees who trust their supervisors tend to receive higher performance ratings. Trust Development Trust isn’t just about the leader; the characteristics of the followers will also influence the development of trust. What key characteristics lead us to believe a leader is trustworthy? Evidence has identified three: integrity, benevolence, and ability. (Exhibit 12-6) Integrity refers to honesty and truthfulness. It seems the most critical of the three in assessing another’s trustworthiness. Benevolence means the trusted person has your interests at heart, even if yours aren’t necessarily in line with theirs. Ability encompasses an individual’s technical and interpersonal knowledge and skills. Trust Propensity Trust propensity refers to how likely a particular employee is to trust a leader. Some people are simply more likely to believe others can be trusted. Time is the final ingredient in the recipe for trust. Trust doesn’t happen immediately: we come to trust people based on observing their behavior over a period of time. Trust can also be won in the ability domain simply by demonstrating competence. Leaders who break the psychological contract with workers, demonstrating they aren’t trustworthy, will find employees are less satisfied and less committed, have higher intentions to turnover, engage in less citizenship behavior, and have lower task performance. Trust and Culture Does trust look the same in every culture? Using the basic definition of trust, certainly it does. However, in the work context, trust in an employment relationship may be built on very different perceptions from culture to culture. In individualistic societies, we might expect that paternalistic leadership will rankle many employees who prefer not to see themselves as part of a hierarchical family workgroup. The Role of Time Time is the final ingredient in the recipe for trust. Trust doesn’t happen immediately: we come to trust people based on observing their behavior over a period of time. Trust can also be won in the ability domain simply by demonstrating competence. Regaining Trust Managers who break the psychological contract with workers, demonstrating they aren’t trustworthy leaders, will find employees are less satisfied and less committed, have a higher intent toward turnover, engage in less OCB, and have lower levels of task performance. Leaders who betray trust are especially likely to be evaluated negatively by followers if there is already a low level of leader–member exchange. Once it has been violated, trust can be regained, but only in certain situations and depending on the type of violation. If the cause is lack of ability, it’s usually best to apologize and recognize you should have done better. When lack of integrity is the problem, apologies don’t do much good. Regardless of the violation, saying nothing or refusing to confirm or deny guilt is never an effective strategy for regaining trust. Trust can be restored when we observe a consistent pattern of trustworthy behavior by the transgressor. However, if the transgressor used deception, trust never fully returns, not even after apologies, promises, or a consistent pattern of trustworthy actions. Mentoring A mentor is a senior employee who sponsors and supports a less-experienced employee (a protégé). Successful mentors are good teachers. They present ideas clearly, listen well, and empathize with protégés’ problems. Mentoring relationships serve both career functions and psychosocial functions. (Exhibit 12-7) Traditional informal mentoring relationships develop when leaders identify a less experienced, lower-level employee who appears to have potential for future development. The protégé will often be tested with a particularly challenging assignment. If he or she performs acceptably, the mentor will develop the relationship, informally showing the protégé how the organization really works outside its formal structures and procedures. If a mentor is not well connected or not a very strong performer, the best mentoring advice in the world will not be beneficial. Research indicates that while mentoring can have an impact on career success, it is not as much of a contributing factor as ability and personality. It may feel nice to have a mentor, but it doesn’t appear that having a good mentor, or any mentor, is critical to your career. Challenges to Our Understanding of Leadership Introduction Much of an organization’s success or failure is due to factors outside the influence of leadership. In many cases, success or failure is just a matter of being in the right or wrong place at a given time. Leadership as an Attribution As you may remember from Chapter 6, attribution theory examines how people try to make sense of cause-and-effect relationships. The attribution theory of leadership says leadership is merely an attribution people make about other individuals. We attribute to leaders intelligence, outgoing personality, strong verbal skills, aggressiveness, understanding, and industriousness. At the organizational level, we tend to see leaders, rightly or wrongly, as responsible for extremely negative or extremely positive performance. One longitudinal study of 128 major U. S. corporations found that whereas perceptions of CEO charisma did not lead to objective company performance, company