week-5.1

What Is Leadership?

1

Contrast leadershipand management.

We define leadership as the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals. The source of this influence may be formal, such as that provided by managerial rank in an organization. But not all leaders are managers, nor are all managers leaders. Just because an organization provides its managers with certain formal rights is no assurance they will lead effectively. Nonsanctioned leadership—the ability to influence that arises outside the formal structure of the organization—is often as important or more important than formal influence. Leaders can emerge from within a group as well as by formal appointment.

leadership

The ability to influence a group toward the achievementof a vision or set of goals.

Organizations need strong leadership and strong management for optimal effectiveness. We need leaders to challenge the status quo, create visions of the future, and inspire organizational members to achieve the visions. We also need managers to formulate detailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and oversee day-to-day operations.

Note: Survey of 700 respondents. Source: Based on J. Brox, “The Results Are In: How Do You Ensure You’re Constantly Developing as a Leader?” (May 14, 2013), http://www.refreshleadership.com/index.php/2013/05/results-ensure-youre-constantly-developing-leader/#more-4732.”

Trait Theories

2

Summarize the conclusions of trait theories of leadership.

Throughout history, strong leaders have been described by their traits. Trait theories of leadership focus on personal qualities and characteristics. The search for personality, social, physical, or intellectual attributes that differentiate leaders from nonleaders goes back to the earliest stages of leadership research.

trait theories of leadership

Theories that consider personal qualities and characteristics that differentiate leaders from nonleaders.

Early efforts to isolate leadership traits resulted in a number of dead ends. A research review in the late 1960s identified nearly 80 leadership traits, but only 5 were common to 4 or more of the investigations.1 By the 1990s, we could say most leaders “are not like other people,” but the particular traits that characterized them varied a great deal from review to review.2 Identifying leadership traits remained a challenge.

A breakthrough came when researchers began organizing traits around the Big Five personality framework (see Chapter 5).3 Most of the dozens of traits in various leadership reviews fit under one of the Big Five (ambition and energy are part of extraversion, for instance), giving strong support to certain traits as predictors of leadership.

A comprehensive review of the leadership literature organized around the Big Five has found extraversion to be the most predictive trait of effective leadership,4but it is more strongly related to the way leaders emerge than to their effectiveness. Sociable and dominant people are more likely to assert themselves in group situations, but leaders need to make sure they’re not too assertive. One study found leaders who scored very high on assertiveness were less effective than those who were moderately high.5

Unlike agreeableness and emotional stability, conscientiousness and openness to experience also showed strong relationships to leadership, though not quite as strong as extraversion. Overall, the trait approach does have something to offer. Leaders who like being around people and are able to assert themselves (extraverted), who are disciplined and able to keep commitments they make (conscientious), and who are creative and flexible (open) do have an apparent advantage when it comes to leadership, suggesting good leaders do have key traits in common. One reason is that conscientiousness and extraversion are positively related to leaders’ self-efficacy, which explained most of the variance in subordinates’ ratings of leader performance.6 People are more likely to follow someone who is confident she’s going in the right direction.

Photo 12-1Indra Nooyi, CEO and board chairman of PepsiCo, is described as fun-loving, sociable, agreeable, conscientious, emotionally stable, and open to experiences. Recognized as one of the most powerful women in business, Nooyi’s personal qualities andtraits have contributed to her job performance and career success. 

Source: PRNewsFoto/PepsiCo, Ray Hand.

Another trait that may indicate effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EI), discussed in Chapter 4 . Advocates of EI argue that without it, a person can have outstanding training, a highly analytical mind, a compelling vision, and an endless supply of terrific ideas but still not make a great leader. This may be especially true as individuals move up in an organization.7 A core component of EI is empathy. Empathetic leaders can sense others’ needs, listen to what followers say (and don’t say), and read the reactions of others. A leader who effectively displays and manages emotions will find it easier to influence the feelings of followers by expressing genuine sympathy and enthusiasm for good performance, and by showing irritation when employees fail to perform.8

The link between EI and leadership effectiveness may be worth investigating in greater detail.9 Recent research has demonstrated that people high in EI are more likely to emerge as leaders, even after taking cognitive ability and personality into account.10

Based on the latest findings, we offer two conclusions. First, contrary to what we believed 20 years ago and thanks to the Big Five, we can say that traits can predict leadership. Second, traits do a better job predicting the emergence of leaders and the appearance of leadership than distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders.11 The fact that an individual exhibits the right traits and that others consider him or her a leader does not necessarily mean the leader is successful at getting the group to achieve its goals.

Behavioral Theories

3

Identify the central tenetsand main limitations of behavioral theories.

The failures of early trait studies led researchers in the late 1940s through the 1960s to wonder whether there was something unique in the way effective leaders behave. Trait research provides a basis for selecting the right people for leadership. In contrast, behavioral theories of leadership implied we could train people to be leaders.

behavioral theories of leadership

Theories proposing that specificbehaviors differentiate leadersfrom nonleaders.

The most comprehensive theories resulted from the Ohio State Studies in the late 1940s,12 which sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior. Beginning with more than a thousand dimensions, the studies narrowed the list to two that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behavior described by employees: initiating structure and consideration.

Initiating structure is the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It includes behavior that attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. A leader high in initiating structure is someone who “assigns group members to particular tasks,” “expects workers to maintain definite standards of performance,” and “emphasizes the meeting of deadlines.”

initiating structure

The extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and those of subordinates in the search for goal attainment.

Consideration is the extent to which a person’s job relationships are characterized by mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. A leader high in consideration helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, treats all employees as equals, and expresses appreciation and support. In a recent survey, when asked to indicate what most motivated them at work, 66 percent of employees mentioned appreciation.13

consideration

The extent to which a leader is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates’ ideas, and regard for their feelings.

Photo 12-2Morgan Smith (left) is an employee-oriented leader who takes a personal interest in the needs of his employees. As former owner and managing partner of Boneheads Restaurant in Lake Forest, California, Smith is described as a generous, kind, and cheerful manager who shows respect for employees and helps them to reach their full potential. 

Source: Jebb Harris/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom.

Leadership studies at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center had similar objectives to the Ohio State Studies: to locate behavioral characteristics of leaders that appeared related to performance effectiveness. The Michigan group also identified two behavioral types: the employee-oriented leader emphasized interpersonal relationships by taking a personal interest in employees’ needs and accepting individual differences among them, and the production-oriented leader emphasized technical or task aspects of jobs, focusing on accomplishing the group’s tasks. These dimensions are closely related to the Ohio State dimensions. Employee-oriented leadership is similar to consideration, and production-oriented leadership is similar to initiating structure. In fact, most researchers use the terms synonymously.14

employee-oriented leader

A leader who emphasizes interpersonal relations, takes a personal interest in the needs of employees, and accepts individual differences among members.

production-oriented leader

A leader who emphasizes technical or task aspects of the job.

At one time, the results of behavioral theories tests were thought to be disappointing. However, a review of 160 studies found the followers of leaders high in consideration were more satisfied with their jobs, were more motivated, and had more respect for their leaders. Initiating structure was more strongly related to higher levels of group and organization productivity and more positive performance evaluations.

glOBalization! Leaders Broaden Their Span of Controlin Multinational Organizations

In the past 20 years, senior corporate leaders have increased their average number of direct reports from 5 to 10 as their organizations have spread into new multinational territories. You may think this is yet another example of organization bloat. In reality, it has more to do with the desire of today’s CEOs to directly engage with all areas of their business interests, bringing in representatives from new overseas ventures and even eliminating a significant middle layer of hierarchy (the role of the deputy, or COO, is on the decline among Fortune 500 companies). In fact, 80 percent of the new managers reporting to CEOs are functional leaders, who have been increasingly taking on general manager roles.

While the jump from 5 to 10 may not seem big in terms of headcount, the fact that these new direct reports represent diverse corporate interests poses a challenge for leadership. Research suggests the number of direct reports should be fewer than five if significant cross-organizational collaboration is needed, as in most multinational organizations. Experts also advise limiting the CEO’s span of control when organizations are in transition, as globally expanding businesses are by definition.

