The Science of Leadership Lessons from Research for Organizational Leaders PDF

'""'::' C HAPTER 1 Organizational Leadership TA J'hat is leadership? At first glance, it might seem as if the answer to this V V question should be easy. After all, ideas about the nature of leadership have been around since time immemorial. They...

'""'::' C HAPTER 1 Organizational Leadership TA J'hat is leadership? At first glance, it might seem V V question should be easy. After all, ideas about the nature have been around since time immemorial. They permeated the of the great religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Greek and Roman philosophers (e.g., Caesar, Cicero, Plato, in turn influenced Renaissance thinkers such as Machiavelli.1 no shortage of books describing and explaining modern organizational ship. To appreciate this, searching for the term "leadership zon.com resulted in 1,438 suggested books! 2 Despite this, because of this, we have almost as many definitions of organizational ship as people who have written on the topic.3 A simple, evades us for several reasons. One reason for this this is that most writers and researchers ately attached to their own views and definitions of leadership; inconsistency abounds across definitions. Add to this the about the nature of leadership change over time: Joseph Rost control and centralization of power dominated definitions first 30 years of the 20th century, then traits and personality 1930s and the group approach in the 1940s.4 The 1950s saw tions emphasizing groups, relationships, and leadership behaviors, literature in the 1960s emphasizing the importance of working mon goals. Complexity was a hallmark of leadership definitions exemplified by eminent leadership scholar, James McGregor defined leadership as "the reciprocal process of mobilizing certain motives and values, various economic, political and a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize or mutually held by both leaders and followers" (1978, of the complexity of leadership accelerated in the 1980s, ple, unambiguous and consensual definition, what we now have Northouse called a "stew" of definitions. 6 How then can we best answer the question "what is leadership"? Several strategies can guide us to an answer. Starting with an evidenced-based man- agement approach will be more than useful: If we limit our focus only to those leadership theories that have attracted some scientific scrutiny and sup- port, the immense literature is narrowed considerably-and informed ideas become possible. Leadership then needs to be differentiated from management, and there are several approaches that do so. The first approach focuses on the nature of the person in differentiating leadership from management. "Managers are people who do things right, and leaders are people who do the right thing" (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, p. 21)7 is a familiar refrain, and might suggest that managers and leaders are very different types of people, with different goals, personalities, values, and beliefs. Adding to this, John Kotter observes that "some people have the capacity to become excellent managers but not strong leaders. Others have great leadership potential but... have great difficulty becoming strong managers" (p. 52).8 The second approach to differentiating management from leadership suggests that they involve different behaviors, that both manage- ment and leadership are critical for organizational success, but that they can be performed by the same individual. As Kotter concluded, "Once companies understand the fundamental difference between leadership and management, they can begin to groom their people to provide both" (p. 52).. A third approach to distinguishing between management and leadership behaviors is to emphasize how each is dependent on a different form of power. The ability to manage derives from the formal power given by the organization and is inherent in the position held. In contrast, while organizations might give someone the role or title of "leader," the ability to informal power that people acquire based on the quality of the relationships they develop. The discussion in this book focuses primarily on leadership behaviors.' Fourth, understanding "leadership" will be helped by are three distinct features about leadership that have been considered and studied separately. The first feature highlights who becomes a leader in the first instance and is most frequently referred to as leadership role or "occupancy." Research on this topic identifies the multitude early family socialization, gender, genetics) that interact so that are more (or less) likely to attain leadership positions than others, whether through formal organizational channels (e.g., selection, promotion), mal channels. (Much of this will be discussed in Chapter 5.) i. As will become clear later in this chapter, management and leadership not independent; and one theory, namely that of transformational leadership, explic- itly recognizes the role of both management and leadership behaviors. This will be discussed in detail. [2) The Science ofLeadership University identified two separate leadership behaviors, which were referred to as "initiating and consideration structure."ii Or we when situational and "contingency" theories tried to specify the conditions under which different leadership behaviors might be more or less effective. 10.. Ever mindful that the purpose of this book is to tell the story of what we know about organizational leadership, based on available and credible..v research findings , and that this is not a history book, our point will be with the "new-genre" leadership theories that began to make their appearance circa 1980. 11 Acknowledging the arbitrary nature of this decision,.z§ 40 several important factors underscore the choice of 1980 as a cutoff point. First, theories about leadership prior to 1980 were largely transactional emphasized the importance of goals, performance feedback, and employ- ees' behaviors (both positive and negative) being followed by appropriate consequences.12 Transactions between managers and employees were based on the formal power granted to managers by the organization. In contrast, new-genre leadership theories emphasize the relational, inspirational, and ethical nature of leadership,13 in contrast to the hierarchical, transactional, and outcome-oriented nature of management. Second, while early theories initially attracted considerable research attention, they no longer do so; new-genre theories are now the overwhelming focus of research attention, as will be seen shortly. Given the abundance of new-genre organizational leadership theories, where should we begin this specific discussion? Fortunately, there are data that tell us about the frequency with which the different theories receive sci- entific study. Timothy Judge and Joyce Bono's earlier analysis showed that together, transformational and charismatic leadership theories were studied more frequently between 1990 and 2000 than all other leadership theories combined.14 I updated and extended this analysis to all leadership theories between 1970 and 2012ili to gain a more recent and in-depth appreciation of the relative frequency with which transformational leadership has been inves- tigated and, where possible, separated transformational and·charismatic lead- ership. The results of this analysis appear in Figure 1.1, from which it is clear that transformational leadership is now the most frequently researched lead- ership theory. Moreover, while research on several other theories is declining (e.g., initiation-consideration), the amount of research on transformational leadership is increasing, with well over 100 published studies in 2012 alone. Thus, the story of new-genre leadership theories appropriately begins with transformational leadership theory. ii. Initiating structure behaviors are task-oriented, and consideration structure behaviors involve concern for employees' well-being. iii. Only articles written in English that were peer-reviewed and published (thereby excluding theses and dissertations) are included. [4J The Science of Leadership His seminal contributions to transformational leadership were crystallized in his 1985 book, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, 21 and con- tinued in subsequent books (e.g., Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military and Educational Impact:22) and the weighty 1,516-page Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications"' which was pub- lished after be died in 2007. 23 His books have been translated into French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Japanese. Together with Bruce Avolio, Bass also developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire- the most widely used scale to measure transformational and transactional leader- ship. 24 Unquestionably, one of Bernie Bass' major contributions was to inspire generations of scholars to study and apply leadership in general, and transfor- mational leadership in particular, within organizations and other workplace contexts (e.g., schools, the military). The Four l's ofTransformational Leadership So what is transformational leadership? There is widespread agreement that transformational leadership comprises four separate and different behav- iors: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, each of which are described extensively in the research-based literature. 