W3A1

Chapter 2: Traits, Behaviors, and Relationships

NOT FOR SALE

YOUR LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Outline some personal traits and characteristics that are associated with effective leaders. • Identify your own traits that you can transform into strengths and bring to a leadership role. • Distinguish among various roles leaders play in organizations, including operations roles, collaborative

roles, and advisory roles, and where your strengths might best fit.

• Recognize autocratic versus democratic leadership behavior and the impact of each. • Know the distinction between people-oriented and task-oriented leadership behavior and when each

should be used.

• Understand how the theory of individualized leadership has broadened the understanding of relationships between leaders and followers.

• Describe some key characteristics of entrepreneurial leaders.

CHAPTER OUTLINE 36 The Trait Approach

41 Know Your Strengths

43 Behavior Approaches

52 Individualized Leadership

55 Entrepreneurial Traits and Behaviors

In the Lead

40 Marissa Mayer, Yahoo

45 Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway

47 Col. Joe D. Dowdy and Maj. Gen. James Mattis, U.S. Marine Corps

50 Denise Morrison, Campbell Soup Company, and Michael Arring- ton, TechCrunch

Leader’s Self-Insight

40 Rate Your Optimism

47 What’s Your Leadership Orientation?

55 Your ‘‘LMX’’ Relationship

Leader’s Bookshelf

38 Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success

Leadership at Work

58 Your Ideal Leader Traits

Leadership Development: Cases for Analysis

58 Consolidated Products

60 Transition to Leadership

S oon after her husband was elected the first African American president in the United States, Michelle Obama appeared on ‘‘The Tonight Show’’ wearing a stylish outfit consisting of a pencil skirt, a yellow and brown tank top, and a

mustard yellow cardigan. When then-host Jay Leno asked about her wardrobe, say- ing ‘‘I’m guessing about 60 grand? Sixty, 70 thousand for that outfit?’’ she replied, ‘‘Actually, this is a J. Crew ensemble.’’ The audience roared. Obama also incorpo- rated J. Crew items into her inauguration look. The man behind J. Crew, Millard S. (Mickey) Drexler, is a retail legend, known as both a visionary and something of a control freak. He turned Gap into a global fashion powerhouse in the 1990s, started Old Navy a decade or so later, and transformed J. Crew into a cult brand in the early years of the twenty-first century. When he took over as CEO, J. Crew was deeply in debt and struggling to survive. At the age of 70, Drexler is still going strong, but his leadership style and tendency to micromanage and focus on every detail, from vetting every new employee to deciding on the size of pockets or the look of a label, has recently come under scrutiny. By late 2015, even though J. Crew was still popular, sales were falling and the magic was fading. Yet owners continued to support Drexler and give him free rein as CEO. ‘‘Call it ‘the great man’ problem,’’

35NOT FOR SALE

one New York Times reporter phrased it, questioning whether any company should be so closely tied to the characteristics, style, and actions of one individual.1

We introduced the idea of ‘‘Great Man’’ leadership in Chapter 1, and the Mickey Drexler example shows that the concept hasn’t completely died. The earliest leadership studies proposed that certain people had natural traits and abilities of power and influence that enabled them to put everything together and influence others in a way that other people could not. Although few today would argue that leadership is based on inborn traits, interest in the characteristics that define a good leader continues. As this example illustrates, current thinking on leadership incorpo- rates a variety of ideas and concepts from the past.

Personal traits captured the imagination of the earliest leadership researchers, but if we look at any two successful and effective leaders they will likely share some traits but have others that are quite dissimilar. Each individual has a unique set of qualities, characteristics, and strengths to bring to a leadership role. In addition, leaders can learn to overcome some potentially limiting traits, such as a lack of self- confidence or a quick temper. Consequently, many researchers have examined the behavior of leaders to determine what behavioral features comprise leadership style and how particular behaviors relate to effective leadership.

This chapter first examines the evolution of the trait approach and the impor- tance of leaders understanding and applying their own unique leadership strengths. Then we provide an overview of the behavior approach and introduce the theory of individualized leadership, which looks at behavior between a leader and each indi- vidual follower, differentiating one-on-one behavior from leader-to-group behavior. The path illuminated by the research into leader traits and behaviors is a foundation for the field of leadership studies and still enjoys remarkable dynamism for explain- ing leader success or failure.

2-1 THE TRAIT APPROACH Traits are the distinguishing personal characteristics of a leader, such as intelligence, honesty, self-confidence, and appearance. Research early in the twentieth century examined leaders who had achieved a level of greatness and hence became known as the Great Man approach. Fundamental to this theory was the idea that some peo- ple are born with traits that make them natural leaders. The Great Man approach sought to identify the traits leaders possessed that distinguished them from people who were not leaders. Generally, research found only a weak relationship between personal traits and leader success.2 Indeed, the diversity of traits that effective lead- ers possess indicates that leadership ability is not a genetic endowment.

Nevertheless, with the advancement of the field of psychology during the 1940s and 1950s, trait approach researchers expanded their examination of personal attributes by using aptitude and psychological tests. These early studies looked at personality traits such as creativity and self-confidence, physical traits such as age and energy level, abilities such as knowledge and fluency of speech, social character- istics such as popularity and sociability, and work-related characteristics such as the desire to excel and persistence against obstacles.3

In a 1948 literature review,4 Stogdill examined more than 100 studies based on the trait approach. He uncovered several traits that appeared consistent with effec- tive leadership, including general intelligence, initiative, interpersonal skills, self- confidence, drive for responsibility, and personal integrity. Stogdill’s findings also

Traits the distinguishing personal characteristics of a leader, such as intelligence, hon- esty, self-confidence, and appearance

Great Man approach a leadership perspective that sought to identify the inher- ited traits leaders possessed that distinguished them from people who were not leaders

36 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

indicated, however, that the importance of a particular trait was often relative to the situation. Initiative, for example, may contribute to the success of a leader in an en- trepreneurial situation, but it may be irrelevant to a leader in a stable bureaucracy. Thus, possessing certain personal characteristics is no guarantee of success.

Many researchers discontinued their efforts to identify leadership traits in light of Stogdill’s 1948 findings and turned their attention to examining leader behavior and leadership situations. However, others continued with expanded trait lists and research projects. Stogdill’s subsequent review of 163 trait studies conducted between 1948 and 1970 concluded that some personal traits do indeed seem to con- tribute to effective leadership.5 The study identified many of the same traits found in the 1948 survey, along with several additional characteristics, including aggressive- ness, independence, and tolerance for stress. However, Stogdill again cautioned that the value of a particular trait or set of traits varies with the organizational situation.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in examining leadership traits. A review by Kirkpatrick and Locke identified a number of personal traits that distinguish leaders from nonleaders, including some pinpointed by Stogdill.6 Other studies have focused on followers’ perceptions and indicate that certain traits are associated with peo- ple’s perceptions of who is a leader. For example, one study found that the traits of intelli- gence, masculinity, and dominance were strongly related to how individuals perceived leaders.7 Others have found that charismatic CEOs are perceived to be more effective than other leaders, even though there is no evidence showing they actually are.8

In summary, trait research has been an important part of leadership studies throughout the twentieth century and continues into the twenty-first, as illustrated by this chapter’s Leader’s Bookshelf, which suggests that a trait of selflessness is the secret to genuine and lasting leadership success. Several other traits, including opti- mism and a cheerful attitude, have recently gained attention as important for suc- cessful leaders. Britain’s Royal Navy takes cheerfulness so seriously that it tracks how leader cheerfulness affects morale and effectiveness.9 As discussed in Chapter 1, humility, including a willingness to admit mistakes and make oneself vulnerable, has emerged as an important trait in today’s collaborative world.10

Exhibit 2.1 presents some of the traits and their respective categories that have been identified through trait research over the years. Many researchers still contend that some traits are essential to effective leadership, but only in combination with other factors.11 A few traits typically considered highly important for leadership are optimism, self-confidence, honesty and integrity, and drive.

2-1a Optimism and Self-Confidence Recent research points to a positive outlook and a cheerful attitude as keys to effec- tive leadership.12 Optimism refers to a tendency to see the positive side of things and expect that things will turn out well. Numerous surveys indicate that optimism is the single characteristic most common to top executives. People rise to the top because they can see opportunities where others see problems and can instill in others a sense of hope for the future. Leaders at all levels need some degree of opti- mism to see possibilities even through the thickest fog and rally people around a vision for a better tomorrow. Although hundreds of experiments support the notion that people possess ingrained tendencies toward either optimism or pessimism, lead- ers can train themselves to deliberately focus on the positive rather than the negative and interpret situations in more positive, optimistic ways.13

A related characteristic is having a positive attitude about oneself. Leaders who know themselves develop self-confidence, which is general assurance in one’s own

Optimism a tendency to see the posi- tive side of things and expect that things will turn out well

What I’ve really

learned over time

is that optimism is

a very, very

important part of

leadership. . . .

People don’t like

to follow

pessimists. Robert Iger, Chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company

Self-confidence assurance in one’s own judgments, decision making, ideas, and capabilities

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO People generally prefer to follow leaders who are optimistic rather than pessimistic about the future. Complete the questionnaire in Leader’s Self-Insight 2.1 to assess your level of optimism.

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 37

NOT FOR SALE

judgments, decision making, ideas, and capabilities. Self-confidence doesn’t mean being arrogant and prideful but rather knowing and trusting in oneself. Self-confi- dence is related to self-efficacy, which refers to a person’s strong belief that he or she can successfully accomplish a specific task or outcome.14 A leader who has a posi- tive self-image and displays certainty about his or her own ability to achieve an out- come fosters confidence among followers, gains respect and admiration, and creates motivation and commitment among followers for the mission at hand.

Active leaders need self-confidence and optimism. How many of us willingly fol- low someone who is jaded and pessimistic, or someone who obviously doesn’t believe in himself or herself? Leaders initiate change, and they often must make decisions without adequate information. Without the confidence to move forward and believe things will be okay, even if an occasional decision is wrong, leaders could be para- lyzed into inaction. Setbacks have to be overcome. Risks have to be taken. Competing points of view have to be managed, with some people left unsatisfied. The characteris- tics of optimism and self-confidence enable a leader to face all these challenges.15

2-1b Honesty and Integrity Positive attitudes have to be tempered by strong ethics or leaders can get into trou- ble. Consider Bernard Madoff, who masterminded the largest financial fraud in his- tory and was sent to jail on 11 criminal charges, including securities fraud and perjury. As a leader, Madoff displayed strong self-confidence and optimism, which is

LEADER’S BOOKSHELF Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success

by Adam Grant

Contrary to popular belief, good guys don’t always finish last. In fact, in the book Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success, Adam Grant asserts that a trait of selflessness can help leaders be more effective and more successful. Grant, the youngest tenured professor ever at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylva- nia, suggests that good leaders are those who give the most and view their success as ‘‘individual achievements that have a positive impact on others.’’