The type of leadership the organization’s particular CEO embodies should also suggest the optimal span of control, as should the national cultures of top overseas managers. A study from 23 countries showed that, in agreement with leader–member exchange (LMX) theory discussed in this chapter, individuals whose leaders treat them as favorites trust their leaders more in individualistic than in collectivistic cultures. This suggests that a CEO may be effective with a higher number of direct reports when they are from the organization’s Asian business interests, for example, because the collectivist culture’s respect for authority does not depend on personalized LMX attention. A CEO managing Western-culture direct reports might be better advised to keep the number to five or fewer in order to leverage the positive outcomes of high LMX.

Leadership issues are always at the forefront as companies expand. Companies have stretched and flattened their organizational structures to meet their global aspirations, but few leaders have directly addressed the high need for mental proximity—the ability to connect closely with their key employees, who are, after all, influential leaders themselves.

Sources: B. Groysberg and M. Slind, “Leadership Is a Conversation,” Harvard Business Review (June 2012), pp. 76–84; G. L. Neilson and J. Wulf, “How Many Direct Reports?” Harvard Business Review (April 2012), pp. 112–119; and T. Rockstuhl, J. H. Dulebohn, S. Ang, and L. M. Shore, “Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Culture: A Meta-Analysis of Correlates of LMX across 23 Countries,” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (2012), pp. 1097–1130.

Research from the GLOBE study suggests there are international differences in the preference for initiating structure and consideration.15 Based on the values of Brazilian employees, for instance, a U.S. manager leading a team in Brazil would need to be team oriented, participative, and humane. Leaders high in consideration would succeed best in this culture. As one Brazilian manager said in the study, “We do not prefer leaders who take self-governing decisions and act alone without engaging the group. That’s part of who we are.” Compared to U.S. employees, the French have a more bureaucratic view of leaders and are less likely to expect them to be humane and considerate. A leader high in initiating structure (relatively task-oriented) will do best and can make decisions in a relatively autocratic manner. A manager who scores high on consideration (people oriented) may find that style backfires in France. According to the study, Chinese culture emphasizes being polite, considerate, and unselfish, but it has a high performance orientation. Thus, consideration and initiating structure may both be important.

Summary of Trait Theories and Behavioral Theories

Leaders who have certain traits and who display consideration and structuring behaviors do appear to be more effective. Perhaps you’re wondering whether conscientious leaders (trait) are more likely to be structuring (behavior) and extraverted leaders (trait) to be considerate (behavior). Unfortunately, we are not sure there is a connection. Future research is needed to integrate these approaches.

Some leaders may have the right traits or display the right behaviors and still fail. As important as traits and behaviors are in identifying effective or ineffective leaders, they do not guarantee success. Context matters, too, which has given rise to the contingency theories we discuss next.

Contingency Theories

4

Assess contingency theories of leadership by their level of support.

Some tough-minded leaders seem to gain a lot of admirers when they take over struggling companies and lead them out of the doldrums. However, predicting leadership success is more complex than isolating a few traits or behaviors. What works in very bad times and in very good times doesn’t seem to translate into long-term success. When researchers looked at situational influences, it appeared that under condition a, leadership style x would be appropriate, whereas style y was more suitable for condition b, and style z for condition c. But what were conditions a, b, and c? We next consider four approaches to isolating situational variables: the Fiedler model, situational theory, path–goal theory, and the leader-participation model.

The Fiedler Model

Fred Fiedler developed the first comprehensive contingency model for leadership.16 The Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives the leader control.

Fiedler contingency model

The theory that effective groups depend on a proper match between a leader’s style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader.

Identifying Leadership Style

Fiedler believes a key factor in leadership success is the individual’s basic leadership style. He created the least preferred co-worker (LPC) questionnaire to identify that style by measuring whether a person is task or relationship oriented. The LPC questionnaire asks respondents to think of all the co-workers they have ever had and describe the one they least enjoyed working with by rating that person on a scale of 1 to 8 for each of 16 sets of contrasting adjectives (such as pleasant–unpleasant, efficient–inefficient, open–guarded, supportive–hostile). If you describe the person you are least able to work with in favorable terms (a high LPC score), Fiedler would label you relationship oriented. If you see your least-preferred co-worker in unfavorable terms (a low LPC score), you are primarily interested in productivity and are task oriented. About 16 percent of respondents score in the middle range17 and thus fall outside the theory’s predictions. Our discussion relates to the 84 percent who score in the high or low range of the LPC questionnaire.

least preferred co-worker (LPC) questionnaire

An instrument thatpurports to measure whether a person is task or relationship oriented.

Fiedler assumes an individual’s leadership style is fixed; if a situation requires a task-oriented leader and the person in the leadership position is relationship oriented, either the situation has to be modified or the leader has to be replaced to achieve optimal effectiveness.

What’s My LPC Score?

In the Self-Assessment Library (available in MyManagementLab), take assessment IV.E.5 (What’s My LPC Score?).

Defining the Situation

After assessing an individual’s basic leadership style through the LPC questionnaire, we match the leader with the situation. Fiedler identified three contingency or situational dimensions:

1. Leader–member relations is the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in their leader.

2. Task structure is the degree to which the job assignments are procedurized (that is, structured or unstructured).

3. Position power is the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases.

leader–member relations

The degree of confidence, trust, and respect subordinates have in their leader.

task structure

The degree to which job assignments are procedurized.

position power

Influence derived from one’s formal structural position in the organization; includes power to hire, fire, discipline, promote, and give salary increases.

We evaluate the situation in terms of these three variables. Fiedler states that the better the leader–member relations, the more highly structured the job, and the stronger the position power, the more control the leader has. A very favorable situation (in which the leader has a great deal of control) might include a payroll manager who is well respected and whose employees have confidence in him (good leader–member relations), activities that are clear and specific—such as wage computation, check writing, and report filing (high task structure), and provision of considerable freedom to reward and punish employees (strong position power). An unfavorable situation might be that of the disliked chairperson of a volunteer United Way fundraising team. In this job, the leader has very little control.

Matching Leaders and Situations

Combining the three contingency dimensions yields eight possible situations in which leaders can find themselves (Exhibit 12-1). The Fiedler model proposes matching an individual’s LPC score and these eight situations to achieve maximum leadership effectiveness.18 Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders perform better in situations very favorable to them and very unfavorable. So, when faced with a category I, II, III, VII, or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better. Relationship-oriented leaders, however, perform better in moderately favorable situations—categories IV, V, and VI. Fiedler later condensed these eight situations down to three.19 Task-oriented leaders perform best in situations of high and low control, while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations.

How would you apply Fiedler’s findings? You would match leaders—in terms of their LPC scores—with the type of situation—in terms of leader–member relationships, task structure, and position power—for which they were best suited. But remember that Fiedler views an individual’s leadership style as fixed. Therefore, there are only two ways to improve leader effectiveness.

Exhibit 12-1

Findings from the Fiedler Model

First, you can change the leader to fit the situation—as a baseball manager puts a right- or left-handed pitcher into the game depending on the hitter. If a group situation rates highly unfavorable but is currently led by a relationship-oriented manager, for example, the group’s performance could be improved under a manager who is task-oriented. The second alternative is to change the situation to fit the leader by restructuring tasks or increasing or decreasing the leader’s power to control factors such as salary increases, promotions, and disciplinary actions.

Evaluation

Studies testing the overall validity of the Fiedler model find considerable evidence to support substantial parts of it.20 If we use three categories rather than the original eight, ample evidence supports Fiedler’s conclusions.21 But the logic underlying the LPC questionnaire is not well understood, and respondents’ scores are not stable.22 The contingency variables are also complex and difficult for practitioners to assess.23

Other Contingency Theories

Although LPC theory is the most researched contingency theory, three others deserve mention.

