HR Management Systems

unit7reading3.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >HR Management Systems

MOTIVATING PEAK PERFORMANCE: LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS THAT STIMULATE EMPLOYEE

MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE

KERRY WEBB Texas Women’s University, Denton, Texas, USA

The impact of leader behaviors on motivation levels of employees was examined in this study. Two hundred twenty-three vice presidents and chief officers from 104 member colleges and universities in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities were sampled. Leaders were administered the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-rater version) and multiple regressions models were utilized to create a four-factor leadership model that identified the significant predictive leadership variables that correlate with motivation for extra effort among workers. This new model was slightly more predictive of variance in motivation toward extra effort (adjusted R2 = 0.64) than the individual models of transformational leadership, and much more predictive than the transactional leadership or laissez-faire leadership models. The four-factor leadership model simplifies the leadership process by reducing the number of significant leadership behaviors from a possibility of nine factors to four significant leadership variables for consideration by leaders who desire to effectively increase motivation toward extra effort among their staff.

The role of leadership has been examined in numerous empirical studies and countless articles, essays, and books. From the early research of Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) and the subsequent work of Bradford and Lippitt (1945), laissez-faire lead- ers have been identified as demonstrating a frustrating and less effective leadership style in many leadership situations. The lack of direct interaction between leaders and workers has consistently demonstrated a negative correlation with motivation toward extra effort among employees.

Additional research has focused on the transactional lead- ership style with its composite behaviors of contingent reward and management-by-exception (Bass, 1985). Transactional lead- ers achieve greater results through the use of management-by- exception whereby workers are punished or rewarded for their

Address correspondence to Kerry Webb, Texas Women’s University. P.O. Box 425649, Denton, TX, 76204-5649. E-mail: kswebb@twu.edu

54 K. Webb

actions. According to Bass (1985, 1990), leaders who utilize management-by-exception do not get involved with subordinates unless mistakes or deviations from the norm occur. In such cases, the leader establishes a predetermined consequence or correc- tive action for specific failures and enforces punishments when required. Leaders who are more passive may wait to be notified of failures (Hater & Bass, 1988), but more active leaders look for failures and create systems to warn of potential failures (Hater & Bass, 1988). The practice of providing negative feedback results in workers who either maintain the status quo or strive to perform specific tasks with perfection. However, this leader behavior does not facilitate personal growth or increase motivation or loyalty from workers (Bass, 1985).

Transactional leaders and workers often engage in a recip- rocal process of contingent rewards in management (Howell & Avolio, 1993) in which each party strives to meet certain expecta- tions or performs specific actions or behaviors in order to achieve a desired benefit or reward. This reinforcement strategy has been practiced for centuries and Bass (1990) has provided numerous historical illustrations to describe this type of leadership behavior. Much of the research has revealed a positive correlation between contingent rewards and organizational outcomes (Blanchard and Johnson, 1985; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasub- ramaniam, 1996).

Further research on leadership theory, much of which has been based upon Burns’ (1978) earlier research on political leadership, has identified an even more effective leadership style typically called transformational leadership. Initially, transforma- tional leadership was understood to include charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio, Waldman, & Einstein, 1988; Bass, 1990). As a result of supplementary re- search, two additional components of transformational leadership were identified: inspirational motivation and idealized influence (Barbuto, 1997; Hunt, 1999).

Effectiveness among transformational leaders is measured by the effect of leader behaviors on followers. Subordinates of transformational leaders verbalize feelings of admiration, respect, trust, and appreciation toward these leaders and are motivated to provide extra effort (Bass, 1985; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Trans- formational leaders are able to increase motivation toward extra

Motivating Peak Performance 55

effort from their followers because the leader is able to motivate workers to higher levels of personal expectation and individual commitment (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).

Method

Sample

The population for this study consisted of 105 member institu- tions within the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). Three vice presidents and/or chief officers were sur- veyed from each institution to determine the prevalent leader behaviors of the president and the effects of these leader behav- iors on the motivation toward extra effort for the vice presidents and chief officers. The vice presidents selected for the survey worked in the areas of academic affairs, student life, and financial affairs.