performance did lead to perceptions of charisma. Employee perceptions of their leaders’ behaviors are significant predictors of whether they blame the leader for failure, regardless of how the leader assesses himself or herself. A study of more than 3, 000 employees from Western Europe, the United States, and the Middle East found people who tended to “romanticize” leadership in general were more likely to believe their own leaders were transformational. We also make demographic assumptions about leaders. Respondents in a study assumed a leader described with no identifying racial information was white at a rate beyond the base rate of white employees in a company. In scenarios where identical leadership situations are described but the leaders’ race is manipulated, white leaders are rated as more effective than leaders of other racial groups. One large-scale summary study (a meta-analysis) found that many individuals hold stereotypes of men as having more leader characteristics than women, although as you might expect, this tendency to equate leadership with masculinity has decreased over time. Other data suggest women’s perceived success as transformational leaders may be based on demographic characteristics. Teams prefer male leaders when aggressively competing against other teams, but they prefer female leaders when the competition is within teams and calls for improving positive relationships within the group. Attribution theory suggests what’s important is projecting the appearance of being a leader rather than focusing on actual accomplishments. Leader-wannabes who can shape the perception that they’re smart, personable, verbally adept, aggressive, hardworking, and consistent in their style can increase the probability their bosses, colleagues, and employees will view them as effective leaders. Substitutes and Neutralizers to Leadership Data from numerous studies collectively demonstrate that, in many situations, whatever actions leaders exhibit are irrelevant. Experience and training are among the substitutes that can replace the need for a leader’s support or ability to create structure. Organizational characteristics such as explicit formalized goals, rigid rules and procedures, and cohesive work groups can also replace formal leadership, while indifference to organizational rewards can neutralize its effects. Neutralizers make it impossible for leader behavior to make any difference to follower outcomes. (Exhibit 12-8) Sometimes the difference between substitutes and neutralizers is fuzzy. If I’m working on a task that’s intrinsically enjoyable, theory predicts leadership will be less important because the task itself provides enough motivation. But does that mean intrinsically enjoyable tasks neutralize leadership effects, or substitute for them, or both? Another problem is that while substitutes for leadership (such as employee characteristics, the nature of the task, and so forth) matter to performance, that doesn’t necessarily mean leadership doesn’t. Online Leadership The questions of how do you lead people who are physically separated from you and with whom you communicate electronically? These questions need research. Today’s managers and employees are increasingly linked by networks rather than geographic proximity. We propose that online leaders have to think carefully about what actions they want their digital messages to initiate. They confront unique challenges, the greatest of which appears to be developing and maintaining trust. Identification-based trust, based on a mutual understanding of each other’s intentions and appreciation of the other’s wants and desires, is particularly difficult to achieve without face-to-face interaction. And online negotiations can also be hindered because parties express lower levels of trust. We tentatively conclude that good leadership skills will soon include the abilities to communicate support, trust, and inspiration through keyboarded words and accurately read emotions in others’ messages. In electronic communication, writing skills are likely to become an extension of interpersonal skills. Selecting Leaders The entire process that organizations go through to fill management positions is essentially an exercise in trying to identify individuals who will be effective leaders. You can begin by reviewing the specific requirements for the position such as knowledge, skills, and abilities that are needed to do the job effectively. Personality tests can identify traits associated with leadership—extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. High self-monitors are better at reading situations and adjusting their behavior accordingly. Candidates with high emotional intelligence should have an advantage, especially in situations requiring transformational leadership. Experience is a poor predictor of leader effectiveness, but situation-specific experience is relevant. Since nothing lasts forever, the most important event an organization needs to plan for is a change in leadership. Some organizations seem to spend no time on leadership succession and are surprised when their picks turn out poorly. Training Leaders Billions are spent on leadership training and development every year. Here are some things management can do to get the maximum effect from their