Situational Leadership Theory

Situational leadership theory (SLT) focuses on the followers. It says successful leadership depends on selecting the right leadership style contingent on the followers’ readiness, the extent to which they are willing and able to accomplish a specific task. A leader should choose one of four behaviors depending on follower readiness.

situational leadership theory (SLT)

A contingency theory that focuses on followers’ readiness.

If followers are unable and unwilling to do a task, the leader needs to give clear and specific directions; if they are unable and willing, the leader needs to display high task orientation to compensate for followers’ lack of ability, and high relationship orientation to get them to “buy into” the leader’s desires. If followers are able and unwilling, the leader needs to use a supportive and participative style; if they are both able and willing, the leader doesn’t need to do much.

SLT has intuitive appeal. It acknowledges the importance of followers and builds on the logic that leaders can compensate for their limited ability and motivation. Yet research efforts to test and support the theory have generally been disappointing.24 Why? Possible explanations include internal ambiguities and inconsistencies in the model itself as well as problems with research methodology in tests. So, despite its intuitive appeal and wide popularity, any endorsement must be cautious for now.

Path–Goal Theory

Developed by Robert House, path–goal theory extracts elements from the Ohio State leadership research on initiating structure and consideration, and the expectancy theory of motivation.25 The theory suggests it’s the leader’s job to provide followers with information, support, or other resources necessary to achieve goals. (The term path–goal implies effective leaders clarify followers’ paths to their work goals and make the journey easier by reducing roadblocks.)

path–goal theory

A theory that states that it is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining their goals and to provide the necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their goals are compatible with the overall objectives of the group or organization.

Photo 12-3CEO Alan Mulally led a successful turnaround effort at Ford Motor Company by applying the path–goal theory. He directed managers and employees toward the goal of making Ford globally competitive and profitable and developed the Way Forward plan that focused on everyone in the company operating as one team around the world. 

Source: REUTERS/James Fassinger.

According to path–goal theory, whether a leader should be directive or supportive, or should demonstrate some other behavior, depends on complex analysis of the situation. The theory predicts:

• Directive leadership yields greater satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous or stressful than when they are highly structured and well laid out.

• Supportive leadership results in high performance and satisfaction when employees are performing structured tasks.

• Directive leadership is likely to be perceived as redundant among employees with high ability or considerable experience.

In a study of 162 workers in a document-processing organization, researchers found workers’ conscientiousness was related to higher levels of performance only when supervisors set goals and defined roles, responsibilities, and priorities.26 Other research has found that goal-focused leadership can lead to higher levels of emotional exhaustion for subordinates who are low in conscientiousness and emotional stability.27 These studies demonstrate that leaders who set goals enable conscientious followers to achieve higher performance but may cause stress for workers who are low in conscientiousness.

Leader-Participation Model

The final contingency theory we cover argues that the way the leader makes decisions is as important as what she or he decides. Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton’s leader-participation model relates leadership behavior and participation in decision making.28 Like path–goal theory, it says leader behavior must adjust to reflect the task structure. The model is normative—it provides a decision tree of seven contingencies and five leadership styles for determining the form and amount of participation in decision making.

leader-participation model

A leadership theory that provides a set of rules to determine the form and amount of participative decision making in different situations.

As one leadership scholar noted, “Leaders do not exist in a vacuum”; leadership is a symbiotic relationship between leaders and followers.29 But the theories we’ve covered to this point assume leaders use a fairly homogeneous style with everyone in their work unit. Think about your experiences in groups. Did leaders often act very differently toward different people? Our next theory considers differences in the relationships leaders form with diverse followers.

Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

Think of a leader you know. Does this leader have favorites who make up his or her ingroup? If you answered “yes,” you’re acknowledging the foundation of leader–member exchange theory.30 Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory argues that, because of time pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers. These individuals make up the ingroup—they are trusted, get a disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention, and are more likely to receive special privileges. Other followers fall into the outgroup.

leader–member exchange (LMX) theory

A theory that supports leaders’ creation of ingroups and outgroups; subordinates with ingroup status will have higher performance ratings, less turnover, and greater job satisfaction.

LMX theory proposes that early in the history of the interaction between a leader and a given follower, the leader implicitly categorizes the follower as an “in” or an “out”; that relationship is relatively stable over time. Leaders induce LMX by rewarding employees with whom they want a closer linkage and punishing those with whom they do not.31 For the LMX relationship to remain intact, the leader and the follower must invest in the relationship.

Just how the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear, but there is evidence ingroup members have demographic, attitude, and personality characteristics similar to those of their leader or a higher level of competence than outgroup members32 (see Exhibit 12-2). Leaders and followers of the same gender tend to have closer (higher LMX) relationships than those of different genders.33 Even though the leader does the choosing, the follower’s characteristics drive the categorizing decision.

Research to test LMX theory has been generally supportive, with substantive evidence that leaders do differentiate among followers; these disparities are far from random; and followers with ingroup status will have higher performance ratings, engage in more helping or “citizenship” behaviors at work, and report greater satisfaction with their superior.34 One study conducted in Portugal and the United States found that leader–member exchange was associated strongly with followers’ commitment to the organization when leaders were seen as embodying the values and identity of the organization.35 These findings for ingroup members shouldn’t be surprising, given our knowledge of self-fulfilling prophecy (see Chapter 6). Leaders invest resources with those they expect to perform best. Believing ingroup members are the most competent, leaders treat them as such and unwittingly fulfill their prophecy.

Exhibit 12-2

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

Leader–follower relationships may be stronger when followers have a more active role in shaping their own job performance. A study in Turkey demonstrated that when leaders differentiated strongly among their followers in terms of their relationships (some followers had very positive leader–member exchange, others very poor), employees responded with more negative work attitudes and higher levels of withdrawal behavior.36 Research on 287 software developers and 164 supervisors showed leader–member relationships have a stronger impact on employee performance and attitudes when employees have higher levels of autonomy and a more internal locus of control.37

Charismatic Leadership and Transformational Leadership

5

Contrast charismatic and transformational leadership.

In this section, we present two contemporary leadership theories—charismatic leadership and transformational leadership—with a common theme: They view leaders as individuals who inspire followers through words, ideas, and behaviors.

Charismatic Leadership

Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, Mary Kay Ash (founder of Mary Kay Cosmetics), and Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple Computer) are frequently cited as charismatic leaders. What do they have in common?

What Is Charismatic Leadership?

Sociologist Max Weber defined charisma (from the Greek for “gift”) more than a century ago as “a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he or she is set apart from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are not accessible to the ordinary person and are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.”38 Weber argued that charismatic leadership was one of several ideal types of authority.

The first researcher to consider charismatic leadership in terms of OB was Robert House. According to House’s charismatic leadership theory , followers attribute heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when they observe certain behaviors, and tend to give these leaders power.39 A number of studies have attempted to identify the characteristics of charismatic leaders: They have a vision, are willing to take personal risks to achieve that vision, are sensitive to follower needs, and exhibit extraordinary behaviors40 (see Exhibit 12-3).

charismatic leadership theory

A leadership theory that states that followers make attributions of heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when they observe certain behaviors.

1. Vision and articulation. Has a vision—expressed as an idealized goal—that proposes a future better than the status quo; and is able to clarify the importance of the vision in terms that are understandable to others.

2. Personal risk. Willing to take on high personal risk, incur high costs, and engage in selfsacrifice to achieve the vision.

3. Sensitivity to follower needs. Perceptive of others’ abilities and responsive to their needs and feelings.

4. Unconventional behavior. Engages in behaviors that are perceived as novel and counter to norms.

Exhibit 12-3

Key Characteristics of a Charismatic Leader

Source: Based on J. A. Conger and R. N. Kanungo, Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998), p. 94.

Are Charismatic Leaders Born or Made?

Are charismatic leaders born with their qualities? Or can people actually learn to be charismatic leaders? Yes, and yes.

Individuals are born with traits that make them charismatic. In fact, studies of identical twins have found they score similarly on charismatic leadership measures, even if they were raised in different households and never met. Personality is also related to charismatic leadership; charismatic leaders are likely to be extraverted, self-confident, and achievement oriented.41 Consider Presidents Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan: Like them or not, they are often compared because both possess the qualities of charismatic leaders.

