LP762-L2 - Week 5

KarenS

LP762Notes5.pptx

Home >Psychology homework help >LP762-L2 - Week 5

WJC LP 762: The Psychology of Leadership and Followership Dr. Dan Jacobs William James College

Notes 5

Areas To Consider

Different domains

Sources and systems

Challenges

Changes in followership

Followership style and needs

Leadership Studies and Opportunities

As we look at additional ways (or alternative ways) of looking at leadership (from Bennis, Burns and others we have already considered) I want to suggest that we look for the change points and opportunities as aspiring leadership consultants.

Remember our friends context and conflict? They often help us manage change and spot opportunity. Kellerman (2012) raises some questions about what else can help us do that:

Leadership as Industry (Kellerman, 2012)

“Becoming a leader has become a mantra. The leadership industry has exploded in the last thirty or forty years—in part the result of the following trends:

first, the historical trajectory, a shift to weakened leaders, strengthened followers, and more complicated contexts;

second, an acceleration of this shift, hard on the heels of the social and political upheavals of the late 1960s and early ‘70s; and

third, the real or perceived decline of the United States in comparison with other countries, such as Japan (in the 1970s and ‘80s) and, more recently, China.”

Common Themes in Leadership Books: (per B. Kellerman, 2012)

Leadership is seen as “a skill of some sort, which everyone everywhere should aspire to acquire.”

Leadership is something that “can be learned by all sorts of people, from different backgrounds, and with different experiences and areas of expertise.”

Leadership can be “learned by large numbers of people simultaneously” despite differences between them.

Common Themes in Leadership Books (per B. Kellerman, 2012)

Leadership is sold as something that can “be learned quickly and easily—over a period of months or weeks or even over a weekend.”

In “comparison with leaders, followers are less consequential, less valuable a commodity.”

When considering leadership the “context is of secondary or even tertiary consequence.”

Leaders “control outcomes—which is why, the industry reasons, leaders matter more than does anyone else.”

Concerns with the Above Themes

Which of the above do we not agree with, based on our earlier readings and discussions?

What do these statements say about issues of empowerment, control and the implied democratization of leadership?

Which of Kellerman’s statements fit in with what we have already considered in the field of leadership?

A Critique of the “Leadership Industry”

“Teaching how to lead is where the money is. Nevertheless, leadership research, leadership scholarship, is essential to the whole. It legitimates the leadership industry, which explains why as the business of teaching how to lead burgeoned, the academic investment in leadership burgeoned as well…” -B. Kellerman (2012)

A Critique of the “Leadership Industry”

“To be clear, Leadership Studies as a field has never been and is not now entirely respectable, at least not among traditional academics, who consider it more art than science, neither rigorous nor replicable, not a suitable subject for serious study.

Still, the appetite for learning to lead grew so large that leadership as an area of intellectual inquiry grew right along with it.” -B. Kellerman (2012)

A Critique of the “Leadership Industry”

Q: What do Kellerman’s comments say about leadership studies?

Q: What does this imply about “traditional” academics?

Q: How does this offer opportunity?

Q: Is she right?

Where are the Followers?

Kellerman (2012) talks at length in the reading about the importance of understanding, and attending to, issues of followers and followership.

She also talks about the emphasis on leader training in leadership studies, perhaps at the detriment of followership studies, and in the changes in the social contract that have a significant impact on the understanding of leadership:

A Need for Change (Kellerman, 2012)

“Given that everything connects to everything else—that leaders nearly everywhere are less effective than before and that followers nearly everywhere are less supportive than before—how has the leadership industry adapted to this new and changed social contract?...Not well…”

A Need for Change (Kellerman, 2012)

“This is not to say the industry has not adapted at all—as we have seen, leaders have in fact been taken down a peg or two, and followers, “team members,” have stepped up a peg or two.

But given the deep disappointments associated with leaders in both business and government, incremental change seems to be to be inadequate to the challenge. What we need instead is major change—a complete overhaul.”

The Value of Leadership Studies (Kellerman, 2012)

“Leadership development is without question what those within the academy as well as those without are much the most interested in—growing leaders, training leaders, watching people how to lead. The shared assumption is that leadership development is a legitimate undertaking–that people can and do learn how to lead, from those paid to teach them, which is why so many shell out so much to buy whatever it is the leadership industry has to sell.”