leadership-training budgets: Leadership training is likely to be more successful with individuals who are high self-monitors than with low self-monitors. Second, organizations can teach implementation skills. We also can teach skills such as trust building, mentoring, and situational-analysis skills. There is evidence suggesting that behavioral training through modeling exercises can increase an individual’s ability to exhibit charismatic leadership qualities. Recent research also indicates that leaders should engage in regularly reviewing their leadership after key organizational events as part of their development. Finally, leaders can be trained in transformational leadership skills that have bottom-line results. Summary and Implications for Managers Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior, because it’s the leader who usually directs us toward our goals. Knowing what makes a good leader should thus be valuable in improving group performance. The Big Five personality framework show strong and consistent relationships between personality and leadership. The behavioral approach’s major contribution was narrowing leadership into task-oriented (initiating structure) and people-oriented (consideration) styles. By considering the situation in which the leader operates, contingency theories promised to improve on the behavioral approach. Contemporary theories have made major contributions to our understanding of leadership effectiveness, and studies of ethics and positive leadership offer exciting promise. Specific implications for managers are: For maximum leadership effectiveness, ensure that your preferences on the initiating structure and consideration dimensions are a match for your work dynamics and culture. Hire candidates who exhibit transformational leadership qualities and who have demonstrated success in working through others to meet a long-term vision. Personality tests can reveal candidates higher in extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness, which may indicate leadership readiness. Hire candidates whom you believe are ethical and trustworthy for management roles and train current managers in your organization’s ethical standards in order to increase leadership effectiveness. Seek to develop trusting relationships with followers, because, as organizations have become less stable and predictable, strong bonds of trust are replacing bureaucratic rules in defining expectations and relationships. Consider investing in leadership training such as formal courses, workshops, rotating job responsibilities, coaching, and mentoring. Career Objectives How can I get my boss to be a better leader? My boss is the CEO, and she’s an a gossipy, in-your-business oversharer. She’s always asking our top management team personal questions and sharing information with anyone. The other day, I caught her e-mailing my colleague about my salary and career prospects! What should I do about her poor leadership? — Phil Dear Phil, Nobody likes an oversharer! Perhaps your boss isn’t aware of the impact of her behavior and thinks she is just being friendly. Assuming this is the case, you might be able to make her think first before sharing. If you’re comfortable addressing her, you may suggest a private meeting to discuss your concerns. You should bring a list of the types of information she solicits and shares—with an example or two—and, if she's open to discussion, problem-solve with her about her habit. She may see that her “open book” approach is undermining her leadership effectiveness. Another tactic might start with researching the best privacy practices, laws, and business guidelines. Be sure to source your organization’s HR handbook for any mentions of privacy expectations. Then, in your meeting, you could present your research findings. With both direct approaches, you run the risk of offending your boss, which may very well happen if she becomes embarrassed. Moreover, she may defend her behavior if her oversharing is actually strategic gossip and she does not see the problem, which could have ramifications for what she then thinks and says. about you! These approaches still might be worth trying, but from what you’ve said about her, it’s highly unlikely she will change her general behavior. Research indicates that her personal tendencies will prevail over time. It sounds like she is extraverted, for instance—you're not going to change that. She may be confident and manipulative, purposefully leveraging her information for personal gain without a concern for others (high-Machiavellian or narcissistic). In that case, self-awareness can help, but her behavior won’t change unless she is willing to practice self-regulation. Perhaps most importantly, it doesn't seem that you like your boss. This may be a real problem that you cannot surmount. How are you going to build a relationship of trust with others? Trust will be needed for you to continue to feel motivated and work hard. Unfortunately, if you cannot thrive in this environment, it may be best to move on. Good luck for your best possible outcome! Sources: A. E. Colbert, M. R. Barrick, and B. H. Bradley, “Personality and Leadership Composition in Top Management Teams: Implications for Organizational Effectiveness, ”Personnel Psychology 67 (2014): 351–87; R. B. Kaiser, J. M. LeBreton, and J. Hogan, “The Dark Side of Personality and Extreme Leader Behavior,” Applied Psychology: An International Review 64, no. 1 (2015): 55–92; and R. Walker, “A Boss Who Shares Too Much,"” The New York Times, December 28, 2014, 7. Myth or Science? “Top Leaders Feel the Most Stress”