The sample comprised participants who responded to the survey: 223 vice presidents and chief officers from 104 member CCCU institutions. These respondents represented 25 provosts, 53 vice presidents of academic affairs, 46 vice presidents of business or financial affairs, 43 vice presidents or deans of student affairs, 21 executive vice presidents, five vice presidents for ad- vancement, 11 other chief officer positions, and 24 chief officers who did not indicate their position or title on the survey.

The participants were selected for their knowledge, experi- ence, and ability to work in close proximity with the president of their given institution. The gender ratio for this group was 81.6% (n = 169) men and 18.4% (n = 38) women. The mean for their current length of service in this position was 7.14 years and the mean for their total years at the current institution was 11.4 years. The average age was 50.3 years old with 92.3% married (n = 191), 5.8% single (n = 12), 1.4% divorced (n = 3), and 0.5% widowed (n = 1). The racial composition was primarily Caucasian with 97% (n = 195) Euro American, 1.5% (n = 3) African American, 0% (n = 0) Hispanic, 0.5% (n = 1) Asian American, and 1% (n = 2) other.

Of the 104 CCCU institutions whose vice presidents and chief officers responded with regard to institutional size, 15.4% (n = 16) were smaller than 1000 students; 63.5% (n = 66) were

56 K. Webb

between 1001 and 3000 in student enrollment; 15.4% (n = 16) were between 3,001 and 5,000 in student enrollment; and 2% (n = 2) had enrollments between 5,001 and 10,000.

Procedure

Participants were requested to complete the Multifactor Lead- ership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1989) to provide measurement data on the three independent variables of trans- formational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles and the dependent variable of motivation toward extra effort. Given the intensive and highly interactive nature of the relationships between the participants and the presidents, the observers had adequate opportunity to observe and therefore provide accurate data on the president’s leadership behavior. Likewise, the scores from the MLQ represented each participant’s personal motiva- tion level, providing an indication of the long-term effects of the president’s behavior on each staff member.

Both leadership styles and the dependent variable of mo- tivation toward extra effort were measured using the 45-item MLQ Form 5x-short (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). Thirty-six items measured the leadership styles of the presidents and three items measured the dependent variable of motivation. Six additional items measured job satisfaction and perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Followers described their leader’s behaviors by uti- lizing a 5-point frequency scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always).

Measures

The three leadership styles measured by the MLQ include:

1. Transformational leadership: Leaders transform and motivate followers by creating an exciting new vision, encouraging followers to move beyond their own interests for the sake of the organization, and stimulating the follower’s higher order needs (Bass, 1985) (see Table 1).

2. Transactional leadership: Leaders develop relationships whereby the leader and subordinates exchange something of

Motivating Peak Performance 57

TABLE 1 Independent Variables for Transformational Leadership

Attributed charisma Possessing great energy, high self-confidence, strong conviction in personal beliefs, a strong need for power, and assertiveness

Idealized influence Displaying conviction, highlighting trust, and identifying personal values with an emphasis on purpose, commitment, and ethical consequences of decisions

Inspirational motivation Articulating an appealing vision for the future, demonstrating optimism, and speaking with enthusiasm and encouragement regarding things that need to be done

Intellectual stimulation Creating an environment that persuades followers to evaluate their attitudes and values, as well as the way they approach problems and human relations

Individualized consideration Recognizing followers as individuals, considering their unique abilities, needs, and ambitions, listening attentively, and advising and coaching others as distinctive individuals

equal value (Burns, 1978). These exchanges can be political, psychological, or economic (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1999) (see Table 2).

3. Laissez-faire leadership: Leaders provide neither positive or negative feedback, thus declining to offer personal interaction or direction (Bass & Avolio, 1990) (see Table 3).

TABLE 2 Independent Variables for Transactional Leadership

Contingent reward Offering rewards in exchange for successful completion of assignments or duties

Management-by-exception (active)

Monitoring worker performance continuously, looking for errors, and taking corrective action if deviations or mistakes occur

Management-by-exception (passive)

Taking corrective action in regard to workers’ behavior only when performance falls below an established threshold and waiting for mistakes to be brought to the leader’s attention

58 K. Webb

TABLE 3 Independent Variables for Laissez-faire Leadership

Laissez-faire Allowing workers to act without interference or directive action

Motivation toward extra effort represents the inner desire or willingness of employees to exert additional time and energy to achieve organizational goals. While many researchers (Bass & Avolio, 1995; Burns, 1978; Tichy & Devanna, 1986) have found empirical evidence of a highly significant correlation between transformational leadership behaviors and the outcome of moti- vation toward extra effort, there appears to be only one previous effort (Mason, 1998) to attempt to combine the three leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) to deter- mine which specific behaviors are predictive of motivation toward extra effort.

