Leadership Flashcards
• Longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges (employee samples)• Leader expectation of members and member expectation of leaders strongly predicted LMX at week 2 and week 6 - and 6 months only for member expectations.• Perceived similarity was a significant predictor of LMX (only if the perception was from the same source)• Demographic similarity was not significant! And performance ratings were only significant predictors of LMX the week they were taken• Findings suggest LMX is a multidimensional construct – affective variables are important, not just performance (as earlier theorized) • Applicants interviewed by warm recruiters displayed more effective behaviors• High self-esteem applicants were barely affected by recruiter behaviors (not true for low self-esteem)
Liden et al. (1993)
Transformational Leadership Essence = distinction bw transactional and transformational leadership• Followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty, respect toward leader -> motivated perform beyond orig. expectations• In contrast, transactional leadership involves an exchange process characterized by reduced follower compliance with leader requests and reduced likelihood of generating enthusiasm and commitment• Two processes conceptualized as being distinct, but not mutually exclusive• Transformational leadership increases follower motivation and performance more than transactional leadership, effective leaders use a combination of both types of leadership
Bass (1985)
Charismatic Leadership follower attribution of charismatic qualities to leader determined by leader’s behavior, skill, and aspects of the situation• Charisma more likely attributed to leaders who:1. advocate a vision that is highly discrepant from the status quo2. act in unconventional and self-sacrificing ways3. take personal risks, incur high costs, and appear confident 4. use visioning and persuasive appeals to followers• Primary influence = personal id derived from a subordinate’s desire to imitate the leader• Charismatic leaders appear so extraordinary, due to their insight, strong convictions, self-confidence, unconventional behavior, and dynamic energy that subordinates idolize them and want to be like them
Conger & Kanungo (1987)
Contingency Theory• Generated considerable controversy over the last 30 years stems from measurement of relational- versus task-focused leadership, using least preferred coworker (LPC) scale, and changing situation i/o leader• Leaders categorized according to scores on LPC scale as being more task oriented than people oriented• Task-oriented leaders more effective in highly favorable and unfavorable situations• Relationship-oriented leaders were more effective in the middle range• Controversy re insistence that leader effectiveness based on changing the situation vs. leader• Fiedler argued in favor of changing the context to match the leader’s preferred style• Research has produced mixed results
Fiedler (1967)
LMX - • Evolutionary product of Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) - Graen and Cashman (1975)• .Most early theories and research on leadership focused on traits, behaviors, and contributions of the leader and did not consider subordinate contributions (or the context or other stakeholders for that matter)• Unlike previous theories -> focus on dyadic relationship bw a leader and a subordinate(s)o took the subordinate into account rather than focusing entirely on the leader’s role• Basis of VDL (later LMX) simple: in leader-group interactions, judgments are made and opinions are formed by leader and member of each dyad and that leaders give more + tasks to members who feel support them• Each dyad essentially viewed as a social exchange or negotiated transaction of leader-member• Dyad, rather than the group/team, leader, or individual subordinate(s), = unit of analysis in leadership• Classic’ LMX theory = relationships are characterized as being either ‘low-exchange’ or ‘high-exchange’o Low -> low level of mutual influence and subordinate and, as long as he/she complies with the formal role requirements, received the standard benefits associated with the jobo High -> significant benefits to both the leaders and subordinate (provide special benefits (e.g., better work, better schedule, better pay, delegation of greater responsibility and authority, bigger office, etc.) o Sub assumes ‘costs’ -> work harder, loyal, more committed to tasks, share leader’s respon.o Cycle of reciprocal reinforcement gradually develops costs and benefits to both leader/sub
Dansereau et al. (1975)
Trust and Leadership - longitudinal study LMX as mediator bw IJ perceptions & perf, OCB, JSo Procedural & interactional justice (PJ & IJ) affect outcomes via different social exchange relso IJ perceptions affect supervisor-related outcomes via mediating LMXo PJ perceptions affect organization-related outcomes via mediating POSo Direct rels bw IJ perceptions and performance, OCBs, and JS mediated by LMX
Masterson et al. (2000)
• Definitions of leadership and effective leadership• Measurements of leadership• Leadership substitutes • Models and theories of leadership explained (table 1 in summary)• New directions in leadership• Reciprocal and shared leadership• Strategic leadership – best practices contributing to firm success• Examining leadership across cultures, level of analysis• Leadership development: born vs. made
Avolio et al. (2003)