Leaders of corporations fight pressures from their boards, customers, managers, and employees. Wouldn’t it stand to reason they are the most stressed people in their organizations? Apparently not. According to studies from Harvard University, the University of California–San Diego, and Stanford University, leadership brings a blissful relief from the stress felt by individuals who are not in managerial roles. Not only did leaders report less anxiety than non-leaders, but their cortisol (stress hormone) levels were also lower, indicating they biologically are less likely to register stress. Another study found that individuals in higher-status occupational groups registered less perceived stress and lower blood pressure readings than those in lower status occupations. If you’re thinking this is one more reason why “it’s better at the top, ” you may be right, if only partially. It is true that leaders appear to show fewer signs of stress by virtue of being leaders, regardless of higher income or longer job tenure. However, researchers found no “magic level” in an organization at which employees feel a reduction in stress levels. One study found that stress reduction correlates with feelings of control. Leaders with more subordinates and greater power felt less stress than other individuals who knew they had less control over outcomes. Top leaders who control the resources of their corporations and have plenty of employees to carry out their directives therefore can fight stressors before they affect them. Sources: M. Korn, “Top-Level Leaders have Less Stress Than Others, ” The Wall Street Journal (October 3, 2012), p. B6; G. D. Sherman, J. J. Lee, A. J. C. Cuddy, et al. “Leadership Is Associated with Lower Levels of Stress, ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (October 30, 2012), pp. 17903–-17907; and E. Wiernik, B. Pannier, S. Czhernichow, H. Nabi, et al. , “Occupational Status Moderates the Association between Current Perceived Stress and High Blood Pressure: Evidence from the IPC Cohort Study, ” Hypertension (March 2013), pp. 571–-577. Class Exercise Divide students into groups of three to five. Ask students to extend the discussion in this feature by looking at the two perspectives of stress and top leaders at: http: //www. smh. com. au/executive-style/management/stress-management-for-the-ceo-20090713-di4d. html http: //www. inc. com/tom-searcy/how-to-beat-ceo-burnout. html Based on this information, ask each group to develop recommendations to help an organization deal with stress at different levels of management. Ask each student to reflect on his or her ability to effectively control stress in a leadership role. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9. 1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www. baclass. panam. edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Personal Inventory Assessments Ethical Leadership Assessment If you’ve ever worked for someone who was an unethical leader, you know the importance of ethical leadership for positive outcomes. Take this PIA to explore ethical leadership further. An Ethical Choice Holding Leaders Ethically Accountable No one thinks leaders shouldn’t be accountable. Leaders must balance many and conflicting stakeholder demands. The first, largely unspoken, demand is for strong financial performance; leaders are probably terminated more often for missing this goal than for all other factors combined. Leaders balance the extreme pressure for financial performance with the desire most leaders have to act ethically, even when there is no formal accountability. Given that pressure, ethical leadership may be under-rewarded and depend solely on the leader’s innate decency. Ethical leadership is a relatively new area of research attention. Demonstrating fairness and social responsibility and abiding by the law even run counter to many old-school models of leadership. Consider, for example, legendary management guru Peter Drucker’s advice (1967): “It is the duty of the executive to remove ruthlessly anyone—and especially any manager—who consistently fails to perform with high distinction. To let such a man stay on corrupts the others. ” Modern ethical leadership guidelines say this cut-throat mindset fails to consider the moral implications of treating people as objects at an organization’s disposal. While few organizations still require “performance at all costs, ” anymore, financiers, shareholders, and boards have the reward power to teach leaders which outcomes to value. Ethical leadership resounds positively throughout all organizational levels, resulting in responsible and potentially highly profitable outcomes, but the ultimate ethical test will come when shareholders—and leaders—show signs of balancing these accountabilities themselves. Sources: T. E. Ricks, “What Ever Happened to Accountability?” Harvard Business Review (October 2012), pp. 93–100; J. M. Schaubroeck et al. , “Embedding Ethical Leadership Within and Across Organizational Levels, ” Academy of Management Journal 55 (2012), pp. 1053–1078; and J. Stouten, M. van Dijke, and D. De Cremer, “Ethical Leadership, ” Journal of Personnel Psychology 11 (2012), pp. 1–6. Class Exercise Divide the class into teams of three to five students each. Ask each team to read the article at http: //www. sullivanadvisorygroup. com/docs/articles/Practicing%20Servant%20Leadership. pdf Each team should prepare a training plan to develop organizational managers to the servant leadership style. Have each group present its plan for a training program. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9. 1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www. baclass. panam. edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Point/Counterpoint CEOs Start Early