To develop an aura of charisma by maintaining an optimistic view, use passion as a catalyst for generating enthusiasm, and communicate with the whole body, not just with words. Use an animated voice, reinforce your message with eye contact and enthusiastic expressions, and use gestures for emphasis. Draw others in by creating a bond that inspires them to follow. Bring out the potential in followers by tapping into their emotions. Recent research indicates that your presence matters as well in creating a charismatic impression. If you stay active and central in your leadership roles, you will naturally communicate your vision for achieving goals to your followers, which increases the likelihood that you will be seen as charismatic.42

How Charismatic Leaders Influence Followers

How do charismatic leaders actually influence followers? By articulating an appealing vision , a long-term strategy for attaining a goal by linking the present with a better future for the organization. Desirable visions fit the times and circumstances and reflect the uniqueness of the organization.

vision

A long-term strategy for attaining a goal or goals.

A vision needs an accompanying vision statement , a formal articulation of an organization’s vision or mission. Charismatic leaders may use vision statements to imprint on followers an overarching goal and purpose. They build followers’ self-esteem and confidence with high performance expectations and the belief that followers can attain them. Next, through words and actions the leader conveys a new set of values and sets an example for followers to imitate. One study of Israeli bank employees showed charismatic leaders were more effective because their employees personally identified with them. Charismatic leaders also set a tone of cooperation and mutual support. A study of 115 government employees found they had a stronger sense of personal belonging at work when they had charismatic leaders, increasing their willingness to engage in helping and compliance-oriented behavior.43

vision statement

A formal articulation of an organization’svision or mission.

Finally, the charismatic leader engages in emotion-inducing and often unconventional behavior to demonstrate courage and conviction about the vision. Followers “catch” the emotions their leader is conveying.44

Does Effective Charismatic Leadership Depend on the Situation?

People working for charismatic leaders are motivated to exert extra effort and, because they like and respect their leaders, express greater satisfaction. Organizations with charismatic CEOs are more profitable, and charismatic college professors enjoy higher course evaluations.45 Even in laboratory studies, when people are psychologically aroused, they are more likely to respond to charismatic leaders.46 This may explain why, when charismatic leaders surface, it’s likely to be in politics or religion, or during wartime, or when a business is in its infancy or facing a life-threatening crisis. Franklin D. Roosevelt offered a vision to get the United States out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. In 1997, when Apple Computer was floundering and lacking direction, the board persuaded charismatic co-founder Steve Jobs to return as interim CEO and restore the company to its innovative roots.

Another situational factor limiting charisma is the level in the organization. Top executives create vision; it’s more difficult to utilize a person’s charismatic leadership qualities in lower-level management jobs or to align his or her vision with the larger goals of the organization.

Finally, people are especially receptive to charismatic leadership when they sense a crisis, when they are under stress, or when they fear for their lives. Charismatic leaders are able to reduce stress for their employees, perhaps because they help make work seem more meaningful and interesting.47 Some peoples’ personalities are especially susceptible to charismatic leadership.48 Consider self-esteem. An individual who lacks self-esteem and questions his or her self-worth is more likely to absorb a leader’s direction rather than establish his or her own way of leading or thinking.

The Dark Side of Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic business leaders like GE’s Jack Welch, Apple’s Steve Jobs, Southwest Airlines’ Herb Kelleher, and Microsoft’s Steven Ballmer became celebrities on the order of Kate Middleton and Brad Pitt. Every company wanted a charismatic CEO, and to attract them, boards of directors gave them unprecedented autonomy and resources—the use of private jets and multimillion-dollar penthouses, interest-free loans to buy beach homes and artwork, security staffs, and similar benefits befitting royalty. One study showed charismatic CEOs were able to leverage higher salaries even when their performance was mediocre.49

Unfortunately, charismatic leaders who are larger than life don’t necessarily act in the best interests of their organizations.50 Many have allowed their personal goals to override the goals of the organization. The results at companies such as Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and HealthSouth were leaders who recklessly used organizational resources for their personal benefit and executives who violated laws and ethical boundaries to inflate stock prices and allow leaders to cash in millions of dollars in stock options. Research has shown that individuals who are narcissistic are also higher in some behaviors associated with charismatic leadership.51

It’s not that charismatic leadership isn’t effective; overall, it is. But a charismatic leader isn’t always the answer. Success depends, to some extent, on the situation and on the leader’s vision. Some charismatic leaders—Hitler, for example—are all too successful at convincing their followers to pursue a vision that can be disastrous.

How Charismatic Am I?

In the Self-Assessment Library (available in MyManagementLab), take assessment II.B.2 (How Charismatic Am I?).

Myth or Science? “Top Leaders Feel the Most Stress”

Leaders of corporations fight pressures from their boards, customers, managers, and employees. Wouldn’t it stand to reason they are the most stressed people in their organizations? Apparently not. According to studies from Harvard University, the University of California–San Diego, and Stanford University, leadership brings a blissful relief from the stress felt by individuals who are not in managerial roles. Not only did leaders report less anxiety than nonleaders, but their cortisol (stress hormone) levels were also lower, indicating they biologically are less likely to register stress. Another study found that individuals in higher-status occupational groups registered less perceived stress and lower blood pressure readings than those in lower status occupations.

If you’re thinking this is one more reason “it’s better at the top,” you may be right, if only partially. It is true that leaders appear to show fewer signs of stress by virtue of being leaders, regardless of higher income or longer job tenure. However, researchers found no “magic level” in an organization at which employees feel a reduction in stress levels.

One study found that stress reduction correlates with feelings of control. Leaders with more subordinates and greater power felt less stress than other individuals who knew they had less control over outcomes. Top leaders who control the resources of their corporations and have plenty of employees to carry out their directives therefore can fight stressors before they affect them.

Sources: M. Korn, “Top-Level Leaders Have Less Stress Than Others,” The Wall Street Journal (October 3, 2012), p. B6; G. D. Sherman et al. “Leadership Is Associated with Lower Levels of Stress,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (October 30, 2012), pp. 17903–17907; and E. Wiernik et al., “Occupational Status Moderates the Association between Current Perceived Stress and High Blood Pressure: Evidence from the IPC Cohort Study,” Hypertension (March 2013), pp. 571–577.

Transformational Leadership

A stream of research has focused on differentiating transformational from transactional leaders.52 The Ohio State studies, Fiedler’s model, and path–goal theory describe transactional leaders , who guide their followers toward established goals by clarifying role and task requirements. Transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of the organization. Transformational leaders can have an extraordinary effect on their followers. Richard Branson of the Virgin Group is a good example of a transformational leader. He pays attention to the concerns and needs of individual followers, changes followers’ awareness of issues by helping them look at old problems in new ways, and excites and inspires followers to put forth extra effort to achieve group goals. Recent research suggests that transformational leaders are most effective when their followers are able to see the positive impact of their work through direct interaction with customers or other beneficiaries.53 Exhibit 12-4 briefly identifies and defines characteristics that differentiate these two types of leaders.

transactional leaders

Leaders who guide or motivate their followers in the direction of established goals by clarifying role and task requirements.

transformational leaders

Leaders who inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests and who are capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on followers.

Transactional Leader

Contingent Reward: Contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises rewards for good performance, recognizes accomplishments.

Management by Exception (active): Watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards, takes correct action.

Management by Exception (passive): Intervenes only if standards are not met.

Laissez-Faire: Abdicates responsibilities, avoids making decisions.

Transformational Leader

Idealized Influence: Provides vision and sense of mission, instills pride, gains respect and trust.

Inspirational Motivation: Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts, expresses important purposes in simple ways.

Intellectual Stimulation: Promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful problem solving.

Individualized Consideration: Gives personal attention, treats each employee individually, coaches, advises.

