Foundations of Leadership

is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. (Northouse 2012)
Perspectives of leadership
The focus of group processes, A personality perspective, An act or behavior, In terms of the power relationship between leaders & followers, An instrument of goal achievement , A skills perspective
Components of leadership definitions
Is a process, Involves influence, Occurs within a group context, Involves goal attainment, Includes a perspective on followers (above, better, or interactive relationships)
Referent Power
Based on follower’s identification and liking for the leader (an adored schoolteacher)
Expert Power
Based on follower’s perceptions of the leader’s competence (a tour guide)
Legitimate Power
Associated with having status or formal job authority (a judge)
Reward Power
Derived from having the capacity to provide rewards to others (a supervisor)
Coercive Power
Derived from having the capacity to penalize or punish others (a coach)
Kotter (1990)
Author noted distinctions between Leadership & Management
French, J.R., Jr. & Raven, B. (1959)
“The bases of social power” in D. Cartwright (Ed.) Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for social research
Kotter, J.P. (1990)
A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press
Trait Theory
One of the first systematic attempts to study leadership (early 20th century); Study of leadership traits to determine leadership capacity; Also known as “great man” theory; Focuses on identifying innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders.
Trait Theory Assumption
Certain individuals are great leaders because of their traits.; Predictability of attaining leadership positions.; Predictability of effective leadership.; Leaders are born not made.
Trait Theory early 1900’s
Great Man Theories
Trait Theory 1930-50’s
Traits interacting with situational demand on leaders (Stodgill 1948; Mann 1959)
Trait Theory 1970’s-90’s
Revival of Critical Role of Traits in leader effectiveness (Stodgill 1974; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger 1986; Kilpatrick & Locke 1991)
Trait Theory Today
5 Major Leadership Traits (intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability)
5 Factor Personality Model & Leadership (Judge et. al, 2002)
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, & Conscientiousness
The tendency to be depressed, anxious, insecure, vulnerable, and hostile
The tendency to be sociable and assertive and to have positive energy
The tendency to be informed, creative, insightful, and curious
The tendency to be accepting, conforming, trusting, and nurturing
The tendency to be thorough, organized, controlled, dependable, and decisive
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E. Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002)
“Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review.” Journal of Applied Psychology.
Kilpatrick, S.A. & Locke, E. A. (1991)
“Leadership: do traits matter?” The Executive.
Lord, R.G. DeVader, C.L, & Alliger, G.M. 1986
“A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: an application of validity generalization procedures.” Journal of Applied Psychology Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Mann, R.D. (1959)
“A review of relationship between personality and performance in small groups” in Psychological Bulletin
Stodgill, R.M. (1948)
“Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature” in Journal of Psychology
Stodgill, R.D. 1974
Handbook of Leadership: a survey of theory and research.” New York: Free Press.
Skills Approach
Similar to trait approach because it is leader-centered; Emphasizes skills and abilities that can be learned and developed; Knowledge and abilities are more important than personality and traits; Became popular after Robert Katz’s 1955 article, “Skills of an Effective Administrator,” in Harvard Business Review; Revitalized in the early 1990’s with research that led to a comprehensive skill-based model of leadership that was advanced by Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman 2000; Yammarino, 2000)
Leadership skills under the Skills Approach
The ability to use one’s knowledge and competencies to accomplish a set of goals and objectives
Katz’s 3 basic administrative skills
1 Technical 2 Human 3 Conceptual
Mumford’s Skills based model of organizational leadership
This model has five components: competencies, individual attributes, leadership outcomes, career experiences, and environmental influences. At the heart of the model are the 3 competencies: problems solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge. These three competencies are the central determinants of effective problem solving and performance, although individual attributes, career experiences, and environmental influences all have impacts on leader competencies. Through job experience and training, leaders can become better problem solvers and more-effective leaders.
Skills Approach Strengths
First approach to conceptualize and create a structure of the process of leadership around skills; Describing leadership in terms of skills makes leadership available to everyone; Provides an expansive view of leadership that incorporates wide variety of components (i.e., problem-solving skills, social judgment skills); Provides a structure consistent with leadership education programs
Skills Approach Criticisms
Breadth of the skills approach appears to extend beyond the boundaries of leadership, making it more general/less precise; Weak in predictive value; does not explain how skills lead to effective leadership performance; Skills model includes individual attributes that are trait-like
Katz, R.L. (1955)
“Skills of an effective administrator” Harvard Business Review.
Mumford, M.D., Connelly, M.S. (1991)
“leaders as creators: leader performance and problem solving in ill defined domains” Leadership Quarterly.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Connelly, M. S., & Marks, M. A. (2000).
Leadership skills: Conclusions and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 155-170.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000)
.Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.
Mumford, T.V., Campion, M.A., & Morgeson, F.P. (2007).
The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly, 18, (pp. 154-166).
Yammarino, F.J. (2000)
“Leadership skills: introduction and overview.” Leadership Quarterly.
Style Approach
Emphasizes the behavior of the leader; Focuses exclusively on what leaders do and how they act; Comprised of two general kinds of Behaviors (task and relationship)
Style Approach Universities& Individual researchers
Advanced primarily by two institutions (Ohio State and Michigan Universities) & individual research (Blake & Mouton)
Ohio State & Style Apprach (late 1940’s)
Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ)-Identify number of times leaders engaged in specific behaviors
Ohio State & Style Approach (early 1960’s)
LBDQ-XII (Stodgill, 1963)-Shortened version of the LBDQ-Most widely used leadership assessment instrument-Results – Two general types of leader behaviors: Task & Relationship
Task behaviors
organizing work, giving structure to the work context, defining role responsibility, scheduling work activities
Relationship behaviors
building camaraderie, respect, trust, & liking between leaders & followers
University of Michigan (late 1940’s)
Exploring leadership behavior-Specific emphasis on impact of leadership behavior on performance of small groups; Results – Two types of leadership behaviors conceptualized as opposite ends of a single continuum: Employee & Production
Blake & Mouton (1964, 1978, 1985):
The Leadership Grid
The leadership Grid of Blake & Mouton
Used extensively in organizational training & development; Designed to explain how leaders help organizations to reach their purposes-Two factors (1.Concern for production How a leader is concerned with achieving organizational tasks 2.Concern for people How a leader attends to the members of the organization who are trying to achieve its goals); Primarily a framework for assessing leadership in a broad way, as behavior with a task and relationship dimension; Offers a means of assessing in a general way the behaviors of leaders
Style Approach Strengths
marked a major shift in leadership research from exclusively trait focused to include behaviors and actions of leaders; Broad range of studies on leadership style validates and gives credibility to the basic tenets of the approach; At conceptual level, a leader’s style is composed of two major types of behaviors: task and relationship; heuristic – leaders can learn a lot about themselves and how they come across to others by trying to see their behaviors in light of the task and relationship dimensions
Style Approach Criticisms
Research has not adequately demonstrated how leaders’ styles are associated with performance outcomes; No universal style of leadership that could be effective in almost every situation; Implies that the most effective leadership style is High-High style (i.e., high task/high relationship); research finding support is limited
Blake, R.R., & McCanse, A.A. (1991)
Leadership dilemmas: Grid solutions Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964)
The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1978)
The new managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1985)
The managerial grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
Stodgill, R.M. (1948).
“Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature.” Journal of Psychology.
Stodgill, R.M. (1963)
Manual for Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research
Stodgill, R.M. (1974)
Handbook of Leadership: a survey of theory and research New York: Free Press.
Situational Approach
Developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1969a) and based on Reddin’s (1967) 3-D management style theory.; Leaders match their style to the competence and commitment of subordinates; Focuses on leadership in situations; Emphasizes adapting style – different situations demand different kinds of leadership; Used extensively in organizational leadership training and development
Comprised of both a Directive (task) dimension & Supportive (relationship) dimension:
-Each dimension must be applied appropriately in a given situation-Leaders evaluate employees to assess their competence and commitment to perform a given task
Centered on the idea subordinates vacillate along the developmental continuum of competence and commitment; Leader effectiveness depends on
–assessing subordinate’s developmental position, and -adapting his/her leadership style to match subordinate developmental level
2 tasks of the leader in the situational leadership model:
1. Diagnose the Situation (D1,D2, D3, D4) 2. Adapt the leadership style (directing, coaching, supporting, delegating) The leadership style should correspond to the employees development level
Situational Leadership Strengths
Marketplace approval. Situational leadership is perceived as providing a credible model for training employees to become effective leaders.; Practicality. Situational leadership is a straightforward approach that is easily understood and applied in a variety of settings.; Prescriptive value. Situational leadership clearly outlines what you should and should not do in various settings.; Leader flexibility. Situational leadership stresses that effective leaders are those who can change their style based on task requirements and subordinate needs.; Differential treatment. Situational leadership is based on the premise that leaders need to treat each subordinate according to his/her unique needs.
Situational Leadership Criticisms
Lack of an empirical foundation raises theoretical considerations regarding the validity of the approach; Further research is required to determine how commitment and competence are conceptualized for each developmental level; Conceptualization of commitment itself is very unclear; Replication studies fail to support basic prescriptions of situational leadership model
Blanchard, K.H. (1985)
SLII: a situational approach to managing people. Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. (1993)
“Situational leadership after 25 years: a retrospective.” Journal of Leadership Studies.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985)
Leadership and the one minute manager: increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1992)
Game plan for leadership and the one-minute manager. Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development
Hersey, P. & Blanchard K.H. (1969a)
“Life-cycle theory of leadership” Training and Development Journal.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard K.H. (1969b)
Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard K.H. (1977)
Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources. (3rd edition) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard K.H. (1988)
Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources. (5th edition) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard K.H. (1993)
Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources. (6th edition) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Contingency theory
is a leader-match theory (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974)-Tries to match leaders to appropriate situations; Leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context; Fiedler’s generalizations about which styles of leadership are best and worst are based on empirically grounded generalizations; Effective leadership depends on matching a leader’s style to the right setting; Assessment based on:-Leadership Styles-Situational Variables
Contingency Theory Leadership Styles
Fielder developed the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale to describe a leader on two categories (relational and task)
Task-motivated (Low LPCs)
-Leaders are concerned primarily with reaching a goal
Relationship-motivated (High LPCs)
– Leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships
3 Situational Variables for Contingency Theory
1. Leader-Member Relations – Refers to the group atmosphere and the degree of confidence, loyalty, and attraction of followers for leader (Group atmosphere – Good -Poor) 2. Task Structure-Concerns the degree to which requirements of a task are clear and spelled out (High Structure-Low Structure) 3.Position Power-Designates the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish followers (Strong Power – Weak Power)
Reasons for leader mismatch ineffectiveness:
1. LPC style doesn’t match a particular situation; stress and anxiety result 2. Under stress, leader reverts to less mature coping style learned in earlier development 3. Leader’s less mature coping style results in poor decision making and consequently negative work outcomes
Contingency Theory Strengths
Empirical support. Contingency theory has been tested by many researchers and found to be a valid and reliable approach to explaining how to achieve effective leadership.; Broadened understanding. Contingency theory has broadened the scope of leadership understanding from a focus on a single, best type of leadership (e.g., trait approach) to emphasizing the importance of a leader’s style and the demands of different situations.; Predictive. Because Contingency theory is predictive, it provides relevant information regarding the type of leadership that is most likely to be effective in particular contexts.; Not an all-or-nothing approach. Contingency theory contends that leaders should not expect to be effective in every situation; thus companies should strive to place leaders in optimal situations according to their leadership style.; Leadership profiles. Contingency theory supplies data on leadership styles that could be useful to organizations in developing leadership profiles for human resource planning.
Contingency Theory Criticisms
Fails to fully explain why leaders with particular leadership styles are more effective in some situations than others; Criticism of LPC scale validity as it does not correlate well with other standard leadership measures; Cumbersome to use in real-world settings; Fails to adequately explain what should be done about a leader/situation mismatch in the workplace
Fielder, F.E. (1964)
“A contingency model of leadership effectiveness” in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1) New York: Academic Press.