25 Idealized influence reflects the ethical component of transformational leadership. Leaders who act in a manner consistent with idealized influence behave in ways that are good for organizations and their members and avoid acting solely on self-interest. These leaders may also go beyond what is good for the specific organization, prioritizing what is good for the physical envi- ronment26 - in other words, these leaders are motivated by a moral commit- ment to the collective good, rather than what is good for themselves. Leaders who behave in this way opt to do what is right, rather than what is easy or expedient, and resist temptations to maximize their own or their organiza- tions' short-term interests. These leaders would often be described by their followers as role models who act with integrity and humility and show a deep respect for others. The ethical nature of idealized influence can be appreci- ated further from Burns,27 who differentiated between idealized influence and Maslow's 28 well-known notion of self-actualization: While Maslow regarded self-actualization as the pinnacle of psychological health and human moti- vation, Burns found its self-focused nature simply too inconsistent with the other-focused nature of idealized influence. iv. Can too much knowledge ever be harmful? Presumably not, but carrying this handbook, weighing 5.35 lbs (or 2.43 kg), might be! The Science ofLeadership followers will respond to the leaders' idealized influence, inspirational moti- vation, and intellectual stimulation. Individualized consideration makes the personal and organizational development of employees a leadership prior- ity. As a result, leaders who display individualized consideration would most likely be perceived by their followers as development-oriented, empathic, and compassionate. A hallmark of all transformational leadership behaviors is their futu'r e-orientation (unlike the present or short-term orientation that chara- acterizes management). Whether it is through the long-term development of employees that might be accomplished through intellectual stimula- tion or individualized consideration, the explicit move away from immedi- ate self-gratification that characterizes idealized influence, or inclusion of employees in a long-term vision, transformational leadership emphasizes what is best in the long term, as will be seen later in this chapter in the behav- iors of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Tran sactional Leadership One of Bums' and Bass' significant contributions was to recognize that lead- ers do more than just enact any or all of the four transformational behav- iors. Instead, leaders also engage in crucial transactions with their followers. Accordingly, transformational leadership was separated from "transactional leadership," which includes three different behaviors. Contingent reward involves behaviors considered essential within the management literature- for example, setting appropriate goals for employees and teams, providing performance-based feedback, and ensuring that behaviors in the organiza- tions have consequences. As the name implies, rewards (and punishments, if necessary) would be contingent on the appropriate levels of performance. In contrast, a second form of transactional leadership, management-by-excep- tion, is negative, with leaders concentrating mostly on employees' mistakes, failures to meet minimal standards, and omissions. Management-by-exception can be either active or passive. Within active management-by-exception, leaders carefully monitor for performance lapses, and their responses to these lapses are immediate and often experienced as public and loud, embarrassing and intimidating by their followers. Active management-by-exception can often be experienced by employees as abusive.35 Passive management-by-exception also describes behaviors that focus on employees' mistakes, errors, and omissions, but passive leaders wait for these lapses to occur and only intervene problems become too serious to ignore. The final component of transactional leadership is laissez-faire behavior, a set of behaviors that would be evident when the leader equivocates and fails to provide needed direction, abdicates and denies responsibility, and avoids The Science of Leadership theories ("transformational," "charismatic") the two terms are even used interchangeably; there is even reference in the literature to charismatic/transformational leadership, 39 which dilutes their meaning. Nonetheless, there are small but meaningful differences between transformational and charismatic leadership. Current approaches to charismatic leadership have their roots in the work of the famous German sociologist Max Weber. Writing init ially in German in the 1920s, Weber's ideas on charismatic leadership were translated into English in 1947 by fellow sociologist Talcott Parsons. 40 Weber was initially interested in authority within organizations and suggested that charismatic authority was one of three forms of organizational authority (the other two being traditional and rational-legal authority). Given widespread belief that charismatic leaders possess extraordinary abilities or characteristics, char- ismatic leadership attracted widespread public and media interest, and it is still used extensively to explain the behaviors of political, religious, and cult leaders. There are two major interpretations of charismatic leadership. Robert House's approach locates charismatic leadership in the behavior and person- ality of the individual leader.41 House and colleague Jane Howell go further, identifying a series of behaviors that characterize charismat ic behaviors:42 Charismatic leaders articulate and communicate a collective, moral, optimis- tic, and ideological vision for the future. They merge their values and their behaviors, emphasize distal rather than proximal goals, continually reinforce their confidence in their employees' ability to meet and exceed performance expectations, and behave in ways necessary to stimulate and fulfill employees' needs and motivations. All of these traits have been shown to positively influ- ence employees' attitudes and performance. House and Howell also confront an issue that has bedevilled charismatic leadership researchers. Despite the positive tone and nature of their descrip- tion, charismatic leadership can be used for good or evil. Instead of joining the debate as to whether charismatic leadership is inherently good or evil, they differentiate between two forms of charismatic leadership, namely socialized and personalized charismatic leadership. Socialized charismatic leaders are (a) democratic, (b) serve collective rather than self-interests, and (c) develop and empower others. In contrast, personalized charismatic leaders are (a) autocratic, (b) seek to maximize their own self-interest, and (c) exploit and control others.43 Findings from research support the differentiation between socialized and personalized charismatic leadership. In a persuasive study, J ennifer O'Connor and her coauthors first put together lists of famous busi- ness, political, religious, and military leaders, differentiated them as social- ized or personalized charismatic leaders, and had external raters confirm this differentiation.44 The researchers then showed that socialized charismatic leaders were rated as significantly more likely to benefit other individuals and [1 OJ The Science ofLeadership Authentic Leadership The most recently developed of the new-genre leadership theories, authen- tic leadership, grew out of a sense of frustration with what were seen as deficit-oriented leadership models, in which the goal was to get rid of lead- ers' deficits. Authentic leadership has its roots in transformational leadership (which needs no further discussion) and in the broad but related fields of posi- tive psychology, positive organizational behavior, and positive psychological capital.51 The positive-psychology approach itself developed out of a frustra- tion over the dominant negative emphasis on mental illness that character- ized much of psychology throughout the 20th century, and aimed to move toward a "psychology of positive human functioning... which achieves a sci- entific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving individu- als, families, and communities.n52 The first component in authentic leadership is leaders' self-awareness. Self-awareness on its own is widely believed to be important to positive leadership, but authentic leadership theory takes this further, with lead- ers' self-awareness being only one part of a more complex theory. Authentic leaders would be aware of strengths and weaknesses in their personalities and behaviors, as well as of the conflicts and contradictions between their strengths and weaknesses. What takes this understanding of self-awareness further, however, is that it is not sufficient for the leader to "know Instead, as Douglas May and his colleagues note, authentic leaders would go the next step and be "true to themselves,n53 for example, by doing what they can to resolve inner conflicts and contradictions. At one level, unbiased processing of external information, the second com- ponent of authentic leadership, is a core managerial challenge. However, authentic leadership goes well beyond merely processing external informa- tion and focuses on the balanced and unbiased processing of all information that is relevant to people's own selves. Even when the available information is internally disquieting or disturbing, authentic leaders would confront the information in an unbiased manner before any decisions are made. As such, unbiased or balanced processing of information-including information about oneself-is held to be at the core of personal integrity. All new-genre theories make assumptions about the nature and/or qual- ity of the relationship between leaders and followers. Authentic leadership is no exception, and the third component within authentic leadership the- ory is relational transparency. Authentic leaders openly share self-relevant information about their virtues and their vulnerabilities-their proudest accomplishments and their deepest doubts, and their insecurities and fears. They are motivated to ensure that others know their own authentic selves. Only through relational transparency can trust be developed between leader [12) The Science of Leadership Leader- M ember Exchange (LMX) Theory LMX theory represents a significant departure from other new-genre lead- ership theories. While transformational (and authentic) leadership focus primarily on the behavior of the leader, LMX emphasizes the quality of the leader- member relationship. Moreover, unlike other new-genre theories that at least implicitly assume that there is a consistency in how leaders interact with each of their