Leadership Flashcards
Definition and intro issues
· Definition - The ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness of an organization (House et al., 1999)
· Other def: Social process of exerting influence on the thoughts, feelings and actions of others
· Leadership is difficult to define.
o Distinguish between leadership and effective or moral leadership?
o Does a leader have to be formally appointed?
o Should a distinction be made between leaders and managers?
o The core seems to be that leaders exert influence on followers
· Leadership outcomes can be divided into two categories:
o Emergence (who becomes a leader)
§ Outcomes include the group’s perception of who their leader is
o Effectiveness (who leads well)
§ Outcomes include team performance or team member ratings of the leader’s effectiveness or follower satisfaction
Trait Theories
Trait theories
- Physical characteristics or psychological traits that differentiate leaders from nonleader
- Height, appearance, gender, authoritarianism, intelligence, and self-confidence
- Early theories focused on trait predictors of the above outcomes
- Trait theories fell out of favor. Leadership now conceptualized more as behaviors or roles than as a trait that someone “has”.
- Traits are still used to predict leader emergence though
- However, Judge, et al. (2002) meta-analysis found correlations between Big 5
- E = .31, O = .28, C = .28, N = -.24, A = .08
- Lord, et al. (1986) meta-analysis found correlations with cognitive ability, masculinity-femininity, and dominance
- Eagly & Karau (1991) meta-analysis found that men were more likely to emerge as leaders in short term tasks and those without complex social interaction. Women emerged slightly more often when the tasks required a lot of social skill.
- However, Judge, et al. (2002) meta-analysis found correlations between Big 5
- Arvey, et al. (2006) twin study found that 30% of the variance in leader emergence was genetic; 70% was environmental. Interesting that personality did not mediate genetic effects.
- Follow up found that 17% of variance was due to work experience. Arvey, et al. (2007)
- A lot of work also looks at gender role or sex as related to leadership style and effectiveness
- Role Congruity Theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) says that stereotypically, the demands of leadership (i.e., assertiveness, dominance) are thought of as “male” traits, so men are often perceived as better leaders. However, it depends on the way the leader role is defined.
- Eagly, et al. (1995) meta-analysis found that men were more effective when the role was defined in a more masculine way, and vice versa for women. Men were also more effective when the followers were predominantly men.
- Eagly & Johnson (1990) meta analysis found that women adopt a more democratic/participative leadership style than men
Behavioral Theories
…then moved to identifying effective leadership behavior, a goal still being tackled today…
a. Early behavioral theories of leadership - Ohio state studies
i. Initiating structure - Task focused
ii. Consideration - People-focused
Ohio State Theory acknowledged that leaders serve two purposes:
· Initiating Structure: providing structure for task accomplishment
· Consideration: managing interpersonal relationships
· Corresponds with the taskwork/teamwork categorization in the teams literature
· Judge et al (2004) meta-analysis found initiating structure correlated .29 with effectiveness while consideration correlated .48 overall.
·Judge dubbed these “the forgotten ones” b/c they were abandoned for methodological concerns, but renewed interest after the positive results of this MA
· Consideration =.78 correlation with satisfaction w/ leader and .3ish with IS
o I wonder if there is some sort of multiplicative effect where if one is missing the effect of the other one is low too?
· Consi = more related to attitudinal outcomes; IS more related to group performance
· Some thought need both of these, but MA found that they are correlated .17 and sometimes negatively correlated depending on how they’re measured, meaning a combination of the two may not be providing an accurate representation of leadership in orgs.
· Some of the Eagly work listed above might indicate that men might be perceived as better at initiating structure and women better at consideration.
Situational/Contingency theories
..next, situational theories (contingency theories) built off of behavioral theories; effectiveness of traits and behaviors are ultimately dependent on characteristics of the situation (char. of workplace, followers, org) ; some of these came out of the disappointing findings from the original Ohio State studies
a. Contingency theories of leadership
i. Fiedler’s contingency theory (1967)
1. Leaders are either task motivated or relationship motivated
2. Task-motivated leaders are more effective in extreme situations whereas relationship-motivated leaders are more effective in moderately favorable situations
3. Mixed supportive evidence
Fiedler’s contingency theory suggested that leaders focused primarily on initiating structure will do best in very favorable or unfavorable conditions, while leaders focused primarily on consideration will do better in moderately favorable conditions. However, evidence is mixed. Not very well supported; but not refuted either
ii. Path-goal leadership theory (House, 1971)
1. Goal of theory: identify roles and behaviors and identify the situations which modify those behaviors
2. Leaders role is to align the goals of followers with those of the organization
3. Leader must facilitate the achievement of those goals
a. Help followers realize that they have the capabilities to meet their goals
b. Clarify the path between the effort that they exert and goal attainment
c. Ensuring that goals are valuable to followers
Path-Goal Theory divides leadership into four styles (directive, supportive, achievement-oriented, and participative) and says to choose the correct style based on subordinate ability, subordinate locus of control, and work environment (norms regarding authority, structure, and type of group).