Fielder, F.E. (1967)
A theory of leadership effectiveness New York: McGraw-Hill
Fielder, F.E. (1993)
“The leadership situation and the black box in contingency theories” in M.M. Chemers& R. Ayman (eds.) Leadership, theory, and research: perspectives and directions New York: Academic Press
Fielder, F.E. (1995)
“Reflections by an accidental theorist.” Leadership Quarterly
Fielder, F.E.& Chemers, M.M. (1974)
Leadership and effective management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman
Fielder, F.E.& Chemer, M.M. (1984)
Improving leadership effectiveness: the leader match concept (2nd ed) New York: Wiley.
Fielder, F.E.& Garcia, J.E. (1987)
New approaches to leadership: cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York: Wiley.
Path-Goal Theory
Developed by House in 1971; Defined as… centers on how leaders motivate subordinates to accomplish designated goals; Emphasizes the relationship between…the leaders style, the characteristics of the subordinates, &the work setting; Goal – To enhance employee performance and satisfaction by focusing on employee motivation; Motivational Principles (based on Expectancy Theory) – Subordinates will be motivated if they believe: 1. they are capable of performing their work2. that their efforts will result in a certain outcome 3. that the payoffs for doing their work are worthwhile; The leader must Use a Leadership Style that best meets subordinates motivational needs
In Path-Goal leadership generates motivation when…
It increases the number and kinds of payoffs subordinates receive from their work; Makes the path to the goal clear and easy to travel through with coaching and direction; Removes obstacles and roadblocks to attaining the goal; Makes the work itself more personally satisfying
Path-Goal Strengths
Useful theoretical framework. Path-goal theory is a useful theoretical framework for understanding how various leadership behaviors affect the satisfaction of subordinates and their work performance.; Integrates motivation. Path-goal theory attempts to integrate the motivation principles of expectancy theory into a theory of leadership.; Practical model. Path-goal theory provides a practical model that underscores and highlights the important ways leaders help subordinates.
Path-Goal Criticisms:
Interpreting the meaning of the theory can be confusing because it is so complex and incorporates so many different aspects of leadership; consequently, it is difficult to implement.; Empirical research studies have demonstrated only partial support for path-goal theory.; It fails to adequately explain the relationship between leadership behavior and worker motivation.; treats leadership as a one-way event in which the leader affects the subordinate.
Evans, M.G. (1970)
“The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.
Evans, M.G. (1996)
“R.J. House’s ‘A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.” Leadership Quarterly.
House, R. J. (1971).
“A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness” Administrative Science Quarterly
House, R.J. (1977)
“A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership” in J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (eds.) Leadership: the cutting edge Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press
House, R.J. (1996).
“Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory.” Leadership Quarterly
House, R.J. & Dessler, G. (1974)
“The path-goal theory of leadership: some post hoc and a priori tests.” In J. Hunt & L Larson (eds.) Contingency approaches in leadership Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press
House, R.J. & Mitchell, R.R. (1974)
“Path-goal theory of leadership.” Journal of Contemporary Business
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory:
-conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on the interactions between a leader and subordinates; Originally referred to as the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) theory by ; Dansereau, Graen (1975), Graen (1976), and Graen & Cashman (1975); makes the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers the focal point of the leadership process; challenges the assumption that leaders treat followers in a collective way, as a group. – LMX – Directed attention to the differences that might exist between the leader and each of his/her followers
Early LMX Studies:
called – Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL)-Focus on the vertical linkages leaders formed with each of their followers-Leader’s relationship to a work unit viewed as a series of vertical dyads
LMX Researchers found two general types of linkages (or relationships)
– in-Group & out-group
– more information, influence, confidence & concern from Leader – more dependable, highly involved & communicative than out-group
– less compatible with Leader – usually just come to work, do their job & go home
Later Studies of LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)
Initial research primarily addressed differences between in-groups and out-groups; later research addressed how LMX theory was related to organizational effectiveness; Later research focus on the quality of leader-member exchanges resulting in positive outcomes for: -Leaders -Followers -Groups – Organizations in general
Three phases of leadership making which develops over time (in LMX):
stranger phase; acquaintance phase; mature partnership phase
How does LMX work?
2 Ways: Descriptive and Prescriptive (both focus on the dyadic relationship)
LMX Descriptively:
It suggests that it is important to recognize the existence of in-groups & out-groups within an organization; Significant differences in how goals are accomplished using in-groups vs. out-groups; Relevant differences in in-group vs. out-group behaviors
LMX Prescriptively:
Best understood within the Leadership Making Model (Graen & Uhl-Bien) -Leader forms special relationships with all subordinates -Leader should offer each subordinate an opportunity for new roles/responsibilities; Leader should nurture high-quality exchanges with all subordinates -Rather than concentrating on differences, leader focuses on ways to build trust & respect with all subordinates – resulting in entire work group becoming an in-group
LMX Strengths:
validates our experience of how people within organizations relate to each other and the leader; is the only leadership approach that makes the dyadic relationship the centerpiece of the leadership process; directs our attention to the importance of communication in leadership; Solid research foundation on how the practice of the theory is related to positive organizational outcomes
LMX Criticisms
Inadvertently supports the development of privileged groups in the workplace; appears unfair and discriminatory; The basic theoretical ideas of the theory are not fully developed •How are high-quality leader-member exchanges created? •What are the means to achieve building trust, respect, and obligation? What are the guidelines?; Because of various scales and levels of analysis, measurement of leader-member exchanges is being questioned
Dansereau, F. Graen, G.B., & Haga, W. (1975)
“A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.