followers, LMX theory holds that relationships within each leader- member dyad are unique, and that any approach that aggregates how a group feels about their leader ignores this uniqueness. Some early support emerged for this notion: George Graen and his colleagues showed that indi- vidual LMX relationships were a better predictor of subsequent turnover the organization than averaged ratings of the leader that were derived from all members of the group.61 Last, by assuming mutual influence within member dyads, LMX theory again differs from other leadership theories that presume a unidirectional and downward influence from leader to follower. What constitutes a high-quality relationship within LMX theory? Consistent with the many changes LMX theory has undergone since Graen's early writing in the 1970s, the list of attributes that characterize a high-quality relation- ship has changed fairly considerably. Initially, high-quality LMX relationships were based on task-related competence, interpersonal skills, and trust, 62 with aspects such as attention, support, and rewards included a little later. While different dimensions and subdimensions were added over the next decade and a half, 63 high-quality LMX relationships are now characterized by aspects such as trust, understanding, support, provision of information, opportuni- ties for involvement in decision-making, role latitude, and autonomy. There is also some clarification as to the nature of poor-quality LMX relationships, which are not just the absence of high-quality relationships. Instead, one-way communication and downward influence, social distance, role distinctions, contractual obligations, and formal transactions that are based on distrust characterize poor-quality LMX relationships. 64 Several concerns remain with LMX theory. Some are methodological and include inconsistent measurement of LMX across different studies, which has led to a lack of clarity of what is really meant by LMX. Other concerns are more substantive. For example, while the core of the theory is the leader- member dyad, much of the research on LMX theory asks only one of the partners of the dyad (usually the follower) to provide information on the quality of the dyadic relationship, leaving open the question of whether research has fully explored the leader- member relationship. In addition, LMX theory has been criticized for placing all its emphasis on the quality of the dyad, and excluding the influ- ence of the context in which the dyad is located. 65 Perhaps the most troublesome question is whether the quality of the leader- member dyad (as reflected by mutual support, trust, and liking ( l 4) The Science ofLeadership leadership. 73 Their analyses showed that servant leadership is best viewed as comprising seven separate but related components or behaviors that closely reflect Greenleaf's writings: emotional healing, creating value for the commu- nity, conceptual skills, empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, and behaving ethically. Like other leadership theories, many of these components would seem to overlap strongly with the diverse behaviors included in other new-genre leadership theories (e.g., transformational, authentic, and LMX leadership). However, adherents of servant leadership point to several critical differ- ences. First, servant leadership emphasizes the development of employees, not just in the service of the organization, but for their own personal and advancement. Second, servant leaders go beyond advancing the needs of employees, teams, and the organizations in which they are employed and emphasize the health of communities. Third, transformational and servant leadership may be most appropriately applied to different contexts: Servant leadership may be most suitable to contexts reflecting stability and an abun- dance of resources, whereas transformational leadership is likely more appro- priate when groups or organizations face uncertainty, ambiguity, and change. 74 Several research studies have been conducted on servant leadership. One study focused on isolating the antecedents or precursors of servant leader- ship in organizations. In this study, Suzanne Peterson, Benjamin Galvin, and Donald Lange studied CEOs' servant leadership in 126 small and medium-sized enterprises (annual sales within each company was less than $5 million) in the western United States.75 This study avoided reliance on CEO reports of their own leadership, which might be overinflated. Instead, company chief financial officers (CFOs) rated their respective CEO's servant leadership, while CEOs completed surveys assessing their own narcissism, identification with the organization, and whether they were the founder of the organization or not. Using these data, the researchers showed that CEO servant leadership was associated with firm performance as measured by return on assets. Also, that servant leadership emphasizes personal integrity, followers' rather than leaders' needs, and a firm ethical foundation, it should not be the higher the CEO's narcissism, the lower he or she was rated on servant leadership by the CFO. A compelling test of the tenets of servant leadership emerges from other studies that have simultaneously contrasted servant leadership with trans- · formational leadership, or any other leadership theory. Mitchell Neubert and his research team contrasted the effects of servant leadership and the initiat- ing structure leadership style (which focuses broadly on task performance). 76 Initiating structure was shown to be a more significant predictor of construc- tive and deviant work performance than servant leadership. However, servant leadership was a more significant predictor of helping behaviors and creativity than was initiating structure. In addition, while transformational leadership, ( l 6J The Science of Leadership dilemmas. As individuals gain more experience and develop cognitively, they tend more toward equality and fairness as the principles that guide their dispute resolution. Individuals within this "conventional" phase emphasize external rules and laws in their moral conduct, and would see any relation- ships with others as primarily instrumental in nature. "Postconventional" moral reasoning reflects the highest stage of moral development, in which individuals use more universal principles in making moral choices and focus on the collective good. Kohlberg's theory is relevant in the organizational context because we might expect a relationship between the postconventional stage and ethi- cal leadership, and several studies provide support for this notion. Leanne Atwater and her colleagues studied 236 military cadets who increasingly took on leadership responsibilities during their military training.81 They found that cadets whose moral reasoning was relatively lower upon enter- ing military college experienced significant development in the level of moral reasoning, suggesting that experiences are important in shaping moral rea- soning. They also found that cadets' levels of moral reasoning did not pre- dict either leadership emergence or leader effectiveness, a finding which the authors themselves called "perplexing." In retrospect, however, might make sense: Opportunities for translating postconventional moral val- ues into leadership behavior in organizational contexts that emphasize and value conformity, such as an elite military academy, may be somewhat Importantly, therefore, a later study did provide evidence for a link between moral reasoning and ethical leadership. Taking transformational leadership as a form of ethical leadership because of its focus away from self-interest toward the collective good, Nick Turner and his team showed in separate samples in Canada and the United Kingdom that transformational leadership was higher among postconventionalists than preconventionalists or conventionalists.82 As these authors expected, there was no association between level of moral reasoning or any of the different aspects of transactional leadership. An Ethic ofCare Responding initially to Kohlberg's model, which (a) emphasized the impor- tance of cognitive reasoning within a justice orientation for resolving conflicts between individual and collective rights, and (b) recognized that his research was based on a sample of men only, Carol Gilligan offered an alternative per- spective on how individuals respond to moral dilemmas. 83 Based on her own research, Gilligan showed that individuals can approach moral dilemmas from a very different perspective, one in which the maintenance and enhancement of authentic relationships is central. Gilligan's findings showed that individu- als are primarily motivated to understand the personal experiences and needs [ l 8) The Science of Leadership Table 1.1. BROWN ET AL.'S ETHICAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE Myboss.... 1. Listens to what employees have to say. 2. Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards. 3. Conducts his or her personal life in an ethical manner. 4. Has the best int erests of employees in mind. 5. Makes fair and balanced decisions. 6. Can be trusted. 7. Discusses business ethics or values with employees. 8. Sets an example of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics. 9. Defines success not just in terms of results but also the way 10. When making decisions, asks, "What is the right thing to do?" Each is responded to on a five point scale, where 1 e Strongly nor disagree; 4 Agree; and S =Strongly agree. From. Brown, M. E., Trevifio, L. K., & Har'!