- Showing followers the path to their goals
- Very similar to expectancy theory
- Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model breaks down decision-making into different levels of subordinate participation and provides a decision tree to help determine which style to use. Research has been fairly supportive.
The above 3 are more prescriptive and saying WHAT to do (most previous are descriptive)
- These have been fairly supported but the evidence is mixed
- Have not gotten as much attention in recent years
*additional situational contingencies
iii. Substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978)
1. Neutralizers - Situational factors that block the effects of leadership, rendering leadership behaviors inconsequential (E.g. special distance between leader and follower)
2. Substitutes - Neutralize leadership and positively influence attitudinal and performance outcomes (E.g. intrinsic interest)
3. Limited support
Integrating framework
Trait & Behavioral Leadership Theories (Meta – Derue et al., 2011)
Develops an integrated trait-behavioral model of leadership effectiveness and examines the relative validity of leader traits (gender, intelligence, personality) and behaviors (transformational-transactional, initiating structure-consideration) across four leadership effectiveness criteria (leader effectiveness, group performance, follower job satisfaction, satisfaction with leader)
Traits & behavior combined explained a minimum of 31% of the variance in leadership effectiveness criteria
Conscientiousness was the most consistent trait predictor
Transformational leadership was the most consistent predictor overall
Behaviors tended to explain more variance than traits
A mediated model in which behaviors mediate the relationship between traits and effectiveness may be warranted
Relational theories list
*So we know situational factors are important, but what about relationships? Shifted focus in the 70s and 80s to relational theories of leadership
LMX
Charismatic
Full Range Model (Transactional and Transformational)
Authentic
Servant
(1) LMX
Intro
Description
Theories behind it?
- LMX (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) - Studies the unique leader-follower dyadic reciprocal relationship
- Not all followers may view the same leader in the same way. They have different relationships.
- In the past, “In-group” and “Out-group” à being in the in-group is better. Could get more information, more use of informal power, etc. Today…
- High vs. Low
Say it’s important to look at the leader’s individual relationship with each follower. Also one of the first theories to acknowledge the follower’s influence.
a. High-quality LMX - Mutual support, trust, liking, provision of latitude, attention, and loyalty
i. high trust, high performance, good interpersonal relationship, and desire to assume more responsibility. They get more information and more autonomy.
b. Low-quality LMX - Downward influence, role distinctions, social distance, contractual obligations, and distrust
i. more formal relationships characterized by greater use of formal sources of power
· Probably more of a continuum; probably not dichotomous
a. *General definitions but what constitutes low and high likely varies from person to person
Theory
a. Grounded in role and exchange theories
b. Dulebohn Meta-A: “Originally, LMX was rooted in role theory (Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987) but has evolved to rely heavily on social exchange theory (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007 etc).
–Low LMX relationships are characterized by economic exchange based on formally agreed on, immediate, and balanced reciprocation of tangible assets, such as employment contracts focusing on pay for performance (P. M. Blau, 1964).
–On the other hand, high-LMX relationships increasingly engender feelings of mutual obligation and reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997), which render such relationships more social in nature.
– these mutual dependencies in social exchange relationships have
been referred to as “reciprocal interdependence”, in spite of this mutuality, dependency tends to be greater for followers than leaders because of the inherent power differential.
c. “provides operable alternative to the theories of leadership focused on traits and behaviors”
(2) LMX
Antecedents
Outcomes
Authors to cite
Dulebohn, 2012
See mode below for results; many substantial predictors and consequences.
Analyses show it best served as a mediator (as opposed to moderator - affect of predictor on consequences, likely acts through LMX).
1. Antecedents- see model; leader characteristics and interpersonal relationships are most predictive with transformational leadership and trust being the highest
2. Consequences
First, consistent with previously conducted meta-analyses (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007), LMX was significantly related to all of the examined consequences. The absolute magnitude of these relationships averaged r = .43.
By category, LMX demonstrated the strongest average relationships:
Perceptual outcomes (r = .54) (e.g., justice, POPs (-), empowerment).
Attitudinal outcomes (r = .44) (3 commitments; super, general, pay satisfac)
Role states (r = .38) (ambiguity and conflict)
Behavioral outcomes (r = .32) (turnover (actual and intention), OCB, performance)
Some of their conclusions
Results differed from others, such as Liden et al. (1993), who, while not including any leader behaviors and perceptions, concluded that liking and perceived similarity were the most important variables with respect to LMX development.
One of the most interesting findings of this study was that leader behaviors and perceptions explained the most variance in LMX, suggesting LMX is more influenced by leaders than followers
Authors: Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Dulebohn, 2012
(3) LMX
Other important studies (3)
- Gerstner & Day; Sin et al.
- Yukl et al.
- Ilies et al.
Critique
- Only moderate relationship between leader and follower perceptions of LMX quality (rho = .37; Gerstner & Day, 1997; meta-analysis)
Sin, et al., (2009) meta-analysis found agreement was higher when the measures were affective and when tenure was longer.