Graen, G.B. (1976)
“Role-making processes within complex organizations” in M.D. Dunnette (ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Chicago: Rand McNally
Graen, G.B. and Cashman, J. (1975)
“A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach.” In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (eds.) Leadership frontiers Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G.B.& Scandura, T.S. (1987)
“Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing” in Shaw, & Cumming (eds) Research in organizational behavior Greenwich, CT: JAI
Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991)
“The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributions: toward a theory of leadership making.” Journal of Management Systems
Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995)
“Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective” Leadership quarterly
Transformational Leadership
-changes and transforms individuals -frequently incorporates charismatic and visionary leadership – involves an exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them -is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals -includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings -describes a wide range of leadership influence ; Specific: one-to-one with followers ; Broad: whole organizations or entire cultures -follower(s) and leader are inextricably bound together in the transformation process
Types of Leadership as defined by James MacGregor Burns (1978):
Transformational Leadership Emphasized the difference between sources of authority includes raising the level of morality in others ; Two types of leadership: Transactional – contractual management; Transformational (transforming) – “occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (1978); Pseudotransformational – personalized leadership
Transformational leadership and Charisma
(Weber, 1947, House 1976)
– A special personality characteristic that gives a person superhuman or exceptional powers and is reserved for a few, is of divine origin, and results in the person being treated as a leader (Weber, 1947)
Charismatic Leadership Theory (House, 1976)
-Charismatic leaders act in unique ways that have specific charismatic effects on their followers
Theory of Charismatic Leadership (Shamir, House, and Arthur, 1993)
-Transforms follower’s self-concepts; tries to link identity of followers to collective identity of the organization; Forge this link by emphasizing intrinsic rewards & de-emphasizing extrinsic rewards •Express high expectations for followers •help followers gain sense of self-confidence and self-efficacy
Model of Transformational Leadership (Bass, 1985)
-Expanded and refined version of work done by Burns and House. It included: More attention to follower’s rather than leaders’ needs Suggested TL could apply to outcomes that were not positive; Described transactional and transformational leadership as a continuum
Bass (1985) Extended House’s work on Transformational Leadership by:
•Giving more attention to emotional elements & origins of charisma •Suggested charisma is a necessary but not sufficient condition for TL
TL motivates followers beyond the expected by:
1 raising consciousness about the value and importance of specific and idealized goals 2 transcending self-interest for the good of the team or organization 3 addressing higher-level needs
TL Perspective Bennis & Nanus (1985)
Four Leader Strategies in Transforming Organizations: 1 Clear vision of organization’s future state 2 TL’s social architect of organization 3 Create trust by making their position known and standing by it 4 Creatively deploy themselves through positive self-regard
TL Perspective of Kouzes & Pozner (1987, 2002)
5 Fundamental Practices: 1 Model the way 2 Inspire a shared vision 3 Challenge the Process 4 Enable others to act 5 Encourage the heart
Transformational Leadership Strengths
Broadly researched.; Intuitive appeal.; Process-focused. ; Expansive leadership view. ; Emphasizes follower.; Effectiveness.
Transformational leadership Criticism
Lacks conceptual clarity; Measurement questioned(Validity of MLQ not fully established); TL treats leadership more as a personality trait or predisposition than a behavior that can be taught; elitist and antidemocratic; Suffers from heroic leadership bias; is based primarily on qualitative data; Has the potential to be abused
Bass, B.M. (1985)
Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press
Bass, B.M. (1990)
“From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision” Organizational Dynamics
Bass, B.M. (1998)
“The ethics of transformational leadership” in J. Ciulla (ed.), Ethics: the heart of leadership Westport, CT: Praeger
Bass, B.M 1996..
.New Paradigm of Leadership: An Inquiry into Transformational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ,
Bass, B.M..and Paul Steidlmeier(1999).
“Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior.” Leadership Quarterly
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994).
Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Burns, J. M. (1978).
Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J. A. (1999).
Charismatic and transformational leaders in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-170.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. (1998).
Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
House, R. J. (1976).
A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. H. L. L. Larson (Ed.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, Il: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987).
The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007).
The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (November 01, 1993).
The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science,
Weber, M. (1947)
The theory of social and economic organizations New York: Free Press.
Yammarino, F. J. (January 01, 1993).
Transforming leadership studies: Bernard Bass’ leadership and performance beyond expectations. The Leadership Quarterly,
Authentic Leadership
Focuses on whether the leadership is genuine or “real”; New form of theory, so it is still in the formative years; Established as a theory in part due to the problems and ethical failures of our time (Enron, WorldCom, 9/11); First identified by those in transformational leadership (Bass 1990; Bass & Steidlmeier 1999; Burns, 1978; Howell & Avolio 1993); Defined using 3 different viewpoints: intrapersonal, developmental, and interpersonal; Intrapersonal – Defines authentic leadership based on the leaders’ self-concepts and how these self-concepts are related to their actions (Shamir and Eilam 2005); Developmental – Defines authentic leadership as something that can be nurtured in a leader, rather than as a fixed trait (Avolio & Gardner 2005;Gardner, Avolio & Walumbwa 2005; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson 2008); Interpersonal – Defines authentic leadership as relational, created by leaders and followers together (Eagly 2005)
Approaches to Authentic Leadership
Practical (Terry, George) & Theoretical (Avolio, Walumbwa, et al.)
Robert Terry’s Authentic Leadership Approach (1993)
Seeks to answer 2 questions: 1. What is really, really going on? 2. What are we going to do about it?; The leader tries to know and act on what is “true” in yourself, your organization, and in the word; The leader must distinguish between authentic and inauthentic actions, and then commit to authentic actions
Bill George’s Authentic Leadership Approach (2003)
Focuses on the characteristics of authentic leaders ; He holds that individuals can develop these qualities and become authentic leaders; Found 5 basic characteristics of an authentic leader (Purpose, Value, Relational, Self-Disciplined, and Act from the Heart); Authentic leaders understand their values and act toward others based on these values (he called this acting on one’s “True North”); He held that each core value had a related action: 1. Purpose/Passion 2.Values/Behavior 3.Relationships/Connectedness 4.Self-Discipline/Consistency 5. Heart/Compassion
Authentic Leadership Theoretical Approach
First publication in 2003 (Luthans & Avolio); Primary catalyst to this theory was the Gallup Leadership Institute, which was hosted by the University of Nebraska; Defined as “a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with follower, fostering positive self-development.” (Walumbwa et al. 2008)
4 basic components of authentic leadership (theoretical):
self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency
Authentic Leadership Strengths:
Fills a need for trustworthy leadership in society; Provides broad guidelines for individuals who want to become authentic leaders; Has an explicit moral dimension; Emphasizes that authentic values and behaviors can be developed in leaders over time; Can be measured using the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ)
Authentic Leadership Criticisms:
The concepts and ideas presented in the practical approaches of George & Terry are not fully substantiated; The moral component not fully explained; Researchers have questioned whether positive psychological capacities should be included as components; It is not clear how the theory results in positive organizational outcomes.