ARE YOU A GIVER, A TAKER, OR A MATCHER? Grant proposes that we all assume one of three basic approaches toward others— that of a giver, a taker, or a matcher.

• Givers focus on what others need and give selflessly. They give time and energy, or anything else that is asked of them, without expecting anything in return. Grant uses the example of billionaire Jon Huntsman Sr., founder of Huntsman Chemical,

who once left $200 million on the ta- ble when negotiating with a man whose wife had just died, simply because he thought it was the right thing to do. As leaders, givers more easily delegate and collaborate with others, listen to others, give credit to others, and share power and responsibility.

• Takers put their own interests first. Takers are selfish people who want to win, no matter who else loses. As leaders, they typically try to influence others by gaining dominance and control over them. They collaborate only when it benefits them person- ally and rarely share credit for suc- cesses. Takers often win in the short run but they are much less likely to build success over the long term.

• Matchers strive for a balance of giving and taking. Matchers try to achieve an equal balance between what they give and what they get in return. As leaders, they network and collaborate strategically, expecting

something in return that will be of benefit to them. They play a jug- gling act in an effort to serve their individual interests while still being fair to others.

DOES IT PAY TO BE NICE? Grant applies scientific research and weaves in numerous real-life stories to support his premise that givers end up being the most successful among the three groups. His advice is to ‘‘focus attention and energy on making a dif- ference in the lives of others, and suc- cess might follow as a by-product.’’ Leaders who are givers help a wide range of people in the organization, de- velop everyone’s skills to support the greater good, and strive to bring out the best in everyone. By investing in the success of their followers, leaders who are givers build their own success and a legacy of enduring greatness.

Source: Give and Take, by Adam Grant, is pub- lished by Viking.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can develop the personal traits of self- confidence, integrity, and drive, which are important for successful leadership in every organization and situation. You can work to keep an optimistic attitude and be ethical in your decisions and actions.

38 NOT FOR SALE

one reason he was able to attract so many investors. The problem was that he didn’t have a strong ethical grounding to match. Due to Madoff’s scam, thousands of people were swindled out of their life’s savings, charities and foundations were ruined, and pension funds were wiped out, while Madoff and his wife lived in luxury.16

Effective leaders are ethical leaders. One aspect of being an ethical leader is being honest with followers, customers, shareholders, and the public, and maintain- ing one’s integrity. Honesty refers to truthfulness and nondeception. It implies an openness that followers welcome. Integrity means that a leader’s character is whole, integrated, and grounded in solid ethical principles, and he or she acts in keeping with those principles. Leaders who model their ethical convictions through their daily actions command admiration, respect, and loyalty. Honesty and integrity are the foundation of trust between leaders and followers.

Sadly, trust is sorely lacking in many organizations following years of corporate scandals and rampant greed. Leaders need the traits of honesty and integrity to rebuild trusting and productive relationships. People today are wary of authority and the deceptive use of power, and they are hungry for leaders who hold high moral standards. Successful leaders have also been found to be highly consistent, doing exactly what they say they will do when they say they will do it. Successful leaders prove themselves trustworthy. They adhere to basic ethical principles and consistently apply them in their leadership. One survey of 1,500 managers asked the values most desired in leaders. Honesty and integrity topped the list. The authors concluded:

Honesty is absolutely essential to leadership. After all, if we are willing to follow someone, whether it be into battle or into the boardroom, we first want to assure ourselves that the person is worthy of our trust. We want to know that he or she is being truthful, ethical, and principled. We want to be fully confident in the in- tegrity of our leaders.17

EXHIBIT 2.1 Some Leader Characteristics

Personal Characteristics Social Characteristics Energy Sociability, interpersonal skills

Passion Cooperativeness

Humility Ability to enlist cooperation

Physical stamina Tact, diplomacy

Intelligence and Ability Work-Related Characteristics Intelligence, cognitive ability Drive, desire to excel

Knowledge Dependability

Judgment, decisiveness Fair-mindedness

Personality Perseverance, tenacity Optimism Social Background Cheerfulness Education

Self-confidence Mobility

Honesty and integrity

Charisma

Desire to lead

Independence

Sources: Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Management Applications, 3rd ed. (New York : The Free Press, 1990), pp. 80–81; S. A. Kirkpatrick and E. A. Locke, ‘‘Leadership: Do Traits Matter?’’ Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2 (1991), pp. 48–60; and James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).

Honesty truthfulness and nondeception

Integrity the quality of being whole and integrated and acting in accordance with solid ethi- cal principles

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 39

NOT FOR SALE

2-1c Drive Another characteristic considered essential for effective leadership is drive. Leaders of- ten are responsible for initiating new projects as well as guiding projects to successful completion. Drive refers to high motivation that creates a high effort level by a leader. Leaders with drive seek achievement, have energy and tenacity, and are often per- ceived as ambitious. If people don’t strive to achieve something, they rarely do. Ambi- tion can enable leaders to set challenging goals and take initiative to reach them.18

A strong drive is also associated with high energy. Leaders work long hours over many years. They have stamina and are vigorous and full of life in order to handle the pace, the demands, and the challenges of leadership. During her first two years at Google, Marissa Mayer says she worked 100 hours a week. That pace likely didn’t slow in her job at Yahoo.

LEADER’S SELF-INSIGHT 2.1

Rate Your Optimism

Instructions: This questionnaire is designed to assess your level of optimism as reflected in your hopefulness about the future. There are no right or wrong answers. Please indicate your personal feelings about whether each statement is Mostly False or Mostly True by checking the answer that best describes your attitude or feeling.

Mostly False

Mostly True

1. I nearly always expect a lot from life. ______ ______ 2. I try to anticipate when things will

go wrong. ______ ______ 3. I always see the positive side of

things. ______ ______ 4. I often start out expecting the

worst, although things usually work out okay. ______ ______

5. I expect more good things to happen to me than bad. ______ ______

6. I often feel concern about how things will turn out for me. ______ ______

7. If something can go wrong for me, it usually does. ______ ______

8. Even in difficult times, I usually expect the best. ______ ______

9. I am cheerful and positive most of the time. ______ ______

10. I consider myself an optimistic person. ______ ______

Scoring and Interpretation Give yourself one point for checking Mostly True for items 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10. Also give yourself one point for checking Mostly False for items 2, 4, 6, 7. Enter your score here: ______ If your score is 8 or higher, it may mean that you are high on opti- mism. If your score is 3 or less, your view about the future may be pessimistic. For the most part, people like to follow a leader who is optimistic rather than negative about the future. However, too much optimism may exaggerate positive expectations that are never fulfilled. If your score is low, what can you do to view the world through a more optimistic lens?

Source: These questions were created based on several sources.

IN THE LEAD Marissa Mayer, Yahoo Marissa Mayer set herself some tough goals as the new president and CEO of Yahoo, but being tough is part of Mayer’s DNA. Mayer is known for being incredibly energetic and ambitious. She loves hard work and challenge. ‘‘She doesn’t need any sleep,’’ said Craig Silverstein, who worked with her at Google and now develops software for Kahn Academy.

Drive high motivation that creates a high effort level by a leader

40 NOT FOR SALE

Working 100-hour weeks certainly isn’t necessary for effective leadership, but all leaders have to display drive and energy to be successful. Clearly, various traits such as drive, self-confidence, optimism, and honesty have great value for leaders. One study of 600 executives by Hay Group, a global organizational and human resources consulting firm, found that 75 percent of the successful executives studied possessed the characteristics of self-confidence and drive.20

In Chapter 4, we will further consider individual characteristics and qualities that play a role in leadership effectiveness. However, good leaders know it isn’t about identifying specific individual traits but rather understanding one’s own unique set of strengths and capabilities and learning how to make the most of them.21

2-2 KNOW YOUR STRENGTHS Some people tend to think a leader should have a complete set of skills, characteris- tics, and abilities to handle any problem, challenge, or opportunity that comes along. This myth of the ‘‘complete leader’’ can cause stress and frustration for lead- ers and followers, as well as damage to the organization.22 Interdependence is the key to effective leadership. Sixty percent of leaders in one survey acknowledge that leaders face challenges that go beyond any individual’s capabilities.23 Therefore, the best leaders recognize and hone their strengths while trusting and collaborating with others to make up for their weak points.

Everyone has strengths, but many leaders fail to recognize and apply them, often because they are hampered by the idea that they should be good at everything. Benjamin Franklin referred to wasted strengths as ‘‘sundials in the shade.’’24 Only when leaders understand their strengths can they use these abilities effectively to make their best contribution.

2-2a What Are Strengths? A strength arises from a natural talent that has been supported and reinforced with knowledge and skills.25 Talents can be thought of as innate traits and naturally

That’s clearly an overstatement, but Mayer has demonstrated that she has almost superhuman stamina and a strong drive to succeed. In the early years at Google, she routinely worked 100-hour weeks and occasionally pulled all-nighters. Soon after joining Yahoo as CEO, Mayer had her first baby and returned to work two weeks after the delivery.

Even in high school, Mayer was known as an overachiever who refused to settle for less than the best from herself or others. As captain of the pom-pom squad, she scheduled practices that lasted for hours to make sure everyone was synchronized. It was during her first management job at Google that she incorporated the idea of pushing beyond her comfort zone into her career philosophy. She isn’t afraid to take risks in the interest of helping the team and organization succeed. Mayer created a firestorm of criticism when she issued a policy early in her tenure at Yahoo that employees can no longer work from home, but she stuck by her decision without regrets or apologies. She believes Yahoo is in a crisis situation and to succeed needs the creative energy that comes from people working face to face and side by side. Some people believe she will eventually relax the tough ‘‘all hands in the office’’ policy, since flexibility is another of her characteristics. However, she won’t relax her high standards or the requirement that employees be as dedicated to Yahoo’s success as she is.19

Strength a natural talent or ability that has been supported and reinforced with learned knowledge and skills

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 41

NOT FOR SALE

recurring patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior. One person might be naturally outgoing and curious, for example; another might have a natural talent for being organized. Once recognized, talents can be turned into strengths by consciously developing and enhancing them with learning and practice. Unless they are honed and strengthened and put to use, talents are merely aspects of one’s potential.

One neat thing about understanding your strengths is the philosophy ‘‘concen- trate on your strengths, not your weaknesses.’’ You excel in life by maximizing your strengths, not by fixing your weaknesses. When you live and work from your strengths, you are more motivated, competent, and satisfied. Strengths are important because you can focus your life around them, and your energy, enthusiasm, and effectiveness can be the basis of your leadership. Why devote your energy to trying to fix your weaknesses or expend much thought and effort performing tasks that don’t match your strengths? When people use their talents and strengths, they feel good and enjoy their work without extra effort; hence they are effective and make a positive contribution.

How does a leader know which traits or behavior patterns can be turned into strengths? Warren Buffett recommends that people do what fits their natural interests and abilities, which is reflected in the work they like to do. Buffett says he finds inves- ting so much fun that he would do it for free. Buffett tried other work early in his career but found it so unsatisfying that he knew he wouldn’t want to do it for any amount of money. The legendary self-made billionaire and chairman of Berkshire Hathaway was the third richest person in the world in 2015. Yet it isn’t the money that drives him, but the love of the work. His career advice is to find work or a career that you really enjoy, and it will fit the natural strengths of your mental wiring.26

2-2b Matching Strengths with Roles Recent research suggests that different leader strengths might be better suited to dif- ferent types of leadership roles.27 Exhibit 2.2 illustrates three types of leadership roles identified in today’s organizations by a team of experts at Hay Group. The researchers found that, although there is a core set of competencies that all leaders need, there is significant variation in the personal characteristics, behaviors, and skills that correlate with success in the different roles.

The operational role is the closest to a traditional, vertically oriented manage- ment role, where an executive has direct control over people and resources to

EXHIBIT 2.2 Three Types of Leadership Roles

Operational Role Collaborative Role Advisory Role

Vertical management positions

Example: Division President Project Manager Human Resources Manager

Horizontal responsibilities

Providing guidance and support

Operational role a vertically oriented leader- ship role in which an execu- tive has direct control over people and resources and the position power to ac- complish results

42 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

accomplish results. Operational leaders fill traditional line and general management positions in a business, for example. They set goals, establish plans, and get things done primarily through the vertical hierarchy and the use of position power. Opera- tional leaders are doggedly focused on delivering results. They need high self- confidence and tend to be assertive, always pushing forward and raising the bar. Successful operational leaders are typically analytical and knowledgeable, yet they also have the ability to translate their knowledge into a vision that others can become passionate about.

The collaborative role is a horizontal role and includes people such as project managers, matrix managers, and team leaders in today’s more horizontally organ- ized companies. This role, which has grown tremendously in importance in recent years, is quite challenging. Leaders in collaborative roles typically don’t have the strong position power of the operational role. They often work behind the scenes, using their personal power to influence others and get things done. Collaborative leaders need excellent people skills in order to network, build relationships, and obtain agreement through personal influence. They also are highly proactive and te- nacious, and they exhibit extreme flexibility to cope with the ambiguity and uncer- tainty associated with the collaborative role.

Leaders in an advisory role provide guidance and support to other people and departments in the organization. Advisory leadership roles are found, for example, in departments such as legal, finance, and human resources. These leaders are responsible for developing broad organizational capabilities rather than accomplish- ing specific business results. Advisory leaders need great people skills and the ability to influence others through communication, knowledge, and personal persuasion. In addition, leaders in advisory roles need exceptionally high levels of honesty and in- tegrity to build trust and keep the organization on solid ethical ground.

The Hay Group research findings shed new light on the types of roles leaders fill in today’s organizations and emphasize that an individual’s strengths can influence how effective a leader might be in a particular role. Leadership success partly depends on matching leaders with roles where their strengths can be most effective.

2-3 BEHAVIOR APPROACHES As suggested in the previous discussion, strengths are not just personal traits but also patterns of behavior. Rather than looking at an individual’s personal traits, diverse research programs on leadership behavior have sought to uncover the behav- iors that effective leaders engage in. Behaviors can be learned more readily than traits, enabling leadership to be accessible to all.

2-3a Autocratic versus Democratic Behaviors One study that served as a precursor to the behavior approach recognized autocratic and democratic leadership styles. An autocratic leader is one who tends to centralize authority and derive power from position, control of rewards, and coercion. A democratic leader delegates authority to others, encourages participation, relies on subordinates’ knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect for influence.

The first studies on these leadership behaviors were conducted at the University of Iowa by Kurt Lewin and his associates.28 The research included groups of chil- dren, each with its own designated adult leader who was instructed to act in either

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can understand the type of leadership role in which your strengths would be most effective and satisfying. You can pursue an operational, collaborative, or advisory leadership role depending on your natural tendencies.

Collaborative role a horizontal leadership role (such as team leader) in which the leader often works behind the scenes and uses personal power to influence others and get things done.

Advisory role a leadership role that pro- vides advice, guidance, and support to other people and departments in the organi- zation

Autocratic a leader who tends to cen- tralize authority and derive power from position, control of rewards, and coercion

Democratic a leader who delegates authority to others, encour- ages participation, relies on subordinates’ knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect for influence

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 43

NOT FOR SALE

an autocratic or a democratic style. These experiments produced some interesting findings. The groups with autocratic leaders performed highly so long as the leader was present to supervise them. However, group members were displeased with the close, autocratic style of leadership, and feelings of hostility frequently arose. The performance of groups who were assigned democratic leaders was almost as good, and these groups were characterized by positive feelings rather than hostility. In addition, under the democratic style of leadership, group members performed well even when the leader was absent. The participative techniques and majority-rule de- cision making used by the democratic leader trained and involved the group mem- bers so that they performed well with or without the leader present. These characteristics of democratic leadership may partly explain why the empowerment of employees is a popular trend in companies today. This chapter’s Consider This box presents the notion that democratic leaders may get better results because they allow followers to feel their own power and worth.

This early work implied that leaders were either autocratic or democratic in their approach. However, further work by Tannenbaum and Schmidt indicated that leadership behavior could exist on a continuum reflecting different amounts of em- ployee participation.29 Thus, one leader might be autocratic (boss-centered), another democratic (subordinate-centered), and a third a mix of the two styles. Exhibit 2.3 illustrates the leadership continuum.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt also suggested that the extent to which leaders should be boss-centered or subordinate-centered depended on organizational circumstances and that leaders might adjust their behaviors to fit the circumstances. For example, if there is time pressure on a leader, or if it takes too long for subordinates to learn how to make decisions, the leader will tend to use an autocratic style. When subordinates are able to learn decision-making skills readily, a democratic style can be used. Also, the greater the skill difference, the more autocratic the leader approach because it is difficult to bring subordinates up to the leader’s expertise level.30

Consider This! Minimal Leadership

When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he [she] exists.

Next best is a leader who is loved.

Next, one who is feared.

The worst is one who is despised.

If you don’t trust the people, you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn’t talk, he [she] acts.

When his [her] work is done, the people say, ‘‘Amazing: we did it all by ourselves.’’

Source: From Tao Te Ching, translated by S. Mitchell, (New York: Harper Perennial, 1988), p. 17.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can use a democratic leadership style to help followers develop decision-making skills and perform well without close supervision. An autocratic style might be appropriate when there is time pressure or followers have low skill levels.

44 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

Jack Hartnett, former president of D. L. Rogers Corporation and franchise owner of 54 Sonic drive-in restaurants, provides an example of the autocratic lead- ership style. He tells workers to ‘‘do it the way we tell you to do it,’’ rather than ask- ing for their input or suggestions.31 The style works well in the fast-food restaurant business where turnover is typically high and many employees are young and low skilled. In contrast, Warren Buffett, introduced earlier, is an excellent example of a democratic leader.

EXHIBIT 2.3 Leadership Continuum

Subordinate-Centered

Leadership

Boss-Centered

Leadership

Manager makes decision and announces it

Manager “sells” decision

Manager presents ideas and invites questions

Manager presents tentative decision subject to change

Manager presents problem, gets suggestions, makes decision

Manager defines limits, asks group to make decision

Manager permits subordinates to function within limits defined by superior

Use of authority by manager

Area of freedom for subordinates

Source: Harvard Business Review. An exhibit from Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt, ‘‘How to Choose a Leadership Pat- tern’’ (May–June 1973). Copyright 1973 by the president and Fellows of Harvard College.

IN THE LEAD Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway He is one of the richest people in the world, but Warren Buffett is also considered one of the warmest, most humble, and most approachable. Each year, Buffett hosts in his hometown of Omaha, Nebraska, about 160 business students from universities around the world, answering questions and listening to their ideas.

Within the numerous companies under his leadership, Buffett also emphasizes communication, mutual trust, respect, and a nurturing work environment. He places a high value on interacting and collaborating with employees at all levels. He lets the managers of the various companies run their own show, believing they are the ones who best know how to do it. Buffett’s democratic leadership style is reflected in an excerpt from a memo he sent to top managers: ‘‘Talk to me about what is going on as little or as much as you wish. Each of you does a first-class job of running your operation with your own individual style and you don’t need me to help.’’32

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 45

NOT FOR SALE

The findings about autocratic and democratic leadership in the original Uni- versity of Iowa studies indicated that leadership behavior had a definite effect on outcomes such as follower performance and satisfaction. Equally important was the recognition that effective leadership was reflected in behavior, not simply by what personality traits a leader possessed. For example, Stephen McDonnell, founder and CEO of Applegate Farms, believes the best way to get a company running smoothly is to give everyone access to relevant information, empower them with the freedom and responsibility to act on it, and then stay out of the way. McDonnell doesn’t even go into the office most days, although he is a self- confessed control-freak boss, full of anxiety and obsessed with meeting goals. He realized that working mostly from home was the best way to protect the com- pany from his tendency to micromanage.33 This suggests that leaders can adopt behaviors that are almost in direct opposition to their natural traits when it is necessary.

2-3b Ohio State Studies The idea that leadership is reflected in behavior and not just personal traits provided a focus for subsequent research. One early series of studies on leadership behavior was conducted at The Ohio State University. Researchers conducted surveys to iden- tify specific dimensions of leader behavior. Narrowing a list of nearly 2,000 leader behaviors into a questionnaire containing 150 examples of definitive leader behav- iors, they developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) and administered it to employees.34 Hundreds of employees responded to various exam- ples according to the degree to which their leaders engaged in the behaviors. The analysis of ratings resulted in two wide-ranging categories of leader behavior, later called consideration and initiating structure.

Consideration describes the extent to which a leader cares about subordi- nates, respects their ideas and feelings, and establishes mutual trust. Showing appreciation, listening carefully to problems, and seeking input from subordi- nates regarding important decisions are all examples of consideration behaviors.

Initiating structure describes the extent to which a leader is task oriented and directs subordinates’ work activities toward goal achievement. This type of leader behavior includes directing tasks, getting people to work hard, plan- ning, providing explicit schedules for work activities, and ruling with an iron hand.

Although many leaders fall along a continuum that includes both considera- tion and initiating structure behaviors, these behavior categories are independent of one another. In other words, a leader can display a high degree of both behav- ior types or a low degree of both behavior types. Additionally, a leader might demonstrate high consideration and low initiating structure, or low consideration and high initiating structure behavior. Research indicates that all four of these leader style combinations can be effective.35 The following examples describe two U.S. Marine leaders who display different types of leadership behavior that corre- late to the consideration and initiating structure styles. Sometimes these styles clash.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO Discover your leadership orientation related to consideration and initiating structure by completing the self-assessment exercise in Leader’s Self-Insight 2.2.

Consideration the extent to which a leader is sensitive to subordinates, respects their ideas and feel- ings, and establishes mutual trust

Initiating structure the extent to which a leader is task oriented and directs subordinates’ work activities toward goal achievement

46 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

LEADER’S SELF-INSIGHT 2.2

What’s Your Leadership Orientation?

Instructions: The following questions ask about your per- sonal leadership orientation. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable.

Read each item carefully. Think about how often you engage in the behavior described by the item in a work or school group. Please indicate whether each statement is Mostly False or Mostly True by checking the answer that best describes your behavior.

Mostly False

Mostly True

1. I put into operation suggestions agreed to by the group. ______ ______

2. I treat everyone in the group with respect as my equal. ______ ______

3. I back up what other people in the group do. ______ ______

4. I help others with their personal problems. ______ ______

5. I bring up how much work should be accomplished. ______ ______

6. I help assign people to specific tasks. ______ ______

7. I frequently suggest ways to fix problems. ______ ______

8. I emphasize deadlines and how to meet them. ______ ______

Scoring and Interpretation Consideration behavior score—count the number of checks for Mostly True for items 1–4. Enter your consideration score here: ________.

A higher score (3 or 4) suggests a relatively strong ori- entation toward consideration behavior by you as a leader. A low score (2 or less) suggests a relatively weak consideration orientation.

Initiating structure behavior score—count the number of checks for Mostly True for items 5–8. Enter your initiating structure score here: ________.

A higher score (3 or 4) suggests a relatively strong ori- entation toward initiating structure behavior by you as a leader. A low score (2 or less) suggests a relatively weak ori- entation toward initiating structure behavior.

Source: Sample items adapted from: Edwin A Fleishman ’s Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. (Copyright 1960, Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago, IL). This version is based on Jon L. Pierce and John W. Newstrom, Leaders and the Leadership Process: Readings, Self-Assessments & Applica- tions, 2nd ed. (Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 2000).

IN THE LEAD Col. Joe D. Dowdy and Maj. Gen. James Mattis, U.S. Marine Corps Only a few weeks into the war in Iraq, Marine Col. Joe D. Dowdy had both accomplished a grueling military mission and been removed from his command by Maj. Gen. James Mattis. The complicated and conflicting tales of why Col. Dowdy was dismissed are beyond the scope of this text, but one issue that came under examination was the differing styles of Col. Dowdy and Gen. Mattis, as well as the difficult, age-old wartime tension of ‘‘men versus mission.’’

Gen. Mattis has been referred to as a ‘‘warrior monk,’’ consumed with the study of battle tactics and a leader whose own battle plans in Iraq were considered brilliant. Gen. Mattis saw speed as integral to success in the early days of the Iraqi war, pushing for regiments to move quickly to accomplish a mission despite significant risks. For Col. Dowdy, some risks seemed too high, and he made decisions that delayed his mission but better protected his marines. Col. Dowdy was beloved by his followers because he was deeply concerned about their welfare, paid attention to them as individuals, and treated them as equals, going so far as to decline certain privileges that were available only to officers.

Despite their different styles, both leaders were highly respected by followers. When asked about Gen. Mattis, Gunnery Sgt. Robert Kane, who has served under both leaders, says he would certainly ‘‘follow him again.’’ However, when he learned that Col. Dowdy had been dismissed, Sgt. Kane says he ‘‘wanted to go with him. If [he] had said ‘Get your gear, you’re coming with me,’ I would’ve gone, even if it meant the end of my career.’’36

47NOT FOR SALE

Gen. Mattis might be considered highly task oriented, reflecting an initiating structure approach, while Col. Dowdy seems more people oriented, reflecting a con- sideration behavioral style. Whereas Gen. Mattis typically put the mission first, combined with a concern for the marines under his command, Col. Dowdy typically put marines first, even though he also gave his all to accomplish the mission.

Additional studies that correlated these two leader behavior types and impact on subordinates initially demonstrated that ‘‘considerate’’ supervisors had a more positive impact on subordinate satisfaction than did ‘‘structuring’’ supervisors.37

For example, when leader effectiveness was defined by voluntary turnover or amount of grievances filed by subordinates, considerate leaders generated less turn- over and fewer grievances. But research that utilized performance criteria, such as group output and productivity, showed initiating structure behavior was rated more effective. Other studies involving aircraft commanders and university department heads revealed that leaders rated effective by subordinates exhibited a high level of both consideration and initiating structure behaviors, whereas leaders rated less effective displayed low levels of both behavior styles.38

2-3c University of Michigan Studies Studies at the University of Michigan took a different approach by directly compar- ing the behavior of effective and ineffective supervisors.39 The effectiveness of lead- ers was determined by productivity of the subordinate group. Initial field studies and interviews at various job sites gave way to a questionnaire not unlike the LBDQ, called the Survey of Organizations.40

Over time, the Michigan researchers established two types of leadership behav- ior, each type consisting of two dimensions.41 First, employee-centered leaders dis- play a focus on the human needs of their subordinates. Leader support and interaction facilitation are the two underlying dimensions of employee-centered behavior. This means that in addition to demonstrating support for their subordi- nates, employee-centered leaders facilitate positive interaction among followers and seek to minimize conflict. The employee-centered style of leadership roughly corre- sponds to the Ohio State concept of consideration.

In contrast to the employee-centered leader, the job-centered leader directs activ- ities toward scheduling, accomplishing tasks, and achieving efficiency. Goal empha- sis and work facilitation are dimensions of this leadership behavior. By focusing on reaching task goals and facilitating the structure of tasks, job-centered behavior approximates that of initiating structure.

However, unlike the consideration and initiating structure styles defined by the Ohio State studies, Michigan researchers considered employee-centered leadership and job-centered leadership to be distinct styles in opposition to one another. A leader is identifiable by behavior characteristic of one or the other style but not both. Another hallmark of later Michigan studies is the acknowledgment that often the behaviors of goal emphasis, work facilitation, support, and interaction facilita- tion can be meaningfully performed by a subordinate’s peers rather than only by the designated leader. Other people in the group could supply these behaviors, which enhanced performance.42

In addition, while leadership behavior was demonstrated to affect the perform- ance and satisfaction of subordinates, performance was also influenced by other fac- tors related to the situation within which leaders and subordinates worked. The importance of situation will be explored in the next chapter.

Employee-centered a leadership behavior that displays a focus on the human needs of subordinates

Job-centered leadership behavior in which leaders direct activities to- ward efficiency, cost-cutting, and scheduling, with an em- phasis on goals and work facilitation

48 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

2-3d The Leadership Grid Blake and Mouton of the University of Texas proposed a two-dimensional leader- ship theory called the Leadership Grid that builds on the work of the Ohio State and Michigan studies.43 Based on a week-long seminar, researchers rated leaders on a scale of one to nine according to two criteria: the concern for people and the con- cern for production. The scores for these criteria are plotted on a grid with an axis corresponding to each concern. Exhibit 2.4 depicts the two-dimensional model and five of the seven major leadership styles.

Team management (9,9) is often considered the most effective style and is rec- ommended because organization members work together to accomplish tasks. Country club management (1,9) occurs when primary emphasis is given to people rather than to work outputs. Authority-compliance management (9,1) occurs when efficiency in operations is the dominant orientation. Middle-of-the-road manage- ment (5,5) reflects a moderate amount of concern for both people and production. Impoverished management (1,1) means the absence of a leadership philosophy; leaders exert little effort toward interpersonal relationships or work accomplish- ment. Consider these examples:

EXHIBIT 2.4 The Leadership Grid¤ Figure

High

Low

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Low HighConcern for Results

C o n c e rn

f o r

P e o p le

1,9 9,9

5,5

Middle-of-the-Road Management

Adequate organization performance is possible through balancing the necessity to get out work with maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.

9,1

Authority-Compliance

Management

Efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree.

1,1

Impoverished Management

Exertion of minimum effort to get required work done is appropriate to sustain organization membership.

Country Club Management

Thoughtful attention to the needs of people for satisfying relationships leads to a com- fortable, friendly organization atmosphere and work tempo.

Team Management

Work accomplishment is from committed people; interdependence through a “common stake” in organization purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Source: The Leadership Grid figure from Leadership Dilemma—Grid Solutions by Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse (for- merly the Managerial Grid by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, p. 29. Copyright 1991 by Scientific Methods, Inc. Reproduced by permission of the owners.

The Leadership Grid a two-dimensional leader- ship model that describes major leadership styles based on measuring both concern for people and con- cern for production

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 49

NOT FOR SALE

The leadership of Denise Morrison is characterized by high concern for people and moderate concern for tasks and production. Michael Arrington, in contrast, is very high on concern for production and relatively low on concern for people. In each case, both concerns shown in The Leadership Grid are present, but they are integrated in different amounts.

2-3e Theories of a ‘‘High-High’’ Leader The leadership styles described by the researchers at Ohio State, University of Michi- gan, and University of Texas pertain to variables that roughly correspond to one another: consideration and initiating structure; employee-centered and job-centered; concern for people and concern for production. The research into the behavior approach culminated in two predominate types of leadership behaviors—people- oriented and task-oriented. Exhibit 2.5 illustrates how the various studies fall within these two behavior categories and lists some behaviors that are representative of each type of leadership.

The findings about two underlying dimensions and the possibility of leaders rated high on both dimensions raise three questions to think about. The first ques- tion is whether these two dimensions are the most important behaviors of leader- ship. Certainly, these two behaviors are important. They capture fundamental, underlying aspects of human behavior that must be considered for organizations to succeed. One reason why these two dimensions are compelling is that the findings are based on empirical research, which means that researchers went into the field to study real leaders across a variety of settings. When independent streams of field research reach similar conclusions, they probably represent a fundamental theme in leadership behavior. A review of 50 years of leadership research, for example, iden- tified task-oriented behavior and people-oriented behavior as primary categories

IN THE LEAD Denise Morrison, Campbell Soup Company, and Michael Arrington, TechCrunch Douglas Conant, former CEO of Campbell Soup Company, met Denise Morrison in 1995 when he was CEO of Nabisco and she cold-called him looking for a job. He found in Morrison a kindred spirit in terms of leadership style and hired her; she later followed him to Campbell in 2003—and into the company’s top executive seat eight years later. Like Conant, Morrison is a strong proponent of empowerment and employee engagement. She has been referred to as ‘‘tough on the issues but tender on people.’’ Morrison is known to be patient and supportive, even though she can make difficult operational decisions without letting her emotions cloud her judgment.

Compare Morrison’s approach to that of Michael Arrington, founder of TechCrunch, the company that publishes the influential blog of the same name. Arrington started the blog because he enjoys the research and writing, and he admits he isn’t very good at the ‘‘people management’’ part of his job. ‘‘It’s hard to be a coach and a player at the same time,’’ Arrington says. ‘‘Plus, I’m moody.’’ Arrington says his style is to bust down doors and clean up the mess later. Recognizing his weak point in being a manager of people, Arrington hired Heather Harde as CEO of the company, which enabled TechCrunch to grow and allowed Arrington to focus on what he was best at doing. Both Arrington and Harde have since left the company after public clashes with Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post.44

50 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

related to effective leadership in numerous studies.45 Concern for tasks and concern for people must be shown toward followers at some reasonable level, either by the leader or by other people in the system. Although these are not the only important behaviors, as we will see throughout this book, they certainly require attention.

The second question is whether people orientation and task orientation exist to- gether in the same leader, and how. The grid theory argues that yes, both are present when people work with or through others to accomplish an activity. Although lead- ers may be high on either style, there is considerable belief that the best leaders are high on both behaviors. Eddy Cue, senior vice president of Internet Software and Services at Apple and one of CEO Tim Cook’s trusted advisers, provides an example of a leader who succeeds on both dimensions. Cue is known as a master strategist and tactician who focuses people on key goals for new product launches, establishes plans to reach targets, and may even step in to handle tasks himself to get things done on time. Yet employees also appreciate his softer, people-oriented side. When the development of the iCloud service wasn’t going well, Cue stayed calm and told employees he had confidence in them. He’s respected for being easygoing and friendly and for being willing to make himself vulnerable with employees by openly admitting mistakes.46

The third question concerns whether people can actually change themselves into leaders high on people or task orientation. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the Ohio State and Michigan studies were underway, the assumption of researchers was that the behaviors of effective leaders could be emulated by anyone wishing to become an effective leader. In general it seems that people can indeed learn new leader

EXHIBIT 2.5 Themes of Leader Behavior Research

Examples of Leader Behaviors

Task-Oriented

Behaviors

People-Oriented

Behaviors

• Acknowledge accomplishments

• Respect people

• Be positive

• Give time and encouragement

• Show acceptance and compassion

• Display trust

• Clarify task objectives and job responsibilities

• Set performance expectations

• Plan use of resources

• Coordinate activities

• Check progress and quality of work

• Evaluate performance

Research Studies

Ohio State University

University of Michigan

University of Texas

Leadership Style

Consideration

Employee-Centered

Concern for People

Initiating Structure

Job-Centered

Concern for Production

Sources: Based on Marilyn R. Zuckerman and Lewis J. Hatala, Incredibly American: Releasing the Heart of Quality (Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality, 1992), pp. 141–142; and Mark O’Connell, Gary Yukl, and Thomas Taber, ‘‘Leader Behavior and LMX: A Constructive Replication,’’ Journal of Managerial Psychology 27, no. 2 (2012), pp. 143–154.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can succeed in a variety of situations by showing concern for both tasks and people. People-oriented behavior is related to higher follower satisfaction, and task- oriented behavior is typically associated with higher productivity.

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 51

NOT FOR SALE

behaviors. Although ‘‘high-high’’ leadership is not the only effective style, research- ers have looked to this kind of leader as a candidate for success in a wide variety of situations. However, as we will see in Chapter 3, the next generation of leadership studies refined the understanding of situations to pinpoint more precisely when each type of leadership behavior is most effective.

2-4 INDIVIDUALIZED LEADERSHIP Traditional trait and behavior theories assume that a leader adopts a general leader- ship style that is used with all group members. A more recent approach to leadership behavior research, individualized leadership, looks instead at the specific relation- ship between a leader and each individual follower.47 Individualized leadership is based on the notion that a leader develops a unique relationship with each subordi- nate or group member, which determines how the leader behaves toward the mem- ber and how the member responds to the leader. In this view, leadership is a series of dyads, or a series of two-person interactions. The dyadic view focuses on the con- cept of exchange, what each party gives to and receives from the other.48

The first individualized leadership theory was introduced nearly 40 years ago and has been steadily revised ever since. Exhibit 2.6 illustrates the development of research in this area. The first stage was the awareness of a relationship between a leader and each individual rather than between a leader and a group of followers. The second stage examined specific attributes of the exchange relationship. The

EXHIBIT 2.6 Stages of Development of Individualized Leadership

1. Vertical Dyad Linkage

Leaders’ behaviors and traits have different effects across followers, creating in-groups and out-groups.

2. Leader–Member Exchange

Leadership is individualized for each subordinate. Each dyad involves a unique exchange independent of other dyads.

3. Partnership Building

Leaders can reach out to create a positive exchange with every subordinate. Doing so increases performance.

Sources: Based on Fred Danereau, ‘‘A Dyadic Approach to Leadership: Creating and Nurturing This Approach Under Fire,’’ Leader- ship Quarterly 6, no. 4 (1995), pp. 479–490, and George B. Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien, ‘‘Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level, Multi-Domain Approach,’’ Leadership Quarterly 6, no. 2 (1995), pp. 219–247.

Individualized leadership a theory based on the notion that a leader devel- ops a unique relationship with each subordinate or group member, which determines how the leader behaves toward the mem- ber and how the member responds to the leader

52 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

third stage explored whether leaders could intentionally develop partnerships with each group member.

2-4a Vertical Dyad Linkage Model The vertical dyad linkage (VDL) model argues for the importance of the dyad formed by a leader with each member of the group. Initial findings indicated that followers provided very different descriptions of the same leader. For example, some reported a leader, and their relationship with the leader, as having a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation. These high-quality relationships might be character- ized as high on both people and task orientation. Other followers reported a low- quality relationship with the same leader, such as having a low degree of trust, respect, and obligation. These followers perceived the leader as being low on impor- tant leadership behaviors.

Based on these two extreme behavior patterns, subordinates were found to exist in either an in-group or an out-group in relation to the leader. Exhibit 2.7 delineates the differences in leader behavior toward in-group versus out-group members. A recent survey of 17,000 federal employees found that 28 percent believed their own supervisor had granted advantages to someone based on personal feelings or rela- tionships, and 53 percent believed such favoritism had influenced the decisions or actions of other supervisors in their organization.49 Most of us who have had expe- rience with any kind of group, whether it be a college class, an athletic team, or a work group, recognize that some leaders may spend a disproportionate amount of time with certain people and that these ‘‘insiders’’ are often highly trusted and may obtain special privileges. In the terminology of the VDL model, these people would be considered to participate in an in-group relationship with the leader, whereas other members of the group who did not experience a sense of trust and extra con- sideration would participate in an out-group relationship. In-group members, those who rated the leader highly, had developed close relationships with the leader and often became assistants who played key roles in the functioning of the work unit. Out-group members were not key players in the work unit.

EXHIBIT 2.7 Leader Behavior toward In-Group versus Out-Group Members

In-Group Subordinates Out-Group Subordinates

• Provides support and encouragement when employee faces a difficult, stressful task

• Discusses objectives; trusts employee to use his or her own approach in solving problems and reaching goals

• Listens to employee’s suggestions and ideas about how work is done

• Treats mistakes as opportunities for coaching and developing employee

• Gives employee interesting assignments; may allow employee to choose assignment

• Sometimes defers to subordinate’s opinion • Praises accomplishments and performance

improvements

• Shows little consideration if employee is having difficulty with a task

• Gives the employee specific directives for how to accomplish tasks and attain goals

• Shows little interest in employee’s comments and suggestions

• Criticizes or punishes mistakes • Assigns primarily routine jobs and monitors

employee closely

• Usually imposes own views • Focuses on areas of poor performance

Sources: Based on Jean François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux, ‘‘The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome,’’ Harvard Business Review (March–April 1988), pp. 110–113; and Mark O’Donnell, Gary Yukl, and Thomas Taber, ‘‘Leader Behavior and LMX: A Constructive Replication,’’ Journal of Management Psychology 27, no. 2 (2012), pp. 143–154.

Vertical dyad linkage (VDL) model a model of individualized leadership that argues for the importance of the dyad formed by a leader with each member of the group

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 53

NOT FOR SALE

Thus, by focusing on the relationship between a leader and each individual, the VDL research found great variance of leader style and impact within a group of followers.

2-4b Leader–Member Exchange Stage two in the development of the individualized leadership theory explored the leader–member exchange (LMX) in more detail, discovering that the impact on out- comes depends on how the LMX process develops over time. Studies evaluating char- acteristics of the LMX relationship explored such things as communication frequency, value agreement, characteristics of followers, job satisfaction, performance, job climate, and commitment. Leaders typically tend to establish in-group exchange relationships with individuals who have characteristics similar to those of the leader, such as similarity in background, interests, and values, and with those who demon- strate a high level of competence and interest in the job. Overall, studies have found that the quality of the LMX relationship is substantially higher for in-group members. LMX theory proposes that this higher-quality relationship will lead to higher per- formance and greater job satisfaction for in-group members, and research in general supports this idea.50 High-quality LMX relationships have been found to lead to very positive outcomes for leaders, followers, work units, and the organization. For fol- lowers, a high-quality exchange relationship may mean more interesting assignments, greater responsibility and authority, and tangible rewards such as pay increases and promotions. Leaders and organizations clearly benefit from the increased effort and initiative of in-group participants to carry out assignments and tasks successfully.

2-4c Partnership Building In this third phase of research, the focus was on whether leaders could develop posi- tive relationships with a large number of subordinates. Critics of early LMX theory pointed out the dangers of leaders establishing sharply differentiated in-group and out-group relationships, in that this may lead to feelings of resentment or even hos- tility among out-group participants.51 If leaders are perceived to be granting exces- sive benefits and advantages to in-group members, members of the out-group may rebel, which can damage the entire organization. Moreover, some studies have found that leaders tend to categorize employees into in-groups and out-groups as early as five days into their relationship.52

Thus, the third phase of research in this area focused on whether leaders could develop positive relationships with all followers. In this approach, the leader views each person independently and may treat each one in a different but positive way. That is, leaders strive to develop a positive relationship with each subordinate, but the positive relationship will have a different form for each person. For example, one person might be treated with ‘‘consideration’’ and another with ‘‘initiating structure,’’ depending on what followers need to feel involved and to succeed.

In the LMX research study, leaders were trained to offer the opportunity for a high-quality relationship to all group members, and the followers who responded to the offer dramatically improved their performance. As these relationships matured, the entire work group became more productive, and the payoffs were tremendous. Leaders could count on followers to provide the assistance needed for high perform- ance, and followers participated in and influenced decisions. The implications of this finding are that true performance and productivity gains can be achieved by having the leader develop positive relationships one on one with each subordinate.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO Answer the questions in Leader’s Self-Insight 2.3 to understand how LMX theory applies to your own work experience.

Leader–member exchange (LMX) individualized leadership model that explores how leader–member relation- ships develop over time and how the quality of exchange relationships affects outcomes

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can build a positive, individualized relationship with each follower to create an equitable work environment and provide greater benefits to yourself, followers, and the organization.

54 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

2-5 ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAITS AND BEHAVIORS Another topic of special concern in today’s fast-changing world is what traits en- courage entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship refers to initiating a business venture, organizing the necessary resources, and assuming the associated risks and rewards.53 An entrepreneur recognizes a viable idea for a business product or service and carries it out by finding and assembling the necessary resources—money, peo- ple, machinery, location—to undertake the business venture.

Entrepreneurial leaders display many of the same characteristics as other lead- ers, but some traits are particularly important for entrepreneurs. Four characteristics considered highly important to entrepreneurial leaders are the following:54

• Vision and dissatisfaction with the present. To start something new requires that the entrepreneur be dissatisfied with the way things are now and have a clear vision for how things should be. For example, in the 1970s Bill Gates had what at the time was a radical vision that software itself was a business, and he clearly stated his dissatisfaction that it wasn’t. Gates pursued his vision, encap- sulated in the idea of a computer in every home and on every desk running Microsoftware. Entrepreneurs are more concerned with innovation, creativity, and creating new processes than with maintaining the status quo.

• Ability to get people on board. Entrepreneurial leaders have to continually recruit others to join in, support, and add to the vision. Gates made his vision

LEADER’S SELF-INSIGHT 2.3

Your ‘‘LMX’’ Relationship

Instructions: What was the quality of your leader’s relation- ship with you? Think back to a job you held and recall your feelings toward your leader, or if currently employed use your supervisor. Please answer whether each of the follow- ing items was Mostly False or Mostly True for you.

Mostly False

Mostly True

1. I very much liked my supervisor as a person. ______ ______

2. My supervisor defended my work to people above him if I made a mistake.

______ ______

3. The work I did for my supervisor went well beyond what was required.

______ ______

4. I admired my supervisor’s professional knowledge and ability. ______ ______

5. My supervisor was enjoyable to work with. ______ ______

6. I applied extra effort to further the interests of my work group. ______ ______

7. My supervisor championed my case to others in the organization. ______ ______

8. I respected my supervisor’s management competence. ______ ______

Scoring and Interpretation LMX theory is about the quality of a leader’s relationship with subordinates. If you scored 6 or more Mostly True, your super- visor clearly had an excellent relationship with you, which is stage two in Exhibit 2.6. You had a successful dyad. If your supervisor had an equally good relationship with every subor- dinate, that is a stage-three level of development (partnership building). If you scored 3 or fewer Mostly True, then your supervisor was probably at level one, perhaps with different relationships with subordinates, some or all of which were unsuccessful. What do you think accounted for the quality of your and other subordinates’ relationships (positive or nega- tive) with your supervisor? Discuss with other students to learn why some supervisors have good LMX relationships.

Source: Based on Robert C. Liden and John M. Maslyn, ‘‘Multidimensionality of Leader–Member Exchange: An Empirical Assessment through Scale Development,’’ Journal of Management 24 (1998), pp. 43–72.

55NOT FOR SALE

for a software business widely known and actively engaged with hardware mak- ers like IBM to put the vision into action.

• Flexibility, openness to feedback, and ability to learn and adapt. No one has all the answers, and entrepreneurial leaders must be willing to listen, learn, and adapt. Clara Shih, who started Hearsay Social, a platform that helps large com- panies manage their employees’ presence on social media sites, worked hard not only to raise millions in financing but to gain the support of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg as a mentor to help her learn and adapt to changes in the industry.55

• Persistence and execution. Entrepreneurial leaders are tenacious in pursuit of the vision and take active steps in the here and now to bring the future to life. If one thing doesn’t work out, they try another. They are typically highly self- motivated and are willing to stretch themselves and take risks to achieve the vision.

For some leaders, entrepreneurial traits come naturally, but many people can develop these characteristics, as with other leadership qualities. Entrepreneurial leaders start new companies, as Bill Gates did with Microsoft and Clara Shih did with Hearsay Social, but they also exist within established organizations. These leaders take risks to create novel solutions to competitive challenges confronting a business, especially the development or enhancement of products and services. Entrepreneurial leadership is a source of innovation and change for established companies.

LEADERSHIP ESSENTIALS

• The point of this chapter is to understand the importance of traits and behaviors in the development of leadership theory and research. Some traits associated with effective leadership include optimism, self-confidence, honesty, and drive. A large number of personal traits and abilities have been associated with suc- cessful leaders, but traits themselves are not sufficient to guarantee effective leadership.

• Natural traits and behavior patterns can be developed into strengths. It is im- portant for leaders to recognize their strengths and acknowledge the interde- pendence that is a key to effective leadership.

• Research suggests that different leader strengths might be better suited to differ- ent types of leadership roles. The chapter describes three types of roles: opera- tional roles, collaborative roles, and advisory roles. Leaders can be more effective when they are in positions that best match their natural tendencies.

• The behavior approach explored autocratic versus democratic leadership, con- sideration versus initiating structure, employee-centered versus job-centered leadership, and concern for people versus concern for production. The theme of people versus tasks runs through this research, suggesting these are fundamental behaviors through which leaders meet followers’ needs. There has been some disagreement in the research about whether a specific leader is either people- or task oriented or whether one can be both. Today, the consensus is that leaders can achieve a ‘‘high-high’’ leadership style.

• Another approach is the dyad between a leader and each follower. Followers have different relationships with the leader, and the ability of the leader to

56 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

develop a positive relationship with each follower contributes to team perform- ance. The LMX theory says that high-quality relationships have a positive out- come for leaders, followers, work units, and the organization. Leaders can attempt to build individualized relationships with each person as a way to meet needs for both consideration and structure.

• The historical development of leadership theory presented in this chapter introduces some important ideas about leadership. Although certain personal traits and abilities indicate a greater likelihood for success in a leadership role, they are not in themselves sufficient to guarantee effective leadership. Behaviors are equally significant. Therefore, the style of leadership demon- strated by an individual greatly determines the outcome of the leadership endeavor. Often, a combination of behavioral styles is most effective. To understand the effects of leadership on outcomes, the specific relationship behavior between a leader and each follower is also an important consideration.

• Entrepreneurial leadership is of great concern in today’s turbulent environment because entrepreneurial leadership is an important source of innovation and change. Entrepreneurial leaders take risks to bring new organizations into being or create novel solutions to competitive challenges confronting existing organi- zations.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Why is it important for leaders to know their strengths? Do you think leaders should

spend equal time learning about their weak points?

2. Suggest some personal traits of leaders you have known. What traits do you believe are most valuable? Why?

3. The chapter suggests that optimism is an important trait for a leader, yet some employees complain that optimistic leaders create significant stress because they don’t anticipate problems and expect their subordinates to meet unreasonable goals. Do you agree? Why?

4. What is the difference between trait theories and behavioral theories of leadership?

5. Would you feel most comfortable using a ‘‘consideration’’ or an ‘‘initiating-structure’’ leadership style? Discuss the reasons for your answer.

6. The vertical dyad linkage model suggests that followers respond individually to the leader. If this is so, what advice would you give leaders about displaying people-oriented versus task-oriented behavior?

7. Does it make sense to you that a leader should develop an individualized relationship with each follower? Explain advantages and disadvantages to this approach.

8. Why would subordinates under a democratic leader perform better in the leader’s absence than would subordinates under an autocratic leader?

9. Why is an entrepreneurial leader important to an organization? How is this role different from other leader roles?

10. Pick three traits from the list in Exhibit 2.1 that you think would be most valuable for a leader in an operational role. Pick three that you think would be most valuable for a leader in a collaborative role. Explain your choices.

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 57

NOT FOR SALE

LEADERSHIP AT WORK

Your Ideal Leader Traits Spend some time thinking about someone you believe is an ideal leader. For the first part of the exercise, select an ideal leader you have heard about whom you don’t personally know. It could be someone like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, or any national or international figure that you admire. Write the person’s name here: ____________. Now, in the space below, write down three things you admire about the per- son, such as what he or she did or the qualities that person possesses.

For the second part of the exercise, select an ideal leader whom you know personally. This can be anyone from your life experiences. Write the person’s name here: ____________. Now, in the space below, write down three things you admire about the person, such as what he or she did or the qualities that person possesses.

The first leader you chose represents something of a projective test based on what you’ve heard or read. You imagine the leader has the qualities you listed. The deeds and qualities you listed say more about what you admire than about the actual traits of the leader you chose. This is something like an inkblot test, and it is important because the traits you assign to the leader are traits you are aware of, have the potential to develop, and indeed can de- velop as a leader. The qualities or achievements you listed are an indicator of the traits you likely will express as you develop into the leader you want to become.

The second leader you chose is someone you know, so it is less of a projective test and represents traits you have had direct experience with. You know these traits work for you and likely will become the traits you develop and express as a leader.

What is similar about the traits you listed for the two leaders? Different? Interview another student in class about traits he or she admires. What do the traits tell you about the person you are interviewing? What are the common themes in your list and the other stu- dent’s list of traits? To what extent do you display the same traits as the ones on your list? Will you develop those traits even more in the future?

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: CASES FOR ANALYSIS

Consolidated Products Consolidated Products is a medium-sized manufacturer of consumer products with nonunion- ized production workers. Ben Samuels was a plant manager for Consolidated Products for

58 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

10 years, and he was very well liked by the employees there. They were grateful for the fitness center he built for employees, and they enjoyed the social activities sponsored by the plant several times a year, including company picnics and holiday parties. He knew most of the workers by name, and he spent part of each day walking around the plant to visit with them and ask about their families or hobbies.

Ben believed that it was important to treat employees properly so they would have a sense of loyalty to the company. He tried to avoid any layoffs when production demand was slack, figuring that the company could not afford to lose skilled workers that are so difficult to replace. The workers knew that if they had a special problem, Ben would try to help them. For example, when someone was injured but wanted to continue working, Ben found another job in the plant that the person could do despite having a disability. Ben believed that if you treat people right, they would do a good job for you without close supervision or prodding. Ben applied the same principle to his supervisors, and he mostly left them alone to run their departments as they saw fit. He did not set objectives and standards for the plant, and he never asked the supervisors to develop plans for improving productivity and product quality.

Under Ben, the plant had the lowest turnover among the company’s five plants, but the sec- ond worst record for costs and production levels. When the company was acquired by another firm, Ben was asked to take early retirement, and Phil Jones was brought in to replace him.

Phil had a growing reputation as a manager who could get things done, and he quickly began making changes. Costs were cut by trimming a number of activities such as the fitness center at the plant, company picnics and parties, and the human relations training programs for supervisors. Phil believed that human relations training was a waste of time; if employees don’t want to do the work, get rid of them and find somebody else who does.

Supervisors were instructed to establish high performance standards for their depart- ments and insist that people achieve them. A computer monitoring system was introduced so that the output of each worker could be checked closely against the standards. Phil told his supervisors to give any worker who had substandard performance one warning, and then if performance did not improve within two weeks to fire the person. Phil believed that workers don’t respect a supervisor who is weak and passive. When Phil observed a worker wasting time or making a mistake, he would reprimand the person right on the spot to set an example. Phil also checked closely on the performance of his supervisors. Demanding objectives were set for each department, and weekly meetings were held with each supervisor to review department performance. Finally, Phil insisted that supervisors check with him first before taking any significant actions that deviated from established plans and policies.

As another cost-cutting move, Phil reduced the frequency of equipment maintenance, which required machines to be idled when they could be productive. Since the machines had a good record of reliable operation, Phil believed that the current maintenance schedule was ex- cessive and was cutting into production. Finally, when business was slow for one of the prod- uct lines, Phil laid off workers rather than finding something else for them to do.

By the end of Phil’s first year as plant manager, production costs were reduced by 20 per- cent and production output was up by 10 percent. However, three of his seven supervisors left to take other jobs, and turnover was also high among the machine operators. Some of the turnover was due to workers who were fired, but competent machine operators were also quitting, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find any replacements for them. Finally, there was increasing talk of unionizing among the workers.56

QUESTIONS

1. Compare the leadership traits and behaviors of Ben Samuels and Phil Jones.

2. Which leader do you think is more effective? Why? Which leader would you prefer to work for?

3. If you were Phil Jones’s boss, what would you do now?

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 59

NOT FOR SALE

Transition to Leadership My name is Michael Collins. When I was named Southwest Regional Manager of Creighton Auto Parts, a major parts sales and service corporation, I saw the transition period before and immediately following my appointment as an exciting new opportunity. With a degree in automotive engineering and several years’ experience in parts manufacturing (design and plant management), I came to the new position with strong industry connections and a keen eye for trends and product innovation.

During the initial stages of the transition, I met with the outgoing regional manager, receiving his input about ongoing business issues, how current services tallied with the corpo- ration’s short- and long-term goals, and what he saw as the strengths and weaknesses of the various stores and personnel within the region. While some of these meetings took place at his office, I wanted to avoid the appearance of depending on ‘‘the old man’’ for guidance, so I scheduled most of our meetings off-site to provide more opportunities for frank discussion covering procedures, products and services, and individual stakeholders from employees and board members to suppliers and customers.

In addition, I spent a great deal of time making my own assessments. I knew my com- pany honeymoon period would be limited. My vision and my implementation program had to be clear with well-defined strategies. As a first step, I sent a lengthy e-mail message to all key players on my new leadership team both as introduction and as a prelude to establishing my vision and transition program.

I traveled around the region meeting with the store managers on my regional team, as well as holding informal meetings with front-line employees. In so doing, I was surprised to tap into the rumor mill and find individuals who were eager to talk openly about their goals, ideas, opinions, and complaints. My questions to front-line workers, in particular, had both positive and negative aspects. I questioned them about their length of service, what they liked most about the company, what areas they thought could be improved, how they rated the cul- ture—things like that. I discovered that for most of them, this was more than just a job. Many had worked for the company for a number of years and had a great deal of pride in the com- pany, as well as a deep sense of responsibility toward their customers.

However, I found this portion of my on-site visits the most intrusive on my time, and in many cases I regretted the amount of time I spent listening to workers. I wondered if the advance warning of my visit allowed too much time for people to prepare their answers. I wondered how many were genuine in their responses and how many were just trying to hold on to their jobs. Worse, I found myself hostage to those who wanted to rant on and on about workplace issues, their training, their bosses, even their customers. I talked to a few customers and didn’t get much from that either. As I proceeded through the on-site visits, I found myself growing impatient, increasingly checking my watch to see how soon I should leave for the next appointment on a packed schedule. I admit I expected more from this portion of the transition than I received. However, once I committed to this, I felt obligated to see it through.

More rewarding was the time spent with the marketing staff exploring customer satisfac- tion levels. In focusing on customers, I zeroed in on three research areas: customer com- plaints, area demographics, and the compounding customer—those return customers who generate additional sales among their friends and family. Why do customers come? What makes them return? What are their personal ‘‘hot buttons’’—needs or breaking points in deal- ing with service industries? Our market research showed large segments of our population in four areas: under 30, over 60, Hispanics, and women. We also saw an increasing number of unemployed and under-employed do-it-yourself customers trying to keep the family vehicle going just a little longer. I personally love analyzing market data.

My question for regional service, sales, and marketing was ‘‘how are we reaching and retaining these segments of the population?’’ Do advertising, Web sites, direct mailing, cou- pon campaigns, and other marketing strategies match these demographics? For example, are we providing and training Spanish-language sales and service experts and consumer

60 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

information? With large segments of young people, senior citizens, the unemployed, and sin- gle moms, wouldn’t these large segments of the population offer fabulous compounding opportunities with focused marketing and price breaks?

As I take the reins, I am excited about the marketing challenges and opportunities ahead. I am an idea guy, a hands-on manager whose ideal is the Renaissance man capable of doing many things very well. I like to surround myself with similar kinds of people. I generate ideas and expect follow-up and accountability. The leadership model I embrace sets the bar high for me and for everyone who works for me. I look forward to injecting a new vision and new standards of service throughout the region.

QUESTIONS

1. What do you see as Michael Collins’s leadership traits? Which of these traits do you con- sider a strength? A weakness? Explain.

2. What do you think of Michael Collins’s approach to leading the region? How would you characterize his people-oriented versus task-oriented style? Why?

3. How might an understanding of individualized leadership be useful to Collins with respect to his relationship with marketing versus store personnel?

REFERENCES 1. Steven Davidoff Solomon, ‘‘J. Crew Struggles with Its ‘Great Man’

Dilemma,’’ The New York Times (June 10, 2015), p. B4; Stephanie Clifford, ‘‘J. Crew Benefits As Mrs. Obama Wears the Brand,’’ The New York Times (November 17, 2008), http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/11/17/business/media/17crew.html?_r=0 (accessed October 8, 2015); and Keith Bedford, ‘‘Mickey Drexler Leads J. Crew by Doing the Things Managers Aren’t Supposed To,’’ Quartz http://qz.com/ 181569/j-crew-mickey-drexler-leads-by-doing-everything-managers-arent- supposed-to/ (accessed October 8, 2015).

2. G. A. Yukl, Leadership in Organizations (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1981); and S. C. Kohs and K. W. Irle, ‘‘Prophesying Army Promotion,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 4 (1920), pp. 73–87.

3. Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, p. 254. 4. R. M. Stogdill, ‘‘Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Sur-

vey of the Literature,’’ Journal of Psychology 25 (1948), pp. 35–71. 5. R. M. Stogdill, Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Literature

(New York: The Free Press, 1974) ; and Bernard M. Bass, Bass & Stog- dill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1990).

6. S. A. Kirkpatrick and E. A. Locke, ‘‘Leadership: Do Traits Matter?’’ The Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2 (1991), pp. 48–60.

7. R. G. Lord, C. L. DeVader, and G. M. Alliger, ‘‘A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity Generalization Procedures,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (1986), pp. 402–410.

8. Study reported in ‘‘From the Front Lines: How Does Leadership Personality Affect Performance?’’ Leader to Leader (Winter 2007), pp. 56–57; and Bradley R. Agle, Nandu J. Nagarajan, Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, and Dhinu Srinivasan, ‘‘Does CEO Charisma Matter? An Empirical Analysis of the Relationships among Organizational Per- formance, Environmental Uncertainty, and Top Management Team Perceptions of CEO Charisma,’’ Academy of Management Journal 49, no. 1 (2006), pp. 161–174.

9. Andrew St. George, ‘‘Leadership Lessons from the Royal Navy,’’ McKinsey Quarterly (January 2013), http://www.mckinseyquarterly. com/Leadership_lessons_from_the_Royal_Navy_3053 (accessed February 7, 2013).

10. Patrick Lencioni, ‘‘The Most Important Leadership Trait You Shun,’’ The Wall Street Journal (June 21, 2010), http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704895204575321380627619388.html (accessed March 11, 2013).

11. Edwin Locke and Associates, The Essence of Leadership (New York: Lexington Books, 1991).

12. A summary of various studies and surveys is reported in Del Jones, ‘‘Optimism Puts Rose-Colored Tint in Glasses of Top Execs,’’ USA Today (December 15, 2005).

13. See Elaine Fox, ‘‘The Essence of Optimism,’’ Scientific American Mind (January–February 2013), pp. 22–27.

14. Arthur Bandura, ‘‘Self-efficacy,’’ in V. S. Ramachaudran, ed., Encyclo- pedia of Human Behavior, vol. 4 (New York: Academic Press, 1994), pp. 71–81; and Elizabeth A. McDaniel and Holly DiBella-McCarthy, ‘‘Reflective Leaders Become Causal Agents of Change,’’ Journal of Management Development 31, no. 7 (2012), pp. 663–671.

15. Shelley A. Kirkpatrick and Edwin A. Locke, ‘‘Leadership: Do Traits Matter?’’ Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2 (1991), pp. 48–60.

16. Larry Neumeister and Tom Hays, ‘‘Madoff Sent to Jail as Furious Vic- tims Applaud,’’ The Huffington Post (March 12, 2009), http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/12/madoff-arrives-in-court- f_n_174194.html (accessed May 30, 2013); and Julie Creswell and Landon Thomas Jr., ‘‘The Talented Mr. Madoff,’’ The New York Times (January 25, 2009), p. BU1.

17. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993), p. 14.

18. Kirkpatrick and Locke, ‘‘Leadership: Do Traits Matter? ’’ 19. Patricia Sellers, ‘‘Marissa Mayer: Ready to Rumble at Yahoo,’’

Fortune (October 29, 2012), pp. 118–128; and Julianne Pepitone, ‘‘Marissa Mayer: Yahoos Can No Longer Work from Home,’’ CNN Money (February 25, 2013), http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/25/tech- nology/yahoo-work-from-home/index.html (accessed March 11, 2013).

20. ‘‘Towards a More Perfect Match: Building Successful Leaders by Effec- tively Aligning People and Roles,’’ Hay Group Working Paper (2004); and ‘‘Making Sure the Suit Fits,’’ Hay Group Research Brief (2004). Both available from 116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02116: Hay Group, The McClelland Center,, or at http://www.haygroup.com.

21. The following is based on Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton, Now, Discover Your Strengths (New York: The Free Press, 2001); and

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 61

NOT FOR SALE

Chuck Martin with Peg Dawson and Richard Guare, Smarts: Are We Hardwired for Success? (New York: AMACOM, 2007).

22. Deborah Ancona, Thomas W. Malone, Wanda J. Orlikowski, and Peter M. Senge, ‘‘In Praise of the Incomplete Leader,’’ Harvard Busi- ness Review (February 2007), pp. 92–100.

23. Center for Creative Leadership survey results, reported in ‘‘The Demise of the Heroic Leader,’’ Leader to Leader (Fall 2006), pp. 55–56.

24. Buckingham and Clifton, Now, Discover Your Strengths, p. 12. 25. Ibid. 26. Bill George, ‘‘The Master Gives It Back,’’ segment in ‘‘Special Report:

America’s Best Leaders,’’ U.S. News and World Report (October 30, 2006), pp. 50–87; and Richard L. Daft, The Executive and the Ele- phant: A Leader’s Guide to Building Inner Excellence (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), p. 149.

27. This discussion is based on Ron Garonzik, Geoff Nethersell, and Scott Spreier, ‘‘Navigating through the New Leadership Landscape,’’ Leader to Leader (Winter 2006), pp. 30–39; ‘‘Towards a More Perfect Match: Building Successful Leaders by Effectively Aligning People and Roles,’’ Hay Group Working Paper (2004); and ‘‘Making Sure the ‘Suit’ Fits,’’ Hay Group Research Brief (2004). Available from 116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02116: Hay Group, The McClelland Center, or at http://www.haygroup.com.

28. K. Lewin, ‘‘Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Con- cepts and Methods,’’ American Journal of Sociology 44 (1939), pp. 868–896; K. Lewin and R. Lippett, ‘‘An Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy and Democracy: A Preliminary Note,’’ Sociometry 1 (1938), pp. 292–300; and K. Lewin, R. Lippett, and R. K. White, ‘‘Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates,’’ Journal of Social Psychology 10 (1939), pp. 271–301.

29. R. Tannenbaum and W. H. Schmidt, ‘‘How to Choose a Leadership Pattern,’’ Harvard Business Review 36 (1958), pp. 95–101.

30. F. A. Heller and G. A. Yukl, ‘‘Participation, Managerial Decision- Making and Situational Variables,’’ Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4 (1969), pp. 227–241.

31. ‘‘Jack’s Recipe (Management Principles Used by Jack Hartnett, Presi- dent of D. L. Rogers Corp.),’’ sidebar in Marc Ballon, ‘‘Extreme Managing: Equal Parts Old-Fashioned Dictator and New Age Father Figure, Jack Hartnett Breaks Nearly Every Rule of the Enlightened Manager’s Code,’’ Inc. (July 1998), p. 60.

32. Eileen Newman Rubin, ‘‘Assessing Your Leadership Style to Achieve Organizational Objectives,’’ Global Business and Organizational Excellence (September–October 2013), pp. 55–66; Bill George, ‘‘The Master Gives It Back,’’ segment in ‘‘Special Report: America’s Best Leaders,’’ U.S. News and World Report (October 30, 2006), pp. 50–87; and Richard L. Daft, The Executive and the Elephant: A Leader’s Guide to Building Inner Excellence (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), p. 149.

33. Donna Fenn, ‘‘The Remote Control CEO,’’ Inc. (October 2005), pp. 96–101, 144–146.

34. J. K. Hemphill and A. E. Coons, ‘‘Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,’’ in R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons, eds., Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement (Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957).

35. P. C. Nystrom, ‘‘Managers and the High-High Leader Myth,’’ Acad- emy of Management Journal 21 (1978), pp. 325–331; and L. L. Lar- son, J. G. Hunt, and Richard N. Osborn, ‘‘The Great High-High Leader Behavior Myth: A Lesson from Occam’s Razor,’’ Academy of Management Journal 19 (1976), pp. 628–641.

36. Christopher Cooper, ‘‘Speed Trap: How a Marine Lost His Command in Race to Baghdad,’’ The Wall Street Journal (April 5, 2004), pp. A1, A15.

37. E. W. Skinner, ‘‘Relationships between Leadership Behavior Patterns and Organizational-Situational Variables,’’ Personnel Psychology 22 (1969), pp. 489–494; E. A. Fleishman and E. F. Harris, ‘‘Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover,’’ Personnel Psychology 15 (1962), pp. 43–56; and Ronald F. Piccolo, Joyce E. Bono, Kathrin Heinitz, Jens Rowold, Emily Duehr, and Timothy A. Judge, ‘‘The Relative Impact of Complementary Leader

Behaviors: Which Matter Most?’’ The Leadership Quaterly 23 (2012), pp. 567–581.

38. A. W. Halpin and B. J. Winer, ‘‘A Factorial Study of the Leader Behav- ior Descriptions,’’ in R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons, eds., Leader Behavior: Its Descriptions and Measurement (Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957); and J. K. Hemphill, ‘‘Leadership Behavior Associated with the Administrative Reputations of College Departments,’’ Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1955), pp. 385–401.

39. R. Likert, ‘‘From Production- and Employee-Centeredness to Systems 1–4,’’ Journal of Management 5 (1979), pp. 147–156.

40. J. Taylor and D. Bowers, The Survey of Organizations: A Machine Scored Standardized Questionnaire Instrument (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1972).

41. D. G. Bowers and S. E. Seashore, ‘‘Predicting Organizational Effective- ness with a Four-Factor Theory of Leadership,’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 11 (1966), pp. 238–263.

42. Ibid. 43. Robert Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Managerial Grid III (Houston:

Gulf Publishing Company, 1985). 44. Diane Brady and Matthew Boyle, ‘‘Campbell’s Recipe for a CEO

Yields Denise Morrison,’’ Business Week (June 23, 2011), http:// www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_27/b4235060614059.htm (accessed March 12, 2013); Michael Arrington, ‘‘The Way I Work: My Style Is to Bust the Door Down and Clean the Mess Up Later,’’ Inc. (October 2010), pp. 124–128; and Jeff Bercovici, ‘‘TechCrunch CEO Reported Out after Clashing with HuffPost-ers,’’ Forbes (November 17, 2011), http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/11/17/techcrunch- ceo-reported-out-after-clashing-with-huffpost-ers/ (accessed March 13, 2013).

45. Gary Yukl, ‘‘Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention,’’ Academy of Management Perspec- tives 26 (November 2012), pp. 66–80; and Gary Yukl, Angela Gordon, and Tom Taber, ‘‘A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research,’’ Journal of Leader- ship and Organizational Studies 9, no. 1 (2002), pp. 15–32.

46. Jessica E. Lessin, ‘‘Eddy Cue: Apple’s Rising Mr. Fix-It,’’ The Wall Street Journal (November 28, 2012), p. B1.

47. Francis J. Yammarino and Fred Dansereau, ‘‘Individualized Leader- ship,’’ Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 1 (2002), pp. 90–99; Gary Yukl, Mark O’Donnell, and Thomas Taber, ‘‘Influence of Leader Behaviors on the Leader-Member Exchange Relationship,’’ Journal of Managerial Psychology 24, no. 4 (2009), pp. 289–299; and M. O’Donnell, G. Yukl, and T. Taber, ‘‘Leader Behavior and LMX: A Constructive Replication,’’ Journal of Manage- ment Psychology 27, no. 2 (2012), pp. 143–154.

48. This discussion is based on Fred Dansereau, ‘‘A Dyadic Approach to Leadership: Creating and Nurturing This Approach under Fire,’’ Lead- ership Quarterly 6, no. 4 (1995), pp. 479–490; and George B. Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien, ‘‘Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leader- ship over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Approach,’’ Leadership Quarterly 6, no. 2 (1995), pp. 219–247.

49. Tom Fox, ‘‘Do Your Employees Think You Play Favorites? Three Ways to Tell,’’ The Washington Post (January 30, 2014), https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/30/do-your- employees-think-you-play-favorites-three-ways-to-tell/ (accessed October 9, 2015).

50. See A. J. Kinicki and R. P. Vecchio, ‘‘Influences on the Quality of Supervisor-Subordinate Relations: The Role of Time Pressure, Organi- zational Commitment, and Locus of Control,’’ Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior (January 1994), pp. 75–82; R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne, and D. Stilwell, ‘‘A Longitudinal Study on the Early Development of Leader–Member Exchanges,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology (August 1993), pp. 662–674; Yammarino and Dansereau, ‘‘Individualized Leadership’’; Jean-François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux, ‘‘The

62 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome,’’ Harvard Business Review 76 (March–April 1998), pp. 101–113; Yukl et al., ‘‘Influence of Leader Behaviors on the Leader-Member Exchange Relationship’’; and O’Donnell et al., ‘‘Leader Behavior and LMX: A Constructive Replication.’’

51. W. E. McClane, ‘‘Implications of Member Role Differentiation: Analy- sis of a Key Concept in the LMX Model of Leadership,’’ Group and Organization Studies 16 (1991), pp. 102–113; and Gary Yukl, Leader- ship in Organizations, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989).

52. Manzoni and Barsoux, ‘‘The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome.’’ 53. Donald F. Kuratko and Richard M. Hodgetts, Entrepreneurship: A

Contemporary Approach, 4th ed. (Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press, 1998), p. 30.

54. These are based on Todd Warner, ‘‘5 Essential Qualities for Entrepre- neurial Leadership,’’ Forbes (June 8, 2012), http://www.forbes.com/ sites/startupviews/2012/06/08/5-essential-qualities-for-entrepreneurial- leadership/ (accessed October 9, 2015); Kristina L. Guo, ‘‘Core Com- petencies of the Entrepreneurial Leader in Health Care Organizations,’’ Health Care Manager 28 (January–March 2009), pp. 19–29; and Gary A. Knight, ‘‘Cross-Cultural Reliability and Validity of a Scale to Meas- ure Firm Entrepreneurial Orientation,’’ Journal of Business Venturing 12 (1997), pp. 213–225.

55. Colleen Leahey, ‘‘Doing It for Themselves,’’ Fortune (October 17, 2011), pp. 144–148.

56. Reprinted with permission from Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organiza- tions, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998), p. 66.

CHAPTER 2 TRAITS, BEHAVIORS, AND RELATIONSHIPS 63

NOT FOR SALE