-5on, D. A.. spective for construct development and testing. Organrzattonal Behavior 117- 134. reliable, and valid questionnaire that measures ethical leadership, which they accomplished in a series of rigorous studies. As their questionnaire (see Table 1.1 for the items) is freely available to researchers and practitioners, it is likely to feature prominently in future research on ethical leadership. FROM THEORY TO DAILY BEHAVIOR: THE CASE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP Understanding new-genre leadership theories is one thing; the challenge that looms larger for practicing leaders, however, is how such a collection of com- plex ideas, lofty values, and imposing behaviors can be translated into daily, workplace reality. To show how readily this can be accomplished, we will focus on the four components of transformational leadership, as it is the most widely researched leadership theory. As a starting point, it will be reassur- ing to know that it is neither possible nor necessary for leaders to engage in all four transformational leadership behaviors all the time. After all, leaders and their followers may not even see each other every day, and many employ- ees are not even in the same geographical location as the leaders.87 Thus, out- standing leaders do not engage in the right behaviors all the time, but they rarely miss the opportunity to do so at the right time.. One opportunity for leaders to demonstrate the values inherent in idealized influence would occur after a leader transgression or mistake, especially during difficult times when employees likely monitor their leaders' behaviors more closely. While many leaders fear that apologizing for transgressions would (2 0 J The Science ofLeadership remind them just how good they are. Giuliani was by no means the first leader to demonstrate this: After numerous setbacks in World War II (such as the attack on Pearl Harbor), President Roosevelt famously looked forward to how he might confront the future, and stubbornly refused to look back in a search for someone to blame.95 Further support for the notion that subtle leader behaviors are sufficient to inspire others derives from the well-known Pygmalion studies conducteg by Robert Rosenthal and his colleagues in the 1960s, studies which took their name from the famous George Bernard Shaw play, Pygmalion, on which the musical My Fair Lady is based." In a series of studies, Rosenthal and his col- leagues led elementary-school teachers to believe that some of the students who were to be in their class were early bloomers (or what they called "spurt- ers").96 Of course, none of these children were early bloomers; they had just been randomly assigned to this group. Despite this, achievement tests showed that children who had been described as early bloomers soon outperformed the others. How could this happen? When teachers think their students are ready to flourish, they interact differently with them. For example, they likely set more difficult problems for them to solve and monitor them less. In. this way, teachers symbolically tell these children that they are talented and trusted, and the children respond accordingly. Dov Eden and his colleagues have shown in an extensive series of studies that this powerful effect is just as pervasive in work situations.97 They have also shown that we need to be aware of the "Golemn effect:98 Identified initially by Elisha Babad, Jacinto Inbar, and Robert Rosenthal in their research on teachers,99 the Golem effect reflects how subtle negative messages from lead- ers could also lead to declines in employee performance. Two important les- sons can be learned from studies on the Pygmalion and Golem effects. Fin>t, people are remarkably sensitive to their leaders' subtle behaviors and verbal communications- especially during times of crisis- and respond accord- ingly. Second, the best of leadership is often reflected through the smallest behaviors (and this is true of the worst of leadership as well, as will be seen in Chapter 9). The classic movie, 12 Angry Men, 100 starring Henry Fonda, is often used in leadership courses. In the movie, a young Spanish-American teenager stands accused of murdering his father, and almost the entire movie takes place in the jury room, with some jurors displaying transformational or laissez-faire lead- ership, or management-by-exception. 12 Angry Men is replete with examples of the successful use of intellectual stimulation, showing again that transfor- mational leadership can be enacted through small but meaningful behaviors. v. The central story behind My Fair Lady is how phonetics professor helps Eliza Doolitle, a disheveled flower girl, to defy all social expectations and rise beyond the expectations of others. [ 22 J The Science of Leadership Individualized consideration is also epitomized in so many of the behaviors of Nelson Mandela. Coming away from even a brief meet- ing with Nelson Mandela, many people recount that during that brief moment, they knew they were the most important person in the world to Mandela. In one telling example, a Canadian mother and her daugh- ter attended a mass political rally in Natal during the politically fraught and violence-riddled period leading up to the transition from apartheid to the black-majority government of the ANC in South Africa. The rally was attended by many leaders of the apartheid opposition, including Mandela. During the meeting, the mother's worst nightmare came true: Her daugh- ter disappeared among the thousands of emotionally aroused people. After a little while, she spotted her young daughter, happily sitting on the stage-on Mandela's lap! Asked approximately two decades later what that felt like, the daughter, now an adult, declared that "Mr. Mandela was so excited to meet me!" Last, a vivid demonstration of both idealized influence and intellectual stimulation comes from President John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech on January 20, 1961. Challenging people to go beyond their own self-interest and inviting them to think of the collective good, President Kennedy con- cluded his speech, saying, "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."103 The lesson to be learned from all these stories is simple: While theories or explanations of leadership may be complex, the best ofleadership is often seen in the smallest behaviors enacted at the right time and for the right reasons. Before ending this discussion, it is critical to note that while most of the examples presented here depict famous leaders, this is no way implies that only people of such stature can perform behaviors of this nature. On the contrary, the everyday behaviors used as examples (e.g., apologies, self-deprecating humor, saying "thank you") are well within the daily reach of organizational leaders. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS Scholars and researchers have devoted themselves for decades to understand- ing the nature of organizational leadership. This work has resulted in many different leadership theories and in an enormous body of empirical research. From this extensive theorizing and large body of research, it is apparent that the very best of organizational leadership is relational and inspirational, ethi- cal, future-oriented, focused on employee development, and laden with the humility that characterizes great leaders. Equally important is the knowl- edge that despite the loftiness of the theories, the best of leadership can be expressed through small but meaningful behaviors enacted at the right time. (24 J The Science of Leadership 16. Burns, J. M., & Dunn, S. (2001). The Three Roosevelts: Patrician formed America. New York: Grove Press. 17. Burns, J. M. (2006) Running alone: Presidential leadership- JFK to Bush II: Why it has failed and how we can fix it. New York: Basic Books. 18. Burns, J.M., & Sorensen, G. J. (1999). Dead center: Clinton-Gore leadership and the perils of moderation. New York: Simon & Schuster. 19. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Collins. 20. Avolio, B. J. (2008). Bernard (Bernie) M. Bass (1925- 2007). American Psychologist, 63, 620. 21. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 22. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 23. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook ofleadership: and managerial applications. New York: The Free Press. 24. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Manual for the multifactor naire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.. Leadership 25. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 26. Robertson, J., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 34, 4-19. 27. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. 28. Maslow, A. H. (1965). Eupsychian management: A journal. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. 29. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 30. Eden, D. (2003). Self-fulfilling prophedes in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Bd.), Organizational behavior: The state ofthe science (2nd ed.) (pp. 91-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 31. Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual differences emergence: Integrating meta-analytic findings and behavioral genetic estimates. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 12, 207-219. 32. Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Hickman, M. (2012). Effects of leader intelligence, personality and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance. L-eadership Quarterly, 23, 443-455. 33. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Leaders as eponyms: Individual and situational determi- nants of monarchal eminence. Journal of Personality, 52, 1-21. 34. Simonton, D. K. (2006). Presidential IQ, openness, intellectual brilliance, and leadership: Estimates and correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives. Political Psychology, 27, 511- 526. 35. Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Poor leader- ship. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. Prone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 89-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 36. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Pull leadership development: Building the vital forces in the organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 37. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 38. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and sales performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(12), 115-134. [2 6) The Science of Leadership 56. Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wrnsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal ofManagement, 34, 89-126. 