Exhibit 12-4

Characteristics of Transactional and TransformationalLeaders

Source: Based on A. H. Eagly, M. C. Johannesen-Schmidt, and M. L. Van Engen, “Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and Men,” Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 4 (2003), pp. 569–591; andT.  A. Judge and J. E. Bono, “Five Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership,” Journal of Applied Psychology 85,no. 5 (2000), pp. 751–765.

Transactional and transformational leadership complement each other; they aren’t opposing approaches to getting things done.54 Transformational leadership builds on transactional leadership and produces levels of follower effort and performance beyond what transactional leadership alone can do. But the reverse isn’t true. So if you are a good transactional leader but do not have transformational qualities, you’ll likely only be a mediocre leader. The best leaders are transactional and transformational.

Full Range of Leadership Model

Exhibit 12-5 shows the full range of leadership model. Laissez-faire is the most passive and therefore least effective of leader behaviors.55 Management by exception—active or passive—is slightly better, but it’s still considered ineffective. Management-by-exception leaders tend to be available only when there is a problem, which is often too late. Contingent reward leadership can be an effective style of leadership but will not get employees to go above and beyond the call of duty.

Only with the four remaining styles—all aspects of transformational leadership—are leaders able to motivate followers to perform above expectations and transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization. Individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (known as the “four I’s”) all result in extra effort from workers, higher productivity, higher morale and satisfaction, higher organizational effectiveness, lower turnover, lower absenteeism, and greater organizational adaptability. Based on this model, leaders are generally most effective when they regularly use the four I’s.

Exhibit 12-5

Full Range of Leadership Model

How Transformational Leadership Works

Transformational leaders are more effective because they are creative, but also because they encourage those who follow them to be creative, too.56Companies with transformational leaders have greater decentralization of responsibility, managers have more propensity to take risks, and compensation plans are geared toward long-term results—all of which facilitate corporate entrepreneurship.57 One study of information technology workers in China found empowering leadership behavior led to feelings of positive personal control among workers, which increased their creativity at work.58 Another recent study indicated that abusive supervisors negatively affect creativity, not for just their direct reports but for whole teams.59

Companies with transformational leaders show greater agreement among top managers about the organization’s goals, which yields superior organizational performance.60 The Israeli military has seen similar results, showing that transformational leaders improve performance by building consensus among group members.61 Transformational leaders are able to increase follower self-efficacy, giving the group a “can do” spirit.62 Followers are more likely to pursue ambitious goals, agree on the strategic goals of the organization, and believe the goals they are pursuing are personally important.63

Just as vision helps explain how charismatic leadership works, it also explains part of the effect of transformational leadership. One study found vision was even more important than a charismatic (effusive, dynamic, lively) communication style in explaining the success of entrepreneurial firms.64

Photo 12-4The transformational leadership of Cisco CEO John Chambers has helped grow the company into the top global designer and maker of networking equipment, with record sales of $46 billion. Chambers communicated his visionary strategy to employees, encouraged them to be creative, and empowered them to make decisions. 

Source: Imaginechina via AP Images.

Evaluation of Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership has been supported at diverse job levels and occupations (school principals, teachers, marine commanders, ministers, presidents of MBA associations, military cadets, union shop stewards, sales reps). One study of R&D firms found teams whose project leaders scored high on transformational leadership produced better-quality products as judged one year later and higher profits five years later.65 Another study looking at employee creativity and transformational leadership found employees with transformational leaders had more confidence in their ability to be creative at work and higher levels of creative performance.66 A review of 117 studies testing transformational leadership found it was related to higher levels of individual follower performance, team performance, and organizational performance.67

Transformational leadership isn’t equally effective in all situations. It has a greater impact on the bottom line in smaller, privately held firms than in more complex organizations.68 Transformational leadership may be more effective when leaders can directly interact with the workforce to make decisions than when they report to an external board of directors or deal with a complex bureaucratic structure. One study showed transformational leaders were more effective in improving group potency in teams higher in power distance and collectivism.69 Other research using a sample of employees both in China and the United States found that transformational leadership had a more positive relationship with perceived procedural justice among individuals who were lower in power-distance orientation, which in turn related to a stronger transformational leadership-citizenship behavior relationship among those higher in power distance.70Transformational leaders also obtain higher levels of trust, which reduces stress for followers.71 In short, transformational leadership works through a number of different processes.

One study examined how different types of transformational leadership can be effective depending on whether work is evaluated at the team or the individual level.72 Individual-focused transformational leadership is behavior that empowers individual followers to develop, enhance their abilities, and increase self-efficacy. Team-focused transformational leadership emphasizes group goals, shared values and beliefs, and unified efforts. Evidence from a sample of 203 team members and 60 leaders in a business unit found individual transformational leadership associated with higher individual-level performance, whereas team-focused transformational leadership drew higher group-level performance.

Transformational leadership theory is not perfect. Contingent reward leadership may not characterize transactional leaders only. And contrary to the full range of leadership model, the four I’s of transformational leadership are not always superior in effectiveness to transactional leadership; contingent reward leadership sometimes works as well as transformational leadership.

In summary, transformational leadership is more strongly correlated than transactional leadership with lower turnover rates, higher productivity, lower employee stress and burnout, and higher employee satisfaction.73 Like charisma, it can be learned. One study of Canadian bank managers found branches managed by those who underwent transformational leadership training performed significantly better than branches whose managers did not receive training.

The GLOBE study—of 18,000 leaders from 825 organizations in 62 countries—links a number of elements of transformational leadership with effective leadership, regardless of country.74 This conclusion is very important because it disputes the contingency view that leadership style needs to adapt to cultural differences.

What elements of transformational leadership appear universal? Vision, foresight, providing encouragement, trustworthiness, dynamism, positiveness, and proactiveness top the list. The GLOBE team concluded that “effective business leaders in any country are expected by their subordinates to provide a powerful and proactive vision to guide the company into the future, strong motivational skills to stimulate all employees to fulfill the vision, and excellent planning skills to assist in implementing the vision.” 75 A vision is important in any culture, but the way it is formed and communicated may need to be adapted.

Authentic Leadership: Ethics and Trust

6

Define authentic leadership.

Although theories have increased our understanding of effective leadership, they do not explicitly deal with the role of ethics and trust, which some argue is essential to complete the picture. Here, we consider these two concepts under the rubric of authentic leadership.76

What Is Authentic Leadership?

SAP’s Co-CEO Bill McDermott’s motto is “Stay Hungry, Stay Humble,” and he appears to practice what he preaches. Campbell Soup’s CEO Denise Morrison decided to lower sodium in the company’s soup products simply because it was the right thing to do. McDermott and Morrison appear to be good exemplars of authentic leadership.77

Authentic leaders know who they are, know what they believe in and value, and act on those values and beliefs openly and candidly. Their followers consider them ethical people. The primary quality produced by authentic leadership is trust. Authentic leaders share information, encourage open communication, and stick to their ideals. The result: People come to have faith in them.

authentic leaders

Leaders who know who they are, know what they believe in and value, and act on those values and beliefs openly and candidly. Their followers would consider them to be ethical people.

There has been limited research on authentic leadership to date. However, recent research indicates that authentic leadership, especially when shared among top management team members, created a positive energizing effect (see affective events theory, discussed in Chapter 4) that heightened firm performance.78 Authentic leadership is a promising way to think about ethics and trust in leadership because it focuses on the moral aspects of being a leader. Transformational or charismatic leaders can have a vision and communicate it persuasively, but sometimes the vision is wrong (as in the case of Hitler), or the leader is more concerned with his or her own needs or pleasures, as were Dennis Kozlowski (ex-CEO of Tyco), Jeff Skilling (ex-CEO of Enron), and Raj Rajaratnam (founder of the Galleon Group).79

Photo 12-5Entrepreneur Grace Liuis an authentic leader. Shown here with her employees, Liu is co-founder and managing director of Asianera, a maker of hand-painted bone china. She built her successful business of high-quality porcelain and innovative design basedon her strong personal core values of respecting the individual andoperating with integrity. 

Source: Ton Koene/ZUMApress/Newscom.

Am I an Ethical Leader?