A stepwise regression process was utilized to identify the proportion of variance in the dependent variable, motivation to- ward extra effort, accounted for by each of the nine independent variables identified in the three leadership styles. In addition to the multiple regression analysis, a correlation matrix was created to determine which of the nine independent variables correlated with the dependent variable of motivation (Appendix A).

Cronbach’s alpha was computed to determine the internal consistency of measurement of all scales from the sample used in this study (Table 4). Reliability estimates were computed for the items used to measure each subscale as suggested by Bass and Avolio (1995). Generally, the alpha coefficients for the variables in this sample were slightly less than those reported by Bass and Avolio (1995).

Results

Mean scores for all nine leadership factors were calculated and the distribution scores were divided into four equally spaced intervals (based on the number of items per scale) to determine the degree of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors that were practiced by the presidents of

Motivating Peak Performance 59

TABLE 4 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha by Scale (Reliability Coefficients)

Avolio and Bass (MLQ) CCCU

Independent variables AC (attributed charisma) 0.86 0.76 II (idealized influence) 0.87 0.79 IM (inspirational motivation) 0.91 0.85 IS (intellectual stimulation) 0.90 0.77 IC (individual consideration) 0.90 0.69 CR (contingent reward) 0.87 0.73 MEA (management-by-exception active) 0.74 0.79 MEP (management-by-exception

passive) 0.82 0.67

LF (laissez-faire) 0.83 0.70 Total Scale 0.83

Dependent variables EE (extra effort) 0.91 0.86 EFF (perceived presidential

effectiveness) 0.91 0.85

SAT (job satisfaction) 0.94 0.83 Total Scale 0.94

the institutions in the sample group. The frequency results are presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3.

The result for factors correlated with transformational lead- ership behaviors was a mean score of 59.23 on a scale of 0–80 (20 items), with a standard deviation of 12.55. The frequency

FIGURE 1 Distribution of transformational scores.

60 K. Webb

FIGURE 2 Distribution of transactional scores.

results for transformational leadership behaviors are presented in Figure 1.

The mean scores for transactional leadership factors was 21.98 on a scale of 0–48 (12) items) with a standard deviation of 5.40. The frequency results for transactional leadership behaviors are presented in Figure 2.

The mean score for the laissez-faire leadership factor was 4.40 on a scale of 0–16 (4 items). The frequency results for laissez-faire leadership behavior are presented in Figure 3 below.

The data illustrate (Figure 1) that 90.8% of the leader scores for transformational leadership behaviors were in the upper two quadrants; 55.5% of the scores were in the fourth or uppermost

FIGURE 3 Distribution of laissez-faire scores.

Motivating Peak Performance 61

quadrant. This indicates that the vice presidents and chief officers were most likely to observe and to encounter the kinds of pres- idential leadership behavior identified in the transformational leadership model.

The data show (Figure 2) that 96.8% of the leader scores for transactional leadership behavior were in the second and third quadrant, indicating that transactional leadership behaviors were demonstrated to a more moderate degree by CCCU presidents than the transformational leadership behaviors. The vast majority of the scores for laissez-faire leadership behaviors (Figure 3) were in the lowest two quadrants (86.5%), indicating that presidents of the CCCU institutions are actively engaged in guiding and directing their cabinet members at the personal level, rather than focusing their primary energies on external stakeholders or development opportunities.

Additionally, the mean scores were calculated for each of the nine leadership variables that make up the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership models. The data are presented in Figure 4.

The data in Figure 4 show that the factors of ideal- ized influence, inspirational motivation, and attributed charisma were the most prevalent leadership behaviors for presidents of CCCU institutions. In contrast, the factors of management-by- exception (active and passive) and laissez-faire behaviors were the least prevalent. These results suggest that presidents at CCCU

FIGURE 4 Mean of leadership variables.

62 K. Webb

institutions are viewed as inspiring, positive, emphasizing personal and organizational values, and demonstrating a strong need for power and assertiveness. Thus, presidents who project these characteristic behaviors were much more likely to be perceived as motivating leaders for CCCU institutions.

