Lecture 4: The full range model: transformational, transactional and passive leadership Flashcards
What is the functional leadership perspective?
Leaders impact organizational effectiveness through actions on the environment, but most research focusses on narrow sets of leader styles
What are leader functions not included in the full-range model?
(a) strategic structuring and planning (e.g., identifying strategies and goals), (b) providing direction and resources (e.g., clarifying tasks, ensuring the team has sufficient resources), (c) monitoring the
external environment (e.g., monitoring changes), and (d) monitoring performance and feedback provision (e.g., monitoring
individual performance and providing corrective feedback).
Instrumental leadership
A form of task-oriented leadership focussed on task performance. It builds on initiating structure (which is seen as separate to consideration). It is defined as the application of leader expert knowledge on monitoring of the environment and of performance, and the implementation of strategic and tactical solutions.
What are the 4 factors of instrumental leadership?
- environmental monitoring
- strategy formulation and implementation + follower work facilitation
- path-goal facilitation
- outcome monitoring
Leader-categorization theory
Individuals have refined prototypes of leaders, which develop with repeated exposure to leaders, activated when thinking about or evaluating leaders, used as a reference point to judge whether targets are leaders
Strategic leadership
Environmental monitoring which concerns leader actions with scanning the internal and external organizational environments. Strategy formulation is referring to leader actions focused on developing policies, goals and objectives to support strategic vision. The full range model focusses on values, vision, charisma, interpersonal influence and transactional-oriented leadership. It is distinct from transformational leadership
Follower work facilitation
Involves path-goal facilitation which is any behaviours targeted to giving, direction, support and resources, removing obstacles. Outcome monitoring is providing performance-enhancing feedback for goal attainment.
Hypotheses of this research?
The behavioral dimensions of instrumental leadership, namely environmental monitoring (H1a), strategy formulation (H1b),
path–goal facilitation (H1c), and outcome monitoring (H1d) will be rated as highly prototypical of good leadership. Consideration will be predicted by transformational leadership.Initiating structure will be positively predicted by the factors of instrumental leadership (H3a) along with contingent reward
leadership (H3b) and management-by-exception active (H3c) and management-by-exception passive (H3d). Leader hierarchical level will be positively predicted by environmental monitoring (H4a), strategy formulation (H4b),
idealized influence attributes (H4c), idealized influence behaviors (H4d), and inspirational motivation (H4e).
What is the method of the studies?
Pilot: developed items that were indicative of the IL factors, and rated them
1: management bachelor studies how to think of a good/bad leader, rate how frequently the leader shows behaviours indicated by IL items which was randomized-> looked at prototypical good leadership
2: same procedure but compared prototypical ratings to different styles
3: participants had to rate the leadership style of their direct superior
4: raters would rate mid-level leaders
What were the results?
1: prototypical good leadership is related to IL
2: management by exception, management by exception passive and laissez-faire was seen as prototypically bad leadership
3: idealized influence, intellectual stimuation and individual consideration predicted consideration, only environmental monitoring predicted rank, and only II, and IS predicted rank
4: when IL was omitted, the effect of transformational leadership was overstated, IL predicted incremental variance
What are the implications?
- IL should be considered in a fuller full-range leadership theory-> explains how leadership happens on a strategic + work-facilitation level
- IL should be used in performance assessment for selection to high-level leadership positions
- leadership training programs to develop leader expertise like feedback + coaching
What is the conceptual model of Klasmeier?
- abusive supervision/ laissez fair influence team trust
- team trust influences organizational citizenship behaviour
- abusive/LF can affect OCB directly
How can destructive forms of leadership be approached from a multilevel perspective?
Destructive leadership has a detrimental impact on individual team members as they perceive and experience leader behaviour from their individual perspective. Team members may have a shared perception of leadership.
Team trust
Individual’s belief or assessment about the degree to which team members are trustworthy and willing to accept vulnerability towards team members. It can also be the shared belief or assessment about the trustworthiness of team colleagues
OCB
Individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, that together promotes the effective functioning of the organization
Social exchange theory
People who engage with each other repeatedly create liabilities, so they should aim for a reciprocal exchange, many of these positive interactions can improve the quality of the relationship. With abusive leadership, the relationships are low quality, and might reduce their effort in exchange
What are the hypotheses for abusive leadership?
1a: abusive supervision is negatively related to ocb individually and at the team level 1b
2a: laissez faire leadership is negatively related to ocb individually and at the team level (power imbalance)
3a: the negative relation btw abusive supervision and OCB is mediate through team trust at the individual and team level
4a: the negative relation btw laissez faire and OCB is mediated through team trust at the individual and team level
5a: the overall relation btw laissez-faire leadership and OCB is stronger than the relation btw abusive supervision and OCB individually and team level (as an abusive leader can still do some prototypical behaviours)
What was the method (abusive leadership)?
Different teams answered a questionnaire at each time point. At T1, they provided demographics, rated LF and abusive supervision. At T2, they answered about team trust. At T3. the OCB was assessed, and team leaders completed their demographics. They included the span of control as a confounding variable
What were the results of this study?
- abusive supervision was not directly related to OCB
- abusive supervision on OCB was mediated through team trust
- LF only revealed mediation individually
- LF was directly related to OCB
- the total effects of LF was greater than the total effects of abusive supervision-> supports hypothesis 5
- LF had a stronger negative relationship with OCB
Implications of this study?
- being denied social exchange seems to be worse than negative social exchange
- results demonstrate that destructive leadership can influence the social exchange relationship with a third party rather than the initial actor (refutes target similarity assumption)
- strengthen corporate culture, revise internal promotion procedures and to focus directly on the leader to actively engage (maybe mindfulness)
- discrepancies in the team negatively influence trust
What is human capital made up of?
- general human capital (skills transferable across firms and industries)
- firm-specific human capital (skills that are more valuable at the current firm)
General experience of a ceo Li?
The number of different industries and the number of different firms within which a CEO has worked
What are the two roles of executives?
- entrepreneurial role requires strategy formulation + integration of resources to mitigate industry threats
- managerial role is day-to-day management + implementation of strategies
- for more generalists CEOs, experience in different industries could promote the development of different cognitive maps, but less alignment of knowledge with internal resources
How does CEO generalist experience lower firm performance?
There is lower integrative capacity, less likely to be risk-averse, less likely to see negative outcomes in strategic actions-> lower firm performance. Hypothesis 1: initially, CEO generalist experience will be negatively associated with firm performance