57. llies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Unde.r standing leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394; Walumbwa, F. 0., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wemsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development of a theory-based measure. Journal ofManagement, 34, 89- 106. 58. Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B. (2008). Leadership. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational 1: Micro approaches (pp. 334-352). London: SAGE Publications. 59. Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 67- 81. 60. Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. (2011). transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 801- 817. 61. Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of!eadership in the employee as if the answer to this of leadership narratives captivated classical and Plutarch), who Today, there is leader- theory" on ama- or perhaps even leader- clear-cut definition are passion- as a result, fact that beliefs observed that of leadership in the emerged in the leadership defini- with the toward com- in the 1970s, Burns, who by persons with other resources, in goals independently p. 436).5 Recognition and instead of a sim- is what Peter While intriguing and important, an understanding of leader role occupancy tells us only who was imposed upon the group by the organization; it tells us nothing about how leaders behave once attaining their position. Thus, the second topic focuses on different leadership styles and behaviors. Variations of high- and poor-quality leadership behaviors have been investigated in thousands of scientific studies. Given major organizational scandals, there is also a burgeon- ing interest in what constitutes and leads to ethical and unethical leadership. · Many of these behaviors will be considered throughout this book. The third feature, which is often of most interest to organizational practi- tioners and applied researchers, centers on leadership effectiveness or success. The effects of leadership can be widespread and manifested in the behavior of employees (e.g., organizational loyalty, health, job quality), teams (e.g., cohe- sion), and organizational effectiveness (e.g., financial performance). Isolating effects is sometimes complicated by the fact that they are often indirect and delayed. All of these effects will be discussed fully in the next two chapters. The discussion so far has appropriately dealt with different aspects of lead- ership. But the focus of this chapter, and of this book, is on "organizational" leadership. The focus on organizational leadership does not mean that the type or style of leadership practiced successfully in work organizations would necessarily be inappropriate in other contexts. Instead, in the extent to which there are similarities across contexts, we should expect that the same leader- ship principles would apply. In Chapter 7, we will consider leadership in dif- ferent contexts (i.e., labor unions, military, political context, schools, sports teams and organizations), and see how knowledge about leadership transfers across contexts and why it sometimes might not. In any event, any focus on lead derives from the organizational leadership is justified given the role of organizations in the eco- nomic well-being of our societies and the personal well-being of their mem- bers, and the part that leadership plays in this. The major part of this first chapter focuses on modem leadership theories. recognizing that there Because leadership theories are ultimately nothing more than different expla- nations and predictions about a set of behaviors, we end the chapter with some thoughts about moving from theory back to everyday behavior, with "emergence" sp ecific reference to transformational leadership. of factors (e.g., some people ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES or infor- Paraphrasing the opening words from Andy Williams' song that was immor- talized in the 1970 Academy Award- nominated movie "Love Story,"9 where do we begin to tell the story of modem organizational leadership? We could behaviors are begin with World War II, when theories of leadership emphasized the impor- tance of traits such as height, physical appearance, and socioeconomic sta- tus. Or we could move forward to the 1950s, when research from Ohio State ORGANIZAT I ONA L LEADERSHIP [3) 120 could tum to the 1960s, 100 1------ ----- - --------+t --TFL 1----- ---------------1--t --LMX Charisma ----·Consider of departure 0.. ·e 6o ······ Follower - · - · Authentic - - - Situation z - · · · Path-goal --ILT and --Romance ,.. of leadership o 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year of publication Figure 1.1 Leadership theories in research, 1970- 2012. TFL, transformational leadership; LMX, leader- member exchange; ILT, implicit leadership theory. Transform ational Leadership It is often difficult to pinpoint the precise intellectual origins of an idea or theory, but in the case of transformational leadership, the profound influ- ence of two individuals who have had a major impact on our understanding of leadership, namely James McGregor Bums and Bernie Bass, makes this task a lot easier. Both Bums and Bass bad been involved in leadership research for decades before exerting their seminal influence on the development and emergence of transformational leadership theory. They come from different intellectual traditions. McGregor Burns is a political scientist and historian, who attended the London School of Economics and received his doctoral degree from Harvard University. His 1970 study of America's 32nd presi- dent, entitled Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom, 1940-1945, 15 was awarded both the Pulitzer Prize (for History) and the National Book Award in History and Biography. Bums published other books analyzing the leadership behaviors of various U.S. presidents, including the three Roosevelts_.16 all the presidents from John F. Kennedy through to George W. Bush,17 and, most recently, Bill Clinton.18 Bums formally differentiated between transformational and trans- actional leadership in his 1978 publication Leadership.19 Bernie Bass's overall contributions to our understanding of leader- ship are equally extensive. Bass embarked on his study of leadership in the 1940s and was credited early on with the development of the "leaderless group test." He was the author of an unbelievable 400 scientific articles. 20 ORG ANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP (5) 1 ,.,..,. Paraphrasing the title of Bass' 1985 book, inspirational motivation involves leadership behaviors that help employees perform "beyond expectations"29 - both beyond the expectations that employees hold for themselves and those that others hold for them. These leaders' vision of what needs to be accom- plished forms the cornerstone of their behaviors, which they convey to their followers by telling stories and using symbols and metaphors in their conver- sations with their followers. They inspire by setting high but realistic goals for their followers. By doing so, they show that they believe in their followers' abilities and trust in their integrity, essentially setting up the conditions for a self-fulfilling prophesy. 30 Through all this, inspirationally motivating leaders nurture a deep sense of self-efficacy and resilience in their followers, help- ing them to believe in themselves so that they will first confront the internal psychological hurdles and external barriers that inhibit high levels of perfor- mance, and then persist in their efforts. Trait theories initially assumed that leaders' intelligence was critical to their success, and intelligence has indeed been shown to be associated with leader- ship emergence31 and transformational leadership behaviors. 32 Intelligence is also associated with leadership effectiveness: Dean Keith Simonton's analy- ses showed that intelligence scores were associated with external reputation of 342 European monarchs, 33 as well as with the presidential performance of all 42 U.S. presidents, from George Washington through George Bush.34 Despite these findings, transformational leadership takes a different per- spective: The goal of intellectual stimulation is not to make leaders more intel- ligent- instead, intellectually stimulating leaders elevate their followers by allowing and encouraging them to think for themselves, all the time challeng- ing their followers to question long-held assumptions, whether about their own self-limiting expectations or the way in which work is conducted. Doing so conveys trust, and is consistent with a perspective that encourages and val- ues employees' development and participation. Crucially, there is a long-term component to intellectual stimulation, which is epitomized in a popular 1976 quote attributed to Ralph Nader, who said, "I always thought that the function ofleadership was to produce more leaders, not more followers.'' Because intel- lectual stimulation ensures that employees learn to think about their work, leaders who engage in intellectual stimulation implicitly prepare the next gen- eration of organizational leaders. The final component of transformational leadership is individualized consid- eration, through which leaders provide emotional and instrumental support to their employees, thereby fostering personal and work-related development. However brief and in whatever form (e.g., face-to-face, e-mail, videoconfer- encing), these interactions are characterized by active listening, caring, and focus on the other person. While the behaviors included within individual- ized consideration are by no means unique to transformational leadership, they define the quality of the leader-follower relationship and influence how ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP (7) intervening even in serious situations. Leaders who could be characterized as laissez-faire would be seen by their employees as disengaged and psychologi- cally absent. Later conceptualizations of transformational leadership explic- itly include both the transactional and transformational components in a "full-range" leadership model and situate them on a continuum from the least to the most active leadership behaviors. 