Leadership Question

pineey02u

attachments1.zip

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Leadership Question

Topic 10 Powerpoint Reading Review.pptx

Topic 10. Cross-cultural leadership. Readings.

Text

Yan and Hunt (2005) A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness

Supplemental

Dorfman, et.al (1997) Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Difference in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures

Ensari and Murphy (2003) Cross Cultural Variations in Leadership Perceptions and Attributions of Charisma to the Leader

Javidan, et. al (2006) In the Eyes of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE

Resick, et. al (2006) A Cross Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership

Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Difference in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures Dorfman, et.al (1997)

Purpose: extend contingency theories of leader behavior to include national culture as a situational variable

Both emic (culture specific) and etic (universal) perspectives employed

1598 managers and professionals in large multinational or national companies located in US, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea

Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Difference in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures Dorfman, et.al (1997)

Based on Path-Goal Theory and Multiple Linkage Model

Behaviors

Directive

Supportive Contingent reward

Contingent punishment

Charisma

Participation

Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Difference in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures Dorfman, et.al (1997)

Predictions

Japan

Taiwan

Mexico

S. Korea

USA

Results

Negative relationship (predicted)

Negative relationship (not predicted)

Results for five countries without job performance

Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Difference in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures Dorfman, et.al (1997)

ORGCOM organizational commitment SATWORK satisfaction with work SATSUP satisfaction with supervision

ROLAM role ambiguity

Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Difference in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures Dorfman, et.al (1997)

Results for three countries with job performance

JPTOT job performance

ORGCOM organizational commitment SATWORK satisfaction with work SATSUP satisfaction with supervision

ROLAM role ambiguity

A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness Yan and Hunt (2005)

Research question: How does perception of leadership vary with different cultural dimensions in a cross cultural context?

How are cultural characteristics linked to leadership?

“Leadership is the process of being perceived by others as a leader”

Recognition-based process

How much do you look/act like an effective leader?

Inference-based process

Are you achieving successful outcomes?

A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness Yan and Hunt (2005)

	Recognition	Inference	Rationale
Proposition 1. The higher the collectivism…	more	less	Collectivistic cultures: Success/failure attributed to group, not individual Conforming to social norms
Proposition 2. The higher the power distance…	more	less	High PD cultures: Leadership seen as endowed by position, paternalism dominates
Proposition 3. The higher the masculinity…	less	more	High MASC cultures: Achievement oriented
Proposition 4. The higher the uncertainty avoidance…	more	less	High UA cultures: Value conformity to rules and social norms Obedience of authority
Proposition 5. The more fatalistic…	more	less	Fatalistic cultures: View achievement as dependent on chance and powerful persons/institutions

A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness Yan and Hunt (2005)

Proposition 6a. The higher the collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, femininity, and fatalism in a culture, the more positively perceived leadership effectiveness will be associated with conforming to the implicit leadership prototypes in the minds of followers.

Proposition 6b. The lower the collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, femininity, and fatalism in a culture, the more positively perceived leadership effectiveness will be associated with producing good performance outcomes

A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness Yan and Hunt (2005)

Collectivist

High P.D.

Feminine

Strong fatalism

High U.A.

Individualistic

Low P.D.

Masculine

Weak fatalism

Low U.A

Recognition-based perception

Inference-based perception

Being perceived as “good” or “effective” leader

Fitting prototypes

Good outcomes

Cultural setting

Follower perception processes

Leadership

behavior

Leadership effectiveness

Group/org performance

Cross Cultural Variations in Leadership Perceptions and Attributions of Charisma to the Leader Ensari and Murphy (2003)

Looks at the interactive effect of recognition-based and inference-based processes of attributions of charisma to leaders

Hypothesis 1. Optimal ratings of charismatic leadership will formed when the leader is presented as highly prototypical and the company’s performance outcome is successful

Hypothesis 2. In individualistic cultures, reference-based processes will be used

In individualistic cultures, more likely causal attributions will be made to dispositional factors, cause of success and failure found within person