Avolio, B.J. & Gardner, W.L. (2005)
“Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership” Leadership Quarterly.
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., & Weber, T.J. (2009)
“Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions” Annual Review of Psychology
Avolio, B.J., & F.O. Walumbwa (eds.)
Authentic leadership theory and practice: origins, effects, and development Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Eagly, A.H. (2005)
“Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?” Leadership Quarterly
Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May D.R., & Walumbwa, F.O. (2005)
“‘Can you see the real me?’ A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development Leadership Quarterly
George, B. (2003)
Authentic leadership: rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
George, B. & Sims, P. (2007)
True North: discover your authentic leadership San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Luthans, F. & Avolio, B.J. (2003)
“Authentic leadership development” in K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (eds.) Positive organizational scholarship San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Shamir, B. & Eilam, G. (2005)
“‘What’s your story?: a life-stories approach to authentic leadership development'” Leadership Quarterly
Terry, R.W. (1993)
Authentic Leadership: courage in action San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J. Gardner, W.L, Wernsing, T.S., & Peterson, S.J (2008)
“Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure” Journal of Management
•Historical Perspective of Team Leadership
(McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000; Porter & Beyerlein 2000)
Major Shifts in team leadership research
Shift in team leadership research in 1996 (Mankin, Cohen, & Bikson 1996); Shift identified in research (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt 2005); Since 1996, team leadership became more complex (focused on more variables than simply team performance)
Critical factor in success of organizational teams
– understand role of leadership in teams: Ensure team success & avoid team failure; Functions a leader must perform; Team leadership capacity – Shared or distributed leadership & Encompasses entire team; Model provides leader or designated team member with a mental road map to help Diagnose team problems, andTake appropriate action to correct team problems
Hill’s Team Leadership Decision #1
(Should I monitor the team or take action?)
Hill’s Team Leadership Decision #2
(Should I intervene to meet task or relational needs?)
Hill’s Team Leadership Decision #3
(Should I intervene internally or externally?)
Influences team effectiveness through four sets of processes (Zaccaro et al., 2001)
1 Cognitive – Facilitates team’s understanding of problems confronting them 2 Motivational – Helps team become cohesive & capable by setting high performance standards & helping team to achieve them 3 Affective – Assists team in handling stressful circumstances by providing clear goals, assignments, & strategies 4 Integrative – Helps coordinate team’s activities through matching member roles, clear performance strategies, feedback, & adapting to environmental changes
Zaccaro et. al.’s Team Leadership Steps:
1st – Leader engages leader mediation process 2nd – Determining exact intervention needed 3rd – Determine action needed or which level to intervene 4th – Decide to intervene at any or all 3 levels
Team Leadership Strengths
Provides answers to what constitutes excellent teams; Provides a cognitive guide that assists leaders in designing and maintaining effective teams; Recognizes the changing role of leaders and followers in organizations; Can be used as a tool in group leader selection
Team Leadership Criticisms
Complete model has not been totally supported or tested; May not be practical as the model is complex and doesn’t provide easy answers for difficult leader decisions; Fails to provide much guidance for handling everyday interactions and complications of team management; More focus required on how to teach and provide skill development in areas of diagnosis and action taking
Barge, J.K. (1996)
“Leadership skills and the dialectics of leadership in group decision making.” In R.Y Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (eds.) Communication and group decision making (2nd ed) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Hackman, J.R. & Walton R.E. (1986)
“leading groups in organizations.” In P.S. Goodman & Associates (eds.) Designing effective work groups San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson M., Jundt, D. (2005)
“Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models” Annual Review of Psychology
Ilgen, D.R., Major, D.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., & Sego, D.J. (1993)
“Team research in the 1990’s” in M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (eds.) Leadership theory and research: perspectives and directions San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Larson, C.E., & LaFasto, F.M.J. (1989)
Teamwork” What must go right/what can go wrong Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mankin, D., Cohen, S.G. & Bikson, T.K. (1996).
Teams and technology Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J.L. (2000)
“The study of groups: past, present, and future.” Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., & Marks, M.A. (2001).
“Team Leadership” Leadership Quarterly.
Psychodynamic Approach
The approach consists of several different ways of looking at leadership, and there is no single model or theory.; One fundamental concept underlies this approach: personality; important: personality types – various personality types are better suited to leadership positions or situations; Function of leader – To become aware of their own personality type and the personalities of followers
Underlying assumptions of the Psychodynamic Approach
1 Personality characteristics of individuals are deeply ingrained and virtually impossible to change in any significant way 2 People have motives & feelings that are unconscious 3 Person’s behavior results from observable actions, responses AND from emotional effects of past experience
Key Influencers of Psychodynamic Approach
Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Abraham Zaleznik, & Michael Maccoby
Sigmund Freud
– Developed psychoanalysis in the early 20th century – Created what are known as the talking therapies – Believed that personality is a typical or regular way in which people relate to the world; there is a core personality, but values, attitudes, and beliefs are overlaid on the core. – Highly criticized over time, yet developed more fully today through his legacies.
Carl Jung
– A disciple of Freud, he developed his own body of psychological writings. Together, the work of the two men is the basis of the psychodynamic approach to leadership. -Observed predictable human behavior and landed on four dimensions important in assessing personality
Abraham Zaleznik
– A leading proponent of the psychodynamic approach to leadership – Management professor at Harvard University
Michael Maccoby
– Combined anthropological and psychoanalytical training – Has written on the productive narcissist as visionary leader- Looked at Fromm’s social character to see leadership in terms of the psychology of followers – Argues that there has been a shift from a bureaucratic social character to a more interactive one
Types of Psychodynamic Approaches:
Transactional Analysis (Berne), Freudian Types, Jungian Types, etc.
Transactional Analysis by Berne
– “a unified system of individual and social psychiatry.” – has not been directly applied to leadership. -Consists of three ego states—parent, adult, and child – Not the same as personality – Effective leadership and followership depend on two or more people operating in the adult stage.
