TM_Discussion7

Chapter 11 Leadership

Managing the Paradox

On March 11, 2011, a massive tsunami caused by an undersea earthquake struck the coastline of Japan. In the days immediately after the crippling destruction, a small self-appointed group of engineers, soldiers, and firefighters risked their own lives to prevent a total nuclear meltdown. The team discovered that the pressure in the nuclear reactor was dangerously high and feared that a hydrogen buildup would create a huge explosion. Absent any equipment, the courageous team went out into parking lots surrounding the plant and ripped batteries out of cars to revive the power in the plant. But this also meant that their only choice was to release radiation into the atmosphere, but the alternative was much worse. When a nuclear reactor explodes, it showers nuclear fuel over a large area. Unfortunately, the emergency manuals in the plant did not provide any steps on how to work without electricity. So the team had to improvise. The team of workers—all volunteers—figured out how to manually vent radiation at great personal risk. They worked around the clock in relay shifts, traveling into dark, hazardous environments filled with lethal radiation. By 2 pm the day after the tsunami struck, the team had rigged up a system that allowed water into the reactors. Had the workers not stayed amid hydrogen explosions, a worst-case scenario involving a complete nuclear meltdown of reactors would have surely occurred. At this point, then prime minister of Japan Naoto Kan asked everyone over the age of 60 to stay and take the lead. The Fukushima 50 stayed in the plant engulfed in lethal radiation levels and prevented a complete nuclear meltdown.1

1 One year later. Inside Japan’s nuclear meltdown. (2012, February 28). National Public Radio; Fresh Air transcript. npr.com.

The Fukushima 50 did not have disaster management training or formal leadership training, yet they epitomize the essence of leadership with their courage and teamwork. This chapter addresses how people can be trained to become leaders and the techniques that enable leaders to be more effective. We first address the leadership paradox : the fact that teams usually need leaders, but the very presence of a leader threatens the autonomy of the team. We take up the question of whether leaders are born or made and describe two views of leadership: incremental versus entity theories of leadership. We then describe several leadership styles and discuss people’s expectations of leaders. We also discuss how leaders use power and its effects on them and their teams.

The Leadership Paradox

The presence of a leader does not always ensure that teams will be effective and may even hinder a team. Leadership—or one person taking the helm of the group’s efforts—seems antithetical to teamwork. Yet, leaders are often necessary for effective teamwork—to shape goals, coordinate effort, and motivate members. Traditional notions of leadership—that is, top–down, command-and-control approaches—may be ineffective in the team-based organization. Indeed, one investigation found that employees in highly participative work climates provided 14 percent better customer service, committed 26 percent fewer clinical errors, demonstrated 79 percent lower burnout, and were 61 percent less likely to leave the organization than employees in more authoritarian work climates.2

2 Angermeier, I., Dunford, B. D., Boss, A. D., & Boss, R. W. (2009, March/April). The impact of participative management perceptions on customer service, medical errors, burnout, and turnover intentions. Journal of Healthcare Management, 54(2), 127–141.

Few people understand how to transform into leaders. For example, in one plant, resistance to participative management programs took the form of supervisors keeping “hands off” as newly formed semiautonomous work teams attempted to solve problems. When questions arose that teams were unable to handle, supervisors replied, “That’s not my job; it’s the team’s problem.” In essence, the supervisors were undermining the teams so they could resume their traditional position of authority.

Leaders who have successfully empowered their teams comment that they learned something that they did not realize at the outset. In the best of circumstances, teams are empowered groups of people who collaborate in a mutually beneficial fashion to enact positive change. The question of how one leads others who are supposed to lead themselves is the essence of the team paradox encountered by leaders of self-managing and self-directing teams.3 Attempts to cope with this leadership challenge often result in negative supervisor reactions, including resistance to change,4 role conflict,5 unwillingness to relinquish power,6 fear of appearing incompetent,7 and fear of job termination.8 These responses may cause leaders to engage in actions that thwart, rather than facilitate, team effectiveness.

3 Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership and self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747–770.

4 Manz, C. C., Keating, D. E., & Donnellon, A. (1990). Preparing for an organizational change to employee self-management: The management transition. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 15–26.

5 Letize, L., & Donovan, M. (1990, March). The supervisor’s changing role in high involvement organizations. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 13(2), 62–65.

6 Verespej, M. A. (1990, December 3). When you put the team in charge. Industry Week, pp. 30–31.

7 Manz, Keating, & Donnellon, “Preparing for an organizational change to employee self-management.”

8 Verespej, “When you put the team in charge.”

Leadership is perhaps easier to reconcile with effective teamwork when we realize that leadership comes in many forms. For example, a team may have a manager, administrator, supervisor, facilitator, director, coordinator, spokesperson, or chairperson. Leaders can also serve a vital role in coordinating team members, resolving disputes or disagreements, motivating individuals, monitoring performance, and maintaining the goals and focus of the group.

Leadership and Management

Leadership is not the same as management. People don’t want to be managed; they want to be led. Management is a function that must be exercised in any business or team, whereas leadership is a relationship between the leader and the led that can energize a team or organization (see Exhibit 11-1 for the difference between management and leadership).9 Leadership is the ability to influence people to achieve the goals of a team. A leader is able to influence people to achieve a group’s or organization’s goal.

9 Maccoby, M. (2000, January/February). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Research Technology Management, 43(1), 57–59.

One defining characteristic of leadership is the point of view that the leader of the team adopts. The leader of the team has a point of view that allows him or her to (1) see what needs to be done; (2) understand the underlying forces that are working in the

Exhibit 11-1 Management Versus Leadership

Source: Maccoby, M. (2000, January/February). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Research Technology Management, 43(1), 57–59.

Management	Leadership
A function	A relationship
Planning	Selecting talent
Budgeting	Motivating
Evaluating	Coaching
Facilitating	Building trust

Exhibit 11-2 The Leader’s Point of View

Source: Clawson, J. C. (2011). Level 3 leadership: Getting below the surface (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Point of View	Examples of What This Person Would Say
Follower	“What do you want me to do?”
	“Will you give me more authority?”
	“I need you to clear the obstacles for me.”
Bureaucrat	“That’s not my job.”
	“I’ll pass that on to so-and-so.”
	“Our procedures don’t allow that.”
	“We’ve never done it that way.”
	“This hasn’t been approved.”
	“I can’t do that without my supervisor’s permission.”
Administrator	“What did they do last time?”
	“We’ve never done it that way.”
	“Let’s see, what was the rule on that?”
Contrarian	“That will never work!”
	“We tried that before”.
	“That’s a terrible idea.”
	“You won’t be able to fund it.”
	“You will never be able to do it on time.”
Leader	“Do you see what needs to be done?”
	“Do you understand the underlying forces at play?”
	“Are you willing to initiate action to make things better?”

organization; and (3) initiate action to make things better.10 Exhibit 11-2 reveals that the leader’s point of view is different from that of the followers’ point of view, and different still from those who are bureaucrats, administrators, and contrarians.

10 Clawson, D. (2003). The next upsurge: Labor and the new social movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Leaders and the Nature–Nurture Debate

Are leaders born or self-made? With regard to the nature versus nurture debate, there are two theories about what makes a leader effective. The entity theory of leadership asserts that leaders are born, and not made, whereas the incremental theory claims that leadership skills can be learned and leaders can develop. In one investigation of how people behave when put into a leadership situation, those who believed in an incremental theory of leadership were more confident, less anxious, and less depressed than those who held an entity theory of leadership. Even more important, those who held incremental views outperformed those who held entity views on a leadership task.11

11 Hoyt, C. L., Burnette, J. L., & Innella, A. N. (2012). I can do that: The impact of implicit theories on leadership role model effectiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 257–268.

Trait Theories of Leadership

The entity, or trait, theory of leadership is sometimes referred to as the “Great Man theory of leadership” and argues that leadership is largely an inborn characteristic of a person and therefore is largely inflexible or at least not something that can be easily developed, learned, or acquired.12 In this sense, a person’s capability for leadership is regarded to be fixed. Strict proponents of the entity theory of leadership claim people are either born leaders or born followers: They either have it or don’t. If they do have it, they dictate, command, and control. If they don’t have it, they follow those who do have it. Leadership is largely viewed as unidirectional—from the top down, with leaders imparting truth, wisdom, and directives to those beneath them. Further, trait theories of leadership tend to give leaders too much credit for corporate success and too much blame for failures when, in fact, the leadership skills of the CEO are much less predictive of which companies actually succeed.13

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

13 Belsky, G. (2012, June 11). How much does the big boss really matter? Time. time.com.

Intelligence and Leadership

One trait theory of leadership is based on innate intelligence. Many organizations, including the armed forces, have relied on intelligence testing to select leaders. For example, 96 percent of the officer corps of the armed forces has a college degree.14 The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is administered to all persons who wish to enlist in the U.S. military. And, results of large national samples of general mental ability (GMA) indicate that intelligence is linked to career success, such as income and occupational prestige.15

14 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. (2004). Personnel and readiness. Population representation in the military services. prhome.defense.gov.

15 Judge, T. A., Klinger, R. L., & Simon, L. S. (2010). Time is on my side: Time, general mental ability, human capital, and extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 92–107.

Personality and Leadership

Another set of theories of trait leadership focuses on personality and temperament. If fixed traits do determine leadership ability, we should be able to identify personality traits that make someone a great leader or, at least, characteristics that predict the emergence of leadership. Psychologists, political scientists, and historians have studied the personalities of leaders in governmental, business, and educational organizations to identify the common threads. However, decades of research have failed to yield an agreed-upon list of key traits shared by all leaders.16 There is little or no evidence to support connections between personality and leadership. Simonton gathered information about 100 personal attributes of all U.S. presidents, such as their family backgrounds, educational experiences, occupations, and personalities.17 Only three of these variables—height, family size, and number of books published before taking office—correlated with how effective the presidents were in office. The 97 other characteristics, including personality traits, were not related to leadership effectiveness at all. By chance, 5 percent—5 out of the 100—would be significant!

16 Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. London: Prentice-Hall International.

17 Simonton, D. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

The leader personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness are positively related to perceptions of ethical leadership.18 Some research finds a link between personality traits and who emerges as a leader in a group. For example, people who are narcissists are more likely to emerge as a leader in a group, but they are no more skilled than nonnarcissistic people.19 Similarly, people high in “trait dominance” emerge as leaders because they behave in ways that make them appear competent, even when they actually lack competence.20 And, leaders who are extraverted have more productive team results when their employees are passive, but not when they are proactive.21

18 Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.

19 Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663–1676.

20 Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503.

21 Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hoffman, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–550.

Birth Order and Leadership

Yet another entity theory is that leadership as nature is based on birth order. Cross-sectional data show some indication that first-born children may be more intelligent, but longitudinal data don’t support this.22

22 Andeweg, R. B., & van den Berg, S. B. (2003). Linking birth order to political leadership: The impact of parents or sibling interaction? Political Psychology, 24(3), 605–623.

Gender and Leadership

There is much debate about whether men are more or less effective leaders than women. The stereotypical belief is that men are rational, independent, and assertive, whereas women are emotional, relationship focused, and accommodating. Alice Eagly examined this question using a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. Contrary to stereotypical beliefs about male and female differences, men do not engage in more task-oriented behavior, nor do women behave in a more relational (considerate) fashion. Women lead in a more democratic style and men use a more autocratic style.23

23 Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.

A meta-analysis review of 75 studies of mixed-gender groups revealed that women are less likely to become leaders than men in laboratory and naturally occurring groups.24 Yet, women display more of the desirable transformational leadership behaviors positively related to team performance compared to men.25 And, the shares of companies whose boards include at least one woman outperformed those of companies with all-male boards by 26 percent, with the explanation being that women might be more appropriately risk averse.26 In sum, there are two forms of prejudice when it comes to female leaders: People perceive women less favorably when they are in leadership, and they evaluate women’s behavior less favorably.27

24 Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.

25 Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.

26 Goodman, J. (2012, October 15). Empowered women hold the key to a business’s success. Fast Company. fastcompany.com.

27 Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 190(3), 573–598.

When women are exposed to the gender stereotype of women (vulnerable and accommodating), they avoid leadership roles in favor of nonthreatening subordinate roles.28 And, their aspirations for leadership positions decline. Some evidence suggests that to the extent female group leaders engage in self-monitoring (reflecting and thinking about their behaviors and how they are viewed by others), they are considered to be more influential and valuable for their groups.29

28 Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276–287.

29 Flynn, F. J., & Ames, D. R. (2006). What’s good for the goose may not be as good for the gander: The benefits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and dyadic conflicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 272–281.

Entity theories are widely used as a basis for recruitment and selection of leaders. Why do so many people believe that fixed traits, such as intelligence and personality, can predict leadership? There are two reasons. One has to do with the “romance” of leadership.30 In short, the romanticized conception of leadership is that leaders have the ability to control and influence the fates of their organizations and people. Second, the fundamental attribution error is the tendency to overemphasize the impact of stable personality and dispositional traits and underemphasize the impact of the situation on people’s behavior.31 In fact, more temporary, situational characteristics can usually explain a great deal of human behavior.

30 Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.

31 Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

In contrast, incremental theories of leadership focus on how leaders do two things vis-à-vis teamwork in their organizations. First, it focuses on how leaders directly interact with their teams. The second thing these leaders do is to structure the external environment so the team can best achieve its goals. In both of these tasks, leadership is bidirectional, with leaders learning from their team just as often as they provide direction for their team. These leaders maintain the relationship between the group and organization to ensure that organizational objectives are being pursued. Leaders also coordinate team members, resolve disputes or disagreements, motivate individuals, monitor performance, and establish the goals and focus of the group.

Incremental Theories of Leadership

There is overwhelming evidence that environmental and situational factors strongly affect leadership. In fact, a great deal of evidence indicates that leadership has more to do with the environment than one’s own personality.

Seating Arrangements

Seemingly trivial situational factors, such as seating arrangements, can affect the emergence of leadership in groups. When a group sits at a table, the person at the head of the table has a greater probability of emerging as the leader, even when the seating is randomly determined.32 Consider the implications of seating arrangements at a five-member rectangular table.33 Two persons sat on one side of the table and three on the other side. Although no one sat on the end seat, specific predictions were made about who should emerge as the leader if eye contact and control of communication were important causal factors. Whereas those seated on the two-person side of the table could maintain easy eye contact with three of the group members, those on the three-person side could best focus their attention on only two members. Therefore, it was predicted that those on the two-person side would be able to influence others more, and, hence, were more likely to become leaders. Indeed, 70 percent of the leaders came from the two-person side. Judgments of leaders’ power are often based on how they look on an organization chart: Holding everything else constant, if there is a long vertical line by a leader’s name, that leader is judged to have more power than leaders with a short vertical line.34

32 Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1974). Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37(4), 529–540; Riess, M. (1982). Seating preferences as impression management: A literature review and theoretical integration. Communication, 11, 85–113; Riess, M., & Rosenfeld, P. (1980). Seating preferences as nonverbal communication: A self-presentational analysis. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 8, 22–30.

33 Howells, L. T., & Becker, S. W. (1962). Seating arrangements and leadership emergence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 148–150.

34 Giessner, S. R., & Schubert, T. W. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders’ power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 30–44.

Random Selection of Leaders

Probably the most damning evidence to trait theories of leadership is the studies of random selection of leaders. Organizations spend millions of dollars each year carefully selecting leaders, often using psychological tests to do so. However, evidence indicates that selected leaders may hinder effective team performance. In an investigation of team performance, teams with randomly selected leaders performed better on all organizational decision-making tasks than did teams whose leaders were systematically selected.35 Moreover, teams with a random leader adhered more strongly to the team’s decision. Systematically accepted leaders often undermine group goals because they assert their personal superiority at the expense of developing a sense of shared team identity.

35 Haslam, S. A., McGarty, C., Brown, P. M., Eggins, R. A., Morrison, B. E., & Reynolds, K. J. (1998). Inspecting the emperor’s clothes: Evidence that random selection of leaders can enhance group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(3), 168–184.

Leadership Styles

One trip to the bookstore, or one online search in the academic literature, can produce a dizzying array of enticing (yet poorly understood) leadership approaches. Often, these approaches are presented in the form of metaphor—leader as coach, leader as servant, leader as guide, leader as conductor, and so on.36 In a recent literature review of academic journals, we found more than 20 variations of leadership styles spanning a wide range, including visionary, charismatic, participatory, servant, contingent, transformational, and transactional. The corporate world and popular business press have coined even more varieties of leadership—often branding them with a particularly influential individual’s name, such as the “Jack Welch lexicon of leadership”37 or the “Warren Buffet CEO.”38 Consider the following leadership styles as choices leaders can make.

36 Thompson, L., & Rosette, A. (2004). Leading by analogy. In S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Financial Times Next Generation Business Series. London: Prentice Hall.

37 Krames, J. A. (2001). The Jack Welch Lexicon of leadership: Over 250 terms, concepts, strategies & initiatives of the legendary leader. New York: McGraw-Hill.

38 Miles, R. P., & Osborne, T. (2001). The Warren Buffett CEO: Secrets of the Berkshire Hathaway managers. New York: John Wiley Sons.

Task Versus Person Leadership

As we noted in Chapter 4, the task-oriented leader focuses on accomplishing the objectives of the team; the relationship-oriented leader focuses on the process of getting there. A longitudinal survey of national service teams revealed that task-focused leaders effectively minimized team conflict arising from diversity; in contrast, person-focused leaders tended to exacerbate diversity-based conflict.39 Person-focused leaders allow members of their team more freedom in their work, permit team members to use their own judgment in solving problems, and grant members authority. Conversely, task-oriented leaders typically act as the spokesperson of their group, push for more work and higher production, and determine what should be done and how it should be accomplished.40

39 Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L. (2011). When team members’ values differ: The moderating role of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 25–36.

40 Based on Sergiovanni, T.J., Metzcus, R., & Burden, L. (1969). Toward a particularistic approach to leadership style: Some finds. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 62-79.

Transactional Versus Transformational Leadership

The transactional versus transformational paradigm views leadership as either a matter of contingent reinforcement of followers or the moving of followers beyond their self-interests for the good of the team, organization, or society.41 Transformational leadership is developmental and usually begins with a transactional approach. At a basic level, leaders and their teams are in an exchange relationship that involves negotiation to establish outcomes and rewards.42 A psychological contract is a person’s belief in mutual obligations between that person and another party, such as an employer or leader.43

41 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press; Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row; Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press.

42 Hollander, E. P. (1986). On the central role of leadership processes. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 39–52.

43 Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives, and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679–695.

In contrast, transactional leadership depends on the leader’s power to reinforce subordinates (team members) for their successful completion of the bargain (task). However, this type of leadership sets up a competitive relationship: “If you limit yourself to transactional leadership of a follower with rewards of carrots for compliance, or punishments with a stick for failure to comply with agreed-on work to be done by the follower, the follower will continue to feel like a jackass.”44

44 Levinson, H. (1980). Power, leadership, and the management of stress. Professional Psychology, 11, 497–508.

Transformational leaders, in contrast, motivate their teams to work toward goals that go beyond immediate self-interest. Transformational leaders motivate their teams to do more than they originally expected to do as they strive for higher-order outcomes.45 In an investigation of the performance of 118 R&D project teams from five companies, transformational leadership predicted technical quality, schedule performance, and cost performance 1 year later and profitability and speed-to-market 5 years later.46 Because members of teams are interested in intrinsic aspects of their work, they expect their leader to be as well. Moreover, this affects performance. People who are taught skills by an extrinsically motivated leader are less interested in learning and enjoy what they are doing less than people taught by an intrinsically motivated leader, even when the lessons and the learning are identical.47 Perhaps it is for this reason that leaders who are regarded to be most like team members are evaluated to be more effective than leaders who are seen as not very similar to their teams.48 Transformational CEOs are more likely to have goal congruence within their team, which is related to better organizational performance.49

45 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

46 Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202–210.

47 Wild, T. C., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or extrinsically motivated: Effects on expectancy formation and task engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 837–848.

48 Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1087–1099.

49 Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L. Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 81–96.

Transformational leaders rely on three behaviors—charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration—to produce change.50 Leaders who demonstrate vision develop employees that are adaptive and proactive in response to change.51 Another characteristic of the transformational leader is self-sacrifice. Leaders who self-sacrifice (put aside their own self-interest in the service of the larger organization) generate higher productivity, higher effectiveness, and are seen as more group oriented.52 In the early 1960s, when Warren Buffett was recruiting backers for one of his first investment partnerships, he deposited more than 90 percent of his personal savings into the fund. When Hewlett-Packard hit a downturn in 1970, cofounder Bill Hewlett took the same 10 percent pay cut as the rest of his employees. During the early years at Charles Schwab, whenever the customer-service phone lines got really busy, founder Chuck Schwab answered calls along with everyone else at the company who held a broker’s license.53 Leaders who engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) model effective leadership and promote their teams to also display OCBs.54

50 Bass, Leadership and performance beyond expectations, p. 297.

51 Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174–182.

52 van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25–37.

53 Deutschman, A. (2009, September 18). How authentic leaders “Walk the walk.” Business Week businessweek.com

54 Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 806–826.

Transformational leaders have more satisfied subordinates.55 Transformational leaders also predict the collective personality of the team, and in turn, this affects team performance.56 Specifically, transformational leaders create teams that are characterized by collective openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, and greater conscientiousness. Transformational leadership has a positive impact on team performance because teams trust their leaders.57

55 Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702; Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1078–1086.

56 Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 509–522.

57 Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871.

Transformational leadership can have a dark side, such as when a charismatic leader like Jim Jones motivates people to do something that is lethal.58 (For an example of the “dark side” of transformational leadership, see Exhibit 11-3.) Leaders who exhibit antinormative behaviors are judged more positively and given more credit relative to antinormative team members, ex-leaders, and established leaders.59 Moreover, under some conditions, charismatic leaders promote disenchantment among team members. The hypocrisy attribution dynamic refers to the tendency for team members to draw sinister conclusions about a leader’s behavior.60 This can happen when employees are prompted to engage in sense making in strong values-driven organizations.

58 Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343–354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

59 Abrams, D., De Moura, G. R., Marques, J. G., & Hutchison, P. (2008). Innovation credit: When can leaders oppose their group’s norms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 662–678.

60 Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57–78.

Autocratic Versus Democratic Leadership

Another view of leadership focuses on a continuum of behavior ranging from entirely autocratic to purely democratic.61 Also known as vertical leadership (emanating from the top down), this type of leadership stems from an appointed or formal leader of a team, whereas shared leadership is a group process in which leadership is distributed among, and stems from, team members. Autocratic leadership is displayed by leaders who seek sole possession of authority, power, and control, whereas democratic leadership is displayed by leaders who share authority, power, and control with their team. In one investigation, the effectiveness of 71 change management teams in companies was examined as a function of vertical versus shared leadership.62 Team effectiveness was measured 6 months after leadership was assessed and was also measured from the viewpoints of

61 Bass, Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership.

62 Pearce, C. L., & Sims, Jr., H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.

Exhibit 11-3 The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership

The People’s Temple was a cultlike organization based in San Francisco that primarily attracted poor residents. In 1977, the Reverend Jim Jones, who was the group’s political, social, and spiritual leader, moved the group with him to Jonestown, a jungle settlement in Guyana, South America. On November 18, 1978, Congressman Leo R. Ryan of California (who traveled to Guyana to investigate the cult), three members of Ryan’s task force, and a cult defector were murdered as they tried to leave Jonestown by plane. Convinced that he would be arrested and implicated in the murder, which would inevitably lead to the demise of the People’s Temple, Jones gathered the entire community around him and issued a call for each person’s death, to be achieved in a unified act of self-destruction. In November 1978, 910 people compliantly drank and died from a vat of poison-laced Kool-Aid.

Exhibit 11-4 Representative Behavior of Five Types of Leaders

Source: Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.

Leader Type	Representative Behaviors
Aversive leadership	Engaging in intimidation
	Dispensing reprimands
Directive leadership	Issuing instructions and commands
	Assigning goals
Transactional leadership	Providing personal rewards
	Providing material rewards
	Managing by exception (active)
	Managing by exception (passive)
Transformational leadership	Providing vision
	Expressing idealism
	Using inspirational communication
	Having high performance expectations
Empowering leadership	Encouraging independent action
	Encouraging opportunity thinking
	Encouraging teamwork
	Encouraging self-development
	Participative goal setting
	Encouraging self-reward

managers, internal customers, and team members. Shared leadership significantly predicted team effectiveness. (For a summary of several different leadership styles and their representative behaviors, see Exhibit 11-4.) A study of 59 consulting teams revealed that shared leadership emanates from shared purpose, social support, voice, and external coaching. Moreover, shared leadership predicts team performance, as rated by clients.63

63 Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234.

Leader Mood

Leaders, like anyone, experience moods. And over time, moods can belie a chronic style of leadership. Moods manifest themselves through a leader’s facial, vocal, and postural cues, and team members can accurately ascertain leaders’ moods on the basis of nonverbal cues. Leaders’ moods influence the collective mood of the team and the performance of the team. According to the mood contagion model , leaders transmit their own moods to team members, just as a person with a cold might infect others.64 When leaders are in a positive mood, in comparison to a negative mood, team members experience more positive moods, and groups as a whole are characterized by a more positive affective tone. Moreover, groups with leaders in a positive mood show more coordination and expend less effort than those in a negative mood. For example, the previous chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, said, “An upbeat manager with a positive outlook somehow ends up running a team or organization filled with…well, upbeat people with positive outlooks. A sourpuss somehow ends up with an unhappy tribe all his own. Unhappy tribes have a tough time winning. Work can be hard. But your job as leader is to fight the gravitational pull of negativism. That doesn’t mean you sugarcoat the challenges. It does mean you display an energizing, can-do attitude about overcoming them.”65

64 Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305.

65 Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2005, April 4). How to be a good leader. Newsweek, p. 45.

Like other people, leaders can get angry. What is the effect of leader anger on teamwork? It depends on the team’s epistemic motivation, or the team’s desire to develop a thorough understanding of a situation. Teams with higher epistemic motivation (i.e., a desire to understand) perform better when their leaders display anger, but teams with lower epistemic motivation perform better when the leaders express happiness.66 Leader–team perceptual distance is the difference between a leader and a team and how they perceive things.67 The more disconnect between what the leader sees and what the team sees, the worse the team performance. And, this effect is stronger when the team’s perceptions are more positive than that of the leader.68

66 Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 562–580.

67 Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 62–76.

68 Ibid.

What Teams Expect of leaders

People hold theories about what they expect from their leaders. Leader categorization theory , for example, argues that people use their mental image of an ideal leader (ideal leader prototype) as an implicit benchmark to determine their receptivity toward actual leaders. This process of leader categorization plays an even larger role for people who perceive themselves as potential leaders.69

69 Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Eckloff, T. (2011). Individual differences in the leader categorization to openness to influence relationship: The role of followers’ self-perception and social comparison orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 605–622.

Implicit Leadership Theories

People who are dependent on leaders not only tend to evaluate and judge them quite often but also have particular expectations of leaders, or implicit leadership theories (ILTs), about whether a leader is worthy of influence (or LWI).70 ILTs are preconceived ideas that specify what teams expect of their leaders.71 Consequently, if a leader is judged to be an LWI, teams are more willing to be influenced by that leader. Thus, the degree of LWI respect accorded by teams in large part determines the effectiveness of the leader. Given that ILTs drive LWI, it behooves leaders to understand the ILTs that teams hold. The behaviors that people expect of leaders (the ILTs that drive LWI) are somewhat different for appointed versus elected leaders.72 For appointed leaders, being sympathetic (i.e., humorous, caring, interested, truthful, and open to ideas) and taking charge (i.e., responsible, active, determined, influential, aggressive, and in command) are key. For elected leaders, being well dressed (i.e., clean cut), kind, and authoritative are most important. (For a specific list of the characteristics, see Exhibit 11-5.)

70 Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J. (1996). Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders described as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1128–1143.

71 Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York: Routledge.

72 Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney, & Blascovich, “Implicit leadership theories.”

Status, Uncertainty, and Leadership Expectations

Teams’ preference for leaders can depend on a variety of factors other than leader ability. For example, the perceived status of the leader affects the team’s preferences regarding leadership style. Low-status leaders are rated as more effective by their teams when they use a directive style, whereas high-status leaders are viewed as more effective when they use a participative style.73 Moreover, teams whose leaders are viewed more favorably perform better on a complex group task.

73 Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574–587.

Environmental conditions, such as change, uncertainty, and risk affect how people perceive leaders. For example, under conditions of uncertainty, people with high and stable self-esteem show a stronger preference for democratic leadership; however, people with low and unstable self-esteem prefer autocratic leadership.74 Indeed, in uncertain times, groups prefer and support nonprototypical leaders more than prototypical leaders.75

74 Schoel, C., Bluemke, M., Mueller, P., & Stahlberg, D. (2011). When autocratic leaders become an option—Uncertainty and self-esteem predict implicit leadership preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 521–540.

75 Rast, D. E., Gaffney, A. M., Hogg, M. A., & Crisp. R. J. (2012). Leadership under uncertainty: When leaders who are non-prototypical group members can gain support. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 48(3), 646–663.

Paradoxically, leaders who express creative ideas may be viewed as having less leadership potential. For example, creative idea expression is negativity related to perceptions of leadership potential.76 Only when people are told to focus on a “charismatic” prototype leader does creative idea generation not hurt judgments of leaders.

76 Mueller, J. S., Goncalo, J. A., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 494–498.

Perceptions of Male and Female Leaders

One of the most sobering findings about how leaders are evaluated is with regard to gender. Female leaders are judged more harshly than male leaders.77 For example,

77 Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.

Exhibit 11-5 Leader Behaviors That Determine Whether People Accord Influence to a Leader

Source: Based on Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J. (1996). Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders described as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1128–1143.

women are regarded to be less competent than men, and in group interaction, people give men more opportunities to speak than women.78 People respond more favorably to men who self-promote (boast) than to men who are modest; however, the opposite is true for women.79 In fact, female leaders are devalued when they act in a masculine manner,80 and overt displays of competence and confidence by women can result in rejection, especially from men.81 In a simulated job interview and hiring task, both men and women prefer to hire a man over a woman if the two are equally qualified,82 and men prefer to hire a man even when he is clearly less qualified.83 Even more disconcerting is the credit that people accord females. When people are asked to evaluate male and female members’ contributions to a joint outcome, unless they are given feedback about people’s actual contributions, they devalue the work of females and rate them as less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role, even when the contributions were identical for men and women.84 However, when groups are under threat and desire change, they favor female leaders.85

78 Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier.

79 Giacolone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1990). Effect of self-presentation on perceptions and recognition in an organization. The Journal of Psychology, 124, 25–38.

80 Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, “Gender and the evaluation of leaders.”

81 Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.

82 Foschi, M., Lai, L., & Sigerson, K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326–339.

83 Foschi, M., Sigerson, K., & Lembesis, M. (1995). Assessing job applicants: The relative effects of gender, academic record, and decision type. Small Group Research, 26(3), 328–352.

84 Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905–916.

85 Brown, E. R., Diekman, A. B., & Schneider, M. C. (2011). A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 930–941.

Leader–Member Exchange

The Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) model focuses on the relationships that leaders develop with particular subordinates and what leaders and subordinates offer and receive in such relationships. LMX theory operates on the premise that leaders give different team members (subordinates) differential amounts of attention and treatment.86 Leaders do not treat all of their team members in the same way and may develop different types of relationships with different members. According to LMX theory, team leaders make the decision early on about whether a given team member will be part of the in-group.

86 Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Key Attributes That Influence Differential Treatment

Some of the key determinants that lead to close, trusting relationships between leaders and their teams are the subordinates’ similarity to the leader, their demonstrated competence, and extraversion. For example, early on in a group, team member extraversion and leader agreeableness predict relationship quality, but as the relationship develops, performance is the key predictor.87 Leaders who are treated in a close, connected fashion by their own superiors often develop close relationships with their own subordinates. And, the closer employers believe their own leader’s profile to be to their view of leadership, the better the quality of their LMX.88 That is, the more leaders embody the leadership behaviors that their employees and teams expect of them, the better their relationships. Inclusive leaders reduce turnover in groups, especially diverse groups.89 Leaders who invest in their members and empower them instill better individual performance and better team performance.90 In an investigation of organizations in the People’s Republic of China, the quality of LMX was a key link between transformational leadership and task performance as well as organizational citizenship behaviors.91

87 Nahrgang, J. D., Frederick, P., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, L. (2009). The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 256–266.

88 Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659–676.

89 Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help the performance of diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426.

90 Gilad, C., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331–346.

91 Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432.

Advantages of Differential Treatment

Some evidence indicates that LMX increases team member commitment. For example, a large-scale study of multiple organizations revealed that LMX and organizational commitment increases for those employees who identified their supervisor with the organization.92 Another field study of 330 employees in 45 hospitals revealed that high-LMX employees were less likely to leave their organization prior to a succession event, but of the few that experienced a succession event, it was the high-LMX employees who were more likely to leave.93

92 Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamer, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103.

93 Ballinger, G. A., Lehman, D. W., & Schoorman, F. D. (2010). Leader-member exchange and turnover before and after succession events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 25–36.

LMX differentiation is also associated with improved employee and team performance. For example, ethical leadership is related to greater LMX and improved employee performance.94 When leaders and followers have proactive personalities, this enhances LMX and leads to increased job satisfaction, commitment, and better job performance.95 A field study of 184 bank employees working under 42 branch managers found that leaders who had had higher-quality relationships with their bosses and who were more central in their peer networks formed higher-quality relationships with their subordinates.96 Additionally, LMX also drove subordinates’ job satisfaction and turnover intensions. Specifically, those with higher LMX with their superiors had higher job satisfaction, had more positive perceptions of their work environment, and showed a greater willingness to continue to work for the business. Conversely, leaders with lower-quality LMX relationships with their superiors and who were less central in their peer networks perceived they lacked influence and had less access to opportunities and limited resources. Moreover, subordinates with lower LMX had lower job satisfaction, more negative perceptions of their workplace and were more likely to look for other work opportunities.

94 Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204–213.

95 Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111–130.

96 Venkataramani, V., Green S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-connected leaders: The impact of leaders’ social network ties on LMX and members’ work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1071–1084.

Disadvantages of Differential Treatment

LMX and the differential treatment it accords are not without its disadvantages. Differential treatment may create an “in-group” among those with whom the leader invests. Inner-circle members (i.e., those who are close to the leader) feel safer in their group and participate more in group discussions; leaders recognize them and give them larger bonuses.97 Unfortunately, leaders call upon inner-circle members more even when they do not possess the expert knowledge. Consequently, team members may grow resentful and view the leader and that subordinate as a subteam or coalition, particularly when other team members do not have a close, trusting relationship with the leader. When leaders treat a certain subordinate in a more distant, impersonal fashion, that subordinate may not be as involved in her task and not perform as well. Differentiated leadership (leaders treating individuals in a group differently) diminish their group’s effectiveness by lowering members’ self-efficacy and group efficacy; group-focused leadership facilitates group identification and collective efficacy, which increases effectiveness.98

97 Burris, E. R., Rodgers, M. S., Mannix, E. A., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2009). Playing favorites: The influence of leaders’ inner circle on group processes and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1244–1257.

98 Wu, J., Tsui, A., & Kinicki, A. (2010). Leading groups: Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90–106.

When the organizational work climate is low, LMX may have particularly detrimental effects. A study of 276 employees revealed that LMX differentiation was related to more negative work attitudes and coworker relations as well as higher levels of withdrawal behaviors in a low-work climate.99

99 Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader-member exchange: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120.

Leadership and Power

Leadership, at its heart, involves a relationship between people. In any relationship, power operates as a key dynamic. Power is the ability of a person to control the outcomes of another person in a relationship.100 Control over others’ outcomes can be direct or indirect. And control can be unilateral or bilateral. Leadership always involves power; even if a person is not a leader, he or she can still exercise power.

100 Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.

Power not only helps individuals garner resources, but the mere act of using power is rewarding and stimulating. For this reason, people are attracted to power. And, leaders are concerned about maintaining their power, particularly when another group member poses a threat to their leadership and the power in the group is unstable. For example, leaders seek proximity to team members who pose a threat to their own power as a way to control and regulate the threat posed by that member.101

101 Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. K. (2012). On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 576–591.

A key challenge is that people who are in a position of power—namely, leaders—often have an egocentrically biased view of themselves, believing themselves to be more fair, generous, and trustworthy than others evaluate them to be. In a complementary fashion, those who lack power are highly distrustful of those who have power.102 People regard power-seeking individuals to be unethical and question the motives of those who seek to enhance their control.

102 Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

Sources of Power

Power is the capacity to influence; influence is the actual use of power by specific behaviors.103 French and Raven identified six key sources of power that people use in organizations and teams: expert, legitimate, incentive, coercive, informational, and referent power (see Exhibit 11-6, which also includes network power as a key source of

103 Klocke, U. (2009). “I Am the Best”: Effects of influence tactics and power bases on powerholders’ self-evaluation and target evaluation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 619–637.

Exhibit 11-6 Sources of Power

Source: Based on French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. F. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 259–270). New York: Harper & Row; Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origin and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 227–251.

Source of Power	Definition
Legitimate power	Based on a person’s holding of a formal position; other person complies because of belief in legitimacy of power holder.
Reward power	Based on a person’s access to rewards; other person complies because of desire to receive rewards.
Coercive power	Based on a person’s ability to punish; other person complies because of fear of punishment.
Expert power	Based on personal expertise in a certain area; other person complies because of belief in power holder’s knowledge.
Referent power	Based on a person’s attractiveness to others; other person complies because of respect and liking for power holder.
Informational power	Based on power related to the extent and content of an individual’s knowledge base.
Network power	Based on the breadth and depth of connections the person has in their professional and personal network.

influence in organizations).104 In one investigation, one member of a group was given power over others based on either higher expertise (expert power) or position (legitimate power). They then used either harsh or soft tactics with their team. Power holders who influence using harsh tactics have greater self-evaluations (feelings of superiority), but do not appreciate their team.105 Leaders who use expert power are more liked, more influential, and engender more confidence when they express themselves in a manner congruent with their status, such as using powerful speech.106

104 French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. F. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 259–270). New York: Harper & Row.

105 Klocke, “I Am the Best.”

106 Loyd, D. L., Phillips, K. W., Whitson, J., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2010). How congruence between status speech style affects reactions to unique knowledge. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 379–395.

Using Power

In addition to the source of power, a key question concerns how much power to use. Wageman and Mannix identify three patterns of power use by team members:107

107 Wageman, R., & Mannix, E. A. (Eds.). (1998). Uses and misuses of power in task-performing teams. Power and influence in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

· Overuse: The team member uses his or her power (e.g., special status) to exert influence over most aspects of group functioning and to dominate the team. For example, when leaders make an explicit command, team members are more likely to make a deviant decision.108 Similarly, the powerful team member who uses his or her special status to exert influence hinders the group’s effectiveness.109

108 Conway, L. G., & Schaller, M. (2005). When authorities’ commands backfire: Attributions about consensus effects on deviant decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 311–326.

109 Wageman & Mannix, Uses and misuses of power in task-performing teams.

· Abdication: The team member with power exerts no special influence over the task. This pattern is also dysfunctional, and such teams tend toward mediocre to poor performance because they fail to use the resources that the powerful team member has access to.

· Managing the resource: The powerful team member influences other members only in the specific domain of his or her special resources. This is the most effective use of power. For example, in an investigation of 16 team operating rooms learning to use a new technology for cardiac surgery, a key question is whether team leaders could work together under pressure (i.e., real life and death situations) and successfully use new technology.110 The most effective leaders communicated a motivating rationale and minimized their status differences. This allowed other team members to speak up.

110 Edmonson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452.

It would seem that leaders would be hypervigilant about their use of power, seeking constant feedback as to the effectiveness of their behaviors. However, the opposite is true. People in positions of power are less motivated to scan their environment or process information. For example, people with more power discount advice from others because they have elevated confidence in their own judgments. Moreover, failure to heed advice results in less accurate judgments.111 People with power are less dependent on others and therefore, less motivated to pay attention to the actions of others. In contrast, people who are powerless (i.e., resource dependent on others) have an incentive to carefully attend to those who are in power. For example, graduate students (who are dependent on professors to obtain their degree) spend an inordinate amount of time recalling and processing behaviors and activities engaged in by faculty members.112 Similarly, those who have more power show more variability in their behaviors—in short, they engage in a broader array of behaviors.113

111 See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272–285.

112 Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities, convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: Trust and the intuitive auditor at work. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 216–245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

113 Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: Evidence that more powerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 708–721.

Power also makes people see the world with “rose-colored glasses”—that is, it makes people focus on more positive, rewarding information and less on negative, threatening information. Powerful people make more optimistic judgments regarding the risks they face in their lives (e.g., health risks) compared with powerless individuals.114 When powerful people interact with others, they are more likely to focus on how much others like them and less likely to focus on others’ negative feelings toward them.115 This tendency to focus on rewards might help explain why powerful people sometimes choose risky strategies in the pursuit of their goals. When contemplating a potential high-risk merger, for example, powerful organizational leaders might focus more on the potential payoffs of the merger and less on the inherent dangers. Powerful leaders may also withhold effort on tasks if they perceive the task as unworthy of leaders.116

114 Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.

115 Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377.

116 DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 47–65.

Encouraging Participative Management

Some managers believe that power and control should remain in the hands of a few high-level executives. This model of leadership assumes that the leader has all of the answers, knowledge, and ideas in the organization. A different view is a model of leadership that delegates authority downward, toward individuals and groups. In this model, leadership is more equally shared by members as teams develop over time. Empowering leadership is positively related to knowledge sharing and team efficacy, which in turn are positively related to better team performance.117 When teams have to learn a new task requiring coordination, leadership style (participative versus authoritative) makes a difference in the development and implementation of effective tactics. Teams led by a “coordinator,” in which all team members share equal responsibility for determining the team strategy and directing its activities, implement better tactics than commander-led teams.118

117 Srivastave, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.

118 Durham, C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 203–231.

Exhibit 11-7 depicts a continuum of team empowerment. Level 1 teams have the least power; they are often new teams, perhaps lacking the skills, experience, or training to implement more control. Perhaps this is why many successful self-directed organizations intentionally devote 20 percent of the team members’ and leaders’ time to training in the first year.119 Job skill training is necessary to give team members the depth and breadth they need to effectively carry out the broadened range of activities that self-directed teams perform.

119 Wellins, R. S. (1992). Building a self-directed work team. Training and Development, 46(12), 24–28.

Understanding existing social and structural factors is critical to successfully forming empowered work teams. Probably the most regrettable state of affairs in the organization is when employees feel powerless. Feelings of powerlessness lead to depression and organizational decline. Part of effective team leadership should include

Exhibit 11-7 Team Empowerment Continuum

Source: Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams. (p. 26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Exhibit 11-8 Factors That Lead to a Potential State of Powerlessness

Conger, J. (1989). The art of empowering others. Academy of Management Executive, 3(1), 17–24.

Context Factor Leading to State of Powerlessness	Condition
Organizational factors	• Significant organizational change/transitions
	• Start-up ventures
	• Excessive, competitive pressures
	• Impersonal, bureaucratic climate
	• Poor communications and limited network-forming systems
	• Highly centralized organizational resources
Supervisory style	• Authoritarian (high control)
	• Negativism (emphasis on failures)
	• Lack of reason for actions/consequences
Reward systems	• Noncontingency (arbitrary reward allocations)
	• Low incentive value of rewards
	• Lack of competence-based work
	• Lack of innovation-based rewards
Job design	• Lack of role clarity
	• Lack of training and technical support
	• Unrealistic goals
	• Lack of appropriate authority/discretion
	• Low task variety
	• Limited participation in programs, meetings, and decisions that have a direct impact on job performance
	• Lack of appropriate/necessary resources
	• Lack of network-forming opportunities
	• Highly established work routines
	• Too many rules and guidelines
	• Low advancement opportunities
	• Lack of meaningful goals/tasks
	• Limited contact with senior management

a check on four factors listed in Exhibit 11-8, which can lead to a state of powerlessness in the organization: organizational factors, the leader’s supervisory style, the organizational reward system, and job design. Furthermore, instead of the leader performing this check, the team members should do it themselves.

Once management has considered the potential benefits of a more employee-empowering leadership style, it must determine how to best implement this new structure. What are some down-to-earth, concrete steps for moving power downward in the organization into the hands of team members? The variety of approaches to inviting participation in the workforce can be clustered into four types of approaches: task delegation, parallel suggestion involvement, job involvement, and organizational involvement.120

120 Lawler, E. E. (1988). Choosing an involvement strategy. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 197–204.

Task Delegation

Delegation is the handing over of the responsibility and authority required to accomplish a task without relinquishing final accountability. The spirit of task delegation is multifold: to invite others to have a share in the performance of work; to have leaders do other, more important things; and to mentor. This not only serves the interests of the employees, who presumably want to have a greater hand in the work and operations of the company, but also serves the interests of the leader and the organization in creating more efficient uses of time. Many people have a somewhat old-fashioned view of leadership that holds that a leader is responsible not only for creating and defining the vision of the organization but also for handling all of the details, managing all of the personal relationships, and determining the process. Many managers mistakenly think that every task requires their constant attention from beginning to end.

If it is to be effective, leadership requires delegation, and leaders are still accountable for their delegates, as well as for themselves. There are right and wrong ways to delegate that depend on things such as team members’ skill levels and the nature of the work. Exhibit 11-9 outlines guidelines for successful delegation.

The inability to delegate effectively creates two negative consequences for the organization: overloaded executives and underused subordinates. Each of these conditions is associated with work-related stress and burnout—not to mention many forms of underperformance. By giving meaningful responsibility to subordinates, managers give them the opportunity to perform their jobs well, demonstrate ability, experience success, be visible within the organization, develop skills, and experience new challenges.

Parallel Suggestion Involvement

The idea behind parallel suggestion involvement is to invite employees and team members to make suggestions about organizational procedures and processes. Thus, employees are given opportunities and are actively encouraged to recommend tactics for increasing sales, minimizing production costs, increasing customer satisfaction, and so on. The classic example of parallel suggestion involvement is the suggestion box, which is not even limited to employees—customers can be asked to make recommendations as well. Quality circles also invite workers to share ideas about improving production and products. The parallel suggestion strategy is cost effective; providing a venue to solicit suggestions can be relatively inexpensive, but it can potentially have huge payoffs in terms of improving organizational functioning. Parallel suggestion involvement can significantly reduce turnover and absenteeism because employees who feel that their interests, concerns, and ideas are valued are more motivated. An examination of 23 neonatal intensive care units showed that the extent to which team leaders are inclusive (i.e., minimize status differences and allow members to collaborate in process improvement), teams are more engaged in their work and learn from one another to

Exhibit 11-9 Key Guidelines for Successful Delegation

Source: Based on Hall, F. (1997). Effective delegation. In Brown, D. D., Lewicki, R. J., Hall, D. T., & Hall, F. S. (Eds.), Experiences in management and organizational behavior (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons; Fearon, T. (2012, May). Oi, you, I’ve a job for you! Credit Management, 32–33. icm.org.uk.

Set goals and be specific

Look at the task with the employee and review the task itself, the outcome expected, the timeframe, and when progress will be reviewed. Do not assume that the person you delegate the task to will understand your expectations or needs upfront. Be diligent about providing specific details and asking if your instructions are understood.

Delegate to the right person

Choose the group or individual with the right experience level, skill level, and who are positiveIy motivated. Vary your choices to avoid favoritism.

Identify those affected by delegation decision

If there are other employees that need to know of the task delegation in order to provide resources, give access, and to eliminate assumptions, communicate this information to all relevant parties soon after the task is delegated.

Give autonomy and support assurance

Reassurance of support giving employees the freedom to work on the task solution with authority, and ensuring they have access to the resources they need will motivate the employee to get the task done and reduce task frustration.

Delegate lone responsibility

Give the task to one person, group, or team to own. It is disheartening for employees to work on completing a task then find out mid-stream that another group is also working on a task they thought was solely their responsibility.

Get the employee’s buy in

Discuss how long the employee feels the task should take, how they feeI they can tackle the job, and what the completed task will look like.

Ask for questions and additional ideas

Review the task instructions with the employee and test their understanding of their deliverables. See if the employee has any insight or questions about the task.

Provide periodic feedback

Delegate the task and in the same conversation, plan when it is best to review preliminary results/discuss roadblocks. Corrective actions are far more effective before a deadline and reinforce learning. A debrief after the task goal is accomplished is also effective in showing support and gleaning learning.

Delegate tasks to build skills, not dump unwanted tasks

As employers and supervisors concern themselves with how they should best manage their time, it is easy for a busy person to begin considering delegation as a means to getting rid of undesirable tasks. However it is beneficial to your employees to discuss the task from the perspective of what is in it for their benefit as well as the task value in terms of its value within the larger organization. Passing the buck doesn’t build morale; instead pass along a challenge and an opportunity to learn something new in regards to skills or how the business functions.

improve their performance.121 Pizza chain Lou Malnati’s engages in parallel suggestion in their monthly group meetings for managers. Each meeting is led by a peer, and managers have an open forum to voice any concerns, often regarding topics that would otherwise be unheard and cause tension.122

121 Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.

122 York, E. B. (2011, November 15). Family-owned pizza chain offers right mix of ingredients to keep workers satisfied. Chicago Tribune. chicagotribune.com.

When using parallel suggestion involvement, it is important to differentially and accurately weigh staff input. Simply stated, team members differ in their ability to contribute to solving a problem. Distributed expertise refers to the fact that team members differ in the amount of knowledge and information that each bring to the problem.123 Until leaders have had an opportunity to gather information they feel is relevant to their determination of each team member’s ability to contribute, they may weigh each person’s input equally. Leaders have difficulty differentially weighting their staff as much as they should and tend to use an equal-weighting strategy.124 Once leaders have had experience with their team, some may have greater influence on the basis of their competence, ability, and willingness to accept extra-role responsibilities.125 In one investigation, 84 leaders of four-person decision-making teams made 63 decisions. Both experience and providing leaders with accurate information about particular members led to greater differentiation and better accuracy in differentiation.126

123 Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.

124 Brehmer, B., & Hagafors, R. (1986). Use of experts in complex decision making: A paradigm for the study of staff work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 181–195.

125 Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

126 Phillips, J. M. (1999). Antecedents of leader utilization of staff input in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3), 215–242.

Job Involvement

Job involvement entails restructuring the tasks performed by employees to make them more rewarding, enriching, and, in the case of teams, more autonomous. When people are challenged with interesting tasks, they perform more effectively and creatively. There are a variety of ways by which this may be achieved, such as providing employees with feedback from customers, restructuring tasks so that employees complete a whole and meaningful piece of work, and training employees with new skills and knowledge so that their job scope increases. With job involvement, employees at the lowest levels get new information, power, and skills, and they may be rewarded differently. For example, people may be rewarded for team effort and group-level productivity. Unlike parallel suggestion involvement, job involvement affects the daily work activities of employees. For this reason, job involvement is considerably more costly than parallel suggestion involvement because of the high start-up costs of reconfiguring job descriptions, training, and, in many cases, the physical reconfiguration of the workplace. For example, when Alcoa, Inc., wanted their employees to be more engaged, they surveyed their workforce and then launched a plan in which employees’ personal objectives were realized in new job training. Employee engagement increased 20 percent over 3 years.127

127 Jusko, J. (2012, December 17). Alcoa’s data-driven approach to employee engagement. Industry Week. industryweek.com.

Another example of job involvement occurred after Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz received e-mails from customers about the American economy and subsequently empowered a team to generate ideas and engage change. Within 30 days the team created a prototype for a program that would allow customers to donate $5 or up for wristbands (manufactured in the United States) whose proceeds would in turn fund job-creation programs in hard-hit communities. The activity created a new job description for Starbucks employees.128

128 Gertner, J. (2012, August 4). The world’s 50 most innovative companies: Starbucks. Fast Company. fastcompany.com.

Organizational Involvement

The fact that leaders want to move in the direction of participation and empowerment, however, does not mean that this can be done by merely changing their own behavior and style independent of other organizational forces. Leadership style and strategy must be integrated into the organizational context.

Consider two types of organizations: bureaucratic and commitment organizations. Bureaucratic organizations are the traditional, hierarchical style of leadership; information, rewards, knowledge, and power are concentrated at the top of the organization. In the classic bureaucratic organization, teams do not exist or at least are not acknowledged. Furthermore, when they do emerge, they are often ignored, suppressed, contained, or neglected.129 Commitment organizations are at the opposite extreme. Teams are encouraged to form, power is not hierarchical, and the organization has a deliberately flat structure.

129 Walton, R. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1986). Groups under contrasting management strategies. In P. S. Goodman and associates (Eds.), Designing effective workgroups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Organizational involvement, or the commitment approach, restructures the organization so that employees at the lowest level will have a sense of involvement (commitment) not just in how they do their own jobs (as in the job involvement approach) but also in the performance of the entire organization. Organizational involvement strategies invite employees to contribute to higher-order strategy decisions.+ The McGregor Method and Theory Y are examples of high-involvement strategies in which employees make decisions about work activities, as well as organizational direction.130 Organizational involvement is based on the belief that if employees are going to care about the performance of their organization, they need to know about it, be able to influence it, be rewarded for it, and have the knowledge and skills to contribute to it.

130 McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

A key difference between parallel suggestion involvement and organizational involvement is that organizational involvement allows employees not only to make recommendations about how to improve organizational functioning but also implement their suggestions. Thus, employees and team members have implementation power . The disadvantage of the organizational involvement strategy is that it is very difficult to know which employee-suggested strategies are worthwhile to implement. At Children’s Medical Center of Dallas, administrators in the supply chain department discovered that by recycling pulse oximeter sensors—devices used to measure a patient’s hemoglobin—the savings averaged $17,000 each quarter. The top management enthusiastically signed off on their idea because the team made such a compelling argument for change.131

131 Hall, C. (2012, November 11). The best ideas often come from the inside. Dallas Morning News. dallasnews.com.

Another type of organizational involvement involves top-management teams (TMTs). TMTs, as opposed to individuals, are more likely to represent the wide range of interests of the people and groups in the organization and provide valuable development experiences for its members.132 Leadership via TMTs challenges the traditional view of leadership because it moves away from the image of the leader as autonomous, prophetic, and omniscient and toward the idea that leadership is a team process.

132 Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

It would seem that empowerment and greater employee participation would be the preferred mode in most companies—certainly, at least, from the view of the employees. However, people like structure, and new employees are often uncomfortable in the absence of clear structures, guidelines, and constraints. For example, newly matriculated MBA students frequently lobby for instructor-assigned, rather than free-forming, study groups. What is the effect of empowerment and the ambiguity it brings to the individual, the team, and the organization?

When an organization removes existing structures to provide empowerment in a more democratic fashion, it may find the ambiguity associated with the new structure uncomfortable and respond by imposing a more controlling and bureaucratic structure than the one it sought to replace. This highly rational but powerfully oppressive bureaucracy is known as the iron cage . 133 Out of a desire for order, people continually rationalize their bureaucratic relationships, making them less negotiated (i.e., less based upon commitment) and more structural.

133 Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Translated by T. Parsons. New York: Scribner’s.

· Copy

· Add Highlight

· Add Note