In the Self-Assessment Library (available in MyManagementLab), take assessment IV.E.4 (Am I an Ethical Leader?).

Ethical Leadership

Researchers have begun to study the ethical implications in leadership.80 Why now? One reason may be the growing interest in ethics throughout the field of management. Another may be the discovery that many past leaders—such as Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson—suffered ethical shortcomings. Another reason may be the growing realization that although every member of an organization is responsible for ethical behavior, many initiatives aimed at increasing organizational ethical behavior are focused on the leaders. The role of the leader in creating the ethical expectations for all members is crucial.81 A recent study of 2,572 U.S. Army soldiers underscored that ethical top leadership influences not only direct followers, but across all organizational levels, because these top leaders create an ethical culture and expect lower-level leaders to behave along ethical guidelines.82

Ethics and leadership intersect at a number of junctures. Transformational leadership has ethical implications since these leaders change the way followers think. Charisma, too, has an ethical component. Unethical leaders use their charisma to enhance power over followers, directed toward self-serving ends. Leaders who treat their followers with fairness, especially by providing honest, frequent, and accurate information, are seen as more effective.83 Related to this is the concept of humbleness, another characteristic ethical leaders often exhibit as part of being authentic. Research indicates that leaders who model humility help followers to understand the growth process for their own development.84 Leaders rated as highly ethical tend to have followers who engage in more organizational citizenship behaviors and who are more willing to bring problems to the leaders’ attention.85 Recent research also found that ethical leadership reduced interpersonal conflicts.86

Because top executives set the moral tone for an organization, they need to set high ethical standards, demonstrate them through their own behavior, and encourage and reward integrity in others while avoiding abuses of power such as giving themselves large raises and bonuses while laying off employees. A recent research review found that role modeling by top leaders positively influenced managers throughout their organizations to behave ethically and fostered a climate that reinforced group-level ethical conduct. The findings suggest that organizations should invest in ethical leadership training programs, especially in industries with few ethical regulations. The researchers furthermore advised that ethical leadership training programs to teach cultural values should be mandated for leaders who take foreign assignments or manage multicultural work teams.87

For ethical leadership to be effective, it is not enough for the leader to simply possess high moral character. After all, there is no universal standard for ethical behavior, and ethical norms vary by culture, by industry, and even sometimes within an organization. Leaders must be willing to express their ethical beliefs and persuade others to follow their standards. Followers must believe in both the leader and the overlying principles, even if they don’t personally agree with every minor stance.

To convey their beliefs, leaders should learn to express their moral convictions in statements that reflect values shared with their organization’s members. Leaders can build on this foundation of trust to show their character, enhance a sense of unity, and create buy-in from followers. The leader’s message should announce high goals and confidence that they can be reached.

Ethical leaders’ statements are often positive messages, such as Winston Churchill’s opening for his World War II victory speech: “This is your hour. This is not a victory of a party of or any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole.” An example of an ethical leader’s negative message is this speech by Gandhi: “Even if all the United Nations opposes me, even if the whole of India forsakes me, I will say, ‘You are wrong. India will wrench with nonviolence her liberty from unwilling hands.’ ” Positive and negative ethical leader statements can be equally effective when they deliver clear, moral, inclusive, goal-setting statements with persuasiveness. In fact, they can set trends in motion to make the seemingly far-fetched become real.88

Leadership is not value-free. In assessing its effectiveness, we need to address the means a leader uses to achieve goals as well as the content of those goals. Scholars have tried to integrate ethical and charismatic leadership by advancing the idea of socialized charismatic leadership —leadership that conveys other-centered (not self-centered) values by leaders who model ethical conduct.89 Socialized charismatic leaders are able to bring employee values in line with their own values through their words and actions.90

socialized charismatic leadership

A leadership concept that states that leaders conveyvalues that are other centeredversus self centered and whorole-model ethical conduct.

Servant Leadership

Scholars have recently considered ethical leadership from a new angle by examining servant leadership .91 Servant leaders go beyond their self-interest and focus on opportunities to help followers grow and develop. They don’t use power to achieve ends; they emphasize persuasion. Characteristic behaviors include listening, empathizing, persuading, accepting stewardship, and actively developing followers’ potential. A recent study of 126 CEOs found that servant leadership is negatively correlated with the trait of narcissism.92 Because servant leadership focuses on serving the needs of others, research has focused on its outcomes for the well-being of followers.

servant leadership

A leadership style marked by going beyondthe leader’s own self-interest and instead focusing on opportunitiesto help followers grow and develop.

An Ethical Choice Holding Leaders Ethically Accountable

No one thinks leaders shouldn’t be accountable. Leaders must balance many and conflicting stakeholder demands. The first, largely unspoken, demand is for strong financial performance; leaders are probably terminated more often for missing this goal than for all other factors combined. When one balances the often-extreme pressure for financial performance with the desire most leaders have to act ethically toward their employees, there is unfortunately little leadership accountability to ensure ethical leadership is happening. Given that pressure, ethical leadership may be under-rewarded and depend solely on the leader’s innate decency.

Ethical leadership is a relatively new area of research attention. Demonstrating fairness and social responsibility and abiding by the law even run counter to many old-school models of leadership. Consider, for example, legendary management guru Peter Drucker’s advice (1967): “It is the duty of the executive to remove ruthlessly anyone—and especially any manager—who consistently fails to perform with high distinction. To let such a man stay on corrupts the others.” Modern ethical leadership guidelines say this cut-throat mindset fails to consider the moral implications of treating people as objects at an organization’s disposal.

While few organizations still require “performance at all costs,” financiers, shareholders, and boards have the reward power to teach leaders which outcomes to value. Ethical leadership resounds positively throughout all organizational levels, resulting in responsible and potentially highly profitable outcomes, but the ultimate ethical test will come when shareholders—and leaders—show signs of balancing these accountabilities themselves.

Sources: T. E. Ricks, “What Ever Happened to Accountability?” Harvard Business Review (October 2012), pp. 93–100; J. M. Schaubroeck et al., “Embedding Ethical Leadership Within and Across Organizational Levels,” Academy of Management Journal 55 (2012), pp. 1053–1078; and J. Stouten, M. van Dijke, and D. De Cremer, “Ethical Leadership,” Journal of Personnel Psychology 11 (2012), pp. 1–6.

What are the effects of servant leadership? One study of 123 supervisors found it resulted in higher levels of commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, and perceptions of justice, which all were related to organizational citizenship behavior.93 This relationship between servant leadership and follower OCB appears to be stronger when followers are focused on being dutiful and responsible.94 Second, servant leadership increases team potency (a belief that one’s team has above-average skills and abilities), which in turn leads to higher levels of group performance.95 Third, a study with a nationally representative sample found higher levels of citizenship associated with a focus on growth and advancement, which in turn was associated with higher levels of creative performance.96

Servant leadership may be more prevalent and more effective in certain cultures.97 When asked to draw images of leaders, for example, U.S. subjects tend to draw them in front of the group, giving orders to followers. Singaporeans tend to draw leaders at the back of the group, acting more to gather a group’s opinions together and then unify them from the rear. This suggests the East Asian prototype is more like a servant leader, which might mean servant leadership is more effective in these cultures.

Trust and Leadership

Trust is a psychological state that exists when you agree to make yourself vulnerable to another because you have positive expectations about how things are going to turn out.98 Although you aren’t completely in control of the situation, you are willing to take a chance that the other person will come through for you. Trust is a primary attribute associated with leadership; breaking it can have serious adverse effects on a group’s performance.99

trust

A positive expectation that another will not act opportunistically.