36 Differentiating between transformational and transactional leadership is both theoretically and practically important. Transformational leaders' ability to influence employees and the trust that employees place in these leaders are rooted in their informal power in the organization, which is dependent on the quality of the relationships that they develop with their followers. In sharp contrast, while some of the behaviors included within transactional leader- ship are associated with more positive employee attitudes and higher levels of employee performance, transactional leadership differs from tional leadership in the most fundamental way. Despite its name, the behav- iors included within transactional "leadership" do not truly reflect leadership, because they are dependent on leaders' formal hierarchical positions and the power derived from their formal positions. As such, "transactional leadership" might best be viewed as an oxymoron: While many of these behaviors are nec- essary (e.g., contingent reward), they derive from one's formal position and reflect good management, not leaqership. One last question is how transformational and transactional leadership go together. To answer this, Bass originally proposed what he called the "augmentation hypothesis" to explain their relative roles and importance, 37 according to which transformational leadership "augments" or adds to any effects generated by transactional leadership. Stated somewhat differently, the effects of transformational leadership would go beyond those of trans- actional leadership. Consistent support has been yielded for this idea: As but one example,38 Scott MacKenzie, Phillip Podsakoff, and Gregory Rich showed that the effect of transformational leadership was more than three times that of transactional leadership on (a) critical employee attitudes (e.g., trust in the manager, willing to engage in voluntary activities to benefit the organization) and, perhaps more important, (b) an index of objective sales performance. Clearly, unlike other leadership theories, management behaviors (or transac- tional leadership) are given a specific role within transformational leadership. Charismatic Leadership when the Perhaps the theory or approach closest to transformational leadership is char- ismatic leadership; indeed, so close are these two theories that differentiating between them can be difficult. The modern incarnations of both transforma- tional and charismatic leadership emerged in the 1970s, and the titles of both OR GANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP (9) are vastly overused. On occasion the broader social system, and to behave morally. Conversely, personalized charismatic leaders were more likely to cause harm to individuals and the social system, and to act aggressively. A second modem interpretation of charismatic leadership relies less on the behaviors or personality of the leader and more on attributions that followers make about leaders and their.behaviors,45 an approach that is most closely aligned with the idea that leadership is all "in the eye of the holder." Leader behaviors are not unimportant within this perspective. Instead, what is most important is that leaders' behaviors come to be viewed or perceived as charis- matic by their followers. The next step in this process is that the charisma is believed to be a part of the leader's inner dispositions. Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo46 suggested that there are three behav- ioral stages in this attributional model of charisma. In their view, the leader first actively scrutinizes the organization for potential or actual weaknesses, which provides ideas that can serve as the basis for the process of radical change. This sets up the second stage, in which the leader offers a vision that is dramatically different from current organizational reality, leaving thei:p- selves worthy of followers' respect, appropriate targets for identification, and role models for others. Last, through their unusual skills, risk-taking, total dedication, and willingness to lead by example, leaders develop followers' commitment to the distal goals and show how these goals can be achieved. Despite the specificity given to this attributional process, perhaps all leader- ship theories recognize that followers make attributions about leaders from their behaviors. A critical point of departure differentiating both perspectives of charis- matic leadership from transformational leadership is their exclusion of the transformational components of intellectual stimulation and individual- ized consideration from charismatic leadership. This is important, as some re.search has shown unique effects for intellectual stimulation (but not charis- matic leadership) on enhanced return on equity and sales growth under condi- tions of high uncertainty. 47 This difference notwithstanding, there is increasing agreement that the similarities between charismatic and transformational leadership may out- weigh any differences, with calls for more research to understand the nature of any similarities and differences, and whether transformational and charis- matic leadership have different organizational outcomes. 48 Moreover, despite the theoretical differences between the two models of charismatic leadership, the question of whether charismatic leadership is behaviorally or attribution- ally based is now seen as less important. 49 At the same time, interest in the distinction between socialized and personalized charismatic leadership, which reinforces the notion that charismatic leadership by itself is neither inher- ently good nor evil and explains the "bright" and "dark" sides of charisma, continues to attract interest.50 ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP [11 I and follower, ultimately forming the basis for fulfilling, trusting, meaning- ful, and productive relationships with others in which leaders can exert an influence. The fourth component of authentic leadership is a highly developed, inter- nalized moral perspective, reinforcing the place of authentic leadership as a new-genre leadership theory. Authentic leaders resolve moral issues and dilemmas by referencing their own internal moral standards rather than by being bound by external standards, regulations, or rules. In this respect, authentic leaders have reached what some moral and developmental theorists would see as the highest stages of moral reasoning. 54 This developmental pro- gression is central within authentic leadership theory. Several aspects about "authenticn leadership warrant attention. 55 First, what is the evidence for the four components? In samples of high-tech man- ufacturing workers in the United States, university employees in the United States, part-time students who were concurrently employed on a full-time basis in the United States, and employees within a large, state-owned orga- nization in China, Fred Walumbwa and his co-researchers found consistent support for the existence of the four components, and for the notion that they can be aggregated into a single measure of authentic leadership. 56 Second, there is no suggestion that the four components of authentic leadership Oeaders' self-awareness, balanced or unbiased processing, rela- thyself." tional transparency, an internalized moral perspective) are independent of each other,57 nor does the initial research suggest that they are. Third, the "authentic selfn is defined not in terms of interactions with others but in how people see and define themselves and the extent to which their behav- ior is consistent with their self-perceptions. Last, leaders are not simply "authentic" or "inauthentic"; instead, they vary in the extent to which they are authentic or not. Acknowledging that authentic leadership remains one of the more recent leadership theories, as is evident from Figure 1.1, several conclusions are in order. First, as Timothy Judge and his colleagues suggest,58 the challenge for researchers is now to show how authentic leadership differs from other similar theories, perhaps especially transformational leadership. The need to do so is evident from titles of scholarly articles in which there is complete overlap between these theories, such as "authentic transformational leader- ship";59 even prominent theorists in authentic and leader- ship are prone to using such terms.60 Second, greater appreciation of the value of authentic leadership would derive from research that directly contrasts the effects of authentic leadership with other similar approaches and theo- ries. Third, confidence in the effectiveness of authentic leadership would be enhanced significantly if findings were derived from teams of independent researchers working independently of each other. ORGANIZATIONAL LBADERSH I P (13 ) within the dyad, for example) is leadership per se, as LMX theory implies, or whether it is a consequence of high-quality leadership. As will be seen in Chapter 2, enhanced t rust in and liking of the leader, and mutual support between leader and follower are among the most consistent outcomes of lead- ership- irrespective of the particular leadership theory. Thus, it remains pos- sible that the high-quality relationships identified by LMX theory reflect the most important consequence of leadership behaviors, rather than leadership itself. Despite these lingering questions, LMX theory remains one of the most widely researched of all leadership theories over the past three decades; and as the data in Figure 1.1 suggest, it will likely remain so for years to come. from Servant Leadership leader- Including servant leadership in any discussion of new-genre theories may initially seem misplaced: From a chronological perspective, Robert Greenleaf first described the nature of servant leadership in two books published in the 1970s, entitled The Servant as Leader66 and Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. 67 (A 25th anniversary edition of the latter book was published as a set of readings in 2002, with a foreword proviaed by Steven Covey. 