Hypothesis 3. In collectivist cultures, inference-based processes will be used

Collective outcomes will be used to make attributions of charisma

Cross Cultural Variations in Leadership Perceptions and Attributions of Charisma to the Leader Ensari and Murphy (2003)

Charisma/ Outcome/ Prototypicality	Positive mean charisma score	Negative mean charisma score
Prototypical	5.13	4.70
Antiprototypical	4.62	4.77

Interactive effects

Hypothesis 1 Optimal ratings of charismatic leadership will formed when the leader is presented as highly prototypical and the company’s performance outcome is successful

187 undergraduates

87 American

100 Turkish

Questionnaire with vignettes describing prototypical and anti-prototypical leader behavior

2 x 2 ANCOVA design

Cross Cultural Variations in Leadership Perceptions and Attributions of Charisma to the Leader Ensari and Murphy (2003)

Reference-based processing

Inference-based processing

Charisma/ Culture/ Prototypicality	American mean charisma score	Turkish mean charisma score
Prototypical	5.14	4.72
Antiprototypical	4.69	4.76

Charisma/ Culture/ Outcome	American mean charisma score	Turkish mean charisma score
Positive	4.95	4.90
Negative	4.93	4.57

Interactive effects

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 3

Cross Cultural Variations in Leadership Perceptions and Attributions of Charisma to the Leader Ensari and Murphy (2003)

US prototypical

1. He (the leader) exercises great influence

on his subordinates

2. He wants his own way on issues at hand

3. He asks his subordinates to work harder

4. He talks to his subordinates frequently

US anti-prototypical

1. He tends not to change established and

comfortable practices of his workgroup

2. He usually requests his subordinates’ approval on issues at hand

3. He admits it when he makes a mistake

4. He usually lets his subordinates decide what to do

Turkish prototypical

1. He explains what the goal of the group should be

2. He assigns specific tasks to the group members

3. He asks his subordinates to work harder

4. He talks to his subordinates frequently

Turkish anti-prototypical

1. He lets everyone work at their own pace

2. He usually requests his subordinates approval on issues at hand

3. He admits it when he makes a mistake

4. He usually lets his subordinates decide what to do

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE Javidan, et. al (2006)

Research question: How are individuals’ beliefs about attributes, personality characteristics, skills, and behaviors that contribute to leadership affected by culture?

Based on GLOBE study

Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Theory (CLT)

Derived from Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT)

Set of beliefs about attributes, characteristics, and behaviors that contribute to or impede outstanding leadership

112 behavior and attribute descriptors reduced to six

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE Javidan, et. al (2006)

Six dimensions of CLT leadership profile

Charismatic/value-based

Ability to inspire and motivate high performance based on firmly held core beliefs

Team-orientated

Effective implementation of a common purpose or goal, team-building

Participative

Degree to which involve others in decision-making

Humane-oriented

Considerate leadership, compassion, generosity

Autonomous

Independent, individualistic leadership

Self-protective

Self-centered and face-saving

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE Javidan, et. al (2006)

Universally endorsed facilitators of leadership effectiveness

Being trustworthy, just, and honest (integrity)

Having foresight and planning ahead (charismatic-visionary)

Being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating, and building confidence (charismatic-inspirational)

Being communicative, informed, a coordinator, and team integrator (team builder)

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE Javidan, et. al (2006)

Universally endorsed impediments to leadership effectiveness

Being a loner and antisocial (self-protective)

Being non-cooperative and irritable (malevolent)

Being dictatorial (autocratic)

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE Javidan, et. al (2006)

Culturally contingent endorsement of leader attributes

Being individualistic (autonomous)

Being status conscious (status conscious)

Being a risk taker (charismatic-self sacrificial)

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE Javidan, et. al (2006)

Brazil

France

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE Javidan, et. al (2006)

China

Egypt

A Cross Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership Resick, et. al (2006)

Data from the GLOBE project used to analyze the endorsement of four aspects of ethical leadership across cultures

Character/integrity

Altruism

Collective motivation

Encouragement

The four components are universally supported, although to different degrees in different cultures – “variform universal”

A Cross Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership Resick, et. al (2006)

Character/integrity

Trust

Sincere

Just

Honest

Altruism

Generous

Fraternal

Compassionate

Modest

Collective motivation

Communicative

Confidence building

Group orientation

Motive arouser

Team building

Encouragement

Encouraging

Moral booster

Items from GLOBE leadership scales consistent with conceptions of ethical leadership

Culture Cluster Membership

A Cross Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership Resick, et. al (2006)

	Character	Altruism	Collective motivation	Encourage-ment
Higher	Nordic European	Southeast Asian	Anglo Latin American Nordic European
Middle	Germanic European Latin American Anglo Southeast Asian Sub-Saharan Latin European Easter European Confucian Asian	Sub-Saharan Confucian Asian Latin American Middle Eastern Anglo Eastern European Germanic European	Germanic European Sub-Saharan Latin European Southeast Asian Eastern European Confucian Asian	Nordic European Anglo Latin American Germanic European Sub-Saharan Southeast Asian Confucian Asian Eastern European Latin American
Lower	Middle Eastern	Latin American Nordic European	Middle Eastern	Middle Eastern

Ranking of culture clusters on endorsement of each dimension of ethical leadership

Topic 11 Powerpoint Reading Review.pptx

Topic 11. Substitutes/Neutralizers and Team. Readings.

Text

Kerr and Jermier (1978) Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) Meta-Analaysis of the Relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s Substitutes for Leadership and Employee Job Attitudes, Role Perceptions, and Performance

Supplemental

Jordan and Troth (2004) Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution

Solansky (2008) Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams

Theories of leadership share a conviction that hierarchical leadership is always important

However, data from numerous studies demonstrate that in many situations, leader behaviors are irrelevant and hierarchical leadership does not seem to matter

Research question: how can the “occasional successes and frequent failures” of leadership theories and models be explained?

Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement Kerr & Jermier (1978)

Neutralizers

Paralyze, destroy, or counteract effectiveness of leadership, making it impossible

Substitutes

May render leadership not only impossible, but unnecessary

Will take the place of leadership

Tasks

Unambiguous and routine

Methodologically invariant

Provides its own feedback concerning accomplishment

Intrinsically satisfying

Organizations

Formalization

Inflexibility

Highly specified staff functions

Closely-knit cohesive work groups

Organizational rewards not under the leader’s control

Physical distance between leader and subordinates

Subordinates

Ability, experience, knowledge

Need for independence

Professional orientation

Indifference toward organizational rewards

Leadership

Acid

Alkaline

Characteristics of

Subordinates

Tasks

Organizations

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

Kerr & Jermier predicted that substitutes and neutralizers will affect (moderate) the relationship between leadership and subordinate attitudes and perceptions.

Numerous studies have failed to support this prediction.

Leader behavior

Outcome

Substitute/ neutralizer

Not supported by research

However, substitutes for leadership variables do account for substantial proportions of the variance in subordinate attitudes and perceptions

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

Substitute/ neutralizer

Outcome

Leader behavior

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

Research question: What is the relative importance of leader behaviors and substitutes?

Meta analysis

Identified 24 studies reporting a relationship between at least one leader substitute variable and one leader behavior, leader substitute, and/or employee criterion variable

two studies were excluded and some used two samples, so a total of 36 samples were found

the 36 samples reported relationship between 13 substitutes, 7 leader behaviors, and 10 criterion variables

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

Variables included

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

General satisfaction

Substitutes 40% of variance

Leader behaviors 17% of variance

Commitment

Substitutes 50% of variance

Subordinate characteristics 23%, indifference to org. goals strongly negative

Leader behaviors 2% of variance

Role ambiguity

Substitutes 29% of variance

Leader behaviors 9% of variance

In-role performance*

Substitutes 3% of variance

Leader behaviors 7% of variance

*only category that leader behavior was more important the substitute variables

From Table 3

Meta-analysis of research on substitutes for leadership Posdakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996)

The combination of leader behavior and substitutes accounts for…

75% of variance in employee attitudes

60% of variance in role perceptions

21% of variance in performance

On average, substitutes account for almost three times as much variance in criterion variables than leader behaviors (20.2% vs 7.2%)

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Research question: Can emotional intelligence predict individual and team performance, and conflict resolution style?

Study

350 university students in 108 teams enrolled in an introductory management course (Most teams have 3 members)

Participants complete

emotional intelligence questionnaire

survival situation exercise (individually and in team)

interpersonal conflict questionnaire

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Mayer & Salovey (1997) model of emotional intelligence, four components:

Perception

Self-awareness

Accurate expression

Assimilation

Use of emotions to prioritize thinking

Ability to adopt multiple perspectives

Understanding

Ability to understand complex emotions

Management of emotions

Ability to connect or disconnect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in a given situation

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Hypothesis 1 – Emotional intelligence will not predict the performance of individuals in undertaking the cognitive problem-solving task

Team performance and emotional intelligence

Hypothesis 2 – Teams will perform better than individuals on the problem-solving task

Hypothesis 3 – Teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence will perform better than teams with lower-average levels of emotional intelligence

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Conflict, emotional intelligence and performance

Hypothesis 4a – Teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence will be more likely to adopt avoidance conflict resolution patterns compared with teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence

Hypothesis 4b – Teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence will be more likely to adopt dominance conflict resolution patterns compared with teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence

Conflict resolution patterns: dominating, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, collaborating/ integrating

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Hypothesis 5 – Teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence will be more likely to report adopting collaborative conflict resolution patterns compared with teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence

Hypothesis 6 – Teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence are more likely to experience task conflict that teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence during the problem-solving task

Hypothesis 7 – Teams with higher average levels of emotional intelligence will experience less relationship conflict that teams with lower average levels of emotional intelligence during the problem-solving task

Conflict types: task, relational

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

H1 supported (individual performance)

H2 supported (group vs. individual performance, see Table 2)

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

H4a

H4b

H3 supported (team performance) H5 supported (collaboration)

H4a partially supported (conflict avoid.) H6 not supported (task conflict)

H4b not supported (dominance) H7 not supported (relationship conflict)

Managing Emotions During Team Problem Solving: Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution Jordan and Troth (2004)

Conclusions

No link found between emotional intelligence and performance at individual level

Significant difference between individual and group performance

Teams with higher overall level of emotional intelligence and ability to deal own emotions had higher performance

Ability to deal with own emotions linked to team performance; ability to deal with others’ emotions, not linked

Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams Solansky (2008)

Research question: What do leadership processes look like in self-managed teams?

motivational processes

cognitive processes

social processes

Definition of team

A team is group with…

assigned role functions

usually limited life span

conscious awareness of interdependency

Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams Solansky (2008)

Types of leadership in self-managed teams

single leadership

shared leadership

Hypothesis 1 – Teams that establish shared leadership will have higher collective efficacy scores that those without shared leadership

Hypothesis 2 – Teams that establish shared leadership will have lower relational conflict scores that those without shared leadership

Hypothesis 3 – Teams that establish shared leadership will have higher transactive memory system scores that those without shared leadership

Transactive memory is all members of team knowing each others’ special knowledge or expertise

Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams Solansky (2008)

Laboratory study of 20 work teams

undergraduate management class

3-5 member teams, voluntarily formed

16 weeks of competition on various projects

Data

Collective efficacy

Relational conflict

Transactive memory system

Role chart

Journal entries

Leadership Style and Team Processes in Self-Managed Teams Solansky (2008)

Hypothesis 1 – supported

Shared leadership related to a greater sense of collective efficacy

Hypothesis 2 – not supported

Difference between shared and not leadership teams on relational conflict not significant, but in right direction

Hypothesis 3 – supported

Shared leadership related to a stronger transactive memory system