• Examines the variance in leadership role occupancy that can be attributed to genetic, environment, and personality factors using a twins study.• Portion of variance in occupancy attributable to genetics (30%) is greater than the variance typically attributed to personality in leadership studies (7-10%)• Large portion of variance attributable to non-shared environmental factors suggests that individuals’ leadership abilities are malleable and can be developed by characteristics of their environment
Arvey et al. 2006
• To investigate the effects of positive emotional expressions of charismatic leaders on followers’ mood and attraction• Emotions play a central role in transformational leadership – particularly contagious given the position of authority held by leaders• 4 studies: natural work settings• Results support the contention that charismatic leadership is related to more expressions of positive emotions• Leader positive expressions influences followers’ mood, and both impact ratings of leader effectiveness
Bono & Ilies (2006)
• This study was a meta-analysis of the relationship between Big 5 personality and ratings of transformational (TF) and transactional (TA) leadership. • Transformational leadership: idealized influence/charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration.• Transactional leadership: contingent reward, management by exception: active, passive, laissez-faire• Extraversion was the strongest and most consistent correlate of transformational leadership. • Neuroticism was negatively correlated with all transformational leadership dimensions• Generally, weak associated were found between personality and TF and TA leadership, suggesting the importance of future research to focus on both narrower personality traits and nondispositional determinants of TF and TA leadership.• Considering these weak relationships, more research should go into looking at the degree to which TF can be learned.• strong org situation washout effect of personality on TA/TF
Bono & Judge 2004
• Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing• Developed a 48-item measure of ethical leadership and then tested it in 7 studies (studies 1-4 examined the trait validity and internal coherence of the ethical leadership measure; studies 5-7 examined the nomological validity of ethical leadership)• Studies 1-4o Resulted in 10-item Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS), with one factor solution, with high reliabilities, and items which sorted into their intended areas• Studies 5-7o ELS positively related to: consideration, trust, sat. o ELS negatively related to: abusive leadershipo ELS not related to: age, gender, race/ethnicity
Brown et al. 2005
• a model of individualized leadership. Leadership style vary within and between work groups depending on subordinate• In the absence of support for a subordinate’s feelings of self-worth, a superior will not become a leader for that subordinate or receive satisfying performance from them. • In contrast to traditional approaches, authors show that to be successful, leadership efforts must vary within and between work groups, depending on the individual (subordinate) with whom a superior interacts (thus the term “individualized leadership”).• In more established relationships, the subordinates’ perceptions were based on superiors’ perceptions, and vice versa, while perceptions were more independent in new relationships• Whether or not a superior becomes a leader depends on the judgments made by other individuals (i.e., subordinates)• Individual leadership cycle starts with subordinates viewing superior as providing support for self-worth -> satsifyig performance –> support for self-worth• superiors become leaders only when subordinates make that judgment
Dansereau et al (1995)
• Role congruity of prejudice towards female leaders: perceived incongruity between female gender role and leadership roles leads to forms of prejudiceo Perceiving women less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roleso Evaluating behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorable when its enacted by women• Attitudes less positive toward female than male leaders or potential leaders• More difficult for women to become leaders and to achieve success in leadership roles.
Eagly & Karau (2002)
• Meta-analysis on gender and effectiveness of leaders• Men and women did not differ in leadership effectiveness• Men were more effective in more masculine roles and women more effective in less masculine roles • Men were more effective when leader and subordinate roles were numerically dominated by males• Study supports social role theory
Eagly et al. (1995)
• Meta-analysis of gender differences in transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles• Female leaders more transformational than male leaders and engaged in more contingent rewards behaviors• Male leaders more likely to manifest other aspects of transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership• Differences were small, but implications of these findings are encouraging because other research has established that all of the aspects of leadership style on which women exceeded men relate positively to leaders’ effectiveness whereas all of the aspect on which men exceeded women have negative or null relations to effectiveness• sex difference may be caused by 1) ability of transformational repertoire to resolve some of the incongruity btw leadership and gender roles 2) gender roles’ influence on leadership behaviors by means of the spillover and internalization of gender specific norms 3) the glass ceiling itself, whereby a double standard produces more highly skilled female than male leaders
Eagly et al. (2003)