68) Nonetheless, because servant leadership empha- sizes ethical behaviors and the leader-follower relationship, it fits comfort- ably under the rubric of a new-genre leadership theory. Moreover, some of the core ideas inherent in servant leadership have been subjected to scientific scrutiny within the past decade. 69 More than half a million copies of Greenleaf's books and articles had been sold worldwide by the mid-2000s. 70 Despite the popularity of "servant lead- ership," or more probably because of its popularity, pinpointing the precise nature of servant leadership is not easy because of what scholars refer to as "conceptual drift": As increasing numbers of people used the term "servant leadership" in their discussions and writings, variations from the original term became inevitable. Isolating the precise nature of servant leadership was also not helped by the fact that Greenleaf's own ideas changed and developed, ev:e n subtly, throughout his prolific career. As a result, Larry Spears, who later became president and chief executive officer (CEO) of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership,71 identified 10 characteristics of servant lead- ership:72 listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualiza- tion, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people separate from their value as employees, and, consistent with its core value of serving others, building community. Because of the confusion as to the exact nature of servant leadership, Robert Liden and his colleagues started their research on servant leadership by developing a scale that could reliably assess the dimensions of servant ORGAN IZATIONAL LEADERS HIP (15) LMX, and servant leadership all predict commitment to the organization,77 only servant leadership predicted employees' voluntary involvement within the community at large, which is consistent with the fact that servant leader- ship sees the health of the community as one of its primary goals. One last finding relating to servant leadership is worth mentioning. Initially, servant leadership theorists focused on the dyadic relationship between leader and follower. Consistent with the current interest not just in leadership of individual employees but also of teams, one recent study showed that servant leadership operates equally well in the context of relationships between leaders and teams.78 growth Ethi cal Leadership There have been all too many publicly visible ethical lapses by business leaders in different parts of the world over the last two decades, with sometimes dev- astating personal, organizational, and social consequences. Over and above the massive financial consequences for all the stakeholders involved (the orga- nization itself, its shareholders, and employees), these ethical lapses tend to shake the public's confidence not just in the unethical leaders but in all lead- ers. For all these reasons, there has been a surge of interest in why leaders would choose or agree to behave ethically. In an area as fraught as ethical lead- ership, we should not be surprised to find that there is an array of different explanations about this complex and critical organizational issue. Before sorting through this immense literature, however, an important reminder: This discussion centers on ethical behaviors performed by organiza- tional leaders. We will deal with two different approaches to unethical leader- ship in Chapter 9. given Moral Reasoning surprising that Ever since Jean Piaget's ground-breaking research with children,79 psycholo- gists have been interested in the question of how people grapple with moral dilemmas. Starting in the late 1960s, Lawrence Kolhberg developed a model of how people reason about the moral dilemmas they face in their everyday lives. In Kohlberg's model,80 people's life experiences and social environments shape their cognitive reasoning abilities. As gain more life experiences, a larger repertoire of options and perspectives becomes available to them in resolving moral dilemmas. Kolhberg proposed that people progress through. three major moral development stages. In the first stage of moral reasoning, the "preconventional phase," people are egocentric and emphasize obedience, avoidance of punishment, and self-interest in how they reason about moral ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP [17) of others, and to respond to these specific needs. As such, the hallmark of a care orientation in resolving moral disputes would be to find creative ways of simultaneously satisfying the competing rights and responsibilities of both parties, rather than deciding between the conflicting rights of the different parties. In this sense, Gilligan's model moves responsibility for resolving moral dilemmas from reasoning to relationships. Subsequent research has confirmed that an ethic of care plays a significant role in ethical leadership. Taking transformational leadership as a reflection of ethical leadership because of its focus on the collective good and devel- op ing employees, Sheldene Simola, Nick Turner, and l conducted two stud- ies which showed that leaders who reported higher levels of an ethic of care were also rated by their subordinates as higher on transformational leader- ship.84 Interestingly, as was the case with Turner and colleagues' research on moral reasoning and transformational leadership, the ethic of care was not associated with transactional leadership in either of our two studies, and we suggested that the probable reason for this is that the moral foundation of transactional leadership is based on reasoning about fairness, rather than on relational needs. this finding Assessing Ethical Leadership limited. Notwithstanding the fact that there are many different approaches to under- standing ethical leadership (and even more if we include unethical leader- ship; see Chapter 9), Michael Brown, Linda Trevino, and Michael Harrison have offered an overall definition of ethical leadership.85 In their view, ethical leadership has multiple components. They do not specifically define the pre- cise behaviors that constitute ethical leadership, as they acknowledge explic- itly that these behaviors would be shaped and defined to some extent by the context in which they occur. They do, however, acknowledge the universality of behaviors such as ·honesty, trustworthiness, fairness and care" (p. 120), some of which are included in the ethical leadership theory just discussed. Brown and his colleagues' definition requires that these leaders explicitly take the ethical consequences of their decisions into account, and that ethi- cal behaviors are enacted personally by ethical leaders in their relationships and communications with their followers. Last, these leaders set high ethical standards, and reward their followers for meeting or exceeding the standards and punish ethical violations. Subsequent research, for example, showing how ethical leadership influences the way people experience their work and, in tum, their job performance,86 has validated Brown and colleagues' ethical leadership framework. The long-term influence of Brown and colleagues' research could well be far-reaching. The major outcome of their study was the development a brief, ORGANIZATIONAL LBADBRSHIP (19) make them look weak, research findings show the opposite is true: offering a full apology is associated with being seen as more of a transformational leader, not less.88 Why might apologies be so meaningful? Apologizing for the transgression requires more than just saying sorry; it involves acknowledg- ments of remorse, taking responsibility for the transgression, expressions of empathy, and offers of symbolic or material compensation.89 Doing all this conveys humility, proof that leaders value employees' or followers' well-being, and an attempt to restore the dignity of the other. 90 An extraordinary demon- stration of this involved Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize. Appealing to Winnie Mandela at the Truth and Reconciliat ion that they are obtained. Commission, of which he was the co-chair, to account for ethical mistakes she had made in her fight against the apartheid government, Tutu begged her to disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 =Neither agree apologize: "'Something went wrong,' said Tutu, pleading with Winnie Mandela to say publicly: I'm sorry, I'm sorry for my part in what went wrong.... 'I beg (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning per- and Human Decision Processes 97 you, I beg you... I beg you, please...You are a great person. And you don't know ' how your greatness would be enhanced if you were to say, ''I'm sorry'" " (italics added).91 The lesson is clear: Leaders do not undermine their stature with an apology. To the contrary, Desmond Tutu reminded us all that just saying 'Tm sorry" would be enough for Winnie Mandela to reaffirm her greatness. A second example of how complex leadership concepts are translated into everyday behaviors is through the use of self-deprecating humor. Self-deprecating humor offers an ideal opportunity for revealing the humil- ity that is consistent with idealized influence. Consider this distinction: in the days before the Republican National Convention in August, 2012, Mitt Romney joked in a speech in Michigan about whether President Obama could prove he was born in the United States, but the joke backfired badly. Might his leadership have been better served if the joke had been targeted at himself in some way rather than at his opponent? In contrast, Al Gore recovered from the controversy over whether he had claimed to have invented the Internet with self-deprecating humor when he went on the Late Show with David Letterman, and while reading Letterman's famous "Top Ten List," proclaimed "Remember, America, I gave you the Internet, and I can take it away!"92 Inspirational motivation can be conveyed symbolically through leaders' optimism in interactions with their followers, which symbolically shows that they believe in their abilities and trust in their intentions. Several examples of this can be offered. Irrespective