Could get different answers depending on who you ask!
- Yukl, et al. (2009) found that leader relationship-oriented behaviors were related to LMX but task-oriented behaviors were not.
–tend to test the waters and build up this relationship gradually; those who like/are similar to each other; a lot of this is relationally based
- Ilies et al., 2007. M-A. LMX and citizenship behaviors (ρ=.37). Moderating role of the target of the citizenship behaviors; LMX predicted individual-targeted behaviors more strongly than it predicted organizational targeted behaviors (ρ = .38 vs. ρ = .31)
- Dulebohn, 2012 M-A on predictors & outcomes
Any critique to this one?
- Flourishing in the literature right now
- How do you develop high quality LMX? Develop over time? Perform well in initial tasks.
- Critique: how do high-quality LMX relationships develop? Can low-quality LMX relationships be changed? We know little.
- Criticism: adequately reflecting the dynamic, dyadic relationship.
BONUS:
- Tse et al., 2013; JAP; When my supervisor dislikes you more than me: The effect of dissimilarity in leader–member exchange on coworkers’ interpersonal emotion and perceived help
Found that (a) actual (dis)similarity in LMX between Coworkers A and B increases Coworker A’s feelings of contempt for Coworker B and decreases Coworker A’s perception of help received from Coworker B
- Rockstuhl et al., 2012
Relationships of LMX with OCB, justice perceptions, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and leader trust are stronger in horizontal-individualistic (eg Western) contexts than in vertical-collectivistic (eg Asian) contexts
Charismatic Leadership
Intro
Definition
Characteristics
Debate
Charismatic leadership theory (House, 1977)
Definition - Followers’ belief that the leader possessed unusual and exceptional qualities
Charismatic Leadership is difficult to define, and it has been difficult to find a “place” for it in the literature.
Often conceptualized as part of transformational leadership, but others have argued that leaders may perform the 4 transformational behaviors without being perceived as charismatic.
House & Shamir (1993) define it as “an interaction between leaders and followers that results in 1) making the followers’ self-esteem contingent on the vision and mission articulated by the leader, 2) strong internalization of the leader’s values and goals by the followers, 3) strong personal or moral (as opposed to calculative) commitment to these values and goals, and 4) a willingness on the part of followers to transcend their self-interests for the sake of the collective” – quote from Shamir & Howell (1999).
Other descriptions of it:
Charismatic leadership is attributed to leaders who challenge the status quo, inspire followers around a collective-focused vision of the future, show sensitivity to the needs of followers, and take personal risks to achieve their vision
Facets - Dominance, self-confidence, need for influence, strong conviction of the integrity of one’s own beliefs
Jex and Britt suggest it’s a captivating voice, direct eye contact, animated facial expressions, and powerful, confident style Weber says a follower’s belief that the leader possesses unusual or exceptional qualities (in Barling, et al.). Also: desire for identification with the leader.
Debate if it is separate between charismatic and transformation (Conger, 1999)
What distinguishes charismatic leadership from other leaders is their ability to act in ways that encourage followers to perceive them and their visions as extraordinary
Book chapter à almost the same, with charisma as a component of transformational Handbook à differences are minor but one is that charisma is more a perception of the follower Other: Other ideas: TL always positive but charisma could be negative; crisis situation required for charisma?; charisma something you’re born with but TL not?. Not much empirical evidence; no solid answer to this question.
(2) Charismatic Leadership
- Other
- Studies
Other:
Charisma perceptions may result from a crisis situation; for example Churchill was perceived as charismatic only during the war and not before or afterward (same with President Bush)
DeGrott, et al. (2000) meta-analysis found charisma better at increasing group performance than individual performance.
It’s talked about a lot but not much research to back it up
Studies:
Brown and Trevino, 2009 ; OSEM
Investigated socialized charismatic leadership, defined as altruistically motivated and influence followers through the mechanism of values internalization.
Results and Discussion:
Occupation was significantly related to all four employee and leader values in the predicted directions ( ex. administrators higher in self-enhancement and change values while nurses were higher in self-transcendence and conservation)
relationship between socialized charismatic leadership and values congruence depends on the types of values being transmitted. But, overall for SCL, follower values are more closely aligned with leader-transmitted values. *check out actual study.
SCL is related to the three values discussed. Orgs interested in promoting shared values could tie such efforts to the development of the leadership style.
Erez et al., 2008 *read the rest; OSEM
Discussion:
One way charismatic leaders “touch” followers is by enhancing followers’ positive affective states. For study 1, leader charisma was + related to positive affect of followers and – assoc. with negative affect of followers. Firefighters show similar relationships (although charisma was – assoc. with negative affect of followers only when other leader variables were included in the model).
Study 2 indicated that part of the influence of leader charisma on follower happiness operates through the leaders’ affective states. Charisma makes followers happy, makes the charismatic leader happy, and this happiness itself is contagious.
Leader expressiveness partially mediates the relationship between leader charisma and follower affect.
Transactional Leadership