Sigmund Freud & Personality Types
Three personality types 1Erotic 2Obsessive 3Narcissist (Additional type (Eric Fromm) Marketing)
5 key elements to productiveness (Freudian)
1 Free and not dependent 2 Guided by reason 3 Active or proactive 4 Understands his/her own situation 5 Has a purpose in life
Carl Jung’s Classification of Types:
Extraversion versus Introversion: if person prefers to derive energy externally or internally; Sensing versus Intuitive: if person prefers to gather information in a precise or insightful way; Thinking versus Feeling: if person prefers to make decisions rationally or subjectively; Judging versus Perceiving: if person prefers to live in an organized or spontaneous way
Combinations of the 4 Jungian dimensions:
Kroeger & Theusen (2002)
developed a matrix showing how leaders should deal with subordinates of the same or different dimensions (based on Jung’s personality types)
Psychodynamic Approach Strengths
Results in an analysis of the relationship between a leader and a follower; Is based on a search for universal truth; Emphasizes the leader’s need for insight; Discourages manipulative techniques in leadership
Psychodynamic Approach Criticisms
Based on the psychology of the abnormal rather than the normal; The MBTI may have reliability or validity problems; TA has limitations as there is no standardized assessment – each person evaluates own ego states; Focuses primarily on personalities of leader & followers that dictate nature of relationship between them; Rejection of notion that emotional reactions occur toward leaders, followers & coworkers, and that those reactions arise from predispositions in individuals; Does not lend itself to traditional training paradigm
Berne, E. (1961)
Transactional analysis in psychotherapy. New York: Grove.
Freud, S. (1938)
The basic writings of Sigmund Freud (A.A. Brill, ed.) New York: Modern Library.
Fromm, E. (1947)
Man for himself. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Jung, C.G. (1923)
Psychological types. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jung, C.G. (1961)
Memories, dreams, and reflections New York: Vintage
Kroeger, O., & Theusen, J.M. (2002)
Type talk at work New York: Dell.
Maccoby, M. (1981)
The leader: a new face for American management New York: Ballantine.
Maccoby, M. (2003)
The productive narcissist: the promise and peril of visionary leadership. New York: Broadway.
Maslow, A. (1998)
Maslow on management. New York: Wiley
Zaleznik, A. (1977)
“Managers and leaders: are they different?” Harvard Business Review
Women & Leadership
Primarily concerned with two research questions: 1 “Are there leadership style and effectiveness differences between women and men?” 2 “Why are women underrepresented in elite leadership roles?”
Gender and Leadership Styles:
– Mainstream researchers such as (Book 2000, Helgesen 1990, Rosener) assert that there are differences in leadership styles between men and women, and that women are more effective in modern society – Other academic researchers have a greater diversity in their views; in fact, many argue that gender has little or no relationship to leadership style and effectiveness (Dobbins & Platz 1986, van Engen, Leeden, & Willemsen 2001, Powell 1990) – Eagly & Johnson (1990) found that the only robust gender difference found across settings was that women led in a more democratic, or participative, manner than men – Another study by Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen (2003) found small but robust differences between female and male leaders on leadership style. They found that women tend to be more transformational than men.
Gender and Leadership Effectiveness:
– In a meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of female and male leaders, men and women were equally effective leaders, overall, but there were gender differences such that women and men were more effective in leadership roles that were congruent with their gender (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani 1995) – The same research found that women experience slight disadvantages when they are in masculine leader roles, whereas roles that are more feminine offer them some advantages – Additionally, women exceed men in the use of democratic or participatory styles, and they are more likely to use transformational leadership behaviors and contingent reward
The glass ceiling
– Introduced in 1986 (in Wall Street Journal) as a metaphor to describe the limits women faced in corporate America
Alice Eagly and Linda Carli expanded the “glass ceiling” metaphor to include three explanations:
1 Human capital differences 2 Prejudice 3 Gender Differences
Leadership Labyrinth
Women are “navigating” the it by changing role definitions, negotiating, starting their own ventures, becoming transformational leaders
Women & Leadership Studies Strengths:
– A consideration of the effects of gender on leadership has important implications for a comprehensive understanding of leadership – Research on gender and leadership is productive in both dispelling myths about the gender gap and shining light on aspects of the gender barriers that are difficult to see and therefore are often overlooked. – Understanding the many components of the labyrinth will give us the tools necessary to c combat this inequality from many perspectives, including individual, interpersonal, organizational, and societal approaches.
Women & Leadership Studies Criticisms:
– Issues of gender and leadership can be subsumed under a more general topic of leadership and diversity. – Much of the research examining gender in leadership has taken place in Western contexts.
Book, E.W. (2000)
Why the best man for the job is a woman New York: HarperCollins.
Dobbins, G.H. & Platz, S.J. (1986)
“Sex differences in leadership: how real are they?” Academy of Management Review
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L. (2007)
Through the labyrinth: the truth about how women become leaders Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., & van Engen, M. (2003)
“Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men” Psychological Bulletin
Powell, G.N. (1999)
“Reflections on the glass ceiling: recent trends and future prospects” in G.N. Powell (ed.) Handbook of gender and work Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosener, J. (1995)
America’s competitive secret: utilizing women as a management strategy New York: Oxford University Press.
van Engen, M.L., Leeden, R., van der, & Willemsen, T.M. (2001)
“Gender, context and leadership styles: a field study” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Culture & Leadership
– focuses on a collection of related ideas rather than a single unified theory
Five cross-cultural competencies for Leaders (Adler & Bartholomew, 1992)
1.Understand business, political, & cultural environments worldwide 2.Learn the perspectives, tastes, trends & technologies of many cultures 3.Be able to work simultaneously with people from many cultures 4.Be able to adapt to living & communicating in other cultures 5.Need to learn to relate to people from other cultures from a position of equality rather than superiority
Global leaders need to –
-be skilled in creating transcultural visions -develop communication competencies to implement these visions -learn beliefs, values, rules, norms, symbols & traditions that are common to a group of people -shared qualities of a group that make them unique -is the way of life, customs, & scripts of a group of people
– approach or system that takes more than one culture into account
– existence of different cultures or ethnicities within a group or organization
Ethnocentrism –
-The tendency for individuals to place their own group (ethnic, racial, or cultural) at the center of their observations of the world -Perception that one’s own culture is better or more natural than other cultures -Is a universal tendency and each of us is ethnocentric to some degree
Prejudice –
-a largely fixed attitude, belief, or emotion held by an individual about another individual or group
-Hall (1976) reported that a primary characteristic of cultures is degree of focus
– on the individual (individualistic) or on the group (collectivistic)
-Trompenaars (1994) classified an organizations culture into 2 dimensions:
§Egalitarian-hierarchical – degree to which cultures exhibit shared power vs. hierarchical power §Person-task orientation – extent to which cultures emphasize human interaction vs. focusing on tasks
-Hofstede (1980, 2001)
benchmark research identified 5 major dimensions on which cultures differ
vHouse et al’s (2004) research on the relationship between culture and leadership
resulted in the GLOBE research program
vGLOBE research program nine cultural dimensions
-Uncertainty Avoidance -Power Distance -Institutional Collectivism: -In-Group Collectivism: -Gender Egalitarianism: -Assertiveness: -Future Orientation: -Performance Orientation: -Humane Orientation:
Cultural Leadership Strengths
v GLOBE study is a major study and, to date, the only study to analyze how leadership is viewed by cultures in all parts of the world. vFindings from GLOBE are valuable because they emerge from a well-developed quantitative research design.vGLOBE studies provide a classification of cultural dimensions that is more expansive than the commonly used Hofstede classification system.vGLOBE studies provide useful information about what is universally accepted as good and bad leadership.vThe study of culture and leadership underscores the complexity of the leadership process and how it is influenced by culture.
Cultural Leadership Criticisms:
vResearch does not provide a clear set of assumptions and propositions that can form a single theory about the way culture relates to leadership or influences the leadership process. vLabels and definitions of cultural dimensions and leadership behaviors are somewhat vague, difficult at times to interpret or fully comprehend the findings about culture and leadership. vThis study focuses on what people perceive to be leadership and ignores a large body of research that frames leadership in terms of what leaders do (e.g., transformational leadership, path-goal theory, skills approach). vResearchers in the GLOBE study measured leadership with subscales that represented a very broad range of behaviors and as a result compromised the precision and validity of the leadership measures.vThe GLOBE studies tend to isolate a set of attributes that are characteristic of effective leaders without considering the influence of the situational effects.
Adler, N.J. & Bartholomew, S. (1992)
“Managing globally competent people” Academy of Management Executive.
Hall, E.T. (1976)
Beyond Culture New York: Doubleday
Hofstede, G. (1980)
Culture’s consequences: international differences in work related values Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001)
Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. Gupta, V., & Associates (eds) (2004)
Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
McClelland, D.C. (1961)
The achieving society Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand
Trompenaars, F. (1994)
Riding the waves of culture New York: Irwin.
Ethical Leadership
One of the earliest writings that specifically focused on leadership ethics appeared as recently as 1996 – The earliest research was a loose group of papers brought together by the W.K. Kellogg – Foundation, and the works were published in Ethics, the Heart of Leadership (Ciulla 1998) – Key works exploring ethical leadership are Aronson, 2001; Ciulla 2001,2003; Johnson 2005; Kanungo 2001; Trevino, Brown, & Hartman 2003. – Northouse identifies respect, service, justice, honesty, and community as key principles of ethical leadership – Ethical leadership dates back to Plato and Aristotle – It is concerned with the kinds of values and morals an individual or society finds desirable and appropriate – is concerned with what leaders do and who they are – is central to leadership because of the nature of the process of influence, the need to engage followers in accomplishing mutual goals, and the impact leaders have on the organization’s values
Heifetz’s Ethical Perspective:
Based on analysis of world leaders – leadership involves the use of authority to help followers deal with the conflicting values that emerge in rapidly changing work environments and social cultures. – He speaks directly to the values of workers.
Burn’s Ethical Perspective:
– transformational leadership places a strong emphasis on follower’s needs, values, and morals – His emphasis on transformational leadership is different than most approaches because it clearly states that leadership has a moral dimension – is rooted in the works of Maslow, Rokeach, and Kohlberg.
Greenleaf’s Ethical Perspective
– In the early 1970’s, Robert Greenleaf developed a somewhat paradoxical approach to leadership called servant leadership. – This form of leadership had altruistic ethical overtones, and emphasized that leaders should be attentive to the concerns of their followers and should empathize with them, care for them, and nuture them. – was inspired by Herman Hesse’s 1956 novel, The Journey to the East – Servant leadership has not been uniformly defined, and there are several authors that are writing in this field.
Ethical Leadership Strengths
It provides a body of timely research on ethical items (needed due to many ethical failures) – There is a lack of an ethical dimension in many leadership theories (with the exception of authentic and transformational leadership, etc.) – The body of research highlights several principles that are important to the development of ethical leadership
Ethical Leadership Criticisms
It is in the early stages of development, and therefore it lacks a strong body of traditional research findings to substantiate it – Leadership ethics today relies primarily on the writings of just a few people who have written essays and texts that are strongly influenced by their personal opinions about he nature of leadership ethics and their worldviews.
Aronson, E. (2001)
“Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences.
Avolio, B.J. & Locke, E.E. (2002).
“Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation: altruism versus egoism.” Leadership Quarterly.
Avolio, B.J, Walumbwa, F.O., & Weber, T.J. (2009)
“Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions.” Annual Review of Psychology.
Bass, B.M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999)
“Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior.” Leadership Quarterly.
Ciulla, J.B. (1998)
Ethics, the heart of leadership Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Ciulla, J.B. (2001)
“Carving leaders from the warped wood of humanity.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Ciulla, J.B. (2003)
The ethics of leadership Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Covey, S.R. (1990)
Principle-centered leadership New York: Fireside.
Hesse, H. (1956)
The Journey to the East London: P.Owen
Johnson, C.R. (2005)
Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Kanungo, R.N. (2001)
“Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences.
Trevino, L.K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L.P. (2003)
“A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: perceptions from inside the outside the executive suite” Human Relations.