Followers who trust a leader are confident their rights and interests will not be abused.100 Transformational leaders create support for their ideas in part by arguing that their direction will be in everyone’s best interests. People are unlikely to look up to or follow someone they perceive as dishonest or likely to take advantage of them. Thus, as you might expect, transformational leaders do generate higher levels of trust from their followers, which in turn is related to higher levels of team confidence and, ultimately, higher levels of team performance.101

In a simple contractual exchange of goods and services, your employer is legally bound to pay you for fulfilling your job description. But today’s rapid reorganizations, diffusion of responsibility, and collaborative team-based work style mean employment relationships are not stable long-term contracts with explicit terms. Rather, they are more fundamentally based on trusting relationships than ever before. You have to trust that if you show your supervisor a creative project you’ve been working on, he or she won’t steal the credit behind your back. You have to trust that the extra work you’ve been doing will be recognized in your performance appraisal. In contemporary organizations, where work is less closely documented and specified, voluntary employee contribution based on trust is absolutely necessary. Only a trusted leader will be able to encourage employees to reach beyond themselves to a transformational goal.

How Is Trust Developed?

Trust isn’t just about the leader; the characteristics of followers also influence its development. What key characteristics lead us to believe a leader is trustworthy? Evidence has identified three: integrity, benevolence, and ability (see Exhibit  12-6).102

Exhibit 12-6

The Nature of Trust

Integrity refers to honesty and truthfulness. When 570 white-collar employees were given a list of 28 attributes related to leadership, they rated honesty the most important by far.103 Integrity also means having consistency between what you do and say.

Benevolence means the trusted person has your interests at heart, even if yours aren’t necessarily in line with theirs. Caring and supportive behavior is part of the emotional bond between leaders and followers.

Ability encompasses an individual’s technical and interpersonal knowledge and skills. Even a highly principled person with the best intentions in the world won’t be trusted to accomplish a positive outcome for you if you don’t have faith in his or her ability to get the job done. Does the person know what he or she is talking about? You’re unlikely to listen to or depend on someone whose abilities you don’t believe in.

Trust as a Process

Trust propensity refers to how likely a particular employee is to trust a leader. Some people are simply more likely to believe others can be trusted.104 Those who carefully document every promise or conversation with their supervisors aren’t very high in trust propensity, and they probably aren’t going to take a leader’s word for anything. Those who think most people are basically honest and forthright will be much more likely to seek out evidence that their leaders have behaved in a trustworthy manner. Trust propensity is closely linked to the personality trait of agreeableness, and people with lower self-esteem are less likely to trust others.105

Time is the final component for building trust. We come to trust people based on observing their behavior over a period of time.106 Leaders need to demonstrate they have integrity, benevolence, and ability in situations where trust is important—say, where they could behave opportunistically or let employees down. Trust can be won in the ability domain by demonstrating competence. Recent research with 100 companies around the world suggests that leaders can build trust by shifting their communication style from top-down commands to ongoing organizational dialogue. When leaders regularly create interpersonal conversations with their employees that are intimate, interactive, and inclusive and that intentionally follow an agenda, followers demonstrate trust with high levels of engagement.107

Leaders who break the psychological contract with workers, demonstrating they aren’t trustworthy, will find employees are less satisfied and less committed, have a higher intent toward turnover, engage in less citizenship behavior, and have lower levels of task performance.108 Leaders who betray trust are especially likely to be evaluated negatively by followers if there is already a low level of leader–member exchange.109 Once it is violated, trust can be regained, but only in certain situations and depending on the type of violation.110 If the cause is lack of ability, it’s usually best to apologize and recognize you should have done better. When lack of integrity is the problem, apologies don’t do much good. Regardless of the violation, saying nothing or refusing to confirm or deny guilt is never an effective strategy for regaining trust. Trust can be restored when we observe a consistent pattern of trustworthy behavior by the transgressor. However, if the transgressor used deception, trust never fully returns, not even after apologies, promises, or a consistent pattern of trustworthy actions.111

What Are the Consequences of Trust?

Trust between supervisors and employees has a number of advantages. Here are just a few that research has shown:

• Trust encourages taking risks. Whenever employees decide to deviate from the usual way of doing things, or to take their supervisors’ word on a new direction, they are taking a risk. In both cases, a trusting relationship can facilitate that leap.

• Trust facilitates information sharing. One big reason employees fail to express concerns at work is that they don’t feel psychologically safe revealing their views. When managers demonstrate they will give employees’ ideas a fair hearing and actively make changes, employees are more willing to speak out.112

• Trusting groups are more effective. When a leader sets a trusting tone in a group, members are more willing to help each other and exert extra effort, which increases trust. Members of mistrusting groups tend to be suspicious of each other, constantly guard against exploitation, and restrict communication with others in the group. These actions tend to undermine and eventually destroy the group.

• Trust enhances productivity. The bottom-line interest of companies appears to be positively influenced by trust. Employees who trust their supervisors tend to receive higher performance ratings.113 People respond to mistrust by concealing information and secretly pursuing their own interests.

Leading for the Future: Mentoring

7

Demonstrate the role mentoring plays in our understanding of leadership.

Leaders often take responsibility for developing future leaders. Let’s consider what makes mentoring valuable as well as its potential pitfalls.

Mentoring

A mentor is a senior employee who sponsors and supports a less-experienced employee, a protégé. Successful mentors are good teachers. They present ideas clearly, listen well, and empathize with protégés’ problems. Mentoring relationships serve career functions and psychosocial functions (see Exhibit 12-7).114

mentor

A senior employeewho sponsors and supports a less-experienced employee, called a protégé.

Exhibit 12-7

Career and Psychological Functions of the Mentoring Relationship

Traditional informal mentoring relationships develop when leaders identify a less experienced, lower-level employee who appears to have potential for future development.115 The protégé is often tested with a particularly challenging assignment. If he or she performs acceptably, the mentor will develop the relationship, informally showing the protégé how the organization really works outside its formal structures and procedures.

Why would a leader want to be a mentor?116 Many feel they have something to share with the younger generation and want to provide a legacy. Mentoring provides unfiltered access to the attitudes of employees, and protégés can be an excellent source of early warning signals that identify potential organizational problems.

Are all employees in an organization likely to participate in a mentoring relationship? Unfortunately, no.117 However, research continues to indicate that employers should establish mentoring programs because they benefit both mentors and protégés. A recent study in Korea found that mentors achieved higher levels of transformational leadership abilities as a result of the process, while organizational commitment and well-being increased for both mentors and protégés.118

Although begun with the best intentions, these formal relationships are not as effective as informal ones.119 Poor planning and design may often be the reason. Mentor commitment is critical to program effectiveness; mentors must see the relationship as beneficial to themselves and the protégé. The protégé must feel he or she has input into the relationship; someone who feels it’s foisted on him or her will just go through the motions.120 Formal mentoring programs are also most likely to succeed if they appropriately match the work style, needs, and skills of protégé and mentor.121

You might assume mentoring is valuable for objective outcomes like compensation and job performance, but research suggests the gains are primarily psychological. Research indicates that while mentoring can have an impact on career success, it is not as much of a contributing factor as ability and personality. It may feel nice to have a mentor, but it doesn’t appear that having a good mentor, or any mentor, is critical to your career. Mentors may be effective not because of the functions they provide, but because of the resources they can obtain; a mentor connected to a powerful network can build relationships that will help the protégé advance. Network ties, whether built through a mentor or not, are a significant predictor of career success.122 If a mentor is not well connected or not a very strong performer, the best mentoring advice in the world will not be very beneficial.

Challenges to the Leadership Construct

8

Address challenges to the effectiveness of leadership.

“In the 1500s, people ascribed all events they didn’t understand to God. Why did the crops fail? God. Why did someone die? God. Now our all-purpose explanation is leadership.”123 But much of an organization’s success or failure is due to factors outside the influence of leadership. Sometimes it’s a matter of being in the right or wrong place at a given time. In this section, we present two perspectives and one technological change that challenge accepted beliefs about the value of leadership.

Leadership as an Attribution

As you may remember from Chapter 6, attribution theory examines how people try to make sense of cause-and-effect relationships. The attribution theory of leadership says leadership is merely an attribution people make about other individuals.124 We attribute to leaders intelligence, outgoing personality, strong verbal skills, aggressiveness, understanding, and industriousness.125 At the organizational level, we tend, rightly or wrongly, to see leaders as responsible for both extremely negative and extremely positive performance.126

attribution theory of leadership

A leadership theory that says that leadership is merely an attributionthat people make about other individuals.

One study of 128 major U.S. corporations found that whereas perceptions of CEO charisma did not lead to objectively better company performance, company performance did lead to perceptions of charisma.127 Employee perceptions of leaders’ behaviors are significant predictors of whether they blame the leader for failure, regardless of how the leader assesses him- or herself.128 A study of more than 3,000 employees from western Europe, the United States, and the Middle East found people who tended to “romanticize” leadership in general were more likely to believe their own leaders were transformational.129

When Merrill Lynch began to lose billions in 2008 as a result of its investments in mortgage securities, it wasn’t long before CEO Stan O’Neal lost his job. O’Neal appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. Congress for what one committee member termed “a public flogging.” Some called him a “criminal” and others suggested Merrill’s losses during his tenure represented “attempted destruction.”130

Whether O’Neal was responsible for the losses at Merrill or deserved his nine-figure severance package is difficult to answer. However, we can argue that he probably changed very little between 2004 when Fortune described him as a “turnaround genius” and 2009 when he was fired. What changed was the performance of the organization he led. It’s not necessarily wrong to terminate a CEO for flagging financial performance. However, O’Neal’s story illustrates the power of the attribution approach to leadership: hero and genius when things are going well, villain when they aren’t.

We make demographic assumptions about leaders. Respondents in a study assumed a leader described with no identifying racial information was white at a rate beyond the base rate of white employees in a company. In scenarios where identical leadership situations are described but the leaders’ race is manipulated, white leaders are rated as more effective than leaders of other racial groups.131 One large-scale summary study (a meta-analysis) found that many individuals hold stereotypes of men as having more leader characteristics than women, although as you might expect, this tendency to equate leadership with masculinity has decreased over time.132 Other data suggest women’s perceived success as transformational leaders may be based on demographic characteristics. Teams prefer male leaders when aggressively competing against other teams, but they prefer female leaders when the competition is within teams and calls for improving positive relationships within the group.133

Attribution theory suggests what’s important is projecting the appearance of being a leader rather than focusing on actual accomplishments. Leader-wannabes who can shape the perception that they’re smart, personable, verbally adept, aggressive, hardworking, and consistent in their style can increase the probability their bosses, colleagues, and employees will view them as effective leaders.

Substitutes for and Neutralizers of Leadership

One theory of leadership suggests that in many situations leaders’ actions are irrelevant.134 Experience and training are among the substitutes that can replace the need for a leader’s support or ability to create structure. Recently, companies such as videogame producer Valve Corporation, Gore-Tex maker W. L. Gore, and collaboration-software firm GitHub have experimented with eliminating leaders and management. Governance in the “bossless” work environment is achieved through accountability to co-workers, who determine team composition and even sometimes pay.135 Organizational characteristics such as explicit formalized goals, rigid rules and procedures, and cohesive work groups can replace formal leadership, while indifference to organizational rewards can neutralize its effects. Neutralizers make it impossible for leader behavior to make any difference to follower outcomes (see Exhibit 12-8).

substitutes

Attributes, such as experience and training, that can replace the need for a leader’s support or ability to create structure.

neutralizers

Attributes that make it impossible for leader behavior to make any difference to follower outcomes.

Exhibit 12-8

Substitutes for and Neutralizers of Leadership

Source: Based on S. Kerr and J. M. Jermier, “Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement,” Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance (December 1978), p. 378.

It’s simplistic to think employees are guided to goal accomplishments solely by the actions of their leaders. We’ve introduced a number of variables—such as attitudes, personality, ability, and group norms—that affect employee performance and satisfaction. Leadership is simply another independent variable in our overall OB model.

Sometimes the difference between substitutes and neutralizers is fuzzy. If I’m working on a task that’s intrinsically enjoyable, theory predicts leadership will be less important because the task provides motivation. But does that mean intrinsically enjoyable tasks neutralize leadership effects, or substitute for them, or both? Another problem is that while substitutes for leadership (such as employee characteristics, the nature of the task, etc.) matter to performance, that doesn’t necessarily mean leadership doesn’t.136

Online Leadership

How do you lead people who are physically separated from you and with whom you communicate electronically? This question needs attention from OB researchers.137 Today’s managers and employees are increasingly linked by networks rather than geographic proximity.

We propose that online leaders have to think carefully about what actions they want their digital messages to initiate. They confront unique challenges, the greatest of which appears to be developing and maintaining trust. Identification-based trust , based on a mutual understanding of each other’s intentions and appreciation of the other’s wants and desires, is particularly difficult to achieve without face-to-face interaction.138 Online negotiations can also be hindered because parties express lower levels of trust.139

identification-based trust

Trust based on a mutual understanding of each other’s intentions andappreciation of each other’s wants and desires.

We believe good leadership skills will soon include the ability to communicate support, trust, and inspiration through electronic communication and to accurately read emotions in others’ messages. In electronic communication, writing skills are likely to become an extension of interpersonal skills.

Finding and Creating Effective Leaders

How can organizations find or create effective leaders? Let’s try to answer that question.

Selecting Leaders

The process organizations go through to fill management positions is an exercise in the identification of effective leaders. You might begin by reviewing the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to do the job effectively. Personality tests can identify traits associated with leadership—extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. High self-monitors are better at reading situations and adjusting their behavior accordingly. Candidates with high emotional intelligence should have an advantage, especially in situations requiring transformational leadership.140 Experience is a poor predictor of leader effectiveness, but situation-specific experience is relevant.

Because nothing lasts forever, the most important event an organization needs to plan for is a change in leadership. JCPenney recently hired a CEO with no department store experience who promptly changed its overall strategy, a maneuver so disastrous that Penney’s stock fell 69 percent in the roughly one year he lasted (at which time Penney rehired the old CEO it had forced out). Organizations seem to spend no time on leadership succession and are surprised when their picks turn out poorly. HP is on its fourth CEO in 7 years, including one who lasted a matter of months, causing observers to wonder whether HP’s and JCPenney’s boards of directors had done their homework in leadership succession.

Training Leaders

Organizations spend billions of dollars on leadership training and development.141 These take many forms, including $50,000 executive leadership programs offered by universities such as Harvard to sailing experiences offered by the Outward Bound program. Business schools are placing renewed emphasis on leadership development. Some companies place a lot of emphasis on leadership development. Goldman Sachs is well known for developing leaders; at one point, BusinessWeek called it the “Leadership Factory.” 142

How can managers get the most from their leadership-training budgets? First, leadership training is likely to be more successful with high self-monitors. Such individuals have the flexibility to change their behavior. Second, organizations can teach implementation skills. Third, we can teach skills such as trust building and mentoring. Leaders can be taught situational-analysis skills. They can learn how to evaluate situations, modify them to better fit their style, and assess which leader behaviors might be most effective in given situations. BHP Billiton, Best Buy, Nokia, and Adobe have hired coaches to help top executives one on one to improve their interpersonal skills and act less autocratically.143

Fourth, behavioral training through modeling exercises can increase an individual’s ability to exhibit charismatic leadership qualities. Recent research also indicates that leaders should engage in regularly reviewing their leadership after key organizational events as part of their development. These after-event reviews are especially effective for leaders who are high in conscientiousness and openness to experience, and who are emotionally stable (low in neuroticism).144 Finally, leaders can be trained in transformational leadership skills that have bottom-line results, whether in the financial performance of Canadian banks or the effectiveness of soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces.145

Summary

Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior because it’s the leader who usually directs us toward our goals. Knowing what makes a good leader should thus be valuable in improving group performance. The early search for a set of universal leadership traits failed. However, recent efforts using the Big Five personality framework show strong and consistent relationships between leadership and extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The behavioral approach’s major contribution was narrowing leadership into task-oriented (initiating structure) and people-oriented (consideration) styles. By considering the situation in which the leader operates, contingency theories promised to improve on the behavioral approach, but only LPC theory has fared well in leadership research. Research on charismatic and transformational leadership has made major contributions to our understanding of leadership effectiveness.