of the controversies that swirled about Mayor Giuliani following the attacks of 9/11,93 his now-famous comment in a press conference that same afternoon, that "Tomorrow New York is going to be here, and we're going to rebuild, and we're going to be stronger than we were before... I want the people of New York to be an example to the rest ofthe country, an.d the rest of the world, that terrorism can't stop us''94 (italics added) shows that at the worst possible times-when followers might despair and seek revenge, they need optimism and hope from their leaders to elevate them, and to ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP (21 ).' !. This is exemplified in the movie by the use of the word "suppose." In an espe- cially telling scene, Juror #7 (played by Jack Warden) is impatient for the completion of their deliberations because he has tickets for a baseball game. He is frustrated with Juror #8 (brilliantly portrayed by Henry Fonda), who ini- tially voted not guilty to compel the jury to consider the evidence and give the accused a fair trial. Irritated by what he sees as Juror #B's obstinance, which may cost him his baseball game, he confronts him: "Suppose you are wrong and the kid's really guilty, then what?" Fonda's character is visibly shaken by the question, which forces him to reconsider all his assumptions- the very goal of intellectual stimulation. In a separate scene in the movie, Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) uses the word "suppose" to convey how intellectual stimulation is not used by his leader at work: Humbly describing his job, he says "Oh I don't do any of the supposin' at work, my boss does all the supposin.'" 12 Angry Men culminates with another vivid example of intellectual stim- ulation. Juror #4 (played by E.G. Marshall) is the last remaining juror who believes the boy is guilty, and needs to be persuaded otherwise. Juror #9 (Jack Sweeney), a wise old man who provides Fonda's character with support throughout the movie, has the evidence to put the boy's innocence beyond doubt, but he does not just tell Juror #4 what the evidence is. Instead, the turning point in 12 Angry Men comes when Juror #9 (Sweeney) forces Juror #4 (Marshall) to confront the critical evidence by pointedly asking him: "Could those marks be made by anything other than eyeglasses?" Of course Sweeney's character knows the answer, but like any wonderful leader, he also knows that the person with the most persuasive influence over Juror #4 (Marshall) is Juror #4 himself. With their overwhelming workload, many leaders worry how they could possibly find the time to engage in the caring, listening, and compassion that are characteristic of individualized consideration behaviors. But it is pos- sible, and we would do well to remember the research of Cassie Mogilner, Zoe Chance, and Michael Norton, which showed that spending time on others left people with what they called a greater sense of "time affluence," the feeling that accomplishing something with one's time leaves us with more time.101 Observing superlative leaders confirmed for me that high-quality leadership does not necessarily take time. As one example, one of the most meaning- ful things I have learned while engaged in leadership development initiatives is how leaders themselves glowingly recall receiving a "thank you" card or e-mail from their own leader, and then admit that they have kept the card for several years. But the story does not end there. Many of these leaders also acknowledge that, years later, during an especially difficult time, they go back and look at these "thank you" cards-and it picks them up again! Again, the smallest possible things that leaders do, in this case giving a thank you card Henry Higgins that reminds people that they belong, and reaffirms that they are valued, will often have the most long-lasting effects.102 ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSH IP (23) That being said, two questions come to mind: Does leadership work, and if so, bow? The next two chapters will deal with each of these questions. SUGGESTED READING Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F.0. (2005). (Eds.). Authentic leader- ship theory and practice: Origins, effects and development. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002) (Eds.). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness 25th anniversary edition. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. New York: Oxford University Press. NOTES 1. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook ofleadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. New York: Free Press. 2. http://www.amazon.com/ Accessed April 15, 2013. 3. Stodgill, R. A. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey oftheory and research. New York: Free Press. 4. Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger. 5. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. 6. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 7. Bennis, W., & Nanus (1985). Leaders: The strategie.s for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. 8. Kotter, J. P. (1999). What leaders really do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 9. "Love Story" lyrics. Retrieved from http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/a/andy_ williams/love_story.html 10. Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hoption, A. (2010). Leadership. In S. Zedeck (Ed.). Handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology (pp. 183-240). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 11. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. 0., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review ofPsychology, 60, 421- 449. 12. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 13. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 14. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five factor model of personality and transfor- mational leadership. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 751-756. 15. Bums, J.M. (1970). Roosevelt: Soldier of freedom, 1940-1945. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP (25) leaders who trans- 39. Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. (1988). Developing transformational lead- ers: A lifespan approach. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 40. Weber, M. (1947). The theory ofsocial and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Transl.). New York: Free Press. 41. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larsen (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 42. House, R., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108. and educational 43. Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leader- ship in organizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leader- Theory, research ship (pp. 213-236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 44. O'Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. L., & Connelly, M. S. leadership question- I ' (1995). Charismatic leadership and destructiveness: An histiometric study. Quarterly, 6, 529-555. 45. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in orga- nizations: An insider's perspective oln these developing streams of research. through leaders' Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145-179. 46. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (Eds.) (1998). Charismatic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass; House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions. Jn J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 45-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 47. Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 355- 380. 48. Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B. (2008). Leadership. In in leadership J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook oforganizational behavior. Vol. 1: Micro approaches (pp. 334-352). London: SAGE Publications. 49. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in orga- nizations: An insider's perspective oln these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145-179. 50. Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B. (2008). Leadership. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior. Vol. 1: Micro approaches (pp. 334- 352). London: SAGE Publications. 51. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. 0., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421- 449. 52. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An intro- duction. American Psychologist, 55, 5- 14. 53. May, D. R., Chan, A., Hodges, T., Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral com- ponent of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247-260. 54. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the development of moral thought and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 55. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership develop- ment: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338. ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP (27) 75. Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leader- ship: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565-596. 76. Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focu.s as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93, and validation 1220-1233. 77. Llden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leader- ship: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. behavior. Vol. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161- 177. 78. Hu, J., & Llden, R. D. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effective- ness: An examination of goal and proce.s s clarity and servant leadership. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 96, 851- 862. The effects of authentic 79. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. 80. Kolhberg, L. (1969). Stages in the development of moral thought and moral action. New York: Holt, Rihehart & Winston; Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization:

The Science of Leadership Lessons from Research for Organizational Leaders PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue