Instruction
1. Use at least 3 scientific references to support your answers. Follow APAstyle when referencing.
2. All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, doublespaced) font. No pictures containing text will be accepted
3. Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from
students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO
marks
Reference Source: Book-Ch:-13 & 14
Critical Thinking:-Leadership
Assignment Question(s):
1. Define leadership and explain the difference between being a manager and being a leader.
Which boss would you rather have? Why?
2. The leadership style theories, which you have learned in the chapter 13 & 14 based on
that determine which leadership styles are suitable for managers who are managing
workers (both Blue collar & White collar) in the organizations.
3. Describe directive leadership and supportive leadership, Explain their importance.
4. How organizations are benefitted from supportive leadership? Give an example of such
organization which you might have come across.
[Write the answer on the next page]
Answer:
1.
2.
3.
.
leaders make things happen
13 Leadership Essentials
the key point
Not all managers are leaders and not all leaders are managers. In a managerial position, being a
leader requires understanding how to adapt one’s management style to the situation to generate
willing and effective followership. As shown in the Zappos example, the most successful leaders are
those who are able to generate strong cultures in which employees work together to get things done.
chapter at a glance
What Is Leadership?
What Are Situational Contingency Approaches to Leadership?
What Are Follower-Centered Approaches to Leadership?
What Are Inspirational and Relational Leadership Perspectives?
ETHICS IN OB
CEO PAY—IS IT EXCESSIVE?
FINDING THE LEADER IN YOU
LOOKING FOR LEADER MATCH AT GOOGLE
OB IN POPULAR CULTURE
what’s inside?
PATH-GOAL AND REMEMBER THE TITANS
RESEARCH INSIGHT
PARTICIPATORY LEADERSHIP AND PEACE
291
292 13 Leadership Essentials
Leadership
LEARNING ROADMAP
Managers versus Leaders / Trait Leadership Perspectives /
Behavioral Leadership Perspectives
Most people assume that anyone in management, particularly the CEO, is a leader.
Currently, however, controversy has arisen over this assumption. We can all think
of examples where managers do not perform much, if any, leadership, as well as
instances where leadership is performed by people who are not in management.
Researchers have even argued that failure to clearly recognize this difference is a
violation of “truth in advertising” because many studies labeled “leadership” may
actually be about “management.”1
Managers versus Leaders
• Leadership is the
process of influencing
others and the process of
facilitating individual and
collective efforts to
accomplish shared
objectives.
A key way of differentiating between managers and leaders is to argue that the
role of management is to promote stability or to enable the organization to run
smoothly, whereas the role of leadership is to promote adaptive or useful
changes.2 Persons in managerial positions could be involved with both management and leadership activities, or they could emphasize one activity at the
expense of the other. Both management and leadership are needed, however,
and if managers do not assume responsibility for both, then they should ensure
that someone else handles the neglected activity. The point is that when we discuss leadership, we do not assume it is identical to management.
For our purposes, we treat leadership as the process of influencing others
to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the
process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.3 Leadership appears in two forms: (1) formal leadership, which is exerted
by persons appointed or elected to positions of formal authority in organizations,
and (2) informal leadership, which is exerted by persons who become influential
because they have special skills that meet the needs of others. Although both
types are important in organizations, this chapter will emphasize formal leadership; informal leadership will be addressed in the next chapter.4
The leadership literature is vast—thousands of studies at last count—and
consists of numerous approaches.5 We have grouped these approaches into two
chapters: Leadership Essentials, Chapter 13, and Leadership Challenges and Organizational Change, Chapter 14. The present chapter focuses on trait and behavioral
Change Brings Out the Leader
in Us
Avon CEO Andrea Jung feels “there is a big difference
between being a leader and being a manager.” That
difference lies in being flexible and willing to change.
According to Jung, if you have difficulty with change you
will have a harder time being successful as a leader.
Leadership 293
theory perspectives, cognitive and symbolic leadership perspectives, and transformational and charismatic leadership approaches. Chapter 14 deals with such
leadership challenges as how to be a moral leader, how to share leadership, how
to lead across cultures, how to be a strategic leader of major units, and, of course,
how to lead change. Many of the perspectives in each chapter include several
models. Although each of these models may be useful to you in a given work
setting, we invite you to mix and match them as necessary in your setting, just as
we did earlier with the motivational models discussed in Chapter 5.
Trait Leadership Perspectives
For over a century, scholars have attempted to identify the key characteristics that
separate leaders from nonleaders. Much of this work stressed traits. Trait perspectives assume that traits play a central role in differentiating between leaders
and nonleaders in that leaders must have the “right stuff.”6 The great person-trait
approach reflects the attempt to use traits to separate leaders from nonleaders.
This list of possible traits identified only became longer as researchers focused on
the leadership traits linked to successful leadership and organizational performance. Unfortunately, few of the same traits were identified across studies. Part
of the problem involved inadequate theory, poor measurement of traits, and the
confusion between managing and leading.
Fortunately, recent research has yielded promising results. A number of traits
have been found that help identify important leadership strengths, as outlined in
Figure 13.1. As it turns out, most of these traits also tend to predict leadership
outcomes.7
Key traits of leaders include ambition, motivation, honesty, self-confidence,
and a high need for achievement. They crave power not as an end in itself but as
a means to achieve a vision or desired goals. At the same time, they must have
enough emotional maturity to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses, and
have to be oriented toward self-improvement. Furthermore, to be trusted, they
must have authenticity; without trust, they cannot hope to maintain the loyalty of
their followers. Leaders are not easily discouraged, and they stick to a chosen
• Trait perspectives
assume that traits play a
central role in
differentiating between
leaders and nonleaders or
in predicting leader or
organizational outcomes.
Energy and adjustment or stress tolerance: Physical vitality and emotional resilience
Prosocial power motivation: A high need for power exercised primarily for the benefit
of others
Achievement orientation: Need for achievement, desire to excel, drive to success,
willingness to assume responsibility, concern for task objectives
Emotional maturity: Well-adjusted, does not suffer from severe psychological disorders
Self-confidence: General confidence in self and in the ability to perform the job of a leader
Integrity: Behavior consistent with espoused values; honest, ethical, trustworthy
Perseverance or tenacity: Ability to overcome obstacles; strength of will
Cognitive ability, intelligence, social intelligence: Ability to gather, integrate, and
interpret information; intelligence, understanding of social setting
Task-relevant knowledge: Knowledge about the company, industry, and technical aspects
Flexibility: Ability to respond appropriately to changes in the setting
Positive Impact on Leadership Success
Figure 13.1 Traits with
positive implications for
successful leadership.
294 13 Leadership Essentials
course of action as they push toward goal accomplishment. At the same time,
they must be able to deal with the large amount of information they receive on a
regular basis. They do not need to be brilliant, but usually exhibit above-average
intelligence. In addition, leaders have a good understanding of their social setting
and possess extensive knowledge concerning their industry, firm, and job.
Even with these traits, however, the individual still needs to be engaged. To lead
is to influence others, and so we turn to the question of how a leader should act.
Behavioral Leadership Perspectives
• The behavioral
perspective assumes that
leadership is central to
performance and other
outcomes.
How should managerial leaders act toward subordinates? The behavioral perspective assumes that leadership is central to performance and other outcomes.
However, instead of underlying traits, behaviors are considered. Two classic
research programs—at the University of Michigan and at the Ohio State University—provide useful insights into leadership behaviors.
Michigan Studies In the late 1940s, researchers at the University of Michigan
sought to identify the leadership pattern that results in effective performance.
From interviews of high- and low-performing groups in different organizations,
the researchers derived two basic forms of leader behaviors: employee-centered
and production-centered. Employee-centered supervisors are those who place
strong emphasis on their subordinates’ welfare. In contrast, production-centered
supervisors are more concerned with getting the work done. In general, employeecentered supervisors were found to have more productive workgroups than did
the production-centered supervisors.8
These behaviors are generally viewed on a continuum, with employeecentered supervisors at one end and production-centered supervisors at the other.
Sometimes, the more general terms human-relations oriented and task oriented
are used to describe these alternative leader behaviors.
• A leader high in
consideration is sensitive
to people’s feelings.
• A leader high in
initiating structure is
concerned with spelling
out the task requirements
and clarifying aspects of
the work agenda.
• Leadership grid is an
approach that uses a grid
that places concern for
production on the horizontal
axis and concern for people
on the vertical axis.
Ohio State Studies At about the same time as the Michigan studies, an important leadership research program began at the Ohio State University. A questionnaire
was administered in both industrial and military settings to measure subordinates’
perceptions of their superiors’ leadership behavior. The researchers identified two
dimensions similar to those found in the Michigan studies: consideration and
initiating structure.9 A highly considerate leader was found to be one who is
sensitive to people’s feelings and, much like the employee-centered leader, tries
to make things pleasant for his or her followers. In contrast, a leader high in initiating structure was found to be more concerned with defining task requirements
and other aspects of the work agenda; he or she might be seen as similar to a
production-centered supervisor. These dimensions are related to what people
sometimes refer to as socioemotional and task leadership, respectively.
At first, the Ohio State researchers believed that a leader high in consideration, or socioemotional warmth, would have more highly satisfied or better performing subordinates. Later results suggested, however, that many individuals in
leadership positions should be high in both consideration and initiating structure.
This dual emphasis is reflected in the leadership grid approach.
The Leadership Grid Robert Blake and Jane Mouton developed the leadership
grid approach based on extensions of the Ohio State dimensions. Leadership grid
results are plotted on a nine-position grid that places concern for production on
Leadership 295
the horizontal axis and concern for people on the vertical axis, where 1 is minimum concern and 9 is maximum concern. As an example, those with a 1/9
style—low concern for production and high concern for people—are termed
“country club management.” They do not emphasize task accomplishment but
stress the attitudes, feelings, and social needs of people.10
Similarly, leaders with a 1/1 style—low concern for both production and
people—are termed “impoverished,” while a 5/5 style is labeled “middle of the
road.” A 9/1 leader—high concern for production and low concern for people—
RESEARCH INSIGHT
Participatory Leadership and Peace
In an unusual cross-cultural organizational behavior study, Gretchen Spreitzer
examined the link between business leadership practices and indicators of
peace in nations. She found that earlier research suggested that peaceful
societies had (1) open and egalitarian decision making and (2) social control
processes that limit the use of coercive power. These two characteristics are
the hallmarks of participatory systems that empower people in the collective.
Spreitzer reasoned that business firms can provide open egalitarian decisions
by stressing participative leadership and empowerment.
Spreitzer recognized that broad cultural factors could also be important.
The degree to which the culture is future oriented and power distance
appeared relevant. And she reasoned that she needed specific measures of peace. She selected two
major indicators: (1) the level of corruption and (2) the level of unrest. The measure of unrest was a
combined measure of political instability, armed conflict, social unrest, and international disputes. While
she found a large leadership database that directly measured participative leadership, she developed
the measures of empowerment from another apparently unrelated survey. Two items appeared relevant: the decision freedom individuals reported (decision freedom), and the degree to which they felt
they had to comply with their boss regardless of whether they agreed with an order (compliance).
You can schematically think of this research in
Cultural Factors
terms of the following model.
Future Orientation
As one might expect with exploratory research,
Power Distance
the findings support most of her hypotheses but
not all. Participative leadership was related to less
Peace
corruption and less unrest, as was the futureParticipative Leadership
Corruption
Unrest
oriented aspect of culture. Regarding empowerment, there were mixed results; decision freedom
was linked to less corruption and unrest, but the
Empowerment
Decision Freedom
compliance measure was only linked to more
Compliance
unrest.
Do the Research Do you agree that when business used participatory leadership, it legitimated the
democratically based style and increased the opportunity for individuals to express their voice? What other
research could be done to determine the link between leadership and peace?11
Source: Gretchen Spreitzer, “Giving Peace a Chance: Organizational Leadership, Empowerment, and Peace,” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 28 (2007), pp. 1077–1095.
296 13 Leadership Essentials
has a “task management” style. Finally, a 9/9 leader, high on both dimensions, is
considered to have a “team management” style; this is the ideal leader in Blake
and Mouton’s framework.
Cross-Cultural Implications It is important to consider whether the findings of
the Michigan, Ohio State, and grid studies transfer across national boundaries. Some
research in the United States, Britain, Hong Kong, and Japan shows that the behaviors must be carried out in different ways in alternative cultures. For instance, British
leaders are seen as considerate if they show subordinates how to use equipment,
whereas in Japan the highly considerate leader helps subordinates with personal
problems.12 We will see this pattern again as we discuss other theories. The concept
seems to transfer across boundaries, but the actual behaviors differ. Sometimes the
differences are slight, but in other cases they are not. Even subtle differences in the
leader’s situation can make a significant difference in precisely the type of behavior
needed for success. Successful leaders adjust their influence attempts to the situation.
Situational Contingency Leadership
LEARNING ROADMAP Fiedler’s Leadership Contingency View / Path-Goal View of Leadership /
Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership Model / Substitutes for Leadership
• Prosocial power
motivation is power
oriented toward benefiting
others.
The trait and behavioral perspectives assume that leadership, by itself, would
have a strong impact on outcomes. Another development in leadership thinking
has recognized, however, that leader traits and behaviors can act in conjunction
with situational contingencies—other important aspects of the leadership situation—to predict outcomes. Traits are enhanced by their relevance to the leader’s
situational contingencies.13 For example, achievement motivation should be most
effective for challenging tasks that require initiative and the assumption of personal responsibility for success. Leader flexibility should be most predictive in
unstable environments or when leaders lead different people over time.
Prosocial power motivation, or power oriented toward benefiting others,
is likely to be most important in situations where decision implementation
requires lots of persuasion and social influence. “Strong” or “weak” situations also
make a difference. An example of a strong situation is a highly formal organization with lots of rules, procedures, and policies. An example of a weak situation
is one that is ambiguous and unstructured. In a strong situation traits will have
less impact than in a weaker, more unstructured situation because the leader has
less ability to influence the nature of the situation. In other words, leaders can’t
show dynamism as much when the organization restricts them.
Traits may also make themselves felt by influencing leader behaviors (e.g., a
leader high in energy engages in directive, take-charge behaviors).14 In an attempt
to isolate when particular traits and specific combinations of leader behavior and
situations are important, scholars have developed a number of situational contingency theories and models. Some of these theories emphasize traits, whereas
others deal exclusively with leader behaviors and the setting.
Fiedler’s Leadership Contingency View
Fred Fiedler’s leadership contingency view argues that team effectiveness depends
on an appropriate match between a leader’s style, essentially a trait measure, and the
Situational Contingency Leadership 297
demands of the situation.15 Specifically, Fiedler considers situational control—the
extent to which a leader can determine what his or her group is going to do—and
leader style as important in determining the outcomes of the group’s actions and
decisions.
To measure a person’s leadership style, Fiedler uses an instrument called the
least–preferred co-worker (LPC) scale. Respondents are asked to describe the
person with whom they have been able to work least well—their least preferred
co-worker, or LPC—using a series of adjectives such as the following two:
Unfriendly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
1
2
3
4
5
Pleasant ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
1
2
3
4
5
____ ____ ____
6
7
8
____ ____ ____
6
7
8
Friendly
Unpleasant
Fiedler argues that high-LPC leaders (those describing their LPC very positively) have a relationship-motivated style, whereas low-LPC leaders have a taskmotivated style. Because LPC is a style and does not change across settings, the
leaders’ actions vary depending on the degree of situational control. Specifically,
a task-motivated leader (low LPC) tends to be nondirective in high- and lowcontrol situations, and directive in those in between. A relationship-motivated
leader tends to be the opposite. Confused? Take a look at Figure 13.2 to clarify
the differences between high-LPC leaders and low-LPC leaders.
Figure 13.2 shows the task-motivated leader as being more effective when
the situation is high and low control, and the relationship-motivated leader as
being more effective when the situation is moderate control. The figure also
shows that Fiedler measures situational control with the following variables:
• Situational control is
the extent to which leaders
can determine what their
groups are going to do and
what the outcomes of their
actions are going to be.
• The least-preferred
co-worker (LPC) scale is
a measure of a person’s
leadership style based on a
description of the person
with whom respondents
have been able to work
least well.
• Leader-member relations (good/poor)—membership support for the leader
• Task structure (high/low)—spelling out the leader’s task goals, procedures,
and guidelines in the group
• Position power (strong/weak)—the leader’s task expertise and reward or
punishment authority
Task-Motivated
Leader
High-Control
Situations
Good
Leader–Member Relations
High
Task Structure
Position Power
Moderate-Control
Situations
Good
Low
Strong Weak Strong
1
2
3
Poor
Low
High
Weak
4
Low-Control
Situations
Poor
Low
Strong Weak Strong
5
6
7
RelationshipMotivated Leader
Figure 13.2 Fiedler’s situational variables and their preferred leadership styles.
Low
Weak
8
298 13 Leadership Essentials
Consider an experienced and well-trained production supervisor of a group
that is responsible for manufacturing a part for a personal computer. The leader
is highly supported by his group members and can grant raises and make hiring
and firing decisions. This supervisor has very high situational control and is operating in situation 1 in Figure 13.2. For such high-control situations, a task-oriented
leader style is predicted as the most effective. Now consider the opposite setting.
Think of the chair of a student council committee of volunteers who are unhappy
about this person being the chair. They have the low-structured task of organizing
a Parents’ Day program to improve university–parent relations. This low-control
situation also calls for a task-motivated leader who needs to behave directively to
keep the group together and focus on the task; in fact, the situation demands it.
Finally, consider a well-liked academic department chair who is in charge of
determining the final list of students who will receive departmental honors at the
end of the academic year. This is a moderate-control situation with good leader–
member relations, low-task structure, and weak position power, calling for a
relationship-motivated leader. The leader should emphasize nondirective and
considerate relationships with the faculty.
Fiedler’s Cognitive Resource Perspective Fiedler later developed a cognitive resource perspective that built on his earlier model.16 Cognitive resources are
abilities or competencies. According to this approach, whether a leader should
use directive or nondirective behavior depends on the following situational contingencies: (1) the leader’s or subordinates’ ability or competency, (2) stress,
(3) experience, and (4) group support of the leader. Cognitive resource theory is
useful because it directs us to leader or subordinate group-member ability, an
aspect not typically considered in other leadership approaches.
The theory views directiveness as most helpful for performance when the
leader is competent, relaxed, and supported. In this case, the group is ready, and
directiveness is the clearest means of communication. When the leader feels
stressed, his or her attention is diverted. In this case, experience is more important than ability. If support is low, then the group is less receptive, and the leader
has less impact. Group-member ability becomes most important when the leader
is nondirective and receives strong support from group members. If support is
weak, then task difficulty or other factors have more impact than either the leader
or the subordinates.
• In leader match
training, leaders are
trained to diagnose the
situation to match their
high and low LPC scores
with situational control.
Evaluation and Application The roots of Fiedler’s contingency approach
date back to the 1960s and have elicited both positive and negative reactions.
The biggest controversy concerns exactly what Fiedler’s LPC instrument measures. Some question Fiedler’s behavioral interpretations that link the style measure with leader behavior in all eight conditions. Furthermore, the approach
makes the most accurate predictions in situations 1 and 8 and 4 and 5; results
are less consistent in the other situations.17 Tests regarding cognitive resources
have shown mixed results.18
In terms of application, Fiedler has developed leader match training, which
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and other organizations have used. Leaders are trained to
diagnose the situation in order to “match” their LPC score. The red arrows in
Figure 13.2 suggest a “match.” In cases with no “match,” the training shows how
each of these situational control variables can be changed to obtain a match. For
instance, a leader with a low LPC and in setting 4 could change the position
Situational Contingency Leadership 299
Finding the Leader in You
LOOKING FOR LEADER MATCH AT GOOGLE
The news came as a surprise: Eric
Schmidt was out as CEO of Google,
and Larry Page was in. Schmidt had
been brought in by board of
directors in 2001 to provide “adult
supervision” to then 27-year-old
founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
For 10 years Google’s management
structure was described as something of a three-ring circus, with
co-founders Larry Page and Sergey
Brin running the business behind the
scenes, and Schmidt as the public
face. Now, the three decided, it was
time for Page to take the stage.
“For the last 10 years, we have
all been equally involved in making
decisions. This triumvirate
approach has real benefits in terms
of shared wisdom, and we will continue to discuss the big decisions
among the three of us. But we have
also agreed to clarify our individual
roles so there’s clear responsibility
and accountability at the top of the
company,” said Eric Schmidt.
The objective is to simplify the
management structure and speed
up decision making. “Larry will
now lead product development and
technology strategy, his greatest
strengths . . . and he will take
charge of our day-to-day operations
as Google’s Chief Executive
Officer,” according to Schmidt.
That leaves Sergey Brin, with
title of co-founder, to focus on
strategic projects and new products,
and Schmidt to serve as executive
chairman, working
externally on deals,
partnerships,
customers, and
government
outreach. As
described on the
official Google blog,
“We are confident
that this focus will
serve Google and
our users well in the
future.”
In many ways, Page is taking
over at an ideal time. Google’s
business is doing well, with the
company reporting revenues of
$29.3 billion, up 24 percent from
the year before and profits
soaring. But the concern isn’t for
the present; it is for the future.
As reported in Newsweek, “there
has been a gnawing sense that
Google’s best days may be
behind it.” Google is facing
tough competition from Facebook and Microsoft, and has
been losing top talent to younger
tech shops.
Page’s job is clear: Shake things
up and knock loose some new ideas.
But it’s a risky move. As reported in
Newsweek, “Page is a computer
scientist, not a business strategist.
And not all founders make great
leaders. Page is no Steve Jobs.”
Steve Jobs or not, Page is a
brilliant entrepreneur who has
been heavily involved in running
the business and gets along well
with the engineers. The question
now is whether the new leadership structure will work, and if
Google has found its match
between leader capabilities and
company needs.
power to strong and gain a “match.” Another way of getting a match is through
leader selection or placement based on LPC scores.19 For example, a low LPC
leader would be selected for a position with high situational control, as in our
earlier example of the manufacturing supervisor. A number of studies have been
designed to test this leader match training. Although they are not uniformly supportive, more than a dozen such tests have found increases in group effectiveness
following the training.20
We conclude that although unanswered questions concerning Fiedler’s contingency theory remain, especially concerning the meaning of LPC, the perspective and the leader match program have relatively strong support.21 The approach
and training program are especially useful in encouraging situational contingency
thinking.
300 13 Leadership Essentials
Path-Goal View of Leadership
• Path-goal view of
managerial leadership
assumes that a leader’s key
function is to adjust his or
her behaviors to
complement situational
contingencies.
• Directive leadership
spells out the what and
how of subordinates’ tasks.
• Supportive leadership
focuses on subordinate
needs, well-being, and
promotion of a friendly
work climate.
• Achievement-oriented
leadership emphasizes
setting goals, stressing
excellence, and showing
confidence in people’s
ability to achieve high
standards of performance.
• Participative
leadership focuses on
consulting with subordinates
and seeking and taking their
suggestions into account
before making decisions.
Another well-known approach to situational contingencies is one developed by
Robert House based on the earlier work of others.22 House’s path-goal view of
managerial leadership has its roots in the expectancy model of motivation discussed in Chapter 5. The term path-goal is used because of its emphasis on how
a leader influences subordinates’ perceptions of both work goals and personal
goals, and the links, or paths, found between these two sets of goals.
The theory assumes that a leader’s key function is to adjust his or her behaviors to complement situational contingencies, such as those found in the work
setting. House argues that when the leader is able to compensate for things lacking in the setting, subordinates are likely to be satisfied with the leader. For
example, the leader could help remove job ambiguity or show how good performance could lead to an increase in pay. Performance should improve as the paths
by which (1) effort leads to performance—expectancy—and (2) performance
leads to valued rewards—instrumentality—become clarified.
House’s approach is summarized in Figure 13.3. The figure shows four types
of leader behavior (directive, supportive, achievement-oriented, and participative)
and two categories of situational contingency variables (follower attributes and
work-setting attributes). The leader behaviors are adjusted to complement the
situational contingency variables in order to influence subordinate satisfaction,
acceptance of the leader, and motivation for task performance.
Before delving into the dynamics of the House model, it is important to
understand each component. Directive leadership has to do with spelling out
the subordinates’ tasks; it is much like the initiating structure mentioned earlier.
Supportive leadership focuses on subordinate needs and well-being and on
promoting a friendly work climate; it is similar to consideration. Achievementoriented leadership emphasizes setting challenging goals, stressing excellence
in performance, and showing confidence in the group members’ ability to achieve
high standards of performance. Participative leadership focuses on consulting
with subordinates, and seeking and taking their suggestions into account before
making decisions.
Leadership
Factors
Contingency
Factors
Subordinate
Outcomes
Leadership Behaviors:
Directive
Supportive
Achievement–oriented
Participative
Follower Attributes:
Authoritarianism
Internal–external
orientation
Ability
Job Satisfaction:
Job leads to valued
rewards
Work-Setting
Attributes:
Task
Formal authority
system
Primary workgroup
Figure 13.3 Summary of
major path-goal
relationships in House’s
leadership approach.
Acceptance of Leader:
Leader leads to valued
rewards
Motivational Behavior:
Expectancy that effort
leads to performance
Instrumentality that
such performance is
the path to valued
rewards
Situational Contingency Leadership 301
Important subordinate characteristics are authoritarianism (close-mindedness,
rigidity), internal-external orientation (i.e., locus of control), and ability. The key
work-setting factors are the nature of the subordinates’ tasks (task structure), the
formal authority system, and the primary workgroup.
Predictions from Path-Goal Theory Directive leadership is predicted to have
a positive impact on subordinates when the task is ambiguous; it is predicted to
have just the opposite effect for clear tasks. In addition, the theory predicts that
when ambiguous tasks are being performed by highly authoritarian and closedminded subordinates, even more directive leadership is called for.
Supportive leadership is predicted to increase the satisfaction of subordinates
who work on highly repetitive tasks or on tasks considered to be unpleasant,
stressful, or frustrating. In this situation the leader’s supportive behavior helps
compensate for adverse conditions. For example, many would consider traditional assembly-line jobs to be highly repetitive, perhaps even unpleasant or
frustrating. A supportive supervisor could help make these jobs more enjoyable.
Achievement-oriented leadership is predicted to encourage subordinates to strive
for higher performance standards and to have more confidence in their ability to
meet challenging goals. For subordinates in ambiguous, nonrepetitive jobs,
achievement-oriented leadership should increase their expectations that effort
leads to desired performance.
Participative leadership is predicted to promote satisfaction on nonrepetitive
tasks that allow for the ego involvement of subordinates. For example, on a challenging research project, participation allows employees to feel good about dealing independently with the demands of the project. On repetitive tasks, openminded or nonauthoritarian subordinates will also be satisfied with a participative
leader. On a task where employees screw nuts on bolts hour after hour, for
example, those who are nonauthoritarian will appreciate having a leader who
allows them to get involved in ways that may help break up the monotony.
Evaluation and Application House’s path-goal approach has been with us for
more than 30 years. Early work provided some support for the theory in general
and for the particular predictions discussed earlier.23 However, current assessments
by well-known scholars have pointed out that many aspects have not been tested
adequately, and there is very little current research concerning the theory.24 House
recently revised and extended path-goal theory into the theory of work-unit leadership. It’s beyond our scope to discuss the details of this new theory, but as a base
the new theory expands the list of leader behaviors beyond those in path-goal
theory, including aspects of both leadership theory and emerging challenges of
leadership.25 It remains to be seen how much research it will generate.
In terms of application there is enough support for the original path-goal
theory to suggest two possibilities. First, training could be used to change leadership behavior to fit the situational contingencies. Second, the leader could be
taught to diagnose the situation and learn how to try to change the contingencies,
as in leader match.
Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership Model
Like other situational contingency approaches, the situational leadership
model developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard indicates that there is
• The situational
leadership model focuses
on the situational
contingency of maturity or
“readiness” of followers.
302 13 Leadership Essentials
OB IN POPULAR CULTURE
PATH-GOAL AND REMEMBER THE TITANS
A leader following the Path-Goal View will adjust her or his style in
response to a number of situations that may exist. If followers lack ability,
a directive style might be used. If the work is unpleasant, a supportive
approach is needed. Achievement-oriented and participative styles can
be used to increase follower motivation. A leader must be aware of the
conditions that exist and help clear the paths that lead followers to
achieve goals (both individual and organizational).
In Remember the Titans, legendary Coach Herman Boone (Denzel
Washington) has a daunting task. In assuming the position of head
football coach at the newly integrated T.C. Williams High School, he
demonstrates Path-Goal leadership. Boone knows that many of the players will not respect
a “colored” coach. When it comes to practice, he uses a very directive leadership style—my
way or else, get the plays right or expect to run. At the same time, he respects the difficulties his players face. When Louie Lastik (Ethan Suplee) says he does not have the grades
to go to college, Boone whispers that they will work on his grades together because he
does not want that to keep Lastik from going to college. “Let’s just keep that between you
and me,” he adds at the end.
Herman Boone clearly knew when to be tough and when to use a softer, more understanding approach. He was clearly the leader, making tough decisions even in situations
involving assistant coaches and star players. Still, he recognized the impact his leadership
would have on the lives of the young men who played for him.
Get to Know Yourself Better Coach Boone was an effective coach because he
knew what it took to get a team in shape and meet the individual needs of his players.
What about you? Complete Assessment 11, Leadership Style, in the OB Skills Workbook to see if your concern for task is balanced in terms of your concern for people. Too
much emphasis on one aspect over the other could lead to problems. Can you show
enough concern for individuals and still keep them focused on getting the job done?
no single best way to lead.26 Hersey and Blanchard focus on the situational contingency of maturity, or “readiness,” of followers, in particular. Readiness is the
extent to which people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific
task. Hersey and Blanchard argue that “situational” leadership requires adjusting the
leader’s emphasis on task behaviors—for instance, giving guidance and direction—
and relationship behaviors—for example, providing socioemotional support—
according to the readiness of followers to perform their tasks. Figure 13.4 identifies four leadership styles: delegating, participating, selling, and telling. Each
emphasizes a different combination of task and relationship behaviors by the
leader. The figure also suggests the following situational matches as the best
choice of leadership style for followers at each of four readiness levels.
A “telling” style (S1) is best for low follower readiness (R1). The direction
provided by this style defines roles for people who are unable and unwilling to take responsibility themselves; it eliminates any insecurity about the
task that must be done.
Situational Contingency Leadership 303
Share ideas and
facilitate in decision
making
S3
S2
S4
S1
Explain decisions
and provide
opportunity
for clarification
De
le g
a ti
g
llin
Te
ng
Relationship Behavior
Supportive Behavior
g
llin
Se
Pa
rtic
ipa
tin
g
High
LEADER BEHAVIOR
Low
Turn over
responsibility
for decisions and
implementation
Low
Provide specific
instructions and
closely supervise
performance
High
Task Behavior
Guidance
Follower Readiness
R4
Able and
Willing
or
Confident
R3
Able but
Unwilling
or
Insecure
R2
Unable but
Willing
or
Confident
R1
Unable or
Unwilling
or
Insecure
A “selling” style (S2) is best for low-to-moderate follower readiness (R2). This
style offers both task direction and support for people who are unable but
willing to take task responsibility; it involves combining a directive approach
with explanation and reinforcement in order to maintain enthusiasm.
A “participating” style (S3) is best for moderate-to-high follower readiness
(R3). Able but unwilling followers require supportive behavior in order to
increase their motivation; by allowing followers to share in decision making, this style helps enhance the desire to perform a task.
A “delegating” style (S4) is best for high readiness (R4). This style provides
little in terms of direction and support for the task at hand; it allows able
and willing followers to take responsibility for what needs to be done.
This situational leadership approach requires that the leader develop the capability to diagnose the demands of situations and then choose and implement the
Figure 13.4 Hersey and
Blanchard model of
situational leadership.
304 13 Leadership Essentials
appropriate leadership response. The model gives specific attention to followers
and their feelings about the task at hand and suggests that effective leaders focus
on emerging changes in the level of readiness of the people involved in the work.
In spite of its considerable history and incorporation into training programs
by a large number of firms, this situational leadership approach has received very
little systematic research attention.27
Substitutes for Leadership
• Substitutes for
leadership make a leader’s
influence either
unnecessary or redundant
in that they replace a
leader’s influence.
A final situational contingency approach is leadership substitutes.28 Scholars using
this approach have developed a perspective indicating that sometimes managerial
leadership makes essentially no difference. These researchers contend that certain individuals, jobs, and organization variables can serve as substitutes for leadership or neutralize a managerial leader’s impact on subordinates. Some examples
of these variables are shown in Figure 13.5.
Substitutes for leadership make a leader’s influence either unnecessary or
redundant in that they replace the leader’s influence. For example, in Figure 13.5
it will be unnecessary and perhaps impossible for a leader to provide the kind of
task-oriented direction already available from an experienced, talented, and welltrained subordinate. In contrast, neutralizers can prevent a leader from behaving
in a certain way or nullify the effects of a leader’s actions. If a leader has little
formal authority or is physically separated, for example, his or her leadership may
be neutralized even though task supportiveness may still be needed.
Characteristics of Individuals
Impact on Leadership
Experience, ability, training
Substitutes for task-oriented
leadership
Professional orientation
Substitutes for task-oriented
and supportive leadership
Indifference toward
organizational rewards
Neutralizes task-oriented
and supportive leadership
Characteristics of Job
Highly structured/routine
Substitutes for task-oriented
leadership
Intrinsically satisfying
Substitutes for supportive leadership
Characteristics of Organization
Figure 13.5 Some
examples of leadership
substitutes and
neutralizers.
Cohesive workgroup
Substitutes for task-oriented
and supportive leadership
Low leader position power
Neutralizes task-oriented
and supportive leadership
Leader physically separated
Neutralizes task-oriented
and supportive leadership
Follower-Centered Approaches 305
Research suggests some support for the general notion of substitutes for leadership.29 First, studies involving Mexican, U.S., and Japanese workers suggests
both similarities and differences between various substitutes in the countries
examined. Again, there were subtle but important differences across the national
samples. Second, a systematic review of 17 studies found mixed results for the
substitutes theory. The review suggested a need to broaden the list of substitutes
and leader behaviors. It was also apparent that the approach is especially important in examining self-directed work teams. In such teams, for example, in place
of a hierarchical leader specifying standards and ways of achieving goals (taskoriented behaviors), the team might set its own standards and substitute them for
those of the leader’s.
Central to the substitutes for leadership perspective is the question of whether
leadership makes a difference at all levels of the organization. At least one
researcher has suggested that at the very top of today’s complex firms, the leadership of the CEO makes little difference compared to environmental and industry
forces.30 These leaders are typically accountable to so many groups of people for
the resources they use that their leadership impact is greatly constrained, so the
argument goes. Instead of a dramatic and an important effect, much of the impact
a top leader has is little more than symbolic. Further, much of what is described
as CEO leadership is actually part of explanations to legitimize their actions.
Such symbolic treatment of leadership occurs particularly when performance
is either extremely high or extremely low or when the situation is such that many
people could have been responsible for the performance. The late James Meindl
and his colleagues call this phenomenon the romance of leadership, whereby
people attribute romantic, almost magical, qualities to leadership.31 Consider the
firing of a baseball manager or football coach whose team does not perform well.
Neither the owner nor anyone else is really sure why the poor showing occurred.
But the owner can’t fire all the players, so a new team manager is brought in to
symbolize “a change in leadership” that is “sure to turn the team around.”
Follower-Centered Approaches
LEARNING ROADMAP
Implicit Leadership Theories / Implicit Followership Theories
So far we have dealt with leader traits, leader behavior, and the situations facing
the leader and his or her subordinates. But what about followers and their part in
the leadership process? Interestingly, until very recently, issues of followership
have been largely ignored in leadership research. It seems that our fascination
with leaders has caused us to overlook the importance of followers. As discussed
in this section, this issue is addressed in cognitive approaches to leadership, but
is also becoming its own field of study in newly emerging work on followership.
Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs)
In the mid-1970s, Dov Eden and Uri Leviatan32 wrote an article in which they
concluded that “leadership factors are in the mind of the respondent.” This radical
idea sparked what is known as the cognitive revolution in leadership, in which
researchers recognized that if leadership resides in the minds of followers, then it
is imperative to discover what followers are thinking.33
• Romance of
leadership involves
people attributing romantic,
almost magical, qualities to
leadership.
306 13 Leadership Essentials
Scholars began using cognitive categorization theory to learn more about
how followers process information regarding leaders.34 Recall from Chapter 4 on
perception and attribution that cognitive categorization is a type of mental shortcut that helps us simplify our cognitive understanding of the world by attaching
labels when we are faced with a stimulus target. For example, think about your
first day of class. Did you look around the room and find yourself making assessments of the teacher, and even your classmates? Were your assessments accurate?
This is the process of cognitive categorization, and it occurs automatically and
spontaneously when individuals categorize others on the basis of visually salient
cues (e.g., age, race, gender, and appearance) and social roles (e.g., leader and
follower). We do it because it helps us process and act on information quickly
and easily.
• Implicit leadership
theories are preconceived
notions about the attributes
associated with leaders that
reflect the structure and
content of “cognitive
categories” used to
distinguish leaders from
nonleaders.
• Prototypes are a mental
image of the characteristics
that comprise an implicit
theory.
Leadership Categorization Theory In leadership research, these ideas
developed into leadership categorization theory. According to this theory, individuals naturally classify people as leaders or nonleaders using implicit theories. Implicit leadership theories are preconceived notions about the
attributes (e.g., traits and behaviors) associated with leaders.35 They reflect the
structure and content of “cognitive categories” used to distinguish leaders from
nonleaders.
These attributes, or leadership prototypes, are mental images of the characteristics that make a “good” leader, or that a “real” leader would possess. Individuals engage in a two-stage categorization process.36 First, relevant prototypes,
such as those shown in Table 13.1, are activated and the target person is compared with the prototype. Second, the target person is categorized as a leader or
nonleader depending on the fit with the prototype.
For example, think of someone you consider to be a great leader. Make a list
of attributes you associate with that person as a leader. These images that come
to mind represent your implicit theory of leadership. The words you listed represent your “prototypes” for effective leadership. Now look at Table 13.1. Are the
attributes you listed in the table? Chances are they are in the list, which is a measure of the implicit leadership theories developed in research by Lynn Offermann
and colleagues.38
Table 13.1 Implicit Leadership Theories Prototypes
Prototype
Description
Sensitivity
Sympathetic, sensitive, compassionate, understanding
Dedication
Dedicated, disciplined, prepared, hard-working
Tyranny
Domineering, power-hungry, pushy, manipulative
Charisma
Charismatic, inspiring, involved, dynamic
Attractiveness
Attractive, classy, well-dressed, tall
Masculinity
Male, masculine
Intelligence
Intelligent, clever, knowledgeable, wise
Strength
Strong, forceful, bold, powerful
Source: Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, John K., Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure,
and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58.
Follower-Centered Approaches 307
Through sampling individuals about their implicit theories, research has
identified eight predominant factors, both positive and negative, in peoples’
images of leaders: sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma, attractiveness, masculinity, intelligence, and strength. The prototypes show that people view leaders in a positive fashion and hold them to high standards. However, the negative
prototypes also reveal that people recognize the possibility for leaders, who are
in positions of power, to use that power negatively, such as to dominate, control,
and manipulate others.
Since these factors were developed from an American sample, we should
expect differences in prototypes by country and by national culture. For example,
a typical business leader prototype in Japan is described as responsible, educated,
trustworthy, intelligent, and disciplined, whereas the counterpart in the United
States is portrayed as determined, goal-oriented, verbally skilled, industrious, and
persistent.39 More in-depth insights on such prototypes, as related to culture, are
provided by the broadscale Project GLOBE discussed in the next chapter.
Implicit Followership Theories
Although research on implicit theories has been around since the early 1980s, it
wasn’t until 2010 that these ideas were applied to followers. This work is now
rapidly developing as the study of followership. Followership is defined as the
behaviors of individuals acting in relation to leaders.40 To understand these behaviors, researchers are investigating whether an association exists between followers’ implicit theories and the nature of their interactions with leaders.
Followership Categorization Theory Paralleling the approach described
earlier in leadership categorization theory, Dr. Thomas Sy developed a measure
of implicit followership theory (IFT) that we can refer to as followership categorization theory.41 Again using the concept of implicit theories, this research
gathered the prototypical behavior of followers as described by leaders.
Using a sample of managers, the investigator asked leaders to identify characteristics associated with effective followers, ineffective followers, and subordinates. He then analyzed the responses to see whether categories of prototypes
emerged. The result, as shown in Table 13.2, is an 18-item implicit followership
Table 13.2 Implicit Followership Theories Prototypes and Antiprototypes
Prototypical/
Antiprototypical
Category
Description
Prototypical
Industry
Hardworking, Productive, Goes above and
beyond
Prototypical
Enthusiasm
Excited, Outgoing, Happy
Prototypical
Good Citizen
Loyal, Reliable, Team player
Antiprototypical
Conformity
Easily influenced, Follows trends, Soft spoken
Antiprototypical
Insubordination
Arrogant, Rude, Bad Tempered
Antiprototypical
Incompetence
Uneducated, Slow, Inexperienced
Source: Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of
implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84.
• Followership is defined
as the behaviors of
individuals acting in
relation to leaders.
• Implicit followership
theories are preconceived
notions about prototypical
and antiprototypical
followership behaviors and
characteristics.
308 13 Leadership Essentials
theory (IFT) scale that contains two main factors: followership prototype and followership antiprototype. Followership prototype consists of factors associated
with good followers, including being “industrious,” having enthusiasm, and being
a good organizational citizen. Followership antiprototype consists of behaviors
associated with ineffective followership, including conformity, insubordination,
and incompetence.
Although this work is very new, it has important practical implications. For
example, if we think about leaders and recognize they have implicit theories of
followers represented by follower prototypes, these prototypes may play a key
role in shaping leaders’ judgments of and reactions to followers. Remember that
categorization processes are spontaneous and automatic. This suggests that leaders make assessments of followers very quickly and very early on in the relationship. Followers who fulfill leaders’ prototypes will be judged more positively than
those who match the follower antiprototype. It could also be that leaders’ implicit
followership theories (IFTs) may predispose them to certain socioemotional
experiences. For example, leaders who endorse more prototypic perceptions of
followers may be more likely to generate more positive affective tones in their
workgroups, whereas leaders who endorse more antiprototypic perceptions of
followers may generate more negative emotion with the group.
• Social construction
approaches describe
individual behavior as
“constructed” in context, as
people act and interact in
situations.
• Passive followership
beliefs are beliefs that
followers should be
passive, deferent, and
obedient to authority.
• Proactive followership
beliefs are beliefs that
followers should express
opinions, take initiative,
and constructively question
and challenge leaders.
The Social Construction of Followership Using a somewhat different
approach, Melissa Carsten and colleagues are exploring followership through a
lens of “social construction.”42 According to social construction approaches,
individual behavior is “constructed” in context, as people act and interact in
situations. Social constructions are influenced by two things: the individuals’
implicit theories about how they should act, and the nature of the situation in
which they find themselves. For example, have you ever been in situations
where you think you should do one thing but find yourself doing another? This
is because your implicit belief is interacting with the situation to influence your
behavior.
Using a social construction approach, Carsten and colleagues found that followers tend to act in different ways according to their beliefs and the context.
Some followers hold passive beliefs, viewing their roles in the classic sense of
following—as passive, deferential, and obedient to authority (i.e., a passive
belief). Others hold proactive beliefs, viewing their role as expressing opinions,
taking initiative, and constructively questioning and challenging leaders (i.e., a
proactive belief). These proactive followership beliefs more closely resemble
leading (e.g., followers acting as leaders) than following. Not surprisingly, proactive beliefs were found to be strong among “high potentials”—people who have
been identified by their organizations as demonstrating the skills and capabilities
to be promoted to higher-level leadership positions in their organization. This
makes sense. It suggests that one key to advancement in organizations is being
able to demonstrate the ability to lead not only downward, but upward.
Because social construction is dependent on context, findings also show that
not everyone is able to act according to their followership beliefs. This occurs
when the work environment does not support the belief. Individuals holding
proactive beliefs reported they could not be proactive when they were operating
in authoritarian or bureaucratic work climates because these environments suppressed their ability to take the initiative and speak up. In this environment they
were frustrated—they felt stifled and were not able to work to their potential.
Inspirational and Relational Leadership Perspectives 309
Alternatively, individuals with passive beliefs reported cases where an empowering climate encouraged them to offer ideas and opinions, but these situations
were uncomfortable because their natural inclinations as followers were to follow
rather than be empowered. They were stressed by leaders’ demands that they be
more proactive, and weren’t comfortable engaging in those behaviors. These
cases of mismatch created dissonance for these individuals, leading to varying
levels of stress and discontent.
Although this work is still developing, similar to discussions of the importance of person–job fit, when the mismatch between one’s followership beliefs
and the work context is ongoing and pervasive it is likely to create strong feelings
of dissonance. These feelings can be detrimental to workplace functioning, such
as making one dissatisfied or highly stressed in their job, and potentially leading
to high levels of burnout.
Inspirational and Relational Leadership Perspectives
LEARNING ROADMAP
Charismatic Leadership / Transactional and Transformational
Leadership / Leader–Member Exchange Theory
The role of the follower is also considered in inspirational and relational perspectives to leadership. Like follower-centered approaches, these perspectives consider how followers view and interact with leaders.
Charismatic Leadership
One of the reasons leadership is considered so important is simply because most
of us think of leaders as highly inspirational individuals—heroes and heroines.
We think of prominent individuals who appear to have made a significant difference by inspiring followers to work toward great accomplishments. In the study
of leadership, this inspirational aspect has been studied extensively under the
notions of charismatic leadership.
Studies of charismatic leadership have provided an extensive body of evidence indicating that charismatic leaders, by force of their personal abilities,
are capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on followers.43 Findings show that charismatic leaders are high in need for power and have high
feelings of self-efficacy and conviction in the moral rightness of their beliefs.
Their need for power motivates them to want to be leaders, and this need is then
reinforced by their conviction of the moral rightness of their beliefs. The feeling
of self-efficacy, in turn, makes these individuals believe they are capable of being
leaders. These traits also influence such charismatic behaviors as role modeling,
image building, articulating simple and dramatic goals, emphasizing high expectations, showing confidence, and arousing follower motives.
Some of the more interesting and important work based on aspects of charismatic theory involves a study of U.S. presidents.44 The research showed that behavioral charisma was substantially related to presidential performance and that the
kind of personality traits described in the theory, along with response to crisis
among other things, predicted behavioral charisma for the sample of presidents.45
The charisma trait also has a potential negative side as seen in infamous leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, who had been considered charismatic.
• Charismatic leaders
are those leaders who are
capable of having a
profound and extraordinary
effect on followers.
310 13 Leadership Essentials
Negative, or “dark-side,” charismatic leaders emphasize personalized power and
focus on themselves—whereas positive, or “bright-side,” charismatic leaders
emphasize socialized power that tends to positively empower their followers.46
This helps explain the differences between a dark-side leader such as David
Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidian sect, and a bright-side leader such as
Martin Luther King Jr.47
Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo have developed a three-stage charismatic
leadership model.48 In the initial stage the leader critically evaluates the status
quo. Deficiencies in the status quo lead to formulations of future goals. Before
developing these goals, the leader assesses available resources and constraints
that stand in the way of the goals. The leader also assesses follower abilities,
needs, and satisfaction levels. In the second stage, the leader formulates and
articulates the goals along with an idealized future vision. Here, the leader emphasizes articulation and impression-management skills. Then, in the third stage, the
leader shows how these goals and the vision can be achieved. The leader emphasizes innovative and unusual means to achieve the vision.
Martin Luther King Jr. illustrated these three stages in his nonviolent civil
rights approach, thereby changing race relations in this country. Conger and
Kanungo have argued that if leaders use behaviors such as vision articulation,
environmental sensitivity, and unconventional behavior, rather than maintaining
the status quo, followers will tend to attribute charismatic leadership to them.
Such leaders are also seen as behaving quite differently from those labeled “noncharismatic.”49
Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Building on notions originated by James MacGregor Burns, as well as on ideas
from charismatic leadership theory, Bernard Bass has developed an approach that
focuses on both transactional and transformational leadership.50
• Transactional
leadership involves
leader–follower exchanges
necessary for achieving
routine performance
agreed upon between
leaders and followers.
• Transformational
leadership occurs when
leaders broaden and
elevate followers’ interests
and stir followers to look
beyond their own interests
to the good of others.
Transactional Leadership Transactional leadership involves leader–follower
exchanges necessary for achieving routine performance agreed upon between leaders and followers. Transactional leadership is similar to most of the leadership
approaches mentioned earlier. These exchanges involve four dimensions:
1. Contingent rewards—various kinds of rewards in exchange for mutually
agreed-upon goal accomplishment.
2. Active management by exception—watching for deviations from rules and
standards and taking corrective action.
3. Passive management by exception—intervening only if standards not met.
4. Laissez-faire—abdicating responsibilities and avoiding decisions.
Transformational leadership goes beyond this routine accomplishment, however. For Bass, transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden and
elevate their followers’ interests, when they generate awareness and acceptance
of the group’s purposes and mission, and when they stir their followers to look
beyond their own self-interests to the good of others.
Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership has four dimensions: charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
Inspirational and Relational Leadership Perspectives 311
Charisma provides vision and a sense of mission, and it instills pride along with
follower respect and trust. For example, Steve Jobs, who founded Apple Computer, showed charisma by emphasizing the importance of creating the Macintosh
as a radical new computer and has since followed up with products such as the
iPod, iPhone, and iPad.
Inspiration communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts,
and expresses important purposes in simple ways. As an example, in the movie
Patton, George C. Scott stood on a stage in front of his troops with a wall-sized
American flag in the background and ivory-handled revolvers in holsters at his
side. Soldiers were told not to die for their country but make the enemy die for
theirs. Intellectual stimulation promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful
problem solving. For instance, your boss encourages you to look at a very difficult problem in a new way. Individualized consideration provides personal
attention, treats each employee individually, and coaches and advises. This occurs,
for example, when your boss drops by and makes remarks reinforcing your worth
as a person.
Bass concludes that transformational leadership is likely to be strongest at
the top-management level, where there is the greatest opportunity for proposing and communicating a vision. However, for Bass, it is not restricted to the
top level; it is found throughout the organization. Furthermore, transformational leadership operates in combination with transactional leadership. Leaders need both transformational and transactional leadership in order to be
successful, just as they need to display both leadership and management
abilities.51
Reviews have summarized a large number of studies using Bass’s transformational approach. These reviews report significant favorable relationships between
Bass’s leadership dimensions and various aspects of performance and satisfaction, as well as extra effort, burnout and stress, and predispositions to act as
innovation champions on the part of followers. The strongest relationships tend
to be associated with charisma or inspirational leadership, although in most cases
the other dimensions are also important. These findings are consistent with those
reported elsewhere.52 They broaden leadership outcomes beyond those cited in
many leadership studies.
Issues in Charismatic and Transformational Leadership In respect to
leaders and leadership development, it is reasonable to ask: Can people be
trained in charismatic/transformational leadership? According to research in this
area, the answer is yes. Bass and his colleagues have put a lot of work into developing such training efforts. For example, they have created a workshop where
leaders are given initial feedback on their scores on Bass’s measures. The leaders
then devise improvement programs to strengthen their weaknesses and work
with the trainers to develop their leadership skills. Bass and Avolio report findings
that demonstrate the beneficial effects of this training. They also report the effectiveness of team training and programs tailored to individual firms’ needs.53 Similarly, Conger and Kanungo propose training to develop the kinds of behaviors
summarized in their model.
Approaches with special emphasis on vision often emphasize training.
Kouzes and Posner report results of a week-long training program at AT&T. The
program involved training leaders on five dimensions oriented around developing, communicating, and reinforcing a shared vision. According to Kouzes and
• Charisma provides
vision and a sense of
mission, and it instills pride
along with follower respect
and trust.
• Inspiration
communicates high
expectations, uses symbols
to focus efforts, and
expresses important
purposes in simple ways.
• Intellectual
stimulation promotes
intelligence, rationality and
careful problem solving, by
for example, encouraging
looking at a very difficult
problem in a new way.
• Individualized
consideration provides
personal attention, treats
each employee individually,
and coaches and advises.
312 13 Leadership Essentials
ETHICS IN OB
CEO PAY—IS IT EXCESSIVE?
In corporate America today, there seems to be a perception that
CEOs have a tremendous influence on company success,
whereas workers are more or less interchangeable. In fact, CEO
compensation is typically over 260 times greater than the
compensation provided to the median full-time employee. A
typical CEO will earn more in one workday than the average
worker will earn all year.
While the pay gap between top executives and the average
American worker has traditionally been relatively large, it has
grown tremendously over the past few decades. For the decade
1995–2005, CEO compensation rose nearly 300 percent while
the average employee salary rose less than 5 percent—both
occurring during a timeframe in which average corporate profits rose by a little over
100 percent.
In support of rising CEO salaries, the argument has been made that companies have to
pay a lot to attract the best executive talent and need to pay for performance. However, pay
levels are now such that many CEOs are assured of getting rich no matter how the
company performs. In fact, over 80 percent of executives receive bonuses even during
down years for the stock market.
In the midst of the recent economic downturn, one might expect this gap to be
significantly reduced. Surprisingly, though, that has not occurred, and the pay gap
remains very high by historical standards. Many people continue to be shocked by the
exorbitant salaries and bonuses received by top executives, especially at a time when
many companies are laying off employees and freezing salaries among lower-level
workers.
An underlying question seems to be whether it is ethical for a company to eliminate
hundreds or thousands of jobs while its CEO remains very highly compensated.
What Do You Think? Is it ethical for executives to reap such high rewards when
employees are being laid off and shareholders are seeing little to no return on their
investment? Should CEO pay be capped at some multiple of the average worker’s
pay? Should CEOs be forced to take a pay cut during this difficult financial period?
What are the consequences (both positive and negative) of unrestricted CEO salaries? If you were the CEO of a company that was struggling financially and was in
the process of laying off thousands of employees, would you voluntarily give up some
of your compensation?
Posner, leaders showed an average 15 percent increase in these visionary
behaviors 10 months after participating in the program.54 Similarly, Sashkin and
Sashkin have developed a leadership approach that emphasizes various aspects
of vision and organizational culture change. They discuss a number of ways to
train leaders to be more visionary and to enhance cultural change.55 All of these
leadership training programs involve a heavy hands-on workshop emphasis so
that leaders do more than just read about vision.
Inspirational and Relational Leadership Perspectives 313
A second issue in leadership and leadership development involves this question: Is charismatic/transformational leadership always good? As pointed out earlier, dark-side charismatics, such as Adolf Hitler, can have a negative effect on
followers. Similarly, charismatic/transformational leadership is not always helpful.
Sometimes emphasis on a vision diverts energy from more important day-to-day
activities. It is also important to note that such leadership by itself is not sufficient.
That leadership needs to be used in conjunction with all of the leadership theories discussed in this chapter. Finally, charismatic and transformational leadership
is important not only at the top of an organization. A number of experts argue
that for an organization to be successful, it must apply at all levels of organizational leadership.
Leader–Member Exchange Theory
While charismatic and inspirational theories emphasize leader behavior, relational
leadership theories adopt a different perspective: They view leadership as produced in the relationship between leaders and followers. The most prominent of
these theories is leader–member exchange (LMX) theory.
LMX theory shows that leaders develop differentiated relationships with subordinates in their work groups.56 Some relationships are high-quality (high LMX)
“partnerships,” characterized by mutual influence, trust, respect, and loyalty.
These relationships are associated with more challenging job assignments,
increased leader attention and support, and more open and honest communication. Other relationships are low quality (low LMX), more in line with traditional
supervisory relationships. Low-quality relationships are characterized by formal
status and strict adherence to rules of the employment contract. They have low
levels of interaction, trust, and support.
According to LMX theory, leadership is generated when leaders and followers
are able to develop “incremental influence” with one another that produces
behavior above and beyond what is required by the work contract. Returning to
our discussion of managers and leaders at the beginning of the chapter, we can
state that LMX approaches assume that managers are leaders when, through
development of high-quality relationships, they are able to generate “willing followership” with subordinates in their work unit.
These differentiated relationships are important for subordinates because
they have strong associations with work outcomes.57 Research shows that highquality LMX is associated with increased follower satisfaction and productivity,
decreased turnover, increased salaries, and faster promotion rates. Low-quality
relationships are associated with negative work outcomes, including low job
satisfaction and commitment, greater feelings of unfairness, lower performance,
and higher stress. Recent discussions of LMX suggest that to generate strong
leadership, managers should try to develop high-quality relationships with all
subordinates.
The LMX approach continues to receive increasing emphasis in organizational behavior research literature worldwide. The evidence for the benefits of
high-quality relationships is robust, and the implications for both managers and
employees are quite clear. Relationships matter, and working to develop them—
whether you are a leader or a follower—is critical in terms of both organizational
and personal career outcomes.
• Leader–member
exchange (LMX) theory
emphasizes the quality of
the working relationship
between leaders and
followers.
314 13 Leadership Essentials
Key Questions
and Answers
13 study guide
What is leadership?
• Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what
needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and
collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.
• Leadership and management differ in that management is designed to promote
stability or to make the organization run smoothly, whereas the role of leadership is
to promote adaptive change.
• Trait or great-person approaches argue that leader traits have a major impact on
differentiating between leaders and nonleaders or predicting leadership outcomes.
• Traits are considered relatively innate and hard to change.
• Similar to trait approaches, behavioral theories argue that leader behaviors have a
major impact on outcomes.
• The Michigan and Ohio State approaches are important leader behavior theories.
• Leader behavior theories are especially suitable for leadership training.
What is situational contingency leadership?
• Leader situational contingency approaches argue that leadership, in combination
with various situational contingency variables, can have a major impact on outcomes.
• The effects of traits are enhanced to the extent of their relevance to the situational
contingencies faced by the leader.
• Strong or weak situational contingencies influence the impact of leadership traits.
• Fiedler’s contingency theory, House’s path-goal theory, Hersey and Blanchard’s
situational leadership theory, and substitutes for leadership theory are particularly
important specific situational contingency approaches.
• Sometimes, as in the case of the substitutes for leadership approach, the role of
situational contingencies replaces that of leadership, so that leadership has little or
no impact in itself.
What are follower-centered approaches to leadership?
• Follower-centered approaches focus on how followers view leaders and how they
view themselves. The former are called implicit leadership theories (ILTs), and the
latter are called implicit followership theories (IFTs).
• Implicit leadership theories (ILTs) are part of leadership categorization theory. They
describe the cognitive categorization processes individuals use to identify characteristics, or prototypes, of traits and behaviors they associate with leaders (and
nonleaders).
Terms to Know 315
• Typical prototypes of leaders are sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma,
attractiveness, masculinity, intelligence, and strength. They reflect both the positive
and negative elements of leaders.
• Followership is defined as the behaviors of individuals acting in relation to leaders.
Followership categorization theory is the study of implicit followership theories that
leaders hold of followers.
• Prototypical follower behaviors have been identified as industriousness (e.g.,
hard-working), having enthusiasm, and being a good citizen. Follower antiprototypes
include conformity, insubordination, and incompetence.
• Implicit followership theories have also been studied relative to social constructions
of follower roles. Social construction approaches consider individuals’ beliefs
regarding how they should act and the contexts in which they act.
• Social construction perspectives of followership have identified passive and proactive
followership beliefs. Passive beliefs are consistent with classic definitions of followers
as obedient, passive, and deferential, while proactive beliefs reflect include expressing opinions, taking the initiative, and constructively challenging leaders.
What are inspirational and relational leadership perspectives?
• Inspirational and relational leadership perspectives focus on how leaders motivate
and build relationships with followers to achieve performance beyond expectations.
• Particularly important among inspirational approaches are Bass’s transformational/
transactional theory and House’s and Conger and Kanungo’s charismatic perspectives.
• Transformational behaviors include charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration. Transactional behaviors include contingent reward,
management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership.
• Charismatic/transformational leadership is not always good, as shown by the example
of Adolf Hitler.
• The most prominent relational leadership theory is leader–member exchange (LMX).
• LMX describes how leaders develop relationships with some subordinates that are
high quality and some that are low quality. Subordinates in high-quality relationships
receive much better benefits and outcomes than those in low-quality LMX.
• The most effective leaders should develop high-quality relationships with all
subordinates.
Terms to Know
Achievement-oriented
leadership (p. 300)
Behavioral perspective (p. 294)
Charisma (p. 311)
Charismatic leaders (p. 309)
Consideration (p. 294)
Directive leadership (p. 300)
Followership (p. 307)
Implicit followership theories
(IFTs) (p. 307)
Implicit leadership theories
(ILTs) (p. 306)
Individualized consideration (p. 311)
Initiating structure (p. 294)
Inspiration (p. 311)
Intellectual stimulation (p. 311)
Leader match training (p. 298)
Leader–member exchange (LMX)
theory (p. 313)
Leadership (p. 292)
Leadership grid (p. 294)
Least-preferred co-worker (LPC)
scale (p. 297)
Participative leadership (p. 300)
316 13 Leadership Essentials
Passive followership beliefs (p. 308)
Path-goal view of managerial
leadership (p. 300)
Proactive followership beliefs (p. 308)
Prosocial power motivation (p. 296)
Prototypes (p. 306)
Romance of leadership (p. 305)
Situational control (p. 297)
Situational leadership model (p. 301)
Social construction (p. 308)
Substitutes for leadership (p. 304)
Supportive leadership (p. 300)
Trait perspectives (p. 293)
Transactional leadership (p. 310)
Transformational leadership (p. 310)
Self-Test 13
Multiple Choice
1. Leadership is ____________. (a) equivalent to management (b) being in charge
(c) the process of influencing others to get things done (d) holding a formal position
2. In comparing leadership and management, ____________. (a) leadership promotes
stability and management promotes change (b) leadership promotes change and
management promotes stability (c) leaders are born but managers are developed
(d) the two are pretty much the same
3. The earliest theory of leadership stated that individuals become leaders because of
____________. (a) the behavior of those they lead (b) the traits they possess (c) the
particular situation in which they find themselves (d) being very tall
4. The behavioral approaches to leadership show that the most common types of
leadership behaviors relate to ____________. (a) empowering and motivating
(b) directing and controlling (c) guiding and visioning (d) relationships and tasks
5. Leadership grid research suggests that the most effective managers are (a) high, high
(b) high, low (c) low, high (d) middle of the road
6. Leader traits will have less of an impact in a(n) ____________situation than in
a(n) ____________ situation. (a) prototypical, antiprototypical (b) implicit, explicit
(c) weak, strong (d) favorable, unfavorable
7. A key finding in Fiedler’s contingency theory is the importance of ____________.
(a) leader match (b) implicit theories (c) prosocial power motivation (d) task-oriented
leadership behavior
8. Path-goal has its roots in the ____________ theory of motivation. (a) hierarchy
(b) equity (c) manifest need (d) expectancy
9. Substitutes for leadership research suggests that in certain situations leadership
____________. (a) has no substitutes (b) is contingent upon traits (c) makes no
difference (d) substitutes for management
10. When followers attribute superior qualities to leaders, it is referred to as
____________. (a) substitutes for leadership (b) romance of leadership (c) implicit
leadership theories (d) follower-centered approaches to leadership
11. The idea that leadership resides in the minds of followers represents the
____________ in leadership. (a) cognitive revolution (b) contingency approach
(c) behavioral approach (d) substitutes neutralizer
12. ____________ is defined as the behaviors of individuals acting in relation to leaders.
(a) Subordination (b) Prototyped (c) Implicit theory (d) Followership
13. Conformity, insubordination, and incompetence represent followership ____________.
(a) prototypes (b) antiprototypes (c) social construction (d) dissonance
Next Steps 317
14. Findings regarding charismatic leadership indicate that ____________. (a) anyone
can be a charismatic leader (b) charisma is the most desirable leadership style
(c) there is a potential negative side to charismatic leadership (d) charismatics are
found to have the best interests of followers in mind
15. Research showing that leaders develop differentiated relationship with followers is
known as ____________. (a) leader-member exchange theory (b) transformational
leadership theory (c) transactional leadership theory (d) follower-centered theory
Short Response
16. Define “leadership” and contrast it with “management.”
17. How do situational contingency theories relate to behavioral approaches to leadership theory?
18. Describe the difference between transactional and transformational theories of
leadership.
19. What are the characteristics of low and high LMX relationships?
Applications Essay
20. Your manager at work just called you into the office to inform you that you are
being promoted to supervisor. You are excited and nervous at the same time: You
want to do a good job in this position but you are not sure how. Your friend is
taking an OB course, so you decided to ask him for advice. What does he tell you?
Cases for Critical
Thinking
• The New Vice President
Team and Experiential
Exercises
• Interview a Leader
• Leadership Skills
Inventories
• Leadership and
Participation in Decision
Making
Self-Assessment
Portfolio
• Student Leadership
Practices Inventory
• Least-Preferred Co-worker
Scale
• Leadership Style
• “TT” Leadership Style
Next Steps
Top Choices from
The OB Skills
Workbook
Ready About: Don’t Lose Your Bearings
Mark Berns has a flair for navigating treacherous waters.
A passionate sailor, Berns also heads Ready About, a consulting firm that guides companies through potentially
disruptive changes, such as strategic realignments, mergers, and acquisitions.
Plans for organizational change often look lucrative on paper and
meet resounding approval at the highest levels of management. But
they can go awry when they fail to
account for a company’s intangible—but
“If culture is a
often most valuable—assets. These can
company’s DNA,
acquisitions are a bit
include group or corporate culture,
like gene splicing.
operational strategy, and trusted
You want to combine
avenues of internal communication. It
the best of both
doesn’t help matters if key employees
worlds so you don’t
resist the coming change because they
end up with Frankenresent the strategy or don’t have
stein, Inc.”
enough information about what’s going
—Mark Berns.b
to happen.
Enter Ready About, named after the command a captain issues to
make sure his crew is ready to chart a new course. Berns and his
team help organizations thrive before and after big changes. They
specialize in organizational strategy, team effectiveness, and mergers
and acquisitions.
Whether brought into a company to manage change or keeping in
close contact as a consulting partner, Ready About makes sure
companies stay watchful of the “soft” assets that bring them value.
Berns himself has been involved in more than 100 acquisitions, and
he’s quick to emphasize the importance of culture in defining an
organization. “I see culture as the story we tell about ourselves,” he
says. “It’s mission, vision, and our relationships with each other and the broader world. It’s the all-out company
effort to support a food pantry. It’s even that we always dress casually and have muffins on Friday.”a
Quick Summary
•
Ready About helps clients manage and survive large organizational changes such as mergers, acquisitions, and
strategy realignments.
•
Immersed in day-to-day operations, many companies lack the perspective to understand how organizational change
will affect their soft assets, such as company culture and successful internal communication.
•
Ready About’s consulting emphasizes helping companies understand and monitor the health of these resources
while managing operational or material change.
FYI: 83% of mergers fail to increase shareholder value.c
318
you can’t do it alone
14 Leadership Challenges
and Organizational Change
the key point
Some challenges of leadership and organizational change are quite new; others have been recognized for decades. In leadership, these issues are addressed relative to moral persuasion, cultural
differences, and strategy. Moreover, one of the key challenges to leaders, as illustrated in the
Ready About chapter opener, is managing change.
chapter at a glance
What Is Moral Leadership?
What Is Shared Leadership?
How Do You Lead Across Cultures?
How Do You Lead Organizational Change?
ETHICS IN OB
COLLEGE ATHLETES MAKE ETHICAL CHOICES
FINDING THE LEADER IN YOU
PATRICIA KARTER USES CORE VALUES AS HER GUIDE
OB IN POPULAR CULTURE
what’s inside?
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND BRAVEHEART
RESEARCH INSIGHT
CEO VALUES MAKE A DIFFERENCE
319
320 14 Leadership Challenges and Organizational Change
Moral Leadership
LEARNING ROADMAP
Authentic Leadership / Spiritual Leadership / Servant Leadership /
Ethical Leadership
All of us are aware of recent concerns about moral leadership issues. American International Group (AIG), for example, joined the growing list of firms such as Enron and
Merrill Lynch, which at one time had highly questionable leadership. It appears that
leaders of various government, religious, and educational entities made decisions
based on short-term individual gain rather than long-term collective benefit.
As these problems have gained attention and scrutiny, there has been a stronger
emphasis in research on topics including authentic leadership, servant leadership,
spiritual leadership, and ethical leadership. These are the topics we will cover in
our treatment of moral leadership. Essentially the moral leader is attempting to
use transcendent values to stimulate action that is considered beneficial. The challenge of moral leadership starts with who you are and what you think the job of
a leader should be.
Authentic Leadership
• Self-efficacy is a
person’s belief that he or
she can perform
adequately in a situation.
• Optimism is the
expectation of positive
outcomes.
• Hope is the tendency to
look for alternative
pathways to reach a
desired goal.
• Resilience is the ability
to bounce back from failure
and keep forging ahead.
Authentic leadership essentially argues “know thyself.”1 It involves both owning
one’s personal experiences (values, thoughts, emotions, and beliefs) and acting in
accordance with one’s true self (expressing what you really think and believe,
and acting accordingly). Although no one is perfectly authentic, authenticity is
something to strive for. It reflects the unobstructed operation of one’s true or core
self. It also underlies virtually all other aspects of leadership, regardless of the
particular theory or model involved.
Those high in authenticity are thought to have optimal self-esteem, or genuine, true, stable, and congruent self-esteem, as opposed to fragile self-esteem
based on outside responses. Leaders who desire authentic leadership should have
genuine relationships with followers and associates and display transparency,
openness, and trust.2 All of these points draw on psychological well-being emphasized in positive psychology literature.3 For instance, Nelson Mandela is considered an authentic leader.
In positive psychology we find emphasis on self-efficacy, which is an individual’s belief about the likelihood of successfully completing a specific task;
optimism, the expectation of positive outcomes; hope, the tendency to look for
alternative pathways to reach a desired goal; and resilience, the ability to bounce
back from failure and keep forging ahead. An increase in any one of these traits
is seen as increasing the others. These are important traits for a leader to demonstrate and are believed to positively influence his or her followers.
Perhaps the most important aspect of authentic leadership is the notion that
being a leader begins with you and your perspective on leading others. But being
authentic is just one aspect of moral leadership. A second feature is your view of
the leader’s task.
Spiritual Leadership
In contrast to authentic leadership, spiritual leadership can be seen as a field of
inquiry within the broader setting of workplace spirituality.4 Western religious
Moral Leadership 321
OB IN POPULAR CULTURE
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND BRAVEHEART
Contemporary leadership styles are based heavily on the values of
leaders. Authentic leadership exists when a leader knows her or his
values and leads in accordance with them. An authentic leader will
develop genuine relationships with others. Characteristics associated
with this style of leadership include self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and
resilience.
Braveheart is an account loosely based on the life of William
Wallace, the Guardian of Scotland, who helped liberate Scotland from
England. In the movie, nobleman Robert the Bruce (Angus Macfayden), the seventeenth Earl of Scotland, finds out that Wallace (Mel Gibson) has started
a rebellion. He reports to his father, who advises him to embrace the movement while he
opposes it. Frustrated, the younger Bruce describes Wallace as a commoner who fights
with passion and inspires others. When the father suggests a meeting with the nobles, the
younger Bruce complains that they are all talk (with no action).
William Wallace brings about change because he fights not for himself, but for the
rights of all Scotsmen. He exhibits self-efficacy in his belief that he can defeat the English
when others have been unsuccessful. He is optimistic that he can obtain freedom for
Scotland—even to the point of death. There is a hope that this freedom will allow fellow
Scotsmen to live a life he dreams about. Finally, he is resilient, fighting against incredible
odds, including betrayal by the Scottish nobles.
Get to Know Yourself Better At its core, authentic leadership is about knowing
yourself. This requires not only understanding your strengths and weaknesses, but
also knowing your core values and acting in line with them. The OB Skills Workbook
provides self-assessments that paint a picture of you as a leader. Is your leadership
style in accordance with your core values? What factors work against your ability to be
authentic as a leader, and how do you deal with these?
theology and practice coupled with leadership ethics and values provide much of the
base for the actions of a spiritual leader. As one might expect with a view based on
religion, there is considerable disagreement. One key point of contention is whether
spirituality and religion are the same. To some, spirituality stems from their religion.
For others, it does not. Researchers note that organized religions provide rituals, routines, and ceremonies, thereby providing a vehicle for achieving spirituality. Of
course, one could be considered religious by following religious rituals but could
lack spirituality, or one could reflect a strong spirituality without being religious.
Even though spiritual leadership does not yet have a strong research base in
organizational behavior, there has been some research resulting in the term Spiritual Leadership Theory, or SLT. It is a causal leadership approach for organizational transformation designed to create an intrinsically motivated, learning organization. Spiritual leadership includes values, attitudes, and behaviors required to
intrinsically motivate the leader and others to have a sense of spiritual survival
through calling and membership. In other words, the leader and followers experience meaning in their lives, believe they make a difference, and feel understood
and appreciated. Such a sense of leader and follower survival tends to create
322 14 Leadership Challenges and Organizational Change
Calling
Make a Difference
Life has Meaning
Performance
(Vision)
Organizational
Commitment
Productivity
Employee Well-being
Effort
(Hope/Faith)
Works
Reward
(Altruistic
Love)
Leader Values, Attitudes,
and Behaviors
Membership
Be Understood
Be Appreciated
Follower Needs for
Spiritual Survival
Organizational
Outcomes
Figure 14.1 Causal model of spiritual leadership theory.
Source: Lewis W. Fry, Steve Vitucci, and Marie Cedillo, “Spiritual Leadership and Army Transformation: Theory, Measurement, and Establishing a Baseline,” The Leadership Quarterly 16.5
(2005), p. 838.
value congruence across the strategic, empowered team and at the individual
level; it ultimately encourages higher levels of organizational commitment, productivity, and employee well-being.
Figure 14.1 summarizes a causal model of spiritual leadership. It shows three
core qualities of a spiritual leader: Vision—defining the destination and journey,
reflecting high ideals, encouraging hope/faith; Altruistic love—trust/loyalty as
well as forgiveness/acceptance/honesty, courage, and humility; Hope/Faith—
endurance, perseverance, do what it takes, have stretch goals.
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership, developed by Robert K. Greenleaf, is based on the notion that
the primary purpose of business should be to create a positive impact on the
organization’s employees as well as the community. In an essay he wrote about
servant leadership in 1970, Greenleaf said: “The servant-leader is servant first. . . .
It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.”5
The servant leader is attuned to basic spiritual values and, in serving these,
assists others including colleagues, the organization, and society. Viewed in this
way servant leadership is not a unique example of leadership but rather a special
kind of service. The servant leader helps others discover their inner spirit, earns
and keeps the trust of their followers, exhibits effective listening skills, and places
the importance of assisting others over self-interest. It is best demonstrated by
those with a vision and a desire to serve others first rather than by those seeking
leadership roles. Servant leadership is usually seen as a philosophical movement,
with the support of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Development, an international nonprofit organization founded by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1964 and headquartered in Indiana. The Center promotes the understanding and practice of
servant leadership, holds conferences, publishes books and materials, and sponsors speakers and seminars throughout the world.
Moral Leadership 323
While servant leadership is not rooted in OB research, its guiding philosophy
is consistent with that of the other aspects of moral leadership discussed here. In
this case, the power of modeling service is the basis for influencing others. You
lead to serve and ask others to follow; their followership then becomes a special
form of service.
Ethical Leadership
There is no simple definition of ethical leadership. However, many believe that
ethical leadership is characterized by caring, honest, principled, fair, and balanced choices by individuals who act ethically, set clear ethical standards, communicate about ethics with followers, and reward as wel...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment