Article Component Papers (Charismatic & Transformation Leadership)

BrownLord.1999.LQ.10.531-539.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Article Component Papers (Charismatic & Transformation Leadership)

THE UTILITY OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH IN THE STUDY OF TRANSFORMATIONAL/

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Douglas J. Brown* Robert G. Lord

The University of Akron

Both researchers and organizations have increasingly become interested in transfor- mational/charismatic leadership theories. This attraction, in part, reflects the multi- tude of studies indicating that these approaches to leadership are robust (e.g., Bass, 1998) in their relationships with important organizational outcomes (e.g., Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Although impressive, in the current article we argue that the primary empirical approach used to accumulate this knowledge has been overly restrictive and that alternative approaches (both quantitative and qualitative) are both desirable and necessary. In particular, we advocate an increase in the use of experimental methodologies, such as those used in several of the articles in the previous issue (Awamleh & Gardner. 1999; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; Hunt, Boa], & Dodge, 1999; Shea & Howell, 19Y9). We argue that such experimental approaches would complement the existing transformationallcharis- matic leadership literature.

Although we believe that there is a need to increase other forms of research, such as qualitative investigations, here we focus our attention on experimental research that is conducted within a laboratory setting. This focus is an attempt to counteract the tendency of many of the reviewers and editors of organizational journals who appear to be biased against experimental laboratory research (Grif- fin & Kacmar, 1991). As Griffin and Kacmar (1991) note in their review of the organizational literature, not only is the proportion of laboratory research published small compared to that of fieldwork (7.5% versus 55%), but also the percentage of

*Direct all correspondence to: Douglas J. Brown. Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, Akron. OH 44325-4301: e-mail: [email protected].

Leadership Quarterly. 10(4), 531-539. Copyright 0 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved mm: 1048-9843

5.32 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. IO No. 4 1999

laboratory studies appears to be declining. This apparent bias against experimental laboratory research has not escaped the transformational/charismatic literature: as Yukl (1949) has noted correlational survey data collected in the held dominates the transformational/charismatic literature. Consistent with this conclusion. Bass (1999) has recently written that the majority of the 200 research projects completed on transformational leadership rclicd on field survey data.

This skewed orientation is somewhat puzzling given the known benefits of experi- mental manipulations (e.g., ability to determine causation) and the recognized benefit among organizational scholars of using multiple methods (Jick. 1979). Al- though not exhaustive, below we outline two ways in which experimental methods complement existing survey approaches. In presenting this position, we hope to increase transformational/charismatic leadership researchers’ appreciation for, and recognition of, the benefits that can be accrued through an increased use of cxperi- mental approaches. In addition, these benefits of experimental research nicely illustrate the contribution of the four experimental studies included in the previous issue of LQ.

BENEFITS OF EXPERIMENTAL LABORATORY RESEARCH

Ability to Study the Nonconscious Aspects of Transformational/Charismatic Leadership

Transformational/charismatic research that relies on survey data implicitly as- sumes that respondents are aware of and can accurately report the factors that comprise their leadership evaluations. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). for example, requires respondents to rate the frequency with which a supervisor engages in particular behaviors. The use of such scales implies, by neces- sity. that perceivers are aware of and can report the key behaviors that define transformational/charismatic leadership. Recent empirical and theoretical work. however, suggests that this stance ignores a rich array of nonconscious factors.

The notion that nonconscious factors have an important influence on leadership is consistent both with recent empirical work and theory. In a recent article, for example, Bargh and Chartrand (1999) demonstrated that there is a growing empiri- cal literature indicating that much of human behavior. perception. and cognition is determined by influences residing outside of conscious awareness. Consistent with these findings. Lord and Maher (1991) have suggested that many important organizational events are the result of processes that occur in terms of milliseconds and, therefore, are too fast for conscious awareness. Adopting this perspective, Lord, Brown, Harvey, and Hall (1999) have recently argued that leadership behavior and perceptions are the result of cognitive processes that instantaneously integrate multiple environmental factors within a fraction of a second. Given the multitude of factors that must be integrated within such a short time period, the work of Lord et al. (1999) suggests that neither leaders nor subordinates can be fully aware of ail factors that lie behind their thoughts, perceptions. or behaviors. Empirically, support for this position comes from a recent investigation by Emrich (1999) that examined the degree to which the broader context (e.g., crisis versus no crisis)

Experimental Research 533

influences leadership perceptions. Results of Emrich’s (I 999) study indicated that largely unconscious memory processes mediated the effect of context on leadership perceptions.

In the previous issue of LQ, the work of Awamleh and Gardner (1999) most clearly highlights the potential importance of nonconscious influences. In their research, these authors manipulated the content of a visionary message, the delivery of this message (e.g.. hand gestures and facial expressions such as smiling), and organizational performance. The results of their study indicated that the delivery style of a leader consistently emerged as the dominant predictor of the dependent variables that were examined (e.g., perceptions of effectiveness and charisma). In fact, an examination of the r? indicated that while delivery style accounted for 58% and 30% of the variance in perceived charisma and effectiveness respectively, the maximum amount of variance that either content or organizational performance accounted for was 3%. Perhaps most interesting is the fact that people tend not to be cognizant of nonverbal behaviors, which arc processed quickly. As a result. these behaviors may exert their influence nonconsciously. Consistent with this idea, Chartrand and Bargh (1999) have recently reported that individuals whose move- ments were mirrored by a confederate reported greater liking for the confederate. Importantly, the subjects in this study were unaware of the mimicry that was taking place. Such results support the idea that individuals may bc unaware of many of the factors that form the basis of their perceptions and beliefs.

In addition to the work of Awamleh and Gardner (1999), other recent lines of inquiry suggest that nonconscious influences may be a vita1 component of transfor- mational/charismatic leadership. For example, based on the fact that transforma- tional leadership involves a strong emotional attachment to a leader, Brown and Keeping (1999) argued that interpersonal affect (e.g.. liking) should be an important determinant of a subordinate’s responses to the MLQ. Consistent with this position the authors found that a large proportion of the variance in responses to the MLQ items was accounted for by interpersonal affect. This tinding becomes particularly relevant to the current context insofar as recent research suggests that many of the precursors of affect can occur quickly and outside of conscious awareness (e.g., Edwards, 1990: Murphy & Zajonc, 19%).

If. as we have argued, it is reasonable to conclude that some aspects of transforma- tional/charismatic leadership may be nonconscious (e.g.. style and emotions) then it is unlikely that these effects can be reported precisely using field data and survey techniques. However, laboratory research that employs experimental methodolo- gies holds great promise for investigating these nonconscious factors (e.g., Awam- leh 8r Gardner’s, 1999, research on perceptions of charisma and effectiveness). In fact. to rely strictly on field data and survey techniques may unduly constrain our definition of leadership to lay constructs (i.e.. what people arc aware of), which are not likely to reflect nonconscious factors. Such construct deficiency becomes particularly troublesome when considering how to design effective training interven- tions to create transformational or charismatic leadership. To rely simply on those aspects of a construct of which individuals are aware may. inadvertently, preclude important variance in a construct, The results of Awamleh and Gardner’s (1999) research, for example, suggests that future training interventions and held research

534 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999

should include components dedicated not only to the content of a visionary message, but also to delivery style. Thus, given that transformational/charismatic leadership probably contains variance attributable to both conscious and nonconscious factors, we recommend that researchers attempt to establish greater balance between survey and laboratory methodologies, using laboratory methodologies to examine the non- conscious effects of transformational/charismatic leadership.

laboratory Research is Useful for Innovation and Discovery

Although survey research and field data are beneficial when the goal of an investigation is to describe natural co-variation (i.e., describing what is), the task of cataloguing naturally existing relationships is only one function of research. A second and equally important objective of research is the innovation and discovery of new relationships (i.e., what could be). This second function cannot be accom- plished with survey data collected in the field. as this mode of inquiry is restricted to the measurement of natural co-variation. Rather, creativity and innovation in leadership theory and application requires researchers to combine constructs that do not co-vary naturally, a process that is best accomplished in laboratory settings using experimental manipulalions. An experimental setting also allows researchers to control the levels of their independent variables and, therefore, provides an optimal environment within which to engage in research for purposes of discovery/ innovation (Henshel, 1980).

Shea and Howell (1999) highlight the gains that can be accrued when researchers create unique combinations of variables. In their investigation, Shea and Howell (1999) fully crossed task feedback (internal. external, and no feedback) with charis- matic leadership (charismatic versus noncharismatic). Interestingly, their results indicated that task feedback and leader charisma interacted to influence perfor- mance quality, such that the advantages of charismatic leadership were attenuated when feedback was present. Studies such as this provide important opportunities to create co-variation in constructs that may not naturally co-vary. Moreover, re- searchers can create levels of co-variation, which may not exist in naturally existing distributions, that provide optimum statistical power to test complex relationships between constructs (McClelland & Judd, 1993).

Related to the above point, experimental methodologies may also allow for the investigation of rare events. Hunt et al’s (1999) research in the previous issue demonstrates this possibility. In their investigation, Hunt et al. (1999) experimentally examined how different forms of charismatic leadership (visionary versus crisis responsive) functioned during times of crisis and how effective these forms of leadership were once a crisis had subsided. By their very nature crises are rare events. making them difficult to investigate in the field using correlational survey methods. In part, this difficulty reflects the fact that it is unlikely that enough data will be available to examine the effectiveness of different responses to crisis situations. Moreover, to merely describe how different leaders have responded to crises does not necessarily provide direction regarding what could be done in a crisis. Thus, when the phenomenon under consideration is rare, experimental studies provide not only the opportunity to study these situations. but also provides the opportunity to discover the most effective leadership styles for these events and to determine causality.

Experimental Research 535

Experimental laboratory research also provides an idea1 opportunity to assess the unique contribution of constructs that may be so highly interrelated in natural settings that it is impossible to disentangle their unique effects in the field with survey data. Perhaps most exemplary of this problem within the transformational/ charismatic literature is the current debate regarding the dimensionality of the MLQ (Bass, 1909). Although some authors have contended that the MLQ is composed of five separate dimensions (i.e., idealized influence attributed: idealized influence- behavior; inspirational motivation: intellectual stimulation; and individualized con- sideration), survey work that has examined the interrelationships among these factors indicates that these dimensions are difficult to differentiate (Bass, 1999). Such results have led some to question the usefulness of conceptualizing transformational leadership as a multidimensional construct. This position, however, confuses the quality and process of assessing a construct using retrospective reports from organi- zational participants with the utility of the construct itself. That is. the behaviors described as underlying each of these dimensions may be distinct and important, but raters may not be able to differentiate these dimensions. This can occur because some of the behaviors that underlie each of the dimensions are nonconscious and/ or because cognitive biases in raters (e.g., halo error) may cloud differences. For these reasons. future laboratory work that orthogonally manipulates the dimensions of the MLQ dimensions is necessary for determining whether a multidimensional conceptualization of transformational leadership is useful.

CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL WISDOM REGARDING EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

Thus far, we have documented some of the benefits that can be gained through using experimental procedures. Although space constraints prohibit us from providing an exhaustive discussion of these benefits, we include several additional advantages of both field survey work and experimental work in Table 1.

If experimental work indeed has the potential to complement survey data. why does there appear to be a bias against this form of investigation? The answer to this question may be contained in several of the experimental studies reported in the previous issue of LQ. In all these studies, substantial portions of text are devoted to addressing the external validity of the results (i.e., the degree to which the results generalize to the “real world”). For example, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) noted that due to the use of scenarios their results may not generalize “to real people in actual situations.” Similarly. Shea and Howell (1999) suggested that the external validity of their results may be questioned because their sample consisted of univer- sity students. We believe that this disparagement on the part of experimentalists reflects the unfounded assumptions among researchers that: (1) the ultimate crite- rion upon which all applied research should be evaluated is external validity; and (2) that experimental research by definition does not have external validity.

External Validity: The Appropriate Criterion?

As Henshel (1980) noted nearly 20 years ago (see Mook, 1983, for a similar position). questioning the use of experimental laboratory research simply because

536 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. IO No. 4 1 Y99

Table 1. Comparison of the Benefits of Experimental and Survey Research

Allows for the study of the conscious processes that opera~c in transformationaI!charismaLic Ittadership

Allows one to study the current state of the world (natural co-variation)

Allows researchers to make estimates of the sire of an effect in the real world

Allows researchers to investigate developmental phenomena such as how tran~formationalich~~rismatic leadership dcvclops or changes across time

Allows researchers to investigate the phenomenon of interest within the full complexity of its natural setting

Allows for the study of nonconscious processes that operate in transformation;il/charjstnatic leadership

Allows one to study how the world could be (artificial co-variation)

Allows researchers to make causal statements regarding the relationship between two constructs (i.e., high internal validity)

Allows researchers to study effects of transformittionaI/chari~matic leadership within a compressed time frame

Allows reseat-chers to study basic cognitive and affective processes that may underlie effects

Allows researchers to investigate issues that cannot be studied in natural settings because they a~-c rare or prohibitive in terms 01’ ethical concerns

it does not match external conditions assumes that the role of research is to describe relationships that currently exist. Approaching research from the descriptive/taxo- nomic perspective one can easily understand the bias that would exist in favor of correlational survey research that is collected in a field setting. Specifically. if the role of research is to describe the current state of the world, then the conditions under which one’s data are collected should map. as closely as possible. onto these conditions. However, if the goal of research is to discover whether a relationship could exist. as is the case when discovery/innovation is the central concern of a study, then the importance of external validity is reduced (Ilgen. 1986). In essence, the purpose of this form of research is to discover generalizations or principles that can be applied in the field to change organizational or societal functioning, not just to describe relationships that currently exist in the field. Ultimately, rather than replicating reality in the lab, the goal of this form of research is to discover general principles which can then be applied in scientifically-based interventions.

In demonstrating the usefulness of this approach, Henshel (1980) relays the story of Goodrich’s discovery of the vulcanization process. As Henshel appropriately noted, the manner in which vulcanization was discovered has little external validity (i.e., heating rubber on a stove). Yet, using the principles learned from this research. someone had the insight to recognize what could be and revolutionized manufactur- ing. Similarly, experimental research in the transformational/charismatic literature has the potential to add to our basic understanding of principles, which can then be used in the field. In all four of the experimental articles presented in the previous L.Q issue (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Choi 8.~ Mai-Dalton. 1999; Shea &

Experimental Research 537

Howell, 1999; Hunt et al., 1999) important knowledge regarding the relationship between transformational/charismatic leadership and other constructs has been gained. Thus, thoughtful readers should, instead of admonishing these articles be- cause they are perceived to lack external validity, evaluate thcsc studies in terms of what each study reveals about the underlying principles that are relevant to transformational/charismatic leadership (Dobbins et al., 108X).

External Validity: Are Experimental Studies Deficient?

It appears to be widely accepted that experimental laboratory research lacks external validity. Perhaps the most common criticism that has been leveled against experimental research is that the populations most typically utilized (i.e., students) do not allow researchers to generalize their findings to natural work settings (Gordon et al.. 1986). In essence. this position suggests that the population under consider- ation serves as a boundary condition. We argue that this position is neither empiri- cally nor logically defensible (Ilgen, 19%).

The issue as to whether or not the tindings from experimental investigations generalize to industrial settings is an empirical question, not one that should be left to stereotypes and biases, In an edited book, Locke (lY86) asked experts in several areas of industrial/organizational psychology to review both the laboratory and held data in their respective areas of expertise. Campbell ( lY86), in commenting on these findings, noted that the data presented did “not support the belief that lab studies produce different results than field studies.”

Although similar comparisons cannot be made at this point in the transforma- tional/charismatic leadership literature due to the small number of laboratory stud- ies, it seems likely that the principles found in laboratory experiments using students will generalize to field settings. The ability to generalize from student samples to the wider working population. however, could be potentially undermined in one of two ways. First, it is possible that transformational/charismatic leadership is not a recognizable or relevant construct for students. This seems highly unlikely as transformational/charismatic leadership is a robust construct that is relevant to a broad array of populations (Bass, lY98) and has been effectively manipulated in the lab using student participants (e.g.. Jung & Avolio, lYY9).

Second, the ability to generalize from students could be undermined because student participants could differ radically in their responses to transformational/ charismatic leadership compared to field samples. Implicitly, this position reflects the general tendency among researchers to overestimate the generalizability problem in moving from laboratory to field settings. Coinciding with this bias. there appears to be an underestimation of the problem that exists in moving from one field setting to another. That is, simply because a study was conducted in the field does not automatically mean that the findings will replicate to other field settings. Organiza- tions often have coherent and unique cultures which create unique workforces (e.g., Schneider, 1987). Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that merely because research was done in one organization that it will easily generalize to additional organizations. In fact, students, who work in multiple organizations, may be more representative of the broader population than members of any single organization. Ultimately,

538 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol.10 No.4 1999

however, the generalizability of any finding is an empirical issue that requires replication in multiple samples and settings.

CONCLUSION

Although we advocate the increased use of experimental methods here, the reader should not misinterpret our position as one that advocates the use of experimental research to the exclusion of all other approaches. Rather, we merely contend that experimental approaches have been underutilized and that there are advantages to employing a balanced methodological approach in any area of inquiry. As has been widely noted, any single research technique has its limitations (e.g., Ilgen, 1986). To these ends, the current limited use of experimental research constrains what is known about transformational/charismatic leadership (Bass, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Ultimately. an increase in the use of experimental procedures would serve only to complement the current transformational/charismatic leadership literature. In this light, we are enthusiastic about the four experimental studies presented in the previous issue of LQ (Awamleh & Gardner, 1YYY; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; Shea & Howell, lYYY, Hunt et al., lYY9), as they provide important initial steps in restoring methodological balance to the transformational/charismatic literature.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Lisa Keeping, Chris Selenta, and James Tan for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article.

REFERENCES

Awamleh, R.. & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leudership Quarterly, IO(3). 345-373.

Bargh. J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1YYY). The unbearable automaticity of being. Americm Psycfiologi.st, 54, 462479.

Bass, B. M. (lYY8). Does the transactional/transformational leadership paradigm transcend organiztional and national boundaries’? American Psychologist. 52. 130-139.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Europpear~ Journcrl c1.f Work and Orgmiz&mal Psychology, 8, 9-32.

Brown. D. J.. & Keeping, L. M. (1999). Examining the role of affect in transformational leadership. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Campbell. J. P. (1986). Labs, fields. and straw issues. In E. Locke (Ed.), Generulizing from lrrhomtory to ,field settings (pp. 260-279). Lexington, MA: DC Heath.

Chartrand, T. L.. & Bargh. J. A. (I 995)). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Jmrnal of Persnnulity md Social Psychology, 76, 893-910.

Choi. Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (19%). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical approach. Leadership Qrurrterl,,, IO(3). 397-421.

Dobbins. G. H.. Lane. I. M.. & Steiner. D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioral research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Jor~rnal of Organiz~rtional Hehmior, Y. 281-286.

Edwards, K. (1YYO). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Jourrtal o,f Personalit~~ und So&l l?~~lchology, 59, 202-2 16.

Experimental Research 539

Emrich, C. G. (1999). Context effects in leadership perception. Personality und Social P.sychol- ogy Bulletin, 2.5, 991-1006.

Gordon. M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The “science of the sophomore” revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Acm’emy qf Manqement Review. Il. 19 I-207.

Griffin, R.. & Kackmar, K. M. (1991). Laboratory research in management: Misconceptions and missed opportunities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12. 301-31 1.

Henshel, R. L. (19X0). The purposes of laboratory experimentation and the virtues of deliber- ate artificiality. Journal of Experimental Social P.sychology, lh. 466-478.

Hunt, J. G.. Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999j. The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, fU(3). 423-448.

Ilgen. D. R. (1986). Laboratory research: A question of when. not if. In E. Locke (Ed.), Generalizingfrom laboratory tofieidsettings (pp. 257-267). Lexington, MA: DC Heath.

Jick. T. (I 979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Adrninis- trative Science Quarterly, 4, 602-h 1 I.

Jung, D. I.. & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orienta- tion on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208-218.

Locke, E. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field ,settings. Lexington, MA: DC Heath. Lord, R. G., & Maher. K. J. (1990). Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational psychol-

ogy. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of indwtrial and organiza- tional psychology (pp. l-62). Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Lord. R. G., Brown. D. J.. Harvey, J.. & Hall. R. (1999). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multi-level consequences for leadership perceptions. Manuscript submitted for publication.

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

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.

Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external validity. American Psychologist, 38. 379-387. Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc. R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition. and awareness: Affective priming

with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of’ Personality and Sociul Psychology, 64, 723-739.

Schneider. B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-454. Shea. C. M.. & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory

study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 375-396.

Yukl. G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8. 33-48.