Point We often ascribe heroic qualities to our leaders. They are courageous in the face of great risk. They persevere when few would. They take action when most sit by. Heroes are exceptional people who display exceptional behavior. But some social psychologists question this conventional wisdom. They note that heroism can be found in many spheres of life, including in the behavior of whistleblowers, explorers, religious leaders, scientists, Good Samaritans, and those who beat the odds. At some time in our lives, we all show heroism when the situation allows us to. If we want to see more heroic behavior, we need to create more situations that produce it. Stanford psychologist Phil Zimbardo goes even further to argue that our romantic view that heroes are born is misplaced: “The banality of evil is matched by the banality of heroism. Neither is the consequence of dispositional tendencies. . . . Both emerge in particular situations at particular times, when situational forces play a compelling role in moving individuals across the line from inaction to action. ” People exhibit brave behavior every day. The workers who risked their lives to contain Japan’s earthquake-ravaged nuclear reactors in 2011 are a great example. Thus, we err when we think leaders are uniquely positioned to behave heroically. We all can be heroes in the right situation. Counterpoint Of course heroes are not like everyone else. That’s what makes them heroes. A generation of evidence from behavioral genetics reveals that “everything is genetic, ” meaning we have yet to discover an important human behavior that does not have genetic origins. Though we’re not aware of any such study with respect to heroism, it would be surprising if courageous behavior were not at least partly genetic. It’s foolish to think courageous people aren’t exceptional because of who they are. Just as we know there is an entrepreneurial personality and a leader personality, there is a heroic personality. Research suggests, for example, that people who score high on conscientiousness are more likely to engage in courageous behavior. Not all leaders are heroes, but many have exhibited courageous behavior. CEO Richard Branson may or may not be a hero, but when he launches his latest attempt to set the world record for an around-the-world balloon flight or sloop sailing, he exhibits the same courageous behavior when he is leading conglomerate Virgin Group. Virgin Group now includes more than 400 companies, including Virgin Galactic, a space tourism company, and Virgin Fuels, whose goal is to revolutionize the industry by providing sustainable fuels for automobiles and aircraft. Same leader, same heroic behavior—in work and in life. Are we really to believe that Richard Branson and other courageous leaders are just like everyone else? Sources: Z. E. Franco, K. Blau, and P. G. Zimbardo, “Heroism: A Conceptual Analysis and Differentiation Between Heroic Action and Altruism, ” Review of General Psychology 15, no. 2 (2011), pp. 99–113; O. Dorell, “At Nuke Plant, Heroes Emerge, ” USA Today (March 25, 2011), pp. 1A, 2A; G. R. Goethals and S. C. Allison, “Making Heroes: The Construction of Courage, Competence, and Virtue, ” Advances in Experimental Psychology 46 (2012), pp. 183–-235; L. J. Walker, J. A. Frimer, and W. L. Dunlop, “Varieties of Moral Personality: Beyond the Banality of Heroism, ” Journal of Personality 78, no. 3 (2010), pp. 907–942; and J. Lehrer, “Are Heroes Born, or Can They Be Made?” The Wall Street Journal (December 11, 2010), p. C12. Class Exercise Ask students to read the following web page: http: //www. telegraph. co. uk/science/science-news/4636614/AAAS-Heroes-are-born-not-made-scientists-claim. html The finding of this study seems to imply that “heroes” are people who have naturally occurring stress controls in crisis situations. Ask student teams of three to five students each to do a search to determine if stress control can be developed in anyone, making it more likely that he or she will respond calmly and rationally to a crisis situation. Have each team present its findings to the class. Ask the class to compare and contrast the similarities and differences in each team’s response. Could anyone in fact be a hero? Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9. 1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http: //www. baclass. panam. edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Instructor Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016
Download
Close
Close