Q: Well, which is it Dr. Kellerman—legitimate or not?

A: Obviously both (and more)…

Where is the focus?

“But for all the different leadership development programs targeted at all the different professionals, such programs are overwhelmingly the preserve of those in the private sector who, driven by pressure to make a profit, are particularly preoccupied with the performance of leaders and managers…

Leadership development is, in short, a top priority for many of America’s top corporations, with many investing more in leadership development now than they did even in the recent past.” -B. Kellerman (2012)

International Differences

What does Kellerman have to say about the differences of how leaders are viewed in some countries (e.g., the United States, Britain, Canada) as compared to other parts of the world (e.g., India, China, Brazil)?

What part of these differences might be based on cultural differences and what part might be based on developmental progression (of an industrial and political nature)?

Q: How might this offer opportunity for us?

Mustafa and Lines (2012) on Followers

If Kellerman is right about the increased need for scholarship, and scholarship specifically focusing on the role of followers, in the leadership equation, the work of researchers such as Mustafa and Lines (2014) certainly has potential usefulness to us as aspiring leadership consultants.

Their article touches on follower job satisfaction, cross-cultural management factors, individual-level cultural values, and value orientations as they all impact the leader-follower dynamic and increased (or decreased) effectiveness in attaining or achieving goal-aligned tasks.

Feminine Orientation (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“The current study examined whether employee individual-level masculinity-femininity values moderate the relationship between leadership styles (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) and employee job satisfaction.

Overall, the research provided support for the impact of individual-level masculinity-femininity on follower reactions to various leadership behaviors…

Feminine Orientation (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“The findings indicated that followers who scored high on feminine orientation perceived a weaker relationship between all leadership behaviors and job satisfaction.

Followers with more masculine values associated more perceptions of job satisfaction with human resource, political, and symbolic leadership and viewed leaders’ structural behaviors as less important for satisfaction at work.”

Cultural Value Differences (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“…transformational leadership offers a very limited set of behaviors when it comes to assessing the effects of leadership on work-related outcomes of followers with substantially different cultural value profiles.

Thus, to understand the ability of a leader to elicit positive reactions from employees with different value sets, it is important to examine the influence of a broad range of leadership styles instead of transformational leadership alone…”

Multiorientation Model (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“Many researchers have offered alternate taxonomies to describe leadership behavior, which sufficiently overcome the limited utility of transformational and transactional theories to be applied in cultural studies. For instance, Bolman and Deal (1991, 2003) propose a multiorientation model that involves structural, human resource, political, and symbolic leadership styles. The structural leadership emphasizes clear direction, policies, goals, and efficiency…”

*Absence of Leadership Anecdote (with Bolman)

Bolman & Deal’s Multiorientation Model (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

Structural Leadership:

“Emphasizes clear direction, policies, goals and efficiencies.”

Human Resource Leadership:

The focus is “on employee growth and development and attending to followers’ individual needs and preferences.”

Bolman & Deal’s Multiorientation Model (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

Political Orientation/Political Leadership: “Involves actions that relate to political tactics, such as networking, negotiation and bargaining, and behaviors that involve persuasion and pressure.”

Symbolic Leadership:

“This is about capturing followers’ attention by utilizing the important functions of various symbolic forms such as myths, rituals, and ceremonies.”

Factors Influencing Follower Job Satisfaction (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“Job satisfaction represents the extent to which individuals feel positive or negative about their jobs…

Many past studies found that managerial practices and behaviors are associated with employee satisfaction and other workplace outcomes…

Employees tend to produce positive workplace outcomes when leaders show individualized consideration…”

Hypothesis Development (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“The masculinity–femininity dimension of culture reflects to what extent values such as assertiveness and ambition as opposed to compassion, empathy, and tenderness dominate in a culture (Hofstede, 2001).

The cultural syndromes of masculinity and femininity reflect the relative strength of one’s concern for earnings and advancement versus a preference for harmony, collegial ties, and quality of life (Randall, 1993)…”

Hypothesis Development (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“People high on masculine orientation tend to place greater value on personal recognition, rewards, and advancement in the workplace (Adler, 1997; Hofstede, 1998; Schuler & Rogovsky, 1998). They seek conditions that enhance more opportunities for competition to track personal accomplishment, and tend to feel more affinity for leaders who offer material inducements and foster a competitive work environment (Hofstede, 2001).

By contrast, people with a dominant feminine orientation will be concerned about quality of work life issues and will prefer a work environment that fosters harmony and solidarity and where employee well-being is reflected in management practices (Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Jaeger, 1986)…”

Hypothesis Development (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“The differing emphasis on instrumentality as opposed to an affective concern manifested in the value orientations of masculinity and femininity…may have implications for the nature of the employee satisfaction with work. It was proposed that masculinity–femininity explain the variance in how followers respond to leadership styles related to work-related outcomes…”

Job Satisfaction Differences (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“More specifically, it is suggested that how structural, humanistic, and political leadership styles affect follower job satisfaction partly depends on the extent to which a particular leadership style is related to the employee individual-level masculinity–femininity values…”

Q: How do Mustafa & Lines (2012) explain the differences in job satisfaction interactions by followers in response to each of these different leadership styles?

Factors Influencing Follower Job Satisfaction (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

Job Satisfaction Differences (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

1. “…employee masculinity–femininity orientation is not important in the relationship between the structural leadership and job satisfaction…”

2. “…the relationship between human resource leadership and job satisfaction was linked to employee masculine–feminine tendencies…”

Job Satisfaction Differences (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

3. “…masculinity–femininity matters in employees’ job satisfaction when they are exposed to political leadership…”

4. “…human resource…and political leadership…styles are positively related to job satisfaction for employees with more masculine values…”

Discussion of Findings (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“These findings indicate that followers who scored high on feminine orientation perceived a weaker relationship between leadership behaviors (i.e., structural, human resource, and political) and job satisfaction.

Followers who scored high on masculinity associated more perceptions of job satisfaction with human resource and political leadership and viewed leaders’ structural behaviors as less important for satisfaction at work…”

Discussion of Findings (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“In the current article an attempt was made to extend the growing research on culture and leadership…by empirically examining whether individual-level masculinity–femininity orientation plays an important role in shaping followers’ reactions to different leadership styles.

The findings demonstrate that individual-level differences in masculinity– femininity orientation are important pertaining to relationships involving leadership behaviors and follower job satisfaction…”

Discussion of Findings (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“The findings show that job satisfaction has a stronger relationship with leadership behaviors for followers with more masculine values…followers with more masculine values expressed higher levels of job satisfaction when they perceived that their managers used a human resource leadership style and reported less of a link between managers’ structural behaviors and satisfaction at work…”

Discussion of Findings (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“The results with respect to the leadership–job satisfaction relationship for followers with more feminine values do not support our prediction.

For human resource leadership, higher levels of satisfaction was postulated for followers with a feminine orientation; however, the interaction term could not reach the significance level…”

Discussion of Findings (Mustafa & Lines, 2012)

“The reason is probably that human resource leadership focuses more on coaching, skill development, and fulfilling follower work-related needs, and its other humanistic dimensions, such as benevolence, nurturance, and extra role consideration seem to be less magnified, which might be important for workplace satisfaction of followers high on femininity…”

Thoughts?

What do we think about the issues raised by Mustafa & Lines (2012)?

Are they talking about “men” and “women” when they talk about “masculinity” and “femininity”?

Are their findings of use to us in our study of leadership and possible consultation endeavors?

Questions about Types of Leadership

What do Mustafa and Lines have to say about the differences in follower (employee) job satisfaction in relation to different types of leadership (e.g., transformational, structural, human resource, political) employed?

What were the potential cultural limitations listed in their study in terms of cross-country applicability?

What other concerns did they raise?

What opportunities does this article raise?

Gender, Culture, Personality, Experience?...

Followership Theory (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

“It is accepted wisdom that there is no leadership without followers, yet followers are very often left out of the leadership research equation. Fortunately this problem is being addressed in recent research, with more attention being paid to the role of followership in the leadership process…”

Followership Theory (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

“Based on our review, we identify two theoretical frameworks for the study of followership, one from a role-based approach (“reversing the lens”) and one from a constructionist approach (“the leadership process”). These frameworks are used to outline directions for future research…”

Followership Theory (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

“The study of followership involves an investigation of the nature and impact of followers and following in the leadership process. The leadership process is a term used to signify a connectionist view (Lord & Brown, 2001) that sees leadership as a dynamic system involving leaders (or leading) and followers (or following) interacting together in context (Hollander, 1992a; Lord et al., 1999; Padilla et al., 2007; Shamir, 2012; Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012). This definition identifies followership through two lenses: followership as a rank or position (i.e., role), and followership as a social process…”

Followership Theory (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

“The first, a role theory approach (Katz & Kahn, 1978), sees followership as a role played by individuals occupying a formal or informal position or rank (e.g., a “subordinate” in a hierarchical “manager–subordinate” relationship; a follower in a “leader– follower” relationship).

The second, a constructionist approach (Fairhurst & Grant, 2010), views followership as a relational interaction through which leadership is co-created in combined acts of leading and following (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Shamir, 2012). Whereas role-based views investigate followership as a role and a set of behaviors or behavioral styles of individuals or groups, constructionist views study followership as a social process necessarily intertwined with leadership…”

Followership Theory (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

“For a social phenomenon to qualify as leadership, therefore, we must be able to “identify certain actors who, at least in a certain...time, exert more influence than others on the group or the process” (Shamir, 2012, p. 487). The clear implication is that followers and followership are central to leadership, and that the leadership process is constituted in combined acts of leading and following.

Paraphrasing Shamir (2012), we can conclude that for a phenomenon to be called leadership we must be able to identify certain actors who are willing to defer to others (i.e., to be followers or engage in following). From a followership lens, we could even argue that it is in following that leadership is created (Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012)…”

Followership Characteristics (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

Leader Characteristics (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

Followership (and Leadership) Behaviors (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

Followership Outcomes (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

Reversing the Lens: Followership—Leadership Interaction (Uhl Bien, et al., 2014)

The Leadership Process (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014)

Thoughts on Followership?

How do the concepts raised by Uhl-Bien, et al. (2014) impact our thoughts on followership?

Were there concepts that we particularly agree/disagree with in terms of our own views of leadership—followership?

How does context matter?

How do the quotes on the next few slides relate to this conversation?

Quote #1

“Your position never gives you the right to command. It only imposes on you the duty of living your life that others can receive your orders without being humiliated.”

Dag Hammarskjold (Markings, 1964)

Quote #2

“A leader creates space that:

Empowers others

Inspires others

Makes conscious that which is unconscious in others.”

-Anonymous

Quote #3

“A good engineer begins by challenging assumptions. He refuses to believe that something is impossible merely because it has never been done or because people say there is no way to do it or because it would upset established ways. The good engineer, in the field of education, as elsewhere, starts with a goal to be achieved, not with the dead weight of precedent or unexamined beliefs…

Quote #3 (continued)

“Like the runner who finally broke the four minute mile, he knows that the limits of possibility are stretched not solely by pushing from within, but by setting an outside goal and doing what is necessary to reach it. In track competition, once the four minute mark was set, other runners soon matched the feat, mainly because they had learned that it was possible. Their assumption had changed.”

-Leon Lessinger (1976, Teaching as a performing art)

Cultural Values and Followership Style Preferences (Can & Aktas, 2012)

“The existing leadership literature has always focused on the leader in leader-follower relations and presented the behaviors and properties leadership which is effective on the members…

The intercultural leadership literature again has focused on how the preferred leader types change between cultures or with respect to cultural values…This series of research presents which leadership properties and behaviors are preferred in which cultures, and which properties and behaviors are not preferred and not effective in which cultures…”

Cultural Values and Followership Style Preferences (Can & Aktas, 2012)

“However, since it is a newly emerging research area, followers have always been an issue that is mostly overlooked in leadership and intercultural leadership literature.

In many analyses, it has been emphasized that the leader is the only active person and the followers are empty boxes to be filled with the data from the leader… However recently the notion of follower has come into prominence with the increasing effect of followers on the decision making process…”

Cultural Values and Followership Behaviors (Can & Aktas, 2012)

“Kelley (1998) discusses followers in an organization from two dimensions.

The first one reveals itself as the degree of criticism and independency in thinking.

The second dimension is the classification in terms of mode of starting action. This classification has two features, exemplary and passive followers…”

Critical Thinking Followers (Can & Aktas, 2012)

“The first followership dimension shows the follower’s mode of thinking and in fact how independent this thinking is from the leader and how critical it is…

Critical thinking followers are aware of the behaviors expected from themselves and also others to achieve the goals of the organization, and they are individuals who are willing to be creative and innovative, who could direct criticism to the leader, by thinking independently from the leader…

On the other hand, dependent and non-critical thinking followers are individuals who do not provide any thoughts, criticisms and innovation and who accept the thought of the leader without questioning. ”

Mode of Starting Action (Can & Aktas, 2012)

“The second dimension is about the followers’ mode of starting action. Exemplary followers are the ones who pioneer in decision making and acting, and they are self- sustained individuals.

On the contrary, passive followers are the ones who do only what is told to them and who act reactionally. From this two different behavioral followership dimension, five follower types are proposed:”

Five Follower Types (Can & Aktas, 2012)

Cultural Values & Follower Preferences (Can & Aktas, 2012)

“If we are to consider cultural values and follower behavior preferences relation using the individualist and collectivist…values, called as most prominent cultural definition, the most basic distinction between individualism and collectivism is about interpreting the ‘self’…

In individualism, the individual is connected to the in-group with loose ties; in collectivism, on the other hand, the individual defines and sees himself, depending on the in-group…

While independence, autonomy, self- determinism are traits stand out in individualist values; in collectivist values, conformity with the norms, acting according to the decisions of the group or the ones seen as leaders in the group are the prominent traits…”

Cultural Values & Follower Preferences (Can & Aktas, 2012)

“On the other hand, the independent and critical thinking in the follower behavioral pattern represents the follower behavior dimension that reflects to what extent the followers of the leader may develop thoughts, independently and critically, and to what extent they could question the deeds of the leader…

In individualism, where independency and autonomy gain prominence, the managers would want their subordinates to act more independently from themselves and to think critically. On the contrary, as the collectivist values increase, the managers would want their subordinates to think more dependently and non-critically; and would expect them to obey their orders without questioning…”

Summary (Can & Aktas, 2012)

“When the theoretical propositions of the study are evaluated, by basing on the relevant theory it was proposed that the higher the power distance, uncertainty avoidance and paternalist values in manager the more they prefer dependent uncritical thinking and passive follower behaviors.

However, the higher the individualist and masculine values of managers the more they prefer active and independent critical thinking follower behaviors.”

Leadership & Feedback

Implicit Followership Theories (IFTs) (Sy, 2010)

“Research indicates that individuals are cognitive misers who naturally categorize others to streamline cognition because categories serve the function of simplifying the external world (cognitive economy), permitting abstract and symbolic thinking, and providing a shared system of labels that facilitate communication (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

This process of categorizing others is so fundamental that it operates automatically and spontaneously (within milliseconds) by the mere presence of a stimulus target (Boldenhausen & McCrae, 1998)…”

Implicit Followership Theories (IFTs) (Sy, 2010)

“Individuals categorize others on the basis of visually salient cues (e.g., race, gender, age, etc.) and social roles (Operario & Fiske, 2004) such as leader and follower.

Research on the categorization of leaders in the organizational literature has been examined within the context of ILTs.

Surprisingly, research on the corresponding notion of IFTs is noticeably absent despite its appearance in the literature nearly two decades ago (e.g., Eden, 1990; Lord & Maher, 1993)…”

Implicit Followership Theories(IFTs) (Sy, 2010)

“IFTs are defined as individuals’ personal assumptions about the traits and behaviors that characterize followers. Consistent with the literature on implicit theories, IFTs represent individuals’ ‘‘lay” or ‘‘naïve” theories (vs. formal theories) (Rosenberg & Jones, 1972).

IFTs likely form at an early age (Hunt, Boal, & Sorenson, 1990) via socialization, and further develop as individuals gain experiences with followers (Lord & Maher, 1993)…”

Implicit Followership Theories (Sy, 2010)

“Goal-derived follower prototypes have received some attention in the literature. For example, followers’ perceptions of effective followers include the attributes of ‘‘integrity,” ‘‘dependable,” ‘‘communication skills,” etc. (Carsten et al., 2010).

Goal-derived follower prototypes also have been examined under the framework of implicit performance theories (IPTs), defined as performance expectations for employees, and include the parallel attributes of ‘‘honest,” ‘‘reliable,” ‘‘communicates effectively,” etc. (Engle & Lord, 1997; Wernimont, 1971)…”