Reasons for Accepting Change
oLegitimate need oCoercive power oTrust in leadership oProactive tactics of influence
Resistance to Change
oLack of trust oBelief that change not necessary oBelief that change is not feasible oEconomic threats oRelative high cost oFear of personal failure oLoss of status and power oThreat to values and ideals oResentment of interference
“Active resistance indicates the presence of strong values and emotions that could serve as a source of commitment for opponents who are converted to supporters”
(Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Jick, 1993; Maurer, 1996).
Force-Field Model (Lewin, 1951)
Unfreezing – Change – Refreezing
Stages in Reaction to Change (Gebert, Boerner, & Lanwehr, 2003; Krause, 2004; Jick, 1993; Woodward & Bucholz, 1987) Four Stages of Change
1 Denial—The necessity of change is denied 2 Anger—Resistance and assignment of blame 3 Mourning—Ceasing of denial, grief for loss 4 Adaptation—Acceptance, moving on
Practical literature fails to meet expectations (Burke, 2002)
Reaction to change is based on personal confidence
Competing hypotheses on effects of experiencing repeated, difficult change (Jick, 1993)
Inoculation—better prepared to change again w/o prolonged period of adjustment & Loss of Resilience—vulnerability to adverse effects of subsequent change
Types of Organizational Change
1 Attitude-Centered Approach 2 Role Center Approach 3 Technological Change 4 Competitive-Strategy Approach 5 Internal Organizational Changes 6 Generic/Popular Change 7 Implementing Change without Careful Diagnosis
Ways to Influence Culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1992; Schein, 1992, 2004; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Tsui, Zhang, Wang, Xiu, & Lou, 2006)
– Leadership Behavior – Reactions to crises – Programs, Systems, Structures, and Cultural Forms – Design of Organization Structures and Facilities – Cultural Forms – Culture and Growth Stages of Organizations – New Organizations – Established Organizations
Desirable Characteristics of a Vision (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1996; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Nanus, 1992; Tichy and Devanna, 1986)
– Simple and idealistic – Picture of a desirable future – Appeals to values, hopes, ideals of org. members – Emphasizes distant ideological objectives – Challenging but realistic – Meaningful and credible – Adheres to basic assumptions of importance for organization – Focused enough to guide decisions/actions – General enough to allow for initiative and creativity – Simple enough to communicate clearly in 5 minutes or less
Mission Statement
Purpose of the organization in terms of types of activities to be performed for constituents/customers
What the organization does and why it is worthwhile ; Life and vibrancy to the mission; Vision inspires; Vision is flexible
Value Statement
List of key values and ideological themes; Provide a glimpse of possible future
Summary statements that communicate values in simple terms
Strategic Objectives
Outcomes to be achieved
Project Objectives
Outcomes to be achieved in specific project; Signal successful completion of specific activity; Economic outcomes, ideological outcomes or both
Effective Vision Statements
Expressed in form of a performance objective or value statement (Larwood, Falbe, Kriger, & Miessing, 1995); Cast by highly transformational leaders (Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998)
Guidelines for vision statements (Conger, 1989; Kotter, 1996; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Mumford & Strange, 2002; Nadler, Shaw, Walton, & Associates, 1995; Nanus, 1992; Peters, 1987; Peters & Austin, 1985; Strange & Mumford, 2005; Tichy & Devanna, 1986; Trice & Beyer, 1993)
– Involve key stakeholders – Identify shared values and ideals – Identify strategic objectives with wide appeal – Identify relevant elements in the old ideology – Link the vision to follower competencies and prior achievements – Continually assess and refine the vision – Circular Process
Implementing Change
Not always initiated by top management (Beer, 1988; Belgard, Fisher, & Rayner, 1988)
Top management responsibilities for implementing change
– Formulate integrating vision & general strategy – Build coalition of supports – Guide & coordinate the process of implementation – Provide encouragement, support, resources
Pace and Sequence of Change
Research favors gradual approach (Beer, 1988; Hinings & Greenwood, 1988; Pettigrew, Ferlie, & McKee, 1992) – Slow implementation brings success for major change (Amis, Slack, Hinings, 2004) – Change interdependent subunits simultaneously – Change semi-autonomous subunits more feasible on small scale by subunit – Successful change often requires change in organization structure
Guidelines for leading change (Beer, 1988; Connor, 1995; Jick, 1993; Kotter, 1996; Nadler et al., 1995; Pettigrew & Whipp, 1991; Tichy & Devanna, 1986)
– Create a sense of urgency about the need for change – Communicate a clear vision of the benefits to be gained from change – Identify people whose support is essential and any likely resistance – Build a broad coalition to support the change – Use task forces to guide the implementation of changes – Fill key positions with competent change agents – Empower competent people to help plan and implement change – Make dramatic, symbolic changes that affect the work – Prepare people for change by explaining how it will affect them – Help people deal with the stress and difficulties of major change – Provide opportunities for early successes to build confidence (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) – Monitor the progress of change and make any necessary adjustments – Keep people informed about the progress of change – Demonstrate continued optimism and commitment to the change
Appreciative Inquiry “4-D” Cycle
Discovery “What gives life?; Dream “What might be?” ; Design “How can it be?” ; Destiny “What will be?”
Learning organizations
Learns rapidly and uses knowledge to become more effective (Crossan et al., 1999; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991; Levitt & March, 1988) – Learning, innovation, experimentation, flexibility, and initiative embedded in culture (Baer & Frese, 2003; James, 2002; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998)
Guidelines for Increasing Learning and Innovation
Leaders at all levels help create conditions for learning and innovation (Vera & Crossan, 2004) through Exploration—acquisition of knowledge &Exploitation—application of knowledge
Argyris, C. (1993).
Knowledge for action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bradford, D. L. & Burke, W. W. (Eds.). (2005).
Reinventing organization development: New approaches to change in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Beach, L. R. (2006).
Leadership and the art of change: A practical guide to organizational transformation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooperrider, David L. (2008)
Appreciative inquiry handbook : For leaders of change. Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
De Caluwe, L. & Vermaak, H. (2003).
Learning to change: A guide for organization change agents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Poole, M. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (Eds.). (2004).
Handbook of organizational change and innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.