These data indicate that presidents of CCCU institutions have a strong tendency toward “hands on” leadership, which may be associated with the relatively small size of their institutions. This is not necessarily reflective of the leadership capacity of the vice presidents and chief officers since they were rating the leadership behaviors of the president. However, it does offer some insight into the culture and environment one might expect to encounter as an employee at a CCCU institution.

Five multiple regression models were utilized to identify the independent variables which were significant predictors of motivation toward extra effort (Table 5).

In Table 5, motivation toward extra effort was specified as the criterion (dependent variable). As demonstrated in the first model (column one), the linear combination of transforma- tional leadership variables accounted for a significant percent (62%) of the variance in motivation toward extra effort (ad- justed R2 = 0.62). The predictive behaviors that demonstrated a significant correlation with motivation toward extra effort were the transformational leadership factors of attributed charisma (beta = 0.34), intellectual stimulation (beta = 0.24), and indi- vidual consideration (beta = 0.28). These results indicate that vice presidents and chief officers were more likely to be moti- vated by leaders who are energetic, possess high self-confidence, demonstrate power and assertiveness, recognize followers as in- dividuals, consider their followers’ unique abilities, needs, and ambitions, and who create environments that encourage work- ers to evaluate their attitudes, values, and their approaches to problems and human relations. In the first regression model, the traits of attributed charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration were identified as significant predic- tors for leaders who positively increased motivation among staff members.

In the second model (column two), the linear combination of transactional leadership variables accounted for 50% of the variance in motivation toward extra effort (adjusted R2 = 0.50).

T A

B L

E 5

R eg

re ss

io n

A n

al ys

is o

f P

re si

d en

ts ’

L ea

d er

sh ip

St yl

e o

n M

o ti

va ti

o n

T o

w ar

d E

xt ra

E ff

o rt

A m

o n

g F

o ll

o w

er s

T ra

n sf

o rm

at io

n al

T ra

n sa

ct io

n al

L ai

ss ez

-f ai

re N

in e-

fa ct

o r

m o

d el

F o

u r-

fa ct

o r

m o

d el

P (m

o d

el )

≤ 0.

01 P

(m o

d el

) ≤

0. 01

P (m

o d

el )

≤ 0.

01 P

(m o

d el

) ≤

0. 01

P (m

o d

el )

≤ 0.

01 A

d jR

2 =

.6 2

A d

jR 2 =

.5 0

A d

jR 2 =

.1 4

A d

jR 2 =

.6 3

A d

jR 2 =

.6 4

∗∗ A

tt ri

b u

te d

ch ar

is m

a b

et a

= .3

4 (p

≤ 0.

01 )

∗∗ C

o n

ti n

ge n

t re

w ar

d b

et a

= .6

5 (p

≤ 0.

01 )

∗∗ L

ai ss

ez -f

ai re

b et

a =

−. 38

(p ≤

0. 01

)

∗∗ A

tt ri

b u

te d

ch ar

is m

a b

et a

= .3

5 (p

≤ 0.

01 )

∗∗ A

tt ri

b u

te d

ch ar

is m

a b

et a

= .3

4 (p

≤ 0.

01 )

Id ea

li ze

d in

fl u

en ce

b et

a =

-.0 8

(p ≤

0. 18

)

∗∗ M

gm t-

b y-

ex ce

p ti

o n

(a ct

iv e)

b et

a =

−. 15

(p ≤

0. 02

)

Id ea

li ze

d in

fl u

en ce

b et

a =

-.1 0

(p ≤

0. 10

)

∗∗ In

te ll

ec tu

al st

im u

la ti

o n

b et

a =

.2 0

(p ≤

0. 01

)

In sp

ir at

io n

al m

o ti

va ti

o n

b et

a =

.1 1

(p ≤

0. 09

)

∗ M gm

t- b

y- ex

ce p

ti o

n (p

as si

ve )

b et

a =

-.1 1

(p ≤

0. 04

)

In sp

ir at

io n

al m

o ti

va ti

o n

b et

a =

.0 5

(p ≤

0. 44

)

∗∗ In

d iv

id u

al co

n si

d er

at io

n b

et a

= .1

8 (p

≤ 0.

01 )

∗∗ In

te ll

ec tu

al st

im u

la ti

o n

b et

a =

.2 4

(p ≤

0. 01

)

∗∗ In

te ll

ec tu

al st

im u

la ti

o n

b et

a =

.2 0

(p ≤

0. 02

)

∗∗ C

o n

ti n

ge n

t re

w ar

d b

et a

= .1

9 (p

≤ 0.

05 )

∗∗ In

d iv

id u

al co

n si

d er

at io

n b

et a

= .2

8 (p

≤ 0.

01 )

∗∗ In

d iv

id u

al co

n si

d er

at io

n b

et a

= .1

8 (p

≤ 0.

01 )

∗∗ C

o n

ti n

ge n

t re

w ar

d b

et a

= .2

3 (p

≤ 0.

02 )

M gm

t- b

y- ex

ce p

ti o

n (a

ct iv

e) b

et a

= −.

07 (p

≤ 0.

12 )

M gm

t- b

y- ex

ce p

ti o

n (p

as si

ve )

b et

a =

−. 08

(p ≤

0. 11

) L

ai ss

ez -f

ai re

b et

a =

.0 9

(p ≤

0. 11

)

∗ C o

rr el

at io

n is

si gn

ifi ca

n t

at th

e 0.

05 le

ve l

(2 -t

ai le

d ).

∗∗ C

o rr

el at

io n

is si

gn ifi

ca n

t at

th e

0. 01

le ve

l (2

-t ai

le d

64 K. Webb

While all three independent variables, contingent reward (beta = 0.65), management-by-exception active (beta = −0.15), and management-by-exception passive (beta = −0.11) were significant predictors of motivation toward extra effort, only contingent reward demonstrated a direct positive relationship with motiva- tion. Both other factors, management-by-exception (active) and management-by-exception (passive), exhibited a negative rela- tionship with motivation toward extra effort. Overall, the transac- tional factors accounted for less of the variance in motivation than the transformational factors. Thus, management-by-exception was shown to lower motivation, while systems of reward provided some promise for raising motivation.

In the third model (column three), the laissez-faire leader- ship factor accounted for only 14% of the variance in motivation (adjusted R2 = 0.14). The laissez-faire factor (beta = −0.38) was identified as a significant predictor variable, but demonstrated a negative relationship with motivation toward extra effort. Inter- estingly, a lack of direct involvement from the leader may actually lower the motivation of workers. Therefore, leaders who do not actively engage with staff members are likely to demotivate their employees.

A fourth multiple regression model (column four) was utilized to examine the correlation of all nine independent variables to the dependent variable of motivation toward extra effort. The linear combination of all nine leadership variables accounted for a significant percent (63%) of the variance in motivation toward extra effort (adjusted R2 = 0.63). The signif- icant predictors for motivation for extra effort were identified as attributed charisma (beta = 0.35), intellectual stimulation (beta = 0.20), individual consideration (beta = 0.18), and contingent reward (beta = 0.23). In contrast, management-by-exception (active) demonstrated a significant negative correlation with mo- tivation toward extra effort (beta = −0.12). Attributed charisma demonstrated the greatest correlation to variance in motivation toward extra effort; intellectual stimulation, individual consider- ation, and contingent reward represented a lower contribution toward motivation.

A stepwise multiple regression model was used for the fifth model (column five) utilizing the four significant predictors from

Motivating Peak Performance 65

the nine-factor model. The linear combination of the four leader- ship variables accounted for a slightly higher significant percent (64%) of the variance in motivation toward extra effort (adjusted R2 = 0.64), although the percentage increase was negligible. However, the benefit of the four-factor model is demonstrated by comparing the beta weights of the four independent variables. Attributed charisma (beta = 0.34), intellectual stimulation (beta = 0.20), individual consideration (beta = 0.18), and contingent reward (beta = 0.19) all demonstrated a positive significant relationship with motivation toward extra effort.

Findings and Discussion

The results of this study indicate that workers are motivated toward extra effort when leaders model self-confidence, high energy, personal conviction, power, and assertiveness. When at- tributed charisma is combined with the factors of intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and contingent reward, the presidents can expect that executive-level staff members are going to be motivated toward extra effort.

This study shows that leaders who focus attention on behav- iors associated with charisma or intellectual stimulation, and who are considerate of others, are most likely to increase motivation toward extra effort among their staff. By providing a contingent reward system, leaders can motivate employees to work harder to achieve desired results. This study suggests that higher levels of motivation may be achieved when leaders provide specific plans of rewards and create cultures of affirmation, consideration, and appreciation for worker’s abilities and effective actions.

Previously, Mason (1998) reported only attributed charisma and individual consideration as significant predictors of moti- vation toward extra effort. Different results for this study may relate to larger samples for data collection and an enhanced stepwise regression process. Mason selected only one chief officer from each community college, while this study made an effort to triangulate the responses of vice presidents from the areas of aca- demic affairs, student life, and financial affairs. Other differences may be due to leadership variations between community college presidents and CCCU presidents. It was interesting that the factors

66 K. Webb

of intellectual stimulation and contingent rewards were reported as significant factors in this study of four-year institutions, but were not identified as significant factors in the community college study.

In regard to methodology, Mason forced a stepwise regres- sion by manually selecting the significant subscale from the trans- formational, transactional, and laissez-faire models and pooling the significant predictors into a combined model. The current study employed all nine factors into a combined regression model and then identified the significant subscales before collecting them into a combined four-factor model. This method allowed for the interaction effects between all nine subscales before creating a combined model.

Finally, this study recognized management-by-exception (ac- tive and passive) and laissez-faire behaviors as negatively corre- lated with motivation toward extra effort. These behaviors may represent leadership extremes on opposite ends of a continuum between active intervention and no intervention. Therefore, both too much “hands on” behavior and the absence of interaction (laissez-faire) on the part of the leader seem to negatively impact motivation.

Conclusions

This study focused on the 105 institutions in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. The findings may be gener- alized to other institutions of higher education, especially those similar in mission, size, or scope to CCCU institutions such as other private colleges and universities, denominational colleges, and smaller institutions of higher education. However, further replication studies are needed to verify this assumption.

The data confirm that college and university presidents of member institutions of the CCCU practice transforma- tional leadership behaviors with a high degree of frequency, transactional leadership behaviors with a moderate degree of frequency, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors with a low de- gree of frequency. Leaders at CCCU institutions are highly likely to demonstrate personal charisma, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, idealized influence, and inspirational motivation.

Motivating Peak Performance 67

The combined four-factor model of attributed charisma, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and contingent reward was slightly more predictive of motivation toward extra effort than previous transformational, transactional, or laissez- faire leadership models. The simplification provided by this four- factor model offers leaders a distinctive advantage in motivating their workers. Knowledge of the factors that predict increased motivation allows leaders to focus on the development of a select set of key behaviors to enhance institutional results and to potentially increase organizational effectiveness.

Attributed charisma ranked highest in predictive power. In- tellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and contingent reward contributed approximately the same variance in motiva- tional levels, but to a lesser degree than attributed charisma. This study provides empirical data to support the concept that a combination of charisma, intellectual stimulation, personal consideration, and a reward system can significantly increase the motivation of workers in an organization.

Using less technical language, these four factors may be viewed in the following way. Attributed charisma may be descrip- tive of the concept of leadership courage, which is a combination of confidence, a willingness to take risks, and the energy and conviction to try something new. Intellectual simulation may be compared to the concept of empowerment, which is the decision to engage persons in developing mental pictures of new concepts and encouraging workers to discover the necessary solutions that transform visions into realities. The factor of individual consideration identifies the need that persons have for personal recognition and the need to affirm the unique strengths and abilities of each person in an organization. It appears evident that people respond with renewed energy and motivation when they are working for leaders who are perceived as caring about others as unique individuals. The old adage that “people do not care what you know until they know that you care” suggests the importance of individual consideration. Lastly, contingent reward may be perceived as knowing your workers well enough to identify their strengths and to place persons in positions where they can make positive contributions to the organization and attain rewards and recognition. When people know what they need to do to achieve rewards and they believe they possess the skills and

68 K. Webb

the training to successfully accomplish the requisite tasks, it makes good sense that these persons are more likely to be motivated toward extra effort.

By utilizing knowledge of these behaviors, leaders can guide the development of systems, methods, and personal behaviors to create a motivated workforce. Highly motivated and satisfied employees also demonstrate a decrease in incidences of absen- teeism and an increase in production while on the job (Montana & Charnov, 1993). In turn, followers who perceive their leader as caring for the welfare of each individual worker are likely to demonstrate increased loyalty, confidence, and to have a stronger sense of emotional well-being. When these factors are present, leaders tend to retain a higher level of status in the organization and the organization has a tendency for greater production (Yukl, 2003).

Finally, the study indicates that “hands-on” leaders who are prone to correcting others, and “hands-off” leaders who neither actively engage with workers nor affirm the individual contri- butions of others, are highly likely to lower motivation among workers, which can lead to increased absenteeism and decreased production for the organization. Therefore, it is good fiscal policy to focus on sustaining the four leadership behaviors identified as positive predictors of motivation toward extra effort among workers. This study suggests that leaders who desire to motivate peak performance from their workers should demonstrate per- sonal courage, express confidence in others, display consideration for the strengths and abilities of their workers, and provide a contingent reward system. By implementing the four leadership behaviors of attributed charisma, intellectual stimulation, individ- ual consideration, and contingent reward, leaders can elevate the motivation level and increase the production from members of their staff.

References

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., and Jung, D. I. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., and Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a management game simulation. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 59–79.

Motivating Peak Performance 69

Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 689–697.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1989). Manual: The multifactor leadership question- naire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training , 14(5), 21–27.

Blanchard, H., and Johnson, S. (1985). The one-minute manager. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Publishing Co.

Bradford, L. P., and Lippitt, R. (1945). Building a democratic work group. Personnel, 22(3), 142–148.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Hater, J., and Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ per-

ceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695–702.

Howell, J. W., and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891– 902.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., and Curphy, G. J. (1999). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129–144.

Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–301.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.

Mason, A. M. (1998). Perceptions of presidential leadership by chief academic officers and their relationships to job satisfaction, motivation toward extra ef- fort, and perceived effectiveness in American community colleges. (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, No. 03, 9826008.

Montana, P. J., and Charnov, B. H. (1993). Management. Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.

Tichy, N. M., and Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader . New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Yammarino, F., and Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multi- ple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 997–995.

Yukl, G. A. (2003). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

A P

P E

N D

IX A

St ru

ct u

re C

o ef

fi ci

en ts

fo r

M o

ti va

ti o

n T

o w

ar d

E xt

ra E

ff o

V ar

ia b

le s

St ar

d .

P re

d .

V al

u e

o f

E xt

ra E

ff o

rt A

tt ri

b u

te d

C h

ar is

m a

In d

iv id

u al

iz ed

In fl

u en

ce In

sp ir

at io

n al

M o

ti va

ti o

n In

te ll

ec tu

al St

im u

la ti

o n

In d

iv id

u al

C o

n si

d er

at io

n C

o n

ti n

ge n

t R

ew ar

M an

ag em

en t-

b y-

E xp

ec ti

o n

(A ct

iv e)

M an

ag em

en t-

b y-

E xc

ep ti

o n

(P as

si ve

)

L ai

ss ez

- F

ai re

L ea

d er

sh ip

St an

ar d

iz ed

P re

ci te

d V

al u

e o

f E

xt ra

E ff

o rt

1 .8

93 ∗∗

.6 20

∗∗ .7

40 ∗∗

.8 33

∗∗ .8

61 ∗∗

.8 45

∗∗ −.

21 1∗

∗ −.

39 6∗

∗ −.

44 9∗

∗

P ea

rs o

n C

o rr

el at

io n

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

- .0

01 .0

02 .0

01 .0

01 N

21 5

A tt

ri b

u te

d C

h ar

is m

a P

ea rs

o n

C o

rr el

at io

n .8

93 ∗∗

1 .6

54 ∗∗

.7 04

∗∗ .6

58 ∗∗

.6 91

∗∗ .6

55 ∗∗

−. 19

7∗ ∗

−. 32

4∗ ∗

−. 49

2∗ ∗

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 01

- .0

01 .0

04 .0

01 .0

01 N

21 5

22 0

21 8

22 0

21 7

21 9

22 0

In d

iv id

u al

iz ed

In fl

u en

ce P

ea rs

o n

C o

rr el

at io

n .6

20 ∗∗

.6 54

∗∗ 1

.6 83

∗∗ 53

9∗ ∗

.5 46

∗∗ .6

12 ∗∗

−. 05

2 −.

29 7∗

∗ −.

39 0∗

∗

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 01

- .0

01 .0

01 .4

48 .0

01 .0

01 N

21 5

22 0

22 3

22 1

22 2

21 8

22 2

In sp

ir at

io n

al M

o ti

va ti

o n

P ea

rs o

n C

o rr

el at

io n

.7 40

∗∗ .7

04 ∗∗

.6 83

∗∗ 1

.5 84

∗∗ .5

76 ∗∗

.6 48

∗∗ −.

18 5∗

∗ −.

38 4∗

∗ −.

45 6∗

∗

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 01

- .0

01 .0

06 .0

01 .0

01 N

21 5

21 8

22 1

21 9

22 0

21 6

22 0

In te

ll ec

tu al

St im

u la

ti o

n P

ea rs

o n

C o

rr el

at io

n .8

33 ∗∗

.6 58

∗∗ .5

39 ∗∗

.5 84

∗∗ 1

.6 64

∗∗ .6

67 ∗∗

−. 05

7 −.

27 1∗

∗ −.

35 2∗

∗

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 01

- .0

00 .0

01 .4

01 .0

01 N

21 5

22 0

22 1

21 9

22 1

21 8

22 0

22 1

In d

iv id

u al

C o

n si

d er

at io

n P

ea rs

o n

C o

rr el

at io

n .8

61 ∗∗

.6 91

∗∗ .5

46 ∗∗

.5 76

∗∗ .6

64 ∗∗

1 .7

43 ∗∗

−. 11

6 −.

28 2∗

∗ −.

39 2∗

∗

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 01

- .0

01 .0

88 .0

01 .0

01 N

21 5

22 0

22 1

21 9

22 1

21 8

22 0

22 1

C o

n ti

n ge

n t

R ew

ar d

P ea

rs o

n C

o rr

el at

io n

.8 45

∗∗ .6

55 ∗∗

.6 12

∗∗ .6

48 ∗∗

.6 67

∗∗ .7

43 ∗∗

1 .0

06 −.

32 6∗

∗ −.

43 1∗

∗

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 01

- .9

27 .0

01 .0

01 N

21 5

22 0

22 2

22 0

22 1

22 2

21 8

22 1

22 2

M an

ag em

en t-

b y-

E xc

ep ti

o n

(A ct

iv e)

P ea

rs o

n C

o rr

el at

io n

−. 21

1∗ ∗

−. 19

7∗ ∗

−. 05

2 −.

18 5∗

∗ −.

05 7

−. 11

6 .0

06 1

.1 71

∗ .1

58 ∗∗

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 02

.0 04

.4 48

.0 06

.4 01

.0 88

.9 27

- .0

12 .0

20 N

21 5

21 7

21 8

21 6

21 8

M an

ag em

en t-

b y-

E xc

ep ti

o n

(P as

si ve

) P

ea rs

o n

C o

rr el

at io

n −.

39 6∗

∗ −.

32 4∗

∗ −.

29 7∗

∗ −.

38 4∗

∗ −.

27 1∗

∗ −.

28 2∗

∗ −.

32 6∗

∗ .1

71 ∗

1 .5

95 ∗∗

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 01

.0 12

- .0

01 N

21 5

21 9

22 2

22 0

22 1

21 8

22 2

22 1

L ai

ss ez

-F ai

re L

ea d

er sh

ip P

ea rs

o n

C o

rr el

at io

n −.

44 9∗

∗ −.

49 2∗

∗ −.

39 0∗

∗ −.

45 6∗

∗ −.

35 2∗

∗ −.

39 2∗

∗ −.

43 1∗

∗ .1

58 ∗

.5 95

∗∗ 1

Si g.

(2 -t

ai le

d )

.0 01

.0 20

.0 01

- N

21 5

22 0

22 2

22 0

22 1

22 2

21 8

22 1

22 2

∗ ·C o

rr el

at io

n is

si gn

ifi ca

n t

at th

e 0.

55 le

ve l

(2 -t

ai le

d ).

∗∗ ·C

o rr

el at

io n

is si

gn ifi

ca n

t at

th e

0. 01

le ve

l (2

-t ai

le d