leadership course chapter essay & research paper

pad3113chapter1-2book.pdf

Home >Applied Sciences homework help >leadership course chapter essay & research paper

Introduction to Leadership

Copyright 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

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

• Understand the full meaning of leadership and see the leadership potential in yourself and others.

• Recognize and facilitate the six fundamental transformations in today’s organizations and leaders.

• Identify the primary reasons for leadership derailment and the new paradigm skills that can help you avoid it.

• Recognize the traditional functions of management and the fundamental differences between leadership and management.

• Appreciate the crucial importance of providing direction, alignment, relationships, personal qualities, and outcomes.

• Explain how leadership has evolved and how historical approaches apply to the practice of leadership today.

CHAPTER 4

A s a young politician, Abraham Lincoln once provoked an opponent to tears by using his expert communication skills to mimic and ridicule his rival. Soon afterward, the man who would later become the 16th president of the United

States felt disappointed and ashamed of his own behavior and sought out his opponent to offer an apology. Lincoln took this as a valuable lesson about channeling his emotions, practicing empathy, and using his abilities to promote good. From then on, Lincoln applied his superb leadership and communication skills to serve the higher interests of the American people rather than his own goals and ego.

Interest in Abraham Lincoln’s leadership swelled with the release of Steven Spielberg’s 2012 historical film Lincoln, which was a huge critical and commercial success, grossing more than $250 million at the box office and garnering 12 Academy Award nominations. “Lincoln’s presidency is a big, well-lit classroom for business leaders seeking to build successful, enduring organizations,” said Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks. In this era of disconnected and morally bankrupt leaders, it is no wonder the skills, strengths, and character of Lincoln have struck a chord. His ability to control his emotions and stay committed to a vision even under intense hardship, his commitment to go into the field and establish connections with soldiers and the general public, and his willingness to listen to different points of view

and to share credit for successes and take blame for failures all tap into a deep longing within people for genuine leadership.1

The public trust in leaders may be at an all-time low. Referring to the dire economic situation that followed the ethical and financial problems in the mortgage and finance industries, David Rothkopf wrote in the Washington Post, “This is not just a global economic crisis. It is a global leadership crisis.”2

Many of us think of leadership in a way similar to what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about obscenity in reviewing a 1964 pornography case: we may not be able to define it but “we know it when we see it.”3 People can clearly see leadership in Abraham Lincoln, but many are having a hard time seeing it in current political, business, military, and even religious leaders. General David Petraeus, one of the most decorated military leaders of his generation, stepped down as director of the Central Intelligence Agency after the FBI inadvertently discovered he had an extramarital affair with his biographer and began investigating for potential leaks of classified information. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was tarnished by allegations that managers covered up years of sexual abuse by a well-known reporter.4 Senator Chuck Grassley recently probed the financial records of six well-known televangelists, including Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland, after reports that tax-exempt donations were financing lavish lifestyles for the religious leaders, including mansions, Rolls Royce cars, and private jets.5 Nearly every month brings a new report of a business leader somewhere lying to, misleading, or cheating employees, customers, or the government. No wonder survey after survey shows that confidence in leaders is sinking and suspicion and distrust are rising.6

Yet there are good leaders working in every organization, large and small. In fact, quality leadership is all around us every day, in all facets of our lives—our families, schools, communities, social clubs, and volunteer organizations, as well as in the world of business, sports, religion, government, and the military. Without good leadership, our institutions and society would fall apart.

Before we can examine what makes an effective leader, we need to know what leadership means. Scholars and other writers have offered hundreds of definitions of the term leadership, prompting James McGregor Burns to conclude that leader- ship “is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth.”7

Defining leadership has been a complex and elusive problem largely because the nature of leadership itself is complex. Some have even suggested that leadership is nothing more than a romantic myth, perhaps based on the false hope that someone will come along and solve our problems by sheer force of will.8

There is some evidence that people do pin their hopes on leaders in ways that are not always realistic. Think about how some struggling companies recruit well- known, charismatic CEOs and invest tremendous hopes in them, only to find that their problems actually get worse.9 For example, Yahoo hired former Autodesk CEO Carol Bartz in 2009 with high hopes that the star leader could turn the strug- gling company around, only to ask her to leave a couple of years later as Yahoo’s fortunes continued to slide. In mid-2012, Yahoo hired former Google executive Marissa Mayer as the fifth CEO in five years.

Particularly when times are tough, people often look to a grand, charismatic type of leader to alleviate fear and uncertainty. Think of how Barack Obama sailed

to the U.S. presidency in 2008 based largely on his charisma and the ability to make people feel hopeful in a time of uncertainty. In recent years, the romantic or heroic view of leadership has been challenged.10 Much progress has been made in under- standing the essential nature of leadership as a real and powerful influence in orga- nizations and societies.

Leadership studies are an evolving discipline, and the concept of leadership will continue to develop. For the purpose of this book, we will focus on a single defini- tion that delineates the essential elements of the leadership process: Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes.11

Exhibit 1.1 summarizes the key elements in this definition. Leadership involves influence; it occurs among people; those people intentionally desire significant changes; and the changes reflect purposes shared by leaders and followers. Influ- ence means that the relationship among people is not passive; however, also inher- ent in this definition is the concept that influence is multidirectional and noncoercive. The basic cultural values in North America make it easiest to think of leadership as something a leader does to a follower.12 However, leadership is reciprocal. In most organizations, superiors influence subordinates, but subordinates also influence superiors. The people involved in the relationship want substantive changes—leadership involves creating change, not maintaining the status quo. In addi- tion, the changes sought are not dictated by leaders but reflect purposes that leaders and followers share. Moreover, change is toward an outcome that both the leader and the followers want, a desired future or shared purpose that motivates them toward this more preferable outcome. An important aspect of leadership is influencing others to come together around a common vision. Thus, leadership involves the influence of people to bring about change toward a desirable future.

Also, leadership is a people activity and is distinct from administrative paper- work or planning activities. Leadership occurs among people; it is not something

Leadership

an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes

done to people. Since leadership involves people, there must be followers. An individ- ual performer who achieves excellence as a scientist, musician, athlete, or woodcarver may be a leader in her field of expertise but is not a leader as defined in this book unless followers are involved. Followers are an important part of the leadership process, and all leaders are sometimes followers as well. Good leaders know how to follow, and they set an example for others. The issue of intention or will means that people—leader and followers—are actively involved in the pursuit of change. Each person takes personal responsibility to achieve the desired future.

One stereotype is that leaders are somehow different, that they are above others; however, in reality, the qualities needed for effective leadership are the same as those needed to be an effective follower.13 Effective followers think for themselves and carry out assignments with energy and enthusiasm. They are committed to something outside their own self-interest, and they have the courage to stand up for what they believe. Good followers are not “yes people” who blindly follow a leader. Effective leaders and effective followers may sometimes be the same people, playing different roles at different times. At its best, leadership is shared among leaders and followers, with everyone fully engaged and accepting higher levels of responsibility.

Using this definition of leadership makes clear that leadership can come from anyone. When we stop equating leadership with greatness and public visibility, it becomes easier to see our own opportunities for leadership and recognize the leadership of people we interact with every day. Leaders come in all shapes and sizes, and many true leaders are working behind the scenes. Leadership that has big outcomes often starts small.

• Clinical psychologist Barbara Van Dahlen was working primarily with children in the Washington, D.C., area when she became concerned about the effects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the mental health of U.S. soldiers, veter- ans, and their families. Van Dahlen founded Give an Hour in 2005 to provide free services that give help and hope to returning service members. The organiza- tion now has a national network of more than 6,100 mental health professionals who volunteer their time. Give an Hour also works with other organizations, such as Bare the Burden, a nonprofit organization that creates an online commu- nity for veterans to heal by connecting with others.14

• During his five years working as a car salesman, Robert Chambers was disgusted by how some dealers and finance institutions preyed on low-income customers. After he retired from a varied career, the 62-year-old electrical engi- neer decided to do something about it. He founded More Than Wheels, which helps low-income people buy new, base-model cars at low prices and on good loan terms. With branches in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, More Than Wheels has negotiated price and extended warranty deals with a dozen or so auto dealers and worked with banks to provide low interest rates. More Than Wheels guarantees the loan and then works with clients to help them manage their finances, improve their credit score, and improve their future.15

• Wendy Kopp was a senior at Princeton University when she first came up with the idea of a sort of “Peace Corps for teachers,” a national organization that would recruit recent college graduates to commit to teach for two years at some of America’s toughest public schools. One of her Princeton professors admits he called her “deranged” when she proposed the idea to him. Yet Teach for

America, the organization Kopp started, became one of the most respected educational initiatives in the United States. As the organization has grown larger, it has come under attack, but most observers agree it has changed education for the better and it continues to harness the idealism of young college graduates as a force for good.16

There are opportunities for leadership all around us that involve influence and change toward a desired goal or outcome. The leaders of tomorrow’s organizations will come from anywhere and everywhere, just as they always have. Do you have the capacity and commitment required for taking a leadership role in your school, community, or workplace? You can start now, wherever you are, to practice lead- ership in your own life. Leadership is an everyday way of acting and thinking that has little to do with a title or formal position in an organization. As we will discuss in the following section, business leaders need to understand this tenet more than ever in the world of the twenty-first century.

Social media. Globalization. Mobile commerce. Geopolitical wars. Renewable technol- ogies and smart machines. Outsourcing. Climate change and resource scarcity. Telecommuting and virtual teams. Cybercrime. Redistribution of economic power. Massive changes in the world mean today’s leaders are facing challenges they couldn’t even imagine just a few years ago.17 In a survey by the Center for Creative Leadership, 84 percent of leaders surveyed say the definition of effective leadership changed significantly within the first few years of the twenty-first century.18 And that was even before social and mobile technologies began reshaping everyday life and work. Social connectedness and mobility are becoming central aspects of every leader’s job.

Some historians and other scholars believe our world is undergoing a transfor- mation more profound and far-reaching than any experienced since the dawn of the modern age and the Industrial Revolution more than 500 years ago. Today’s lea- ders operate in a world where little is certain, the pace is relentless, and everything is more complex. This transformation requires a transition from a traditional to a new leadership paradigm, as outlined in Exhibit 1.2.19 A paradigm is a shared mindset that represents a fundamental way of thinking about, perceiving, and understanding the world.

Although many leaders are still operating from an old-paradigm mindset, as out- lined in the first column of Exhibit 1.2, they are increasingly ineffective. Successful leaders will respond to the new reality outlined in the second column of the exhibit.

In the past, many leaders assumed that if they could just keep things running on a steady, even keel, the organization would be successful. Yet today’s world is in constant motion, and nothing seems certain anymore. If leaders still had an illusion of stability at the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is surely shattered by now. Consider the following recent events:

A powerful earthquake in Japan in 2011 triggered massive tsunami waves that damaged the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant and led to the shutdown of numerous companies, creating supply chain disruptions for manufacturers around the world. In the wake of the disaster, managers at

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can recognize

opportunities for leadership

and act to influence others and

bring about changes for a

better future.

Go to CengageNOW to complete the questionnaire “Intolerance of Ambiguity” and

see how comfortable you would be dealing with the uncertainty facing today’s leaders.

Paradigm

a shared mindset that represents a fundamental way of thinking about, per- ceiving, and understanding the world

Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) were criticized for failing to act quickly enough to cool the reactors at Fukushima. Trying to protect their investment, they hesitated to use seawater, which they knew could damage the reactors, leading to the second-largest nuclear disaster in history.20

The Arab Spring, a revolutionary wave of protests in the Arab world that began in late 2010, has created a tumultuous environment for businesses operating in the region as well as heightened uncertainty and instability for companies around the world.21 Instability remains elevated throughout the Arab world, causing problems for both local and foreign organizations. In the European Union (EU), Spain, Ireland, and particularly Greece have all had trouble paying their debts, leading to a possible breakup of the euro system (the single currency adopted by EU countries). Leaders of multinational firms doing business in EU countries had to brace for the worst and take steps to protect themselves, as well as consider what they would do in the event that a return to national currencies required a rethinking of everything from how to expand operations to how to pick suppliers or pay employees.22

Meanwhile, the United States has faced its own debt crisis, and the fallout from the meltdown in the mortgage and housing industries has continued. Although the economy has improved, it remains a largely “jobless recovery,” with people struggling to find work and pay their bills. Companies are struggling too, and passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (passed in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional in 2012), which requires that companies provide health insurance for employees or pay penalties, has increased the complexity.23

Most leaders, whether in business, politics, the military, education, social services, the arts, or the world of sports, recognize that trying to maintain stability in a world of such unexpected and far-reaching change is a losing battle. “You have to be able to react very quickly,” said Ellen Kullman, CEO of DuPont, referring to the impact of events such as the Japanese tsunami and the EU financial crisis. “And the world is so connected that the feedback loops are more intense.”24

Today’s best leaders accept the inevitability of change and crisis and tap into them as potential sources of energy and self-renewal. Adaptability is the watchword of the day. The Leader’s Bookshelf on page 11 argues that organizational success results from leaders who can remain calm, focused, and disciplined in the face of uncertainty and inevitable change.

Leaders in powerful positions once believed strict control was needed for the orga- nization to function efficiently and effectively. Rigid organizational hierarchies, structured jobs and work processes, and detailed, inviolate procedures let everyone know that those at the top had power and those at the bottom had none.

Today, the old assumptions about the distribution of power are no longer valid. An emphasis on control and rigidity serves to squelch motivation, innovation, and morale rather than produce desired results. Effective leaders share power rather than hoard it and find ways to increase an organization’s brainpower by getting everyone in the organization involved and committed. Rather than being a controller, the leader is a facilitator who helps people do and be their best by removing obstacles to performance, getting people what they need, providing learning opportunities, and offering support and feedback.

One reason for this is that the financial basis of today’s economy is becoming information rather than the tangible assets of land, buildings, and machines. This means human capital is becoming more important than financial capital, which increases the power of employees. “Ideas are now more important than materials,” as Israeli president Shimon Peres puts it.25 When all the organization needed was workers to run machines eight hours a day, traditional command-and-control sys- tems generally worked quite well, but success today depends on the intellectual capacity of all employees. One of the leader’s most challenging jobs is to enable people to embrace and use their power effectively.26 When he took over as CEO of India’s HCL Technologies in 2005, Vineet Nayar (currently vice chairman and joint managing director) took a huge risk that proved to be a highly effective route to true employee empowerment.

Vineet Nayar, HCL Technologies HCL Technologies is a leading global IT services and software development company and

India’s fourth largest IT services exporter. When Vineet Nayar became CEO in 2005, HCL

was losing ground—and some of its best employees—to competitors. Nayar recalls that

HCL “was in a tough spot and we had to do something fast or we were in danger of

being out of the race altogether.”

What Nayar did was revolutionary: He organized the company on the principle of

“employees first, customers second” (EFCS). He had to start by building trust. He decided to

share financial information with everyone in the company. Then, he took a bold step by

creating an open online forum where employees could post questions and leaders would

answer. This could expose weaknesses and problems that anyone—including outside

customers and competitors—could see. Indeed it did. “It was clogged with complaints,”

Nayar says. “It hurt.” But interesting things began to happen. People were overjoyed that

leaders were willing to acknowledge the problems. Some employees took this a step further

and felt empowered to offer solutions. The site ultimately was the beginning of a transfer

of the power and responsibility for solving problems from top executives to employees

themselves. In the new HCL, the job of leaders became to serve the employees.

Guided by the EFCS philosophy, HCL’s revenues have grown by over 3.6 times and net

income has increased by 91 percent since 2005. During 2008–2009, at the height of the

global recession, HCL became the fastest-growing IT services company in the world.

Employees helped make that happen, too. When the company needed to cut expenses by

$100 million due to the recession, managers let employees come up with ideas for cutting

costs without issuing massive layoffs. 27

Social media has “put connectivity on steroids,” blurring and sometimes obliterat- ing boundaries within and between organizations.28 In a hyperconnected, net- worked age, collaboration becomes more important than competition. Successful leaders harness and make the most of ideas, talent, and resources from across boundaries of all kinds. Although some companies still encourage internal competi- tion and aggressiveness, most successful leaders stress teamwork, compromise, and cooperation. Self-directed teams and other forms of horizontal collaboration spread knowledge and information throughout the organization.

Effective leaders also work collaboratively with suppliers, customers, govern- ments, universities, and other organizations. There is a growing trend within com- panies to think of themselves as teams that create value jointly rather than as autonomous entities in competition with all others.

Collaboration presents greater leadership challenges than did the old concept of competition. Leaders first have to develop their own collaborative mindset and then create an environment of teamwork and community that fosters collaboration and mutual support. They learn to keep the lines of communication open and use influ- ence rather than wielding their authority to quell harmful politicking, get buy-in on important matters, and move things forward.29

Many of today’s organizations were built on assumptions of uniformity, separation, and specialization. People who think alike, act alike, and have similar job skills are grouped into a department, such as accounting or manufacturing, separate from other departments. Homogenous groups find it easy to get along, communicate, and understand one another. The uniform thinking that arises, however, can be a disaster in a world becoming more multinational and diverse.

Bringing diversity into the organization is the way to attract the best human talent and develop an organizational mindset broad enough to thrive in a multina- tional world. Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan, says one reason his company has been able to cope with change and crises better than some of its competitors is its highly

NEW LEADER

Go to Leader’s Self-Insight 1.1

to learn about your own

“intelligence” for dealing with

collaboration and with the

other new realities facing

leaders.

diverse culture and workforce.30 Two business school graduates in their twenties discovered the importance of diversity when they started a specialized advertising firm. They worked hard, and as the firm grew, they hired more people just like themselves—bright, young, intense college graduates who were committed and hard working. The firm grew to about 20 employees over two and a half years, but the expected profits never materialized. The two entrepreneurs could never get a handle on what was wrong, and the firm slid into bankruptcy. Convinced the idea was still valid, they started over, but with a new philosophy. They sought employ- ees with different ages, values, ethnic backgrounds, and work experience. People had different styles, yet the organization seemed to work better. People played dif- ferent roles, and the diverse experiences of the group enabled the firm to respond to unique situations and handle a variety of organizational and personal needs. The advertising firm is growing again, and this time it is also making a profit.

Another shift is the move from celebrating the “leader-as-hero” to recognizing the hard-working behind-the-scenes leader who quietly builds a strong enduring com- pany by supporting and developing others rather than touting his or her own abili- ties and successes.31 Recall from this chapter’s opening example how Abraham Lincoln made an intentional choice early in his political career to use his abilities to serve the interests of the American people rather than to feed his own ego. This chapter’s Consider This box presents 10 commandments based on 1950s western

Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck— Why Some Thrive Despite Them All

by Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen

Every company is subject to periods of instability, uncertainty, and crisis. Bad luck can strike any leader and any organization. How do some companies manage to thrive despite circum- stances that cause others to fall hard and fall fast?

Jim Collins, the author of , has been looking at companies

that perform better than their peers for a long time. For , he teams with management professor Morten Hansen to describe the lead- ership choices that contribute to success.

LEADER CHOICES MAKE THE

DIFFERENCE

Great by Choice first describes organiza- tions, called 10Xers, that have outper- formed their industry averages by at least 10 times over a period of at least 15 years and compares them to similar, less successful companies. The 10Xers include Southwest Airlines, Amgen, Intel, and

Progressive Insurance. Leaders of 10X companies all share three characteristics:

• The authors use the metaphor of the 20 Mile March, a paced, consistent journey toward goals that requires both the ambi- tion to achieve and the self-control to hold back. 10X leaders prefer con- sistent gains over shoot-for-the moon risks. Andrew Grove at Intel, for example, abandoned the busi- ness of making memory chips only after thoroughly learning about the changing technology environment and business environment.

• An entire chap- ter is devoted to the “fire bullets, then cannonballs” approach. Leaders in 10X companies tend to fire bullets to see what will work and only then bring out the big guns. “After the cannonball hits,” they write, “you keep 20 Mile Marching to make the most of your big success.”

• Herb Kelle- her, founder and former CEO of Southwest Airlines, was always pre- paring for the next recession, even when none was in sight. 10X leaders “remain productively paranoid in good times, recognizing that it’s what they do before the storm that matters most.” They are always building buffers and putting in place shock absorbers to deal with unexpected events.

THRIVING IN CHAOS

Leaders of 10X companies “care as much about values as victory, as much about purpose as profit.” This enables them to build companies that endure. They create companies that don’t thrive

chaos and uncertainty but can survive and even thrive it.

Source: , by Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen, is published by HarperBusiness.

film star Gene Autry’s Cowboy Code that can be regarded as applicable to new- paradigm leaders even today.

One reason for the shift from hero to humble is that it is less and less realistic for an individual leader to meet all the challenges a team or organization faces in a complex and rapidly changing world. Another is that ambitious, highly self- confident, charismatic leaders have been at the forefront of some of the ethical scan- dals and business failures of recent years. The hero leader may make more risky and daring decisions, often without considering the greater good, whereas a humble

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: Multiple-intelligence theory suggests that there are several different ways of learning about things in a topsy- turvy world; hence there are multiple “intelligences,” of which five are interpersonal (learn via interactions with others), intra- personal (own inner states), logical–mathematical (rationality and logic), verbal-linguistic (words and language), and musical (sounds, tonal patterns, and rhythms). Most people prefer one or two of the intelligences as a way of learning, yet each person has the potential to develop skills in each of the intelligences.

The items below will help you identify the forms of intelligence that you tend to use or enjoy most, as well as the forms that you use less. Please check each item below as Mostly False or Mostly True for you.

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I like to work with and solve complex problems.

2. I recently wrote something that I am especially proud of.

3. I have three or more friends. 4. I like to learn about myself

through personality tests. 5. I frequently listen to music on the

radio or iPod-type player. 6. Math and science were among

my favorite subjects. 7. Language and social studies were

among my favorite subjects. 8. I am frequently involved in social

activities. 9. I have or would like to attend

personal growth seminars. 10. I notice if a melody is out of tune

or off key. 11. I am good at problem solving

that requires logical thinking. 12. My conversations frequently include

things I’ve read or heard about.

13. When among strangers, I easily find someone to talk to.

14. I spend time alone meditating, reflecting, or thinking.

15. After hearing a tune once or twice, I am able to sing it back with some accuracy.

Scoring and Interpretation

Count the number of items checked Mostly True that repre- sent each of the five intelligences as indicated below.

Questions 1, 6, 11: Logical–mathematical intelligence. # Mostly True . Questions 2, 7, 12: Verbal–linguistic intelligence. # Mostly True . Questions 3, 8, 13: Interpersonal intelligence. # Mostly True . Questions 4, 9, 14: Intrapersonal intelligence. # Mostly True . Questions 5, 10, 15: Musical intelligence. # Mostly True .

Educational institutions tend to stress the logical– mathematical and verbal–linguistic forms of learning. How do your intelligences align with the changes taking place in the world? Would you rather rely on using one intelligence in depth or develop multiple intelligences? Any intelligence above for which you received a score of three is a major source of learning for you, and a score of zero means you may not use it at all. How do your intelli- gences fit your career plans and your aspirations for the type of leader you want to be?

Sources: Based on Kirsi Tirri, Petri Nokelainen, and Martin Ubani, “Conceptual Definition and Empirical Validation of the Spiritual Sensitivity Scale,” 19 (2006), pp. 37–62; and David Lazear, “Seven Ways of Knowing: Teaching for Multiple Intelligences,” (Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing, 1991).

leader will seek advice and take time to think through the possible consequences of his or her actions.32

Jim Collins, author of Good to Great and Great by Choice, calls this new breed “Level 5 leaders.”33 In contrast to the view of great leaders as larger-than-life per- sonalities with strong egos and big ambitions, Level 5 leaders often seem shy and unpretentious and have no need to be in the limelight. They are more concerned with the success of the team or company than with their own success.

These leaders are characterized by an almost complete lack of ego, coupled with a fierce resolve to do what is best for the organization. They accept full responsibility for mistakes, poor results, or failures, but they typically give credit for successes to other people. One corporate example is Sir Terry Leahy, who recently retired after more than a decade leading Britain’s Tesco. That is a long and successful tenure for a leader that most people know little about. Leahy didn’t court personal publicity, much to the chagrin of journalists, and he put his energies into promoting Tesco and its employees rather than himself.34 Although most research regarding the new type of leader has been on corporate CEOs like Sir Terry Leahy, it is important to remember that new-paradigm or Level 5 leaders are in all positions in all types of organizations.

Management can be defined as the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and control- ling organizational resources. So, what is it that distinguishes the process of leader- ship from that of management? Managers and leaders are not inherently different types of people. There are managers at all hierarchical levels who are also good lea- ders, and many people can develop the qualities needed for effective leadership and management. Both are essential in organizations and must be integrated effectively

Consider

1. A cowboy never takes unfair advantage—even of an enemy. 2. A cowboy never goes back on his word or betrays a trust. 3. A cowboy always tells the truth. 4. A cowboy is kind and gentle with children, the elderly, and animals. 5. A cowboy is free from racial or religious prejudice. 6. A cowboy is always helpful and lends a hand when anyone is in trouble. 7. A cowboy is a good worker. 8. A cowboy stays clean in thought, speech, action, and personal habits. 9. A cowboy respects womanhood, parents, and the laws of his nation. 10. A cowboy is a patriot to his country.

Source: Gene Autry’s Cowboy Commandments are reported, with some variations in wording, in multiple sources.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can respond to

the reality of change and crisis,

the need for empowerment,

collaboration, and diversity,

and the importance of a higher

purpose. You can channel your

ambition toward achieving

larger organizational goals

rather than feeding your

own ego.

Management

the attainment of organiza- tional goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organiz- ing, staffing, directing, and controlling organizational resources

to lead to high performance.35 That is, leadership cannot replace management; the two have to go hand-in-hand.

Exhibit 1.3 compares management to leadership in five areas crucial to organi- zational performance—providing direction, aligning followers, building relation- ships, developing personal qualities, and creating leader outcomes.36

Both leadership and management are concerned with providing direction for the organization, but there are differences. Management focuses on establishing detailed plans and schedules for achieving specific results, then allocating resources to accom- plish the plan. Leadership calls for creating a compelling vision of the future, setting the context within which to view challenges and opportunities, and developing far- sighted strategies for producing the changes needed to achieve the vision. Whereas management calls for keeping an eye on the bottom line and short-term results, lead- ership means keeping an eye on the horizon and the long-term future.

A vision is a picture of an ambitious, desirable future for the organization or team. It can be as lofty as Motorola’s aim to “become the premier company in the world” or as down-to-earth as the Swedish company IKEA’s simple vision “to pro- vide affordable furniture for people with limited budgets.”

NEW LEADER

You can evaluate your own

leadership potential by com-

pleting the quiz in Leader’s

Self-Insight 1.2.

Sources: Based on John P. Kotter, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management (New York: The Free Press, 1990) and ideas in Kevin Cashman, “Lead with

Energy,” Leadership Excellence (December 2010), p. 7; Henry Mintzberg, Managing (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2009); and Mike Maddock, “The One Talent That Makes Good

Leaders Great,” Forbes (September 26, 2012), www.forbes.com/sites/mikemaddock/2012/09/26/the-one-talent-that-makes-good-leaders-great/ (accessed March 7, 2013).

Vision

a picture of an ambitious, desirable future for the organization or team

Management entails organizing a structure to accomplish the plan; staffing the structure with employees; and developing policies, procedures, and systems to direct employees and monitor implementation of the plan. Leadership is concerned instead with communicating the vision and developing a shared culture and set of core values that can lead to the desired future state. Whereas the vision describes the destination, the culture and values help define the journey toward it so that everyone is lined up in the same direction.

Leadership provides learning opportunities so people can expand their minds and abilities and assume responsibility for their own actions. Think about classes you have taken at your college or university. In some classes, the professor tells stu- dents exactly what to do and how to do it, and many students expect this kind of direction and control. Have you ever had a class where the instructor instead inspired and encouraged you and your classmates to find innovative ways to meet goals? The difference reflects a rational management versus a leadership approach.

In terms of relationships, management focuses on getting the most results out of people so that production goals are achieved and goods and services are provided to customers in a timely manner. Leadership, on the other hand, focuses on invest- ing more in people so they are energized and inspired to accomplish goals.

Whereas the management relationship is based on position and formal author- ity, leadership is a relationship based on personal influence and trust. For example, in an authority relationship, both people accept that a manager can tell a subordi- nate to be at work at 7:30 A.M. or her pay will be docked. Leadership, on the other hand, relies on influence, which is less likely to use coercion. The role of leadership is to attract and energize people, motivating them through purpose and challenge rather than rewards or punishments.37 The differing source of power is one of the key distinctions between management and leadership. Take away a manager’s for- mal position, and will people choose to follow her? That is the mark of a leader.

Leadership is more than a set of skills; it relies on a number of subtle personal quali- ties that are hard to see but that are very powerful. These include things like enthusi- asm, integrity, courage, and humility. First of all, good leadership springs from a genuine caring for the work and a genuine concern for other people. The process of management generally encourages emotional distance, but leadership means being emotionally connected to others. Where there is leadership, people become part of a community and feel that they are contributing to something worthwhile. Whereas management means providing answers and solving problems, leadership requires the courage to admit mistakes and doubts, to listen, and to trust and learn from others.

Developing leadership qualities takes work. For leadership to happen, leaders may have to undergo a journey of self-discovery and personal understanding.38

Leadership experts agree that a top characteristic of effective leaders is that they know who they are and what they stand for. In addition, leaders have the courage to act on their beliefs.

True leaders tend to have open minds that welcome new ideas rather than closed minds that criticize new ideas. Leaders listen and discern what people want and need more than they talk to give advice and orders. Leaders are willing to be nonconformists,

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can awaken

your leadership qualities of

enthusiasm, integrity, courage,

and moral commitment. You

can make emotional connec-

tions with followers to increase

your leadership effectiveness.

to disagree and say no when it serves the larger good, and to accept nonconformity from others rather than try to squeeze everyone into the same mindset.

The differences between management and leadership create two differing outcomes, as illustrated at the bottom of Exhibit 1.3. Management maintains a degree of

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: Questions 1–6 below are about you right now. Questions 7–14 are about how you would like to be if you were the head of a major department at a corporation. Answer Mostly False or Mostly True to indicate whether the item describes you accurately or whether you would strive to per- form each activity as a department head.

Now

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. When I have a number of tasks or homework assignments to do, I set priorities and organize the work to meet the deadlines.

2. When I am involved in a serious disagreement, I hang in there and talk it out until it is completely resolved.

3. I would rather sit in front of my computer than spend a lot of time with people.

4. I reach out to include other people in activities or when there are discussions.

5. I know my long-term vision for career, family, and other activities.

6. When solving problems, I prefer analyzing things myself to working through them with a group of people.

Head of Major Department

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I would help subordinates clar- ify goals and how to reach them.

2. I would give people a sense of long-term mission and higher purpose.

3. I would make sure jobs get out on time.

4. I would scout for new product or service opportunities.

5. I would give credit to people who do their jobs well.

6. I would promote unconventional beliefs and values.

7. I would establish procedures to help the department operate smoothly.

8. I would verbalize the higher va- lues that I and the organization stand for.

Scoring and Interpretation

Count the number of Mostly True answers to even-numbered questions: . Count the number of Mostly True answers to odd-numbered questions: . Compare the two scores.

The even-numbered items represent behaviors and activities typical of leadership. Leaders are personally involved in shaping ideas, values, vision, and change. They often use an intuitive approach to develop fresh ideas and seek new directions for the department or organization. The odd-numbered items are considered more traditional management activities. Managers respond to organizational problems in an impersonal way, make rational decisions, and work for stability and efficiency.

If you answered yes to more even-numbered than odd-numbered items, you may have potential leadership qualities. If you answered yes to more odd-numbered items, you may have management qualities. Management qualities are an important foundation for new leaders because the organization first has to operate efficiently. Then leadership qualities can enhance performance. Both sets of qualities can be developed or improved with aware- ness and experience.

Sources: Based on John P. Kotter, (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1996), p. 26; Joseph C. Rost,

(Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), p. 149; and Brian Dumaine, “The New Non-Manager Managers,” (February 22, 1993), pp. 80–84.

stability, predictability, and order through a culture of efficiency. Leadership, on the other hand, creates change, often radical change, within a culture of agility and integrity that helps the organization thrive over the long haul by promoting openness and honesty, positive relationships, and long-term innovation. Leadership facilitates the courage needed to make difficult and unconventional decisions that may sometimes hurt short-term results.

To understand leadership as it is viewed and practiced today, it is important to rec- ognize that the concept of leadership has changed over time. Leadership typically reflects the larger society, and theories have evolved as norms, attitudes, and under- standings in the larger world have changed.39

The various leadership theories can be categorized into six basic approaches, each of which is briefly described in this section. Many of these ideas are still applicable to leadership studies today and are discussed in various chapters of this text.

This is the granddaddy of leadership concepts. The earliest studies of leadership adopted the belief that leaders (who were always thought of as male) were born with certain heroic leadership traits and natural abilities of power and influence. In organizations, social movements, religions, governments, and the military, leadership was conceptualized as a single “Great Man” who put everything together and influenced others to follow along based on the strength of inherited traits, qualities, and abilities.

Studies of these larger-than-life leaders spurred research into the var- ious traits that defined a leader. Beginning in the 1920s, researchers looked to see if leaders had particular traits or characteristics, such as intelligence or energy, that distinguished them from non-leaders and contributed to success. It was thought that if traits could be identified, leaders could be predicted, or perhaps even trained. Although research failed to produce a list of traits that would always guarantee leadership success, the interest in leadership characteristics has continued to the present day.

The failure to identify a universal set of leadership traits led researchers in the early 1950s to begin looking at what a leader does rather than who he or she is. One line of research focused on what leaders actually do on the job, such as various management activities, roles, and responsibilities. These studies were soon expanded to try to determine how effective leaders differ in their behav- ior from ineffective ones. Researchers looked at how a leader behaved toward followers and how this correlated with leadership effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Chapter 2 discusses trait and behavior theories.

Researchers next began to consider the contextual and situa- tional variables that influence what leadership behaviors will be effective. The idea behind contingency theories is that leaders can analyze their situation and tailor their behavior to improve leadership effectiveness. Major situational variables are

the characteristics of followers, characteristics of the work environment and fol- lower tasks, and the external environment. Contingency theories, sometimes called situational theories, emphasize that leadership cannot be understood in a vacuum separate from various elements of the group or organizational situation. Chapter 3 covers contingency theories.

These theories examine influence processes between leaders and followers. One primary topic of study is charismatic leadership (Chapter 12), which refers to leadership influence based not on position or formal authority but, rather, on the qualities and charismatic personality of the leader. Related areas of study are leadership vision (Chapter 13) and organizational culture (Chapter 14). Leaders influence people to change by providing an inspiring vision of the future and shap- ing the culture and values needed to attain it. Several chapters of this text relate to the topic of influence because it is essential to understanding leadership.

Since the late 1970s, many ideas of leadership have focused on the relational aspect, that is, how leaders and followers interact and influence one another. Rather than being seen as something a leader does to a follower, leader- ship is viewed as a relational process that meaningfully engages all participants and enables each person to contribute to achieving the vision. Interpersonal rela- tionships are seen as the most important facet of leadership effectiveness.40 Two sig- nificant relational theories are transformational leadership (Chapter 12) and servant leadership (Chapter 6).

Other important relational topics covered in various chapters of the text include the personal qualities that leaders need to build effective relationships, such as emotional intelligence, a leader’s mind, integrity and high moral standards, and personal courage. In addition, leaders build relationships through motivation and empowerment, leadership communication, team leadership, and embracing diversity.

Exhibit 1.4 provides a framework for examining the evolution of leadership from the early Great Man theories to today’s relational theories. Each cell in the model summarizes an era of leadership thinking that was dominant in its time but may be less appropriate for today’s world.41

This era may be conceptualized as pre-industrial and pre-bureaucratic. Most organizations were small and were run by a single individ- ual who many times hired workers because they were friends or relatives, not nec- essarily because of their skills or qualifications. The size and simplicity of organizations and the stable nature of the environment made it easy for a single person to understand the big picture, coordinate and control all activities, and keep things on track. This is the era of Great Man leadership and the emphasis on personal traits of leaders. A leader was conceptualized as a single hero who saw the big picture and how everything fit into a whole.

In Era 2, we see the emergence of hierarchy and bureaucracy. Although the world remains stable, organizations have begun to grow so large that they require rules and standard procedures to ensure that activities are per- formed efficiently and effectively. Hierarchies of authority provide a sensible

mechanism for supervision and control of workers, and decisions once based on rules of thumb or tradition are replaced with precise procedures. This era sees the rise of the “rational manager” who directs and controls others using an impersonal approach. Employees aren’t expected to think for themselves; they are expected to do as they’re told, follow rules and procedures, and accomplish specific tasks. The focus is on details rather than the big picture.

The rational manager was well-suited to a stable environment. The behavior and contingency theories worked here because leaders could analyze their situation, develop careful plans, and control what happened. But rational management is no longer sufficient for leadership in today’s world.

This era represented a tremendous shock to managers in North America and Europe. Suddenly, the world was no longer stable, and the prized techniques of rational management were no longer successful. Beginning with the OPEC oil embargo of 1972 to 1973 and continuing with the severe global competi- tion of the 1980s and early 1990s, many managers saw that environmental condi- tions had become chaotic. The Japanese began to dominate world commerce with their ideas of team leadership and superb quality. This became an era of great con- fusion for leaders. They tried team-based approaches, downsizing, reengineering, quality programs, and empowerment as ways to improve performance and get more motivation and commitment from employees.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can use the

leadership skills that fit the

correct era for your organiza-

tion. You can use influence and

relational aspects as appropri-

ate for your organization.

This is the era of the team leader and the change leader. Influence was impor- tant because of the need to change organizational structures and cultures. This era sees the emergence of knowledge work, an emphasis on horizontal collaboration, and a shift to influence theories. Rather than conceiving of leadership as one person always being firmly “in charge,” leadership is often shared among team leaders and members, shifting to the person with the most knowledge or expertise in the matter at hand.42

Enter the digital, mobile, social-media age. It seems that every- thing is changing, and changing fast. Era 4 is the era of the agile leader who has made the leap to giving up control in the traditional sense. Leaders emphasize rela- tionships and networks, and they influence others through vision, meaning, pur- pose, and values rather than management authority and control. They are constantly experimenting, learning, and changing, in both their personal and pro- fessional lives, and they encourage the development and growth of others so that followers are expanding their capabilities and contributing to innovation. Era 4 requires the full scope of leadership that goes far beyond rational management or even team leadership.

The flow from Great Man leadership to rational management to team leadership to agile leadership illustrates trends in the larger world. The implication is that leadership reflects the era or context of the organization and society. Most of today’s organizations and leaders are still struggling with the transition from a sta- ble to a chaotic environment and the new skills and qualities needed in this circum- stance. Thus, Era 3 issues of diversity, team leadership, empowerment, and horizontal relationships are increasingly relevant. In addition, many leaders are rap- idly shifting into Era 4 leadership by focusing on change management and facilitat- ing a vision and values to encourage high performance, agility, and continuous adaptation in a fast-shifting world. Agile leaders align themselves with new social technologies that can create networks of leaders throughout the organization. Era 3 and Era 4 leadership is what much of this book is about.

Many leaders are caught in the transition between the practices and principles that defined the industrial era and the new reality of the twenty-first century. Attempts to achieve collaboration, empowerment, and diversity in organi- zations may fail because the beliefs and thought processes of leaders as well as employees are stuck in an old paradigm that values control, stability, and homoge- neity. It is difficult for many leaders to let go of methods and practices that have made them and their organizations successful in the past. Yet leaders can make the leap to a new paradigm by intentionally practicing and applying new paradigm principles.

One of the most important aspects of shifting to the new paradigm of leadership is intentionally using soft, interpersonal skills to build a culture of performance, trust,

NEW LEADER

Leader’s Self-Insight 1.3 gives

you a chance to test your

people skills and see if there are

areas you need to work on.

Agile leader

a leader who is open to learning and change and encourages the growth and development of others

and collaboration. A few clues about the importance of acquiring new leadership skills are brought to light by studies that look at what causes managers to “derail” in their careers. Derailment refers to a phenomenon in organizations in which a manager with an impressive track record reaches a certain level but goes off track and can’t advance because of a mismatch between job needs and the man- ager’s personal skills and qualities.43 Studies conducted in numerous organizations in different countries indicate that managers fail more frequently because they are deficient with soft, human skills rather than a lack of hard work or technical skills.44 Derailed managers are successful people who excelled in a functional area and were expected to go far, but they reached a plateau, were fired, or were forced to retire early.

Researchers at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina, have been looking at what causes manager derailment for two decades.45

They conclude that there are five top flaws that cause managers to derail, as shown in Exhibit 1.5. Note that many of these flaws relate to the lack of human skills. Unsuccessful managers fail to meet business objectives because they spend too much time promoting themselves rather than working. They are overly ambitious and selfish and may not follow through on promises. They are often insensitive and critical, not trustworthy, do not learn from feedback and mistakes, can’t build and develop the right teams, and are unable to see the big picture when promoted into a general management position. Additional studies confirm that the biggest leader mistakes are people mistakes rather than technical ones.46

The best leaders, at all levels, are those who are genuinely interested in other people and find ways to bring out the best in them.47 Successful organizations, such as Google, pay attention to developing leaders in the soft skills needed to effectively lead technical people in a changing environment.

Source: Based on Yi Zhang, Jean Brittain Leslie, and Kelly M. Hannum, “Trouble Ahead: Derailment Is Alive and Well,” Thunderbird International Business Review 55, no. 1

(January–February 2013), pp. 95–102.

Derailment

a phenomenon in which a manager with an impressive track record reaches a cer- tain level but goes off track and can’t advance because of a mismatch between job needs and personal skills and qualities

Google In 2013, Google was named the best company to work for by Fortune magazine for the

fourth year in a row. Being a great place to work didn’t happen by accident. Google’s

human resources department, called People Operations—or POPS for short—monitors

employees’ happiness and well-being to an incredible degree, using data to track every-

thing and learn where improvements are needed.

One thing it discovered is that good leaders make a tremendous difference. Google

looked at what successful leaders—those who have lower attrition rates and get better

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Instructions: Many people on the fast track toward positions of leadership find themselves suddenly derailed and don’t know why. Many times, a lack of people skills is to blame. To help you determine whether you need to work on your people skills, take the following quiz, answering each item as Mostly False or Mostly True. Think about a job or volunteer position you have now or have held in the past as you answer the following items.

People Skills

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. Other people describe me as very good with people.

2. I frequently smile and laugh with teammates or classmates.

3. I frequently reach out to engage people, even strangers.

4. I often express appreciation to other people.

Dealing with Authority

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I quickly speak out in meetings when leaders ask for comments or ideas.

2. If I see a leader making a decision that seems harmful, I speak up.

3. I experience no tension when interacting with senior managers, either inside or outside the organization.

4. I have an easy time asserting my- self toward people in authority.

Networking

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I spend part of each week net- working with colleagues in other departments.

2. I have joined multiple organiza- tions for the purpose of making professional contacts.

3. I frequently use lunches to meet and network with new people.

4. I actively maintain contact with peers from previous organizations.

Scoring and Interpretation

Tally the number of “Mostly Trues” checked for each set of questions.

People Skills: Dealing with Authority: Networking:

If you scored 4 in an area, you’re right on track. Continue to act in the same way.

If your score is 2–3, you can fine-tune your skills in that area. Review the questions where you said Mostly False and work to add those abilities to your leadership skill set.

A score of 0–1 indicates that you may end up dangerously close to derailment. You should take the time to do an in- depth self-assessment and find ways to expand your inter- personal skills.

performance from their teams—do that makes them different from less successful ones.

Analyzing performance reviews and feedback surveys, Google executives used the findings

to help make bad leaders better. Even in a company that depends on technical expertise,

Google found that soft, human skills are essential. Technical expertise ranked dead last

among eight desirable leader qualities, as shown in the exhibit below.

Google discovered that employees want leaders who listen to them, build positive and

productive relationships, and show an interest in their lives and careers. When the company

targeted unsuccessful leaders and coached them to develop soft skills and display these

eight behaviors, the managerial ranks improved, with collective feedback scores going up

every year since 2009. 48

Google’s Eight Rules for Good Leader Behavior 1. Be a good coach.

2. Empower your team and don’t micromanage.

3. Express interest in team members’ success and personal well-being.

4. Don’t be a sissy. Be productive and results-oriented.

5. Be a good communicator and listen to your team.

6. Help your employees with career development.

7. Have a clear vision and strategy for the team.

8. Have key technical skills so you can help advise the team. 49

The skills on Google’s list of desirable behaviors can help leaders avoid the fatal flaws that derail careers. In addition, today’s successful leaders intentionally value change over stability, empowerment over control, collaboration over compe- tition, diversity over uniformity, and integrity over self-interest, as discussed earlier. The industry of executive coaching emerged partly to help people through the tran- sition to a new paradigm of leadership. Executive coaches encourage leaders to con- front their own flaws and hang-ups that inhibit effective leadership, and then help them develop stronger emotional and interpersonal skills.

There’s an age-old question: Are leaders born or made? In one survey, 19 percent of top executives said leaders are born, 52 percent said they are made, and 29 percent said they are both born and made.50 It may be true that some inborn qualities and personality characteristics can provide a foundation for being a good leader, but most people can learn to be good leaders no matter their innate characteristics. Interestingly, in the above-mentioned survey, both those who thought leaders are born and those who thought they are made mention learning from experience as a key to becoming a good leader.

Leadership can be learned, but it is important to remember that leadership is both an art and a science. It is an art because many leadership skills and qualities cannot be learned from a textbook. Leadership takes practice and hands-on experi- ence, as well as intense personal exploration and development. However, leadership is also a science because a growing body of knowledge and objective facts describes the leadership process and how to use leadership skills to attain organizational goals. This is where a textbook or a course on leadership can help you to be a better leader.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can cultivate

your people skills to avoid

executive derailment. You can

treat others with kindness,

interest, and respect and avoid

overmanaging by selecting

good followers and delegating

effectively.

Howard Gardner, Harvard Psychologist

Knowing about leadership research helps people analyze situations from a variety of perspectives and learn how to be more effective. By exploring leadership in both business and society, students gain an understanding of the importance of leadership to an organization’s success, as well as the difficulties and challenges involved in being a leader. Studying leadership can also lead to the discovery of abilities you never knew you had. When students in a leadership seminar at Wharton were asked to pick one leader to represent the class, one woman was surprised when she outpolled all other students. Her leadership was drawn out not in the practice of leadership in student government, volunteer activities, or athletics but in a classroom setting.51 Studying lead- ership gives you skills you can apply to the practice of leadership in your everyday life. Exhibit 1.6 gives some tips for how you can begin honing your leadership skills.

Many people have never tried to be a leader because they have no understand- ing of what leaders actually do. The chapters in this book are designed to help you gain a firm knowledge of what leadership means and some of the skills and quali- ties that make a good leader. You can build competence in both the art and the science of leadership by completing the Self-Insight exercises throughout the book, by working on the activities and cases at the end of each chapter, and by applying the concepts you learn in class, in your relationships with others, in student groups, at work, and in voluntary organizations. Although this book and your instructors can guide you in your development, only you can apply the concepts and principles of leadership in your daily life. Learning to be a leader starts now, with you. Are you up to the challenge?

Source: Based on “Guidelines for the Apprentice Leader,” in Robert J. Allio, “Masterclass: Leaders and Leadership—Many Theories,

But What Advice Is Reliable?” Strategy & Leadership 41, no. 1 (2013), pp. 4–14.

The plan for this book reflects the shift to a new paradigm summarized in Exhibit 1.2 and the discussion of management versus leadership summarized in Exhibit 1.3. The framework in Exhibit 1.7 illustrates the organization of the book.

Part 1 introduces leadership, its importance, and the transition to a new leader- ship paradigm. Part 2 explores basic research perspectives that evolved during a more stable time when rational management approaches were effective. These basic perspectives, including the Great Man and trait theories, behavior theories, and contingency theories, are relevant to dealing with specific tasks and individuals and are based on a premise that leaders can predict and control various aspects of the environment to keep the organization running smoothly.

Parts 3, 4, and 5 focus on leadership perspectives that reflect the paradigm shift to the turbulent, unpredictable nature of the environment and the need for fresh leader approaches. Part 3 discusses the personal side of leadership and looks at some of the qualities and forces that are required to be effective in the new reality. These chapters emphasize the importance of self-awareness and self-understanding, the development of one’s own leadership mind and heart, moral leadership and courage, and appreciat- ing the role of followership. Part 4 is about building effective relationships, including motivating and empowering others, communicating as a leader, leading teams, embracing the diversity of today’s world, and using power and influence.

Part 5 brings together all of these ideas to examine the leader as builder of a social architecture that can help an organization create a brighter future. These chapters deal with creating vision and strategic direction, aligning culture and values to achieve the vision, and leading change.

Taken together, the sections and chapters paint a complete portrait of the lead- ership experience as it has evolved to the present day and emphasize the new para- digm skills and qualities that are relevant from today and into the future. This book blends systematic research evidence with real-world experiences and impact.

Now that you’ve read the chapter, check out how today’s leaders are applying these concepts. Log in to CengageNOW to follow the leaders on Twitter.

This chapter introduced the concept of leadership and explained how indivi- duals can grow as leaders. Leadership is defined as an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes. Thus leadership involves people in a relationship, influ- ence, change, a shared purpose, and taking personal responsibility to make things happen. Most of us are aware of famous leaders, but most leadership that changes the world starts small and may begin with personal frustrations about events that prompt people to initiate change and inspire others to follow them. Your leadership may be expressed in the classroom, at work, or in your neighborhood, religious community, or volunteer organizations. Concepts of leadership have evolved over time. Major research approaches include Great Man theories, trait theories, behavior theories, contingency theo- ries, influence theories, and relational theories. Elements of all these approaches are still applicable to the study of leadership. The biggest challenge facing leaders today is the changing world that wants a new paradigm of leadership. The new reality involves the shift from stabil- ity to change, from control to empowerment, from competition to collabora- tion, and from uniformity to diversity. In addition, the concept of leader as hero is giving way to that of the humble leader who develops others and shares credit for accomplishments. These dramatic changes suggest that a philosophy based on control and personal ambition will probably fail in the new era. The challenge for leaders is to evolve to a new mindset that relies on human skills, integrity, and teamwork. The “soft” skills of leadership complement the “hard” skills of management, and both are needed to effectively guide organizations. Although leadership is often equated with good management, leadership and management are differ- ent processes. Management strives to maintain stability and improve effi- ciency. Leadership, on the other hand, is about creating a vision for the future, designing social architecture that shapes culture and values, inspiring and motivating followers, developing personal qualities, and creating change within a culture of integrity. Leadership can be integrated with management to achieve the greatest possible outcomes. Organizations need to be both man- aged and led, particularly in today’s turbulent environment. Many managers already have the qualities needed to be effective leaders, but they may not have gone through the process needed to bring these qualities to life.

Leadership is an intentional act. It is important to remember that most people are not born with natural leadership skills and qualities, but leadership can be learned and developed.

1. Look through recent magazines and newspapers and identify one leader who seems to illus- trate the “leader-as-hero” mindset and one who seems more typical of the humble Level 5 leader described in the text. Describe their differing characteristics. Which was easier to find?

2. What do you consider your own strengths and weaknesses for leadership? Discuss your answer with another student.

3. Of the elements in the leadership definition as illustrated in Exhibit 1.1, which is the easiest for you? Which is hardest? Explain.

4. How might the paradigm shift from competition to collaboration make the job of a leader more difficult? Could it also make the leader’s job easier? Discuss.

5. Describe the best leader you have known. How did this leader acquire his or her capability?

6. Why do you think there are so few people who succeed at both management and leadership? Is it reasonable to believe someone can be good at both? Discuss.

7. Discuss some recent events and societal changes that might have contributed to a shift “from hero to humble.” Do you agree or disagree that humility is important for good leadership?

8. “Leadership is more concerned with people than is management.” Do you agree? Discuss.

9. What personal capacities should a person develop to be a good leader versus those developed to be a good manager?

10. Why is leadership considered both an art and a science?

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

Leadership Right–Wrong Think of a specific situation in which you were working with someone who

was in a leadership position over you and that person was doing something that was wrong for you. This person might have been a coach, teacher, team leader, employer, immediate boss, family member, or anyone who had a leadership position over you. “Wrong for you” means that person’s behavior reduced your effectiveness, made you or your coworkers less productive, and was demotivating to you or your colleagues. Write a few words below that describe what the leader was doing that was wrong for you.

Think of a second situation in which someone in a leadership position did something wrong for you. Write a few words below that describe what the leader was doing that was wrong for you.

Think of a specific situation in which you were working with someone who was in a leadership position over you and that person was doing something that was right for you. This person might have been a coach, teacher, team leader, employer, immediate boss, family member, or anyone who had a leadership position over you. “Right for you” means that person’s behavior made you or your coworkers more productive, highly moti- vated you or others, and removed barriers to make you more successful. Write a few words below that describe what the leader was doing that was right for you.

Think of a second situation in which someone in a leadership position did something right for you. Write a few words below that describe what the leader was doing that was right for you.

The previous answers are data points that can help you understand the impact of leader behaviors. Analyze your four incidents—what are the underlying qualities of leadership that enable you to be an effective performer? Discuss your answers with another student. What leadership themes are present in the eight combined incidents? What do these responses tell you about the qualities you want and don’t want in your leaders?

An interesting way to use this exercise in class is to have students write (five words maximum) their leader “rights” on one board and their leader “wrongs” on another board. The instructor can ask small groups to identify underlying themes in the collective set of leader data points on the boards to specify what makes an effective leader. After students establish four or five key themes, they can be challenged to identify the one key theme that distinguishes leaders who are effective from those who are not.

Source: Based on Melvin R. McKnight, “Organizational Behavior as a Phenomenological, Free-Will Centered Science,” Working Paper, College of Business Administration, Northern Arizona University, 1997.

Check out CengageNOW for additional cases with interactive activities.

C f i Sales Engineering Division

When DGL International, a manufacturer of refinery equipment, brought in John Terrill to man- age its Sales Engineering division, company executives informed him of the urgent situation. Sales Engineering, with 20 engineers, was the highest-paid, best-educated, and least-productive division in the company. The instructions to Terrill: Turn it around. Terrill called a meeting of the engineers. He showed great concern for their personal welfare and asked point blank: “What’s the problem? Why can’t we produce? Why does this division have such turnover?”

Without hesitation, employees launched a hail of complaints. “I was hired as an engineer, not a pencil pusher.” “We spend over half of our time writing asinine reports in triplicate for top management, and no one reads the reports.” “We have to account for every penny, which doesn’t give us time to work with customers or new developments.”

After a two-hour discussion, Terrill began to envision a future in which engineers were free to work with customers and join self-directed teams for product improvement. Terrill concluded he had to get top management off the engineers’ backs. He promised the

engineers, “My job is to stay out of your way so you can do your work, and I’ll try to keep top management off your backs, too.” He called for the day’s reports and issued an order effective immediately that the originals be turned in daily to his office rather than mailed to headquarters. For three weeks, technical reports piled up on his desk. By month’s end, the stack was nearly three feet high. During that time no one called for the reports. When other managers entered his office and saw the stack, they usually asked, “What’s all this?” Terrill answered, “Technical reports.” No one asked to read them.

Finally, at month’s end, a secretary from finance called and asked for the monthly travel and expense report. Terrill responded, “Meet me in the president’s office tomorrow morning.”

The next morning the engineers cheered as Terrill walked through the department push- ing a cart loaded with the enormous stack of reports. They knew the showdown had come.

Terrill entered the president’s office and placed the stack of reports on his desk. The president and the other senior executives looked bewildered.

“This,” Terrill announced, “is the reason for the lack of productivity in the Sales Engineering division. These are the reports your people require every month. The fact that they sat on my desk all month shows that no one reads this material. I suggest that the engi- neers’ time could be used in a more productive manner, and that one brief monthly report from my office will satisfy the needs of the other departments.”

QUESTIONS

1. Does John Terrill’s leadership style fit the definition of leadership in Exhibit 1.1? Is it part of a leader’s job to manage upward? Explain.

2. With respect to Exhibit 1.4, in what leadership era is Terrill? In what era is headquar- ters? Explain.

3. What approach would you have taken in this situation? What do you think the response of the senior executives will be to Terrill’s action?

The Marshall Plan Marshall Gordon was recognized by associates and competitors as a man on a mission. One of four members of the design team for a large chair manufacturing corporation, Marshall’s obsession with the creation of comfortable seating dated to a childhood back injury and a lifetime of pain. He recognized, more than most in the industry, the importance of designing chairs that offered some relief to those suffering from debilitating back, hip, and neck pain as well as helping people of all ages to avoid problems with proper posture. In his early days with the company the staff jokingly called his approach the Marshall Plan, after America’s 1947 initiative (named for Secretary of State George Marshall) to rebuild European economies after the war. Like someone fighting to save the world, Marshall Gordon brought passion and a creative intensity to design meetings as if each drawing, each design tweak would change civilization as we knew it.

Single and with no apparent family or friendship ties, Marshall was married to his work. He seemed to thrive on 70-hour work weeks, although as a salaried manager, he received no overtime pay. Even his “down time” at meals or on weekends was spent sketching, studying the latest in ergonomics, or reconnoitering each design adjustment by competitors.

“When you visit a furniture store, you fully expect to see Marshall, skulking about in trench coat and hat, checking to see what the competition is offering,” says fellow team member John Craddock. “We all laugh about it. The guy brings—actually brings—chairs to meetings and tears them apart to show us some miniscule discovery.”

This obsession with chairs, pain and gravity, and one-upping the competition has made Marshall a valuable employee and earned him a reputation in the industry for creative design. Not since Peter Opsvik’s Gravity Balans ergonomic chair of the 1970s has anyone made such an impact on the industry. The effect of Marshall’s work on company profits is undeniable. The fact that competitors are chomping at the bit to lure him away is also undeniable.

But the Marshall Plan comes at a price. Over the 15 years he has worked with the com- pany, five as leader of the design group, there has been a constant turnover within the design group as frustrated workers leave the company to “get away from Marshall.”

“Anything you could learn from this brilliant and dedicated man is destroyed by his cold, calculating attitude,” Craddock complains. “I came to this company excited about the chance to work with him. But any knowledge he possesses is carefully guarded. His design ideas are perfect, while ours are picked apart. We all swear he has listening devices scattered around everywhere, because if the rest of the team huddles in some corner of the world to discuss a design idea, voila! He walks into the next meeting with our idea. Once when he was a few minutes late to a meeting, we thought we had beaten him and quickly presented our idea. Just then, he walks in, and announces, ‘Ideas must be in the air. I have something very similar,’ and throws his completed design on screen. Guess who won.”

Marshall presents a continuing challenge to company management, having both incredible positive and negative influence on the culture. While his contributions to design and profits far exceed those of other employees, his negative effect on the culture and his team’s creativity and morale results in the loss of talented people and a climate of suspicion and discontent. His threat, “I can take my talents elsewhere,” hangs over top management like a sledge hammer.

Now, Craddock and Leslie Warren, other talented members of the design team, have approached management with their own ultimatum: Do something about Marshall or we resign.

QUESTIONS

1. If you were a top leader, how would you respond to the ultimatum? Be specific. Explain why.

2. What is Marshall missing with respect to his leadership abilities? How do you explain his poor leadership behavior?

3. If you were Marshall’s manager, how might you increase Marshall’s awareness of the negative impact he is having on his team? How would you guide him toward better team leadership, sharing his knowledge with others, and mentoring his team members?

1. Nancy F. Koehn, “Lincoln’s School of Management,” The New York Times (January 26, 2013); Catherine L. Moreton, “10 Qualities That Make Abraham Lincoln a Great Leader,” HR and Employment Law White Papers, Business and Legal Resources (June 25, 2008), https:// hr.blr.com/whitepapers/Staffing-Training/Leadership/10-Qualities- that-Made-Abraham-Lincoln-a-Great-Lea (accessed March 4, 2013); and Hitendra Wadhwa, “Lessons in Leadership: How Lincoln Became America’s Greatest President,” Inc.com (February 12, 2012), http:// www.inc.com/hitendra-wadhwa/lessons-in-leadership-how-abraham- lincoln-became-americas-greatest-president.html (accessed March 4, 2013). The Howard Schultz quote is from Koehn.

2. David Rothkopf, “Somebody Take Control. (Anybody. Really. Please.): Where Are All the Leaders?” The Washington Post (March 29, 2009), p. B1.

3. Thanks to Doug Moran, “Great Leadership,” Leadership Excellence (September 2011), p. 18, for this analogy.

4. John F. Burns and Stephen Castle, “BBC’s Leaders Faulted as Lax in Handling Sex Abuse Crisis,” The New York Times (December 19, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/world/europe/pollard- report-bbc-jimmy-savile-sexual-abuse-inquiry.html?pagewanted= all&_r=0 (accessed March 4, 2013).

5. “Sen. Grassley Probes Televangelists’ Finances,” USA TODAY (Novem- ber 7, 2007), http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11- 07-televangelist-probe_N.htm (accessed March 4, 2013).

6. See various surveys and studies reported in Paul Harris, “Leadership Role Models Earn Trust and Profits, T+D 64, no. 3 (2010), pp. 47–50.

7. Gary Cohen, “Defining Leadership,” Leadership Excellence (August 2009), pp. 16–17; Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), p. 4; and James MacGregor Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), p. 2.

8. J. Meindl, S. Ehrlich, and J. Dukerich, “The Romance of Leadership,” Administrative Science Quarterly 30 (1985), pp. 78–102; and Mitchell C. Bligh, Jeffrey C. Kohles, and Rajnandini Pillai, “Roman- cing Leadership: Past, Present, Future,” The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011), pp. 1058–1077.

9. Rakesh Khurana, “The Curse of the Superstar CEO,” Harvard Business Review (September 2002), pp. 60–66.

10. Khurana, “The Curse of the Superstar CEO”; Mitch McCrimmon, “The Ideal Leader,” Ivey Business Journal (January–February 2011); Joseph A. Raelin, “The Myth of Charismatic Leaders,” Training and Development (March 2003), p. 46; and Betsy Morris, “The New Rules,” Fortune (July 24, 2006), pp. 70–87.

11. Joseph C. Rost, Leadership for the Twenty-First Century (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), p. 102; and Joseph C. Rost and Richard A. Barker, “Leadership Education in Colleges: Toward a 21st Century

Paradigm,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 7, no. 1 (2000), pp. 3–12.

12. Peter B. Smith and Mark F. Peterson, Leadership, Organizations, and Culture: An Event Management Model (London: Sage Publications, 1988), p. 14.

13. Robert E. Kelley, “In Praise of Followers,” Harvard Business Review (November–December 1988), pp. 142–148.

14. “Barbara Van Dahlen” segment in “The World’s 100 Most Influential People 2012,” Time, http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/ article/0,28804,2111975_2111976,00.html (accessed March 4, 2013); and Barbara Van Dahlen, “Recognizing Options for Healing This Veterans Day,” Huffington Post (November 13, 2012), http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-van-dahlen-phd/veterans-health- care_b_2092411.html (accessed March 4, 2013).

15. Scott R. Schmedel, “Making a Difference,” The Wall Street Journal (August 21, 2006), pp. R5, R12; and “More Than Wheels: About,” http://www.morethanwheels.org/about (accessed March 5, 2012).

16. Bill George, “Truly Authentic Leadership” (Special Report: America’s Best Leaders), U.S. News & World Report (October 30, 2006), pp. 52–53; Victoria Strauss, “It’s Time for Teach for America to Fold: Former TFAer,” (The Answer Sheet blog), The Washington Post (February 28, 2013), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/wp/2013/02/28/its-time-for-teach-for-america-to-fold-former- tfaer/ (accessed March 5, 2013); and “Is Teach for America Working?” (Room for Debate Opinion Page), The New York Times (August 30, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/ 30/is-teach-for-america-working/ (accessed March 5, 2013).

17. These changes and challenges are based in part on Thomas W. Malnight and Tracey S. Keys, “The Great Power Shift: 10 Trends Business Leaders Need to Watch in 2013,” as reported in “The World in 2013: Global Trends for 2013; A Top Ten for Business Leaders,” Cassandra blog, The Economist (November 26, 2012), http://www. economist.com/blogs/theworldin2013/2012/11/global-trends-2013 (accessed March 5, 2013). The complete Global Trends 2013 report is available for purchase at http://www.globaltrends.com/reports/ gt-2013.

18. Center for Creative Leadership survey reported in Andre Martin, “What Is Effective Leadership Today? A New Study Finds Collabora- tion Prized over Heroics,” Chief Executive (July–August 2006), p. 24.

19. This discussion is based on Dominic Barton, Andrew Grant, and Michelle Horn, “Leading in the 21st Century,” McKinsey Quarterly, no. 3 (2012), pp. 30–47; Olivia Parr Rud, “Book Highlight—Adaptability: A Key to Business Intelligence Success,” Global Business and Organiza- tional Excellence (January–February 2010), pp. 76–85; Ken Shelton, “Reinventing Leadership,” Leadership Excellence (July 2012), p. 9; Fahri Karakas, “The Twenty-First Century Leader: Social Artist, Spiritual Visionary, and Cultural Innovator,” Global Business and Organizational Excellence (March/April 2007), pp. 44–50; Daniel C. Kielson, “Leadership: Creating a New Reality,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 3, no. 4 (1996), pp. 104–116; and Mark A. Abramson, “Leadership for the Future: New Behaviors, New Roles, and New Attitudes,” The Public Manager (Spring 1997).

20. Norihiko Shirouzu, Phred Dvorak, Yuka Hayashi, and Andrew Morse, “Bid to ‘Protect Assets’ Slowed Reactor Fight,” The Wall Street Journal (March 19, 2011), http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB10001424052748704608504576207912642629904.html (accessed August 6, 20120); and Peter Valdes-Dapena, “Japan Earthquake Impact Hits U.S. Auto Plants,” CNNMoney (March 30, 2011), http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/28/autos/japan_earthquake_ autos_outlook/index.htm# (accessed June 13, 2012).

21. Peter Wonacott, “An Entrepreneur Weathers a Tumultuous Arab Spring,” The Wall Street Journal (January 17, 2012), http://online. wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020343690457715069 0233235850.html (accessed June 27, 2012); Mary Gooderham,

“Companies That Go Where Others Fear to Tread,” The Globe and Mail (June 21, 2012), p. B7; and Cynthia Koons, “Australia’s Leighton Digs a Hole in the Middle East,” segment in “Heard on the Street—Financial Analysis and Commentary,” The Wall Street Journal Asia (February 15, 2012), p. 30.

22. Vanessa Fuhrmans, and Dana Cimilluca, “Business Braces for Europe’s Worst—Multinationals Scramble to Protect Cash, Revise Contracts, Tighten Payment Terms,” The Wall Street Journal (June 1, 2012), p. B1.

23. Richard Wolf, Brad Heath, and Chuck Raasch, “How Health Care Law Survived, and What’s Next,” USAToday (June 29, 2012), http:// www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-06-29-still2_CV_U.htm (accessed August 21, 2012).

24. Quoted in Barton et al., “Leading in the 21st Century.”

25. Quoted in Barton et al., “Leading in the 21st Century.”

26. Charles Handy, The Age of Paradox (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994), pp. 146–147; and Geoff Colvin, “Leader Machines,” Fortune (October 1, 2007), pp. 98–106.

27. J. P. Donlon, “What, Put Your Customers Second? Are You Kidding?” (CEO Chronicles), Chief Executive (November–December 2010), pp. 14–16; “HCL Technologies CEO, Vineet Nayar, Gets ‘Leader in the Digital Age’ Award at CeBIT 2011,” Entertainment Close-Up (March 11, 2011); and Stephen Denning, “Masterclass: The Reinvention of Management,” Strategy & Leadership 39, no. 2 (2011), pp. 9–17.

28. Herminia Ibarra and Morten T. Hansen, “Are You a Collaborative Leader?” Harvard Business Review (July–August 2011), pp. 69–74.

29. Ibarra and Hansen, “Are You a Collaborative Leader?”; and Sally Helgesen, “Leading in 24/7: What Is Required?” Leader to Leader (Summer 2012), pp. 38–43.

30. Barton et al. “Leading in the 21st Century.”

31. See James Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don’t (New York: HarperCollins, 2001); Charles A. O’Reilly III and Jeffrey Pfeffer, Hidden Value: How Great Companies Achieve Extraordinary Results with Ordinary People (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000); Rakesh Khurana, Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charis- matic CEOs (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); Joseph Badaracco, Leading Quietly (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002); Jason Jennings, Think Big, Act Small: How America’s Best Performing Companies Keep the Startup Spirit Alive (New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2005); Ryan Underwood, “The CEO Next Door,” Fast Company (September 2005), pp. 64–66; and Linda Tischler, “The CEO’s New Clothes,” Fast Company (September 2005), pp. 27–28.

32. David Brooks, “The Humble Hound,” The New York Times (April 10, 2010), p. A27; Charalambos A. Vlachoutsicos, “How to Cultivate Engaged Employees,” Harvard Business Review (September 2011), pp. 123–126; and Rob Nielsen, Jennifer A. Marrone, and Holly S. Slay, “A New Look at Humility: Exploring the Humility Concept and Its Role in Socialized Charismatic Leadership,” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Science 17, no. 1 (2010), pp. 33–43.

33. Jim Collins, “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve,” Harvard Business Review (January 2001), pp. 67–76; Collins, “Good to Great,” Fast Company (October 2001), pp. 90–104; Edward Prewitt, “The Utility of Humility,” CIO (December 1, 2002), pp. 104–110; A. J. Vogl, “Onward and Upward” (an interview with Jim Collins), Across the Board (September–October 2001), pp. 29–34; and Stefan Stern, “A New Leadership Blueprint,” Management Today (September 30, 2010), http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1032244/a-new-blue- print-leaders/ (accessed March 13, 2013).

34. As described in Stefan Stern, “A New Leadership Blueprint,” Management Today (October 1, 2010), p. 38.

35. Gary Yukl and Richard Lepsinger, “Why Integrating the Leading and Managing Roles Is Essential for Organizational Effectiveness,” Organizational Dynamics 34, no. 4 (2005), pp. 361–375; Henry Mintzberg, Managing (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2009); Andrew Saunders, “Rebuilding Management’s Good Name,” Management Today (May 2011), pp. 44–46; John Kotter, “Change Leadership: How Can You Accelerate Results? Leadership Excellence (January 2013), pp. 6–7; and Alan Murray, “What Is the Difference Between Management and Leadership?” The Wall Street Journal (2009), http://guides.wsj.com/management/developing-a-leadership- style/what-is-the-difference-between-management-and-leadership/ (accessed June 28, 2009).

36. This section is based on John P. Kotter, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management (New York: The Free Press, 1990), pp. 3–18; John P. Kotter, “What Leaders Really Do,” Harvard Business Review (December 2001), pp. 85–96; and ideas in Kevin Cashman, “Lead with Energy: Apply the Resilience Principle,” Leadership Excellence (December 2010), p. 7; Henry Mintzberg, Managing (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2009); and Mike Maddock, “The One Talent That Makes Good Leaders Great,” Forbes (September 26, 2012), http://www.forbes.com/sites/ mikemaddock/2012/09/26/the-one-talent-that-makes-good-leaders- great/ (accessed March 7, 2013).

37. Warren Bennis, Why Leaders Can’t Lead (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1989).

38. Abraham Zaleznik, “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” Harvard Business Review (March–April 1992), pp. 126–135; David Rooke and William R. Torbert, “7 Transformations of Leadership,” Harvard Business Review (April 2005), pp. 67–76; and Rooke and Torbert, Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2004).

39. Jim Boneau and Gregg Thompson, “Leadership 4.0: It’s a Brave New Approach,” Leadership Excellence (January 2013), p. 6.

40. Based on Susan R. Komives, Nance Lucas, and Timothy R. McMahon, Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998); and Shann R. Ferch and Matthew M. Mitchell, “Intentional Forgiveness in Relational Leadership: A Technique for Enhancing Effective Leader- ship,” The Journal of Leadership Studies 7, no. 4 (2001), pp. 70–83.

41. This discussion draws ideas from Boneau and Thompson, “Leader- ship 4.0: It’s a Brave New Approach.”

42. Craig L. Pearce, “The Future of Leadership: Combining Vertical and Shared Leadership to Transform Knowledge Work,” Academy of Management Executive 18, no. 1 (2004), pp. 47–57.

43. Yi Zhang, Jean Brittain Leslie, and Kelly M. Hannum, “Trouble Ahead: Derailment Is Alive and Well,” Thunderbird International Business Review 55, no. 1 (January–February 2013), pp. 95–102.

44. See studies reported in Joyce Hogan, Robert Hogan, and Robert B. Kaiser, “Management Derailment: Personality Assessment and Mitigation,” Hogan Assessment Systems, http://www.hoganassessments.com/_ hoganweb/documents/Management_Derailment.pdf.

45. Yi Zhang et al., “Trouble Ahead: Derailment Is Alive and Well”; and Morgan W. McCall Jr. and Michael M. Lombardo, “Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed” (Technical Report No. 21), (Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership, January 1983).

46. Hogan, et al., “Management Derailment: Personality Assessment and Mitigation”; George Kohlrieser, “People Mistakes: These 10 Are Very Dangerous,” Leadership Excellence (October 2012), p. 16; Clinton O. Longenecker and Laurence S. Fink, “Fixing Management’s Fatal Flaws,” Industrial Management (July–August 2012), pp. 12–17; E. Van Velsor and J. B. Leslie, “Why Executives Derail: Perspectives Across Time and Cultures,” Academy of Management Executive 9, no. 4 (1995), pp. 62–72; and McCall and Lombardo, “Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed.”

47. Ram Charan and Geoffrey Colvin, “Why CEOs Fail,” Fortune (June 21, 1999), pp. 68–78.

48. This example is based on Farhad Manjoo, “The Happiness Machine: How Google Became Such a Great Place to Work,” Slate Magazine, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/google_ people_operations_the_secrets_of_the_world_s_most_scientific_human. html (accessed March 8, 2013).

49. List of Google’s Rules from Adam Bryant, “Google’s Quest to Build a Better Boss,” The New York Times (March 12, 2011).

50. Survey by the Center for Creative Leadership, reported in Phaedra Brotherton, “Leadership: Nature or Nurture?” T+D (February 2013), p. 25.

51. Russell Palmer, “Can Leadership Be Learned?” Business Today (Fall 1989), pp. 100–102.

Research Perspectives on Leadership

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

• Outline some personal traits and characteristics that are associated with effective leaders.

• Identify your own traits that you can transform into strengths and bring to a leadership role.

• Distinguish among various roles leaders play in organizations, including operations roles, collaborative roles, and advisory roles, and where your strengths might best fit.

• Recognize autocratic versus democratic leadership behavior and the impact of each.

• Know the distinction between people-oriented and task-oriented leadership behavior and when each should be used.

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

• Describe some key characteristics of entrepreneurial leaders.

CHAPTER 36

V irginia Rometty spent 30 years climbing the ranks at IBM before becoming the company’s first female CEO in January 2012. Some of the personal characteristics that helped her get to the top include intelligence, ambition,

ability to stay focused, empathy, superb listening skills, and self-confidence. That last trait is something Rometty had to work on. She describes an experience early in her career when she was offered a big promotion. She told her boss she didn’t think she was ready and needed to think it over. Later, Rometty’s husband asked her, “Do you think a man would have ever answered that question that way?” The lesson Rometty learned, she says, was that “you have to be very confident, even though you’re so self-critical inside about what it is you may or may not know.”1

It is likely that many of Rometty’s traits are shared by other leaders who have attained higher levels in organizations. Personal traits are what captured the imagination of the earliest leadership researchers. However, look at any two successful and effective leaders and they will likely share some traits but have others that are quite dissimilar. Each individual has a unique set of qualities, characteristics, and strengths to bring to a leadership role. In addition, as the example of Virginia Rometty shows, leaders can learn to overcome some potentially limiting traits, such

as a lack of self-confidence. Consequently, many researchers have examined the behavior of leaders to determine what behavioral features comprise leadership style and how particular behaviors relate to effective leadership.

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

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

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

In a 1948 literature review,4 Stogdill examined more than 100 studies based on the trait approach. He uncovered several traits that appeared consistent with effective leadership, including general intelligence, initiative, interpersonal skills, self-confidence, drive for responsibility, and personal integrity. Stogdill’s findings also indicated, however, that the importance of a particular trait was often relative to the situation. Initiative, for example, may contribute to the success of a leader in an entrepreneurial situation, but it may be irrelevant to a leader in a stable bureaucracy. Thus, possessing certain personal characteristics is no guarantee of success.

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

Traits

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

Great Man approach

a leadership perspective that sought to identify the inherited traits leaders possessed that distinguished them from people who were not leaders

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in examining leadership traits. A review by Kirkpatrick and Locke identified a number of personal traits that distinguish leaders from nonleaders, including some pinpointed by Stogdill.6

Other studies have focused on followers’ perceptions and indicate that certain traits are associated with people’s perceptions of who is a leader. For example, one study found that the traits of intelligence, masculinity, and dominance were strongly related to how individuals perceived leaders.7 Others have found that charismatic CEOs are perceived to be more effective than other leaders, even though there is no evidence showing they actually are.8

In summary, trait research has been an important part of leadership studies throughout the twentieth century and continues into the twenty-first, as illustrated by this chapter’s Leader’s Bookshelf, which takes a fresh look at some characteris- tics that enable leaders to motivate and inspire people in today’s environment. Optimism and a cheerful attitude have recently gained attention as important traits

Take the Lead: Motivate, Inspire, and Bring Out the Best in Yourself and Everyone around You

by Betsy Myers

All of us know that some leaders inspire and motivate us whereas others drain our energy and weigh down our spirit. In her first book,

, Betsy Myers, senior advisor to Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and former executive director of the Harvard Center for Public Leadership, explains the char- acteristics that will make you a moti- vating and inspirational leader.

IT’S NOT MAGIC

The two presidents Myers has worked with are known for their charisma, but Myers insists there’s no magic to being able to fully engage others. Good leader- ship, she says, is about how you treat and connect with others. describes seven characteristics that good leaders share: authenticity, connection, respect, clarity, collaboration, learning, and courage. Let’s look closely at three of these leader qualities:

• . People are nat- urally drawn to leaders who have an honest self-awareness and are comfortable with who they are. These leaders don’t have to puff themselves up or put others down. They love what they do

and they pass that energy on to others. Myers tells the story of a woman she worked with who wasn’t succeeding in her leader- ship role. Myers discovered that she really wanted to be teaching music but didn’t consider it a real- istic goal. The two worked out a plan for the future that enabled the woman to explore careers in music while she kept her job. Within a few years, she was head of the music history department at a university and was flourishing.

•

. Hsi-Wei Chou, the governor of Taipei County, Taiwan, once saw his security guards struggling to control a man who was waving a piece of paper in the air and demanding to speak to the gover- nor. Chou asked the guards to allow them to talk, and he quickly defused the situation. “It’s about treating people with respect,” Chou said. “Whether the man is right or wrong…, he deserves the respect of his government and his governor.”

•

. Captain

Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger says he knew he wanted to be a pilot at the age of five, and he spent the rest of his life in the pursuit of excellence in his chosen field. After 40 years of pursuing excel- lence, there couldn’t have been anyone better prepared to be in control when U.S. Airways Flight 1549 had to be landed on the Hudson River in January 2009. Sul- lenberger’s passion for learning also meant he was a proponent of continuous training for every member of a flight crew.

PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR NEW LEADERS

doesn’t claim to have a “secret sauce” for leadership, but it does describe qualities that anyone can develop to be a better leader. “Genuine leadership is not something that magi- cally happens because we’ve been handed a certain position or role to play. It is a quality we nurture in our- selves, regardless of our job or station in life.”

Source: Based on , by Betsy Myers, is published by Atria Books.

for successful leaders. Britain’s Royal Navy takes cheerfulness so seriously that it tracks how leader cheerfulness affects morale and effectiveness.9 As discussed in Chapter 1, humility, including a willingness to admit mistakes and make oneself vulnerable, has emerged as an important trait in today’s collaborative world.10

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

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

A related characteristic is having a positive attitude about oneself. Leaders who know themselves develop self-confidence, which is general assurance in one’s own judg- ments, decision making, ideas, and capabilities. Self-confidence doesn’t mean being arrogant and prideful but rather knowing and trusting in oneself. Self-confidence is

Evaluate your degree of self- confidence by completing the CengageNOW questionnaire “How Self-Confi- dent Are You?”

Robert Iger, Chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney

Company

Personal Characteristics

Energy

Passion

Humility

Physical stamina

Intelligence and Ability

Intelligence, cognitive ability

Knowledge

Judgment, decisiveness

Personality

Optimism

Cheerfulness

Self-confidence

Honesty and integrity

Charisma

Desire to lead

Independence

Social Characteristics

Sociability, interpersonal skills

Cooperativeness

Ability to enlist cooperation

Tact, diplomacy

Work-Related Characteristics

Drive, desire to excel

Dependability

Fair-mindedness

Perseverance, tenacity

Social Background

Education

Mobility

Sources: Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Management Applications, 3rd ed. (New York: The Free

Press, 1990), pp. 80–81; S. A. Kirkpatrick and E. A. Locke, “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5, no. 2

(1991), pp. 48–60; and James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in

Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).

Optimism

a tendency to see the positive side of things and expect that things will turn out well

Self-confidence

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

related to self-efficacy, which refers to a person’s strong belief that he or she can suc- cessfully accomplish a specific task or outcome.14 A leader who has a positive self- image and displays certainty about his or her own ability to achieve an outcome fosters confidence among followers, gains respect and admiration, and creates motivation and commitment among followers for the mission at hand.

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

Positive attitudes have to be tempered by strong ethics or leaders can get into trouble. Consider Bernard Madoff, who masterminded the larg- est financial fraud in history and was sent to jail on 11 criminal charges, including securities fraud and perjury. As a leader, Madoff displayed strong self-confidence and optimism, which is one reason he was able to attract so many investors. The problem was that he didn’t have a strong ethical grounding to match. Due to Madoff’s scam, thousands of people were swindled out of their life’s savings, chari- ties and foundations were ruined, and pension funds were wiped out, while Madoff and his wife lived in luxury.16

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

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

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I nearly always expect a lot from life.

2. I try to anticipate when things will go wrong.

3. I always see the positive side of things.

4. I often start out expecting the worst, although things usually work out okay.

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

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

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

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

9. I am cheerful and positive most of the time. I consider myself an optimistic person.

Scoring and Interpretation

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

Source: These questions were created based on several sources.

NEW LEADER

People generally prefer to fol-

low leaders who are optimistic

rather than pessimistic about

the future. Complete the

questionnaire in Leader’s

Self-Insight 2.1 to assess your

level of optimism.

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

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

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

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

A strong drive is also associated with high energy. Leaders work long hours over many years. They have stamina and are vigorous and full of life in order to handle the pace, the demands, and the challenges of leadership. During her first two years at Google, Marissa Mayer says she worked 100 hours a week. That pace is likely to be required in her new job as president and CEO of Yahoo.

Marissa Mayer, Yahoo Marissa Mayer has set herself some tough goals as the new president and CEO of Yahoo. But

tough is part of Mayer’s DNA. Mayer is known for being incredibly energetic and ambitious.

She loves hard work and challenge. “She doesn’t need any sleep,” said Craig Silverstein, who

worked with her at Google and now develops software for Kahn Academy. That’s clearly an

overstatement, but Mayer has demonstrated that she has almost superhuman stamina and a

strong drive to succeed. In the early years at Google, she routinely worked 100-hour weeks

and occasionally pulled all-nighters. Soon after joining Yahoo as CEO, Mayer had her first baby

and returned to work two weeks after the delivery.

NEW LEADER

Honesty

truthfulness and nondeception

Integrity

the quality of being whole, integrated, and acting in accordance with solid ethical principles

Drive

high motivation that creates a high effort level by a leader

Even in high school, Mayer was known as an overachiever who refused to settle for

less than the best from herself or others. As captain of the pom-pom squad, she scheduled

practices that lasted for hours to make sure everyone was synchronized. It was during her

first management job at Google that she incorporated the idea of pushing beyond her

comfort zone into her career philosophy. She isn’t afraid to take risks in the interest of help-

ing the team and organization succeed. Mayer created a firestorm of criticism when she

issued a policy early in her tenure at Yahoo that employees can no longer work from

home, but she stuck by her decision without regrets or apologies. She believes Yahoo is in

a crisis situation and to succeed needs the creative energy that comes from people working

face to face and side by side. Some people believe she will eventually relax the tough “all

hands in the office” policy, since flexibility is another of her characteristics. However, she

won’t relax her high standards or the requirement that employees be as dedicated to

Yahoo’s success as she is. 19

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

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

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

Everyone has strengths, but many leaders fail to recognize and apply them, often because they are hampered by the idea that they should be good at every- thing. Benjamin Franklin referred to wasted strengths as “sundials in the shade.”24

Only when leaders understand their strengths can they use these abilities effectively to make their best contribution.

A strength arises from a natural talent that has been supported and reinforced with knowledge and skills.25 Talents can be thought of as innate traits and naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior. One person might be naturally outgoing and curious, for example; another might have a natural talent for being organized. Once recognized, talents can be turned into strengths by consciously

Strength

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

developing and enhancing them with learning and practice. Unless they are honed and strengthened and put to use, talents are merely aspects of one’s potential.

One neat thing about understanding your strengths is the philosophy “concentrate on your strengths, not your weaknesses.” You excel in life by maximizing your strengths, not by fixing your weaknesses. When you live and work from your strengths, you are more motivated, competent, and satisfied. Strengths are important because you can focus your life around them, and your energy, enthusiasm, and effectiveness can be the basis of your leadership. Why devote your energy trying to fix your weaknesses or expending much thought and effort performing tasks that don’t match your strengths? When people use their talents and strengths, they feel good and enjoy their work with- out extra effort; hence they are effective and make a positive contribution.

How does a leader know which traits or behavior patterns can be turned into strengths? Warren Buffett recommends that people do what fits their natural inter- ests and abilities, which is reflected in the work they like to do.

Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway Warren Buffett says he finds investing so much fun that he would do it for free. Buffett tried

other work early in his career but found it so unsatisfying that he knew he wouldn’t want to

do it for any amount of money. The legendary self-made billionaire and chairman of

Berkshire Hathaway was the fourth richest person in the world in 2013. Yet it isn’t the

money that drives him, but the love of the work.

Each year, Buffett hosts in his hometown of Omaha, Nebraska, about 160 business stu-

dents from universities around the world. One question he usually gets is about how to

know what career to pursue. How did the great man know that investing was the right

career for him? Buffett answers in two parts. First, he says his “natural wiring” was made for

capital allocation—that is, he just had a knack for knowing how to allocate financial

resources into companies or other entities as a way to generate wealth. Buffett says that if

he had been born in a country such as Sudan or Cambodia, without abundant private capi-

tal and a system of capital allocation, he would never have gotten to use his natural talents.

Nor would he have succeeded in a different era when there was no capitalism. Buffett is

very clear in recommending that people need to do what fits their natural mental makeup.

How did he know that his wiring fit investing? The key was his love for it. His career

advice is to find work or a career that you really enjoy, and it will fit the natural strengths

of your mental wiring. 26

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

The operational role is the closest to a traditional, vertically oriented management role, where an executive has direct control over people and resources to accomplish results. Operational leaders fill traditional line and general management positions in a

Operational role

a vertically oriented leader- ship role in which an exec- utive has direct control over people and resources and the position power to accomplish results

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

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

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

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

As suggested in the previous discussion, strengths are not just personal traits but also patterns of behavior. Rather than looking at an individual’s personal traits, diverse research programs on leadership behavior have sought to uncover the

NEW LEADER

Collaborative role

a horizontal leadership role in which the leader often works behind the scenes and uses personal power to in- fluence others and get things done

Advisory role

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

behaviors that effective leaders engage in. Behaviors can be learned more readily than traits, enabling leadership to be accessible to all.

One study that served as a precursor to the behavior approach recognized auto- cratic and democratic leadership styles. An autocratic leader is one who tends to centralize authority and derive power from position, control of rewards, and coer- cion. A democratic leader delegates authority to others, encourages participation, relies on subordinates’ knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordi- nate respect for influence.

The first studies on these leadership behaviors were conducted at the University of Iowa by Kurt Lewin and his associates.28 The research included groups of chil- dren, each with its own designated adult leader who was instructed to act in either an autocratic or democratic style. These experiments produced some interesting findings. The groups with autocratic leaders performed highly so long as the leader was present to supervise them. However, group members were displeased with the close, autocratic style of leadership, and feelings of hostility frequently arose. The performance of groups who were assigned democratic leaders was almost as good, and these groups were characterized by positive feelings rather than hostility. In addition, under the democratic style of leadership, group members performed well even when the leader was absent. The participative techniques and majority-rule decision making used by the democratic leader trained and involved the group members so that they performed well with or without the leader present. These characteristics of democratic leadership may partly explain why the empowerment of employees is a popular trend in companies today. This chapter’s Consider This box presents the notion that democratic leaders may get better results because they allow followers to feel their own power and worth.

Consider

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

Next best is a leader who is loved.

Next, one who is feared.

The worst is one who is despised.

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

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

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

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

Autocratic

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

Democratic

a leader who delegates au- thority to others, encourages participation, relies on sub- ordinates’ knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect for influence

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

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

Jack Hartnett, president of D. L. Rogers Corporation and franchise owner of 54 Sonic drive-in restaurants, provides an example of the autocratic leadership style. He tells workers to “do it the way we tell you to do it,” rather than asking for their input or suggestions.31 The style works well in the fast-food restaurant business where turnover is typically high and many employees are young and low skilled. In contrast, Stephen McDonnell, CEO of Applegate Farms, is an extreme exam- ple of a democratic leader. For most of Applegate Farms’ history, McDonnell hasn’t even been in the office. From his experience at other companies, McDonnell had observed that most organizational problems were more easily diagnosed, and more effectively solved, within specific teams or work groups rather than by top managers.

by the president and Fellows of Harvard College.

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can use a

democratic leadership style

to help followers develop

decision-making skills and

perform well without close

supervision. An autocratic style

might be appropriate when

there is time pressure or fol-

lowers have low skill levels.

He decided that the best way to get a company running smoothly was to give everyone access to relevant information, empower them with the freedom and responsibility to act on it, and then stay out of the way.32

The findings about autocratic and democratic leadership in the original Univer- sity of Iowa studies indicated that leadership behavior had a definite effect on out- comes such as follower performance and satisfaction. Equally important was the recognition that effective leadership was reflected in behavior, not simply by what personality traits a leader possessed. Interestingly, Stephen McDonnell, CEO of Applegate, is a self-confessed control-freak boss, full of anxiety and obsessed with meeting goals. He realized that working mostly from home was the best way to protect the company from his tendency to micromanage. This suggests that leaders can adopt behaviors that are almost in direct opposition to their natural traits when it is necessary.

The idea that leadership is reflected in behavior and not just personal traits provided a focus for subsequent research. One early series of studies on leadership behavior was conducted at The Ohio State University. Researchers conducted surveys to identify specific dimensions of leader behavior. Narrowing a list of nearly 2,000 leader behaviors into a questionnaire containing 150 examples of definitive leader behaviors, they developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) and administered it to employees.33 Hundreds of employees responded to various examples according to the degree to which their leaders engaged in the behaviors. The analysis of ratings resulted in two wide-ranging categories of leader behavior, later called consideration and initiating structure.

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

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

Although many leaders fall along a continuum that includes both consider- ation and initiating structure behaviors, these behavior categories are independent of one another. In other words, a leader can display a high degree of both behav- ior types or a low degree of both behavior types. Additionally, a leader might demonstrate high consideration and low initiating structure, or low consideration and high initiating structure behavior. Research indicates that all four of these leader style combinations can be effective.34 The following examples describe two U.S. Marine leaders who display different types of leadership behavior that corre- late to the consideration and initiating structure styles. Sometimes these styles clash.

NEW LEADER

Consideration

the extent to which a leader is sensitive to subordinates, respects their ideas and feelings, and establishes mutual trust

Initiating structure

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

Col. Joe D. Dowdy and Maj. Gen. James Mattis, U.S. Marine Corps Only a few weeks into the war in Iraq, Marine Col. Joe D. Dowdy had both accomplished a gru-

eling military mission and been removed from his command by Maj. Gen. James Mattis. The

complicated and conflicting tales of why Col. Dowdy was dismissed are beyond the scope of

this text, but one issue that came under examination was the differing styles of Col. Dowdy

and Gen. Mattis, as well as the difficult, age-old wartime tension of “men versus mission.”

Gen. Mattis has been referred to as a “warrior monk,” consumed with the study of bat-

tle tactics and a leader whose own battle plans in Iraq were considered brilliant. Gen. Mattis

saw speed as integral to success in the early days of the Iraqi war, pushing for regiments to

move quickly to accomplish a mission despite significant risks. For Col. Dowdy, some risks

seemed too high, and he made decisions that delayed his mission but better protected his

marines. Col. Dowdy was beloved by his followers because he was deeply concerned about

their welfare, paid attention to them as individuals, and treated them as equals, going so far

as to decline certain privileges that were available only to officers.

Despite their different styles, both leaders were highly respected by followers. When

asked about Gen. Mattis, Gunnery Sgt. Robert Kane, who has served under both leaders,

says he would certainly “follow him again.” However, when he learned that Col. Dowdy

had been dismissed, Sgt. Kane says he “wanted to go with him. If [he] had said ‘Get your

gear, you’re coming with me,’ I would’ve gone, even if it meant the end of my career.” 35

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

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

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

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

1. I put into operation sugges- tions agreed to by the group.

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

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

4. I help others with their personal problems.

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

6. I help assign people to specific tasks.

7. I frequently suggest ways to fix problems.

8. I emphasize deadlines and how to meet them.

Scoring and Interpretation

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

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

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

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

Chicago, IL.) This version is based on Jon L. Pierce and John W. Newstrom, ,

2nd ed. (Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 2000).

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

Additional studies that correlated these two leader behavior types and impact on subordinates initially demonstrated that “considerate” supervisors had a more positive impact on subordinate satisfaction than did “structuring” supervisors.36

For example, when leader effectiveness was defined by voluntary turnover or amount of grievances filed by subordinates, considerate leaders generated less turn- over and grievances. But research that utilized performance criteria, such as group output and productivity, showed initiating structure behavior was rated more effec- tive. Other studies involving aircraft commanders and university department heads revealed that leaders rated effective by subordinates exhibited a high level of both consideration and initiating structure behaviors, whereas leaders rated less effective displayed low levels of both behavior styles.37

Studies at the University of Michigan took a different approach by directly compar- ing the behavior of effective and ineffective supervisors.38 The effectiveness of leaders was determined by productivity of the subordinate group. Initial field stud- ies and interviews at various job sites gave way to a questionnaire not unlike the LBDQ, called the Survey of Organizations.39

Over time, the Michigan researchers established two types of leadership behav- ior, each type consisting of two dimensions.40 First, employee-centered leaders display a focus on the human needs of their subordinates. Leader support and interaction facilitation are the two underlying dimensions of employee-centered behavior. This means that in addition to demonstrating support for their subordinates, employee- centered leaders facilitate positive interaction among followers and seek to minimize conflict. The employee-centered style of leadership roughly corresponds to the Ohio State concept of consideration.

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

However, unlike the consideration and initiating structure styles defined by the Ohio State studies, Michigan researchers considered employee-centered leadership and job-centered leadership to be distinct styles in opposition to one another. A leader is identifiable by behavior characteristic of one or the other style but not both. Another hallmark of later Michigan studies is the acknowledgment that often the behaviors of goal emphasis, work facilitation, support, and interaction facilita- tion can be meaningfully performed by a subordinate’s peers rather than only by the designated leader. Other people in the group could supply these behaviors, which enhanced performance.41

In addition, while leadership behavior was demonstrated to affect the perfor- mance and satisfaction of subordinates, performance was also influenced by other

Employee-centered

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

Job-centered

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

factors related to the situation within which leaders and subordinates worked. The importance of situation will be explored in the next chapter.

Blake and Mouton of the University of Texas proposed a two-dimensional leader- ship theory called the Leadership Grid that builds on the work of the Ohio State and Michigan studies.42 Based on a week-long seminar, researchers rated leaders on a scale of one to nine according to two criteria: the concern for people and the con- cern for production. The scores for these criteria are plotted on a grid with an axis corresponding to each concern. Exhibit 2.4 depicts the two-dimensional model and five of the seven major leadership styles.

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

Source: The Leadership Grid figure from Leadership Dilemma—Grid Solutions by Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse (for-

Scientific Methods, Inc. Reproduced by permission of the owners.

The Leadership Grid

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

leaders exert little effort toward interpersonal relationships or work accomplishment. Consider these examples:

Denise Morrison, Campbell Soup Company, and Michael Arrington, TechCrunch Douglas Conant, former CEO of Campbell Soup Company, met Denise Morrison in 1995

when he was CEO of Nabisco and she cold-called him looking for a job. He found in

Morrison a kindred spirit in terms of leadership style and hired her; she later followed him

to Campbell in 2003—and into the company’s top executive seat eight years later. Like

Conant, Morrison is a strong proponent of empowerment and employee engagement.

She has been referred to as “tough on the issues but tender on people.” Morrison is known

to be patient and supportive, even though she can make difficult operational decisions without

letting her emotions cloud her judgment.

Compare Morrison’s approach to that of Michael Arrington, founder of TechCrunch, the

company that publishes the influential blog of the same name. Arrington started the blog

because he enjoys the research and writing, and he admits he isn’t very good at the “peo-

ple management” part of his job. “It’s hard to be a coach and a player at the same time,”

Arrington says. “Plus, I’m moody.” Arrington says his style is to bust down doors and clean

up the mess later. Recognizing his weak point in being a manager of people, Arrington

hired Heather Harde as CEO of the company, which enabled TechCrunch to grow and

allowed Arrington to focus on what he was best at doing. Both Arrington and Harde have

since left the company after public clashes with Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post. 43

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

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

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

NEW LEADER

task-oriented behavior and people-oriented behavior as primary categories related to effective leadership in numerous studies.44 Concern for tasks and concern for people must be shown toward followers at some reasonable level, either by the leader or by other people in the system. Although these are not the only important behaviors, as we will see throughout this book, they certainly require attention.

The second question is whether people orientation and task orientation exist together in the same leader, and how. The grid theory argues that yes, both are present when people work with or through others to accomplish an activity. Although leaders may be high on either style, there is considerable belief that the best leaders are high on both behaviors. Eddy Cue, senior vice president of Internet Software and Services at Apple and one of CEO Tim Cook’s trusted advisers, pro- vides an example of a leader who succeeds on both dimensions. Cue is known as a master strategist and tactician who focuses people on key goals for new product launches, establishes plans to reach targets, and may even step in to handle tasks himself to get things done on time. Yet employees also appreciate his softer, people-oriented side. When the development of the iCloud service wasn’t going well, Cue stayed calm and told employees he had confidence in them. He’s respected for being easygoing and friendly and for being willing to make himself vulnerable with employees by openly admitting mistakes.45

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

Sources: Based on Marilyn R. Zuckerman and Lewis J. Hatala, Incredibly American: Releasing the Heart of Quality (Milwaukee, WI:

American Society for Quality, 1992), pp. 141–142; and Mark O’Connell, Gary Yukl, and Thomas Taber, “Leader Behavior and LMX:

A Constructive Replication,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 27, no. 2 (2012), pp. 143–154.

become an effective leader. In general it seems that people can indeed learn new leader behaviors. Although “high-high” leadership is not the only effective style, researchers have looked to this kind of leader as a candidate for success in a wide variety of situations. However, as we will see in Chapter 3, the next generation of leadership studies refined the understanding of situations to pinpoint more precisely when each type of leadership behavior is most effective.

Traditional trait and behavior theories assume that a leader adopts a general lead- ership style that is used with all group members. A more recent approach to leader- ship behavior research, individualized leadership, looks instead at the specific relationship between a leader and each individual follower.46 Individualized leadership is based on the notion that a leader develops a unique relationship with each subor- dinate or group member, which determines how the leader behaves toward the mem- ber and how the member responds to the leader. In this view, leadership is a series of dyads, or a series of two-person interactions. The dyadic view focuses on the concept of exchange, what each party gives to and receives from the other.47

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

Sources: Based on Fred Danereau, “A Dyadic Approach to Leadership: Creating and Nurturing This Approach Under Fire,” Leader-

ship Quarterly 6, no. 4 (1995), pp. 479–490, and George B. Graen and Mary Uhl-Bien, “Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership:

Development of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level, Multi-Domain

Approach,” Leadership Quarterly 6, no. 2 (1995), pp. 219–247.

Individualized

leadership

a theory based on the notion that a leader develops a unique relationship with each subordinate or group member, which determines how the leader behaves toward the member and how the member responds to the leader

The second stage examined specific attributes of the exchange relationship. The third stage explored whether leaders could intentionally develop partnerships with each group member.

The vertical dyad linkage (VDL) model argues for the importance of the dyad formed by a leader with each member of the group. Initial findings indicated that followers provided very different descriptions of the same leader. For example, some reported a leader, and their relationship with the leader, as having a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and obligation. These high-quality relationships might be characterized as high on both peo- ple and task orientation. Other followers reported a low-quality relationship with the same leader, such as having a low degree of trust, respect, and obligation. These fol- lowers perceived the leader as being low on important leadership behaviors.

Based on these two extreme behavior patterns, subordinates were found to exist in either an in-group or an out-group in relation to the leader. Exhibit 2.7 delineates the differences in leader behavior toward in-group versus out-group members. Most of us who have had experience with any kind of group, whether it be a college class, an ath- letic team, or a work group, recognize that some leaders may spend a disproportionate amount of time with certain people and that these “insiders” are often highly trusted and may obtain special privileges. In the terminology of the VDL model, these people would be considered to participate in an in-group relationship with the leader, whereas other members of the group who did not experience a sense of trust and extra consider- ation would participate in an out-group relationship. In-group members, those who rated the leader highly, had developed close relationships with the leader and often became assistants who played key roles in the functioning of the work unit. Out-group members were not key players in the work unit.

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

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

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

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

Treats mistakes as opportunities for coaching and developing employee

Gives employee interesting assignments; may allow employee to choose assignment

Sometimes defers to subordinate’s opinion

Praises accomplishments and performance improvements

Shows little consideration if employee is having difficulty with a task

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

Shows little interest in employee’s comments and suggestions

Criticizes or punishes mistakes

Assigns primarily routine jobs and monitors employee closely

Usually imposes own views

Focuses on areas of poor performance

Sources: Based on Jean François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux, “The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome,” Harvard Business Review (March–April

1988), pp. 110–113; and Mark O’Donnell, Gary Yukl, and Thomas Taber, “Leader Behavior and LMX: A Constructive Replication,” Journal of

Management Psychology 27, no. 2 (2012), pp. 143–154.

NEW LEADER

Answer the questions in

Leader’s Self-Insight 2.3 to

understand how LMX theory

applies to your own work

experience.

Vertical dyad linkage

(VDL) model

a model of individualized leadership that argues for the importance of the dyad formed by a leader with each member of the group

Stage two in the development of the individualized leadership theory explored the leader–member exchange (LMX) in more detail, discovering that the impact on out- comes depends on how the LMX process develops over time. Studies evaluating char- acteristics of the LMX relationship explored such things as communication frequency, value agreement, characteristics of followers, job satisfaction, performance, job cli- mate, and commitment. Leaders typically tend to establish in-group exchange rela- tionships with individuals who have characteristics similar to those of the leader, such as similarity in background, interests, and values, and with those who demon- strate a high level of competence and interest in the job. Overall, studies have found that the quality of the LMX relationship is substantially higher for in-group members. LMX theory proposes that this higher-quality relationship will lead to higher perfor- mance and greater job satisfaction for in-group members, and research in general sup- ports this idea.48 High-quality LMX relationships have been found to lead to very positive outcomes for leaders, followers, work units, and the organization. For fol- lowers, a high-quality exchange relationship may mean more interesting assignments, greater responsibility and authority, and tangible rewards such as pay increases and promotions. Leaders and organizations clearly benefit from the increased effort and initiative of in-group participants to carry out assignments and tasks successfully.

In this third phase of research, the focus was on whether leaders could develop pos- itive relationships with a large number of subordinates. Critics of early LMX theory

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

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

Mostly

False

Mostly

True

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

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

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

4. I admired my supervisor’s pro- fessional knowledge and ability.

5. My supervisor was enjoyable to work with.

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

7. My supervisor championed my case toothers inthe organization.

8. I respected my supervisor’s management competence.

Scoring and Interpretation

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

Source: Based on Robert C. Liden and John M. Maslyn, “Multidimension- ality of Leader–Member Exchange: An Empirical Assessment through Scale Development,” 24 (1998), pp. 43–72.

Leader–member

exchange (LMX)

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

pointed out the dangers of leaders establishing sharply differentiated in-group and out-group relationships, in that this may lead to feelings of resentment or even hos- tility among out-group participants.49 If leaders are perceived to be granting exces- sive benefits and advantages to in-group members, members of the out-group may rebel, which can damage the entire organization. Moreover, some studies have found that leaders tend to categorize employees into in-groups and out-groups as early as five days into their relationship.50

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

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

Another topic of special concern in today’s fast-changing world is what traits encourage entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship refers to initiating a business ven- ture, organizing the necessary resources, and assuming the associated risks and rewards.51 An entrepreneur recognizes a viable idea for a business product or ser- vice and carries it out by finding and assembling the necessary resources—money, people, machinery, location—to undertake the business venture.

Entrepreneurial leaders display many of the same characteristics as other lea- ders, but some traits are particularly important for entrepreneurs. These leaders need strong drive, enthusiasm, and future vision. They tend to be persistent, inde- pendent, and action oriented. They are drawn to new opportunities and are more concerned with innovation, creativity, and creating new processes than with main- taining the status quo. They are typically highly self-motivated and are willing to stretch themselves and take risks for improvement.52

A good example of entrepreneurial traits is Clara Shih, who started Hearsay Social, a platform that helps large companies manage their employees’ presence on social media sites. Revenue was around $10 million in 2010, and Shih believes the company can grow large and profitable as leaders continue to struggle with how to monitor and manage the new world of social media. The 29-year-old Shih has worked hard to raise millions in financing and has gained the support of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg as a mentor.53 Leaders with entrepreneurial traits also exist within established organizations. These leaders take risks to create novel solutions to competitive challenges confronting a

NEW LEADER

As a leader, you can build a

positive, individualized rela-

tionship with each follower to

create an equitable work en-

vironment and provide greater

benefits to yourself, followers,

and the organization.

business, especially the development or enhancement of products and services. Entrepreneurial leadership is a source of innovation and change for established companies.

Now that you’ve read the chapter, check out how today’s leaders are applying these concepts. Log in to CengageNOW to follow the leaders on Twitter.

The point of this chapter is to understand the importance of traits and behaviors in the development of leadership theory and research. Some traits associated with effective leadership include optimism, self-confidence, honesty, and drive. A large number of personal traits and abilities have been associated with successful lea- ders, but traits themselves are not sufficient to guarantee effective leadership. Natural traits and behavior patterns can be developed into strengths. It is important for leaders to recognize their strengths and acknowledge the interde- pendence that is a key to effective leadership. Research suggests that different leader strengths might be better suited to differ- ent types of leadership roles. The chapter describes three types of roles: opera- tional roles, collaborative roles, and advisory roles. Leaders can be more effective when they are in positions that best match their natural tendencies. The behavior approach explored autocratic versus democratic leadership, con- sideration versus initiating structure, employee-centered versus job-centered leadership, and concern for people versus concern for production. The theme of people versus tasks runs through this research, suggesting these are funda- mental behaviors through which leaders meet followers’ needs. There has been some disagreement in the research about whether a specific leader is either people- or task oriented or whether one can be both. Today, the consensus is that leaders can achieve a “high-high” leadership style. Another approach is the dyad between a leader and each follower. Followers have different relationships with the leader, and the ability of the leader to develop a positive relationship with each follower contributes to team perfor- mance. The LMX theory says that high-quality relationships have a positive outcome for leaders, followers, work units, and the organization. Leaders can attempt to build individualized relationships with each individual as a way to meet needs for both consideration and structure. The historical development of leadership theory presented in this chapter intro- duces some important ideas about leadership. Although certain personal traits and abilities indicate a greater likelihood for success in a leadership role, they are not in themselves sufficient to guarantee effective leadership. Rather, beha- viors are equally significant. Therefore, the style of leadership demonstrated by an individual greatly determines the outcome of the leadership endeavor. Often, a combination of behavioral styles is most effective. To understand the effects of leadership on outcomes, the specific relationship behavior between a leader and each follower is also an important consideration. Entrepreneurial leadership is of great concern in today’s turbulent environment because entrepreneurial leadership is an important source of innovation and change. Entrepreneurial leaders take risks to bring new organizations into being or create novel solutions to competitive challenges confronting existing organizations.

1. Why is it important for leaders to know their strengths? Do you think leaders should spend equal time learning about their weak points?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete this assignment online with CengageNOW.

C a C

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

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

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

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

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

Check out CengageNOW for additional cases with interactive activities.

C f i Consolidated Products

Consolidated Products is a medium-sized manufacturer of consumer products with non- unionized production workers. Ben Samuels was a plant manager for Consolidated Products for 10 years, and he was very well liked by the employees there. They were grateful for the fitness center he built for employees, and they enjoyed the social activities sponsored by the plant several times a year, including company picnics and holiday parties. He knew most of the workers by name, and he spent part of each day walking around the plant to visit with them and ask about their families or hobbies.

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

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

Phil had a growing reputation as a manager who could get things done, and he quickly began making changes. Costs were cut by trimming a number of activities such as the fitness center at the plant, company picnics and parties, and the human relations

training programs for supervisors. Phil believed that human relations training was a waste of time; if employees don’t want to do the work, get rid of them and find some- body else who does.

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

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

By the end of Phil’s first year as plant manager, production costs were reduced by 20 percent and production output was up by 10 percent. However, three of his seven supervisors left to take other jobs, and turnover was also high among the machine operators. Some of the turnover was due to workers who were fired, but competent machine operators were also quitting, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find any replacements for them. Finally, there was increasing talk of unionizing among the workers.54

QUESTIONS

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

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

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

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

During the initial stages of the transition, I met with the outgoing regional manager, receiving his input about ongoing business issues, how current services tallied with the cor- poration’s short and long-term goals, and what he saw as the strengths and weaknesses of the various stores and personnel within the region. While some of these meetings took place at his office, I wanted to avoid the appearance of depending on “the old man” for guidance, so I scheduled most of our meetings off-site to provide more opportunities for frank

discussion covering procedures, products and services, and individual stakeholders from employees and board members to suppliers and customers.

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

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

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

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

My question for regional service, sales, and marketing was “how are we reaching and retaining these segments of the population?” Do advertising, Web sites, direct mail- ing, coupon campaigns, and other marketing strategies match these demographics? For example, are we providing and training Spanish-language sales and service experts and consumer information? With large segments of young people, senior citizens, the unem- ployed, and single moms, wouldn’t these large segments of the population offer fabulous compounding opportunities with focused marketing and price breaks?

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

QUESTIONS

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

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

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

1. Jessi Hempel, “IBM’s New CEO Looks Ahead,” Fortune (October 8, 2012), pp. 116–123; and Claire Cain Miller and Quentin Hardy, “For Incoming I.B.M. Chief, Self-Confidence Is Rewarded,” The New York Times (October 27, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28 /business/for-incoming-ibm-chief-self-confidence-rewarded.html (accessed October 28, 2011).

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

3. Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, p. 254.

4. R. M. Stogdill, “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature,” Journal of Psychology 25 (1948), pp. 35–71.

5. R. M. Stogdill, Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Literature (New York: The Free Press, 1974); and Bernard M. Bass, Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Manage- rial Applications, 3rd ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1990).

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

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

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

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

10. Patrick Lencioni, “The Most Important Leadership Trait You Shun,” The Wall Street Journal (June 21, 2010), http://online.wsj.com/article /SB10001424052748704895204575321380627619388.html (accessed March 11, 2013).

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

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

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

14. Arthur Bandura, “Self-efficacy,” in V. S. Ramachaudran, ed., Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, vol. 4 (New York: Academic

Press, 1994), pp. 71–81; and Elizabeth A. McDaniel and Holly DiBella-McCarthy, “Reflective Leaders Become Causal Agents of Change,” Journal of Management Development 31, no. 7 (2012), pp. 663–671.

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

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

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

18. Kirkpatrick and Locke, “Leadership: Do Traits Matter?”

19. Patricia Sellers, “Marissa Mayer: Ready to Rumble at Yahoo,” Fortune (October 29, 2012), pp. 118–128; and Julianne Pepitone, “Marissa Mayer: Yahoos Can No Longer Work from Home,” CNN Money (February 25, 2013), http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/25/technology /yahoo-work-from-home/index.html (accessed March 11, 2013).

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

21. The following is based on Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton, Now, Discover Your Strengths (New York: The Free Press, 2001); and Chuck Martin with Peg Dawson and Richard Guare, Smarts: Are We Hardwired for Success? (New York: AMACOM, 2007).

22. Deborah Ancona, Thomas W. Malone, Wanda J. Orlikowski, and Peter M. Senge, “In Praise of the Incomplete Leader,” Harvard Business Review (February 2007), pp. 92–100.

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

24. Buckingham and Clifton, Now, Discover Your Strengths, p. 12.

25. Ibid.

26. Luisa Kroll, “Inside the 2013 Billionaires List: Facts and Figures,” Forbes (March 4, 2013), http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013 /03/04/inside-the-2013-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/ (accessed March 12, 2013); Bill George, “The Master Gives It Back,” segment in “Special Report: America’s Best Leaders,” U.S. News and World Report (October 30, 2006), pp. 50–87; and Richard L. Daft, The Executive and the Elephant: A Leader’s Guide to Building Inner Excellence (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), p. 149.

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

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

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

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

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

32. Donna Fenn, “The Remote Control CEO,” Inc. (October 2005), pp. 96–101, 144–146.

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

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

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

36. E. W. Skinner, “Relationships between Leadership Behavior Patterns and Organizational-Situational Variables,” Personnel Psychology 22 (1969), pp. 489–494; E. A. Fleishman and E. F. Harris, “Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover,” Personnel Psychology 15 (1962), pp. 43–56; and Ronald F. Piccolo, Joyce E. Bono, Kathrin Heinitz, Jens Rowold, Emily Duehr, and Timothy A. Judge, “The Relative Impact of Complementary Leader Behaviors: Which Matter Most?” The Leadership Quaterly 23 (2012), pp. 567–581.

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

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

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

40. D. G. Bowers and S. E. Seashore, “Predicting Organizational Effectiveness with a Four-Factor Theory of Leadership,” Adminis- trative Science Quarterly 11 (1966), pp. 238–263.

41. Ibid.

42. Robert Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Managerial Grid III (Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1985).

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

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

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

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

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

48. See A. J. Kinicki and R. P. Vecchio, “Influences on the Quality of Supervisor-Subordinate Relations: The Role of Time Pressure, Organizational Commitment, and Locus of Control,” Journal of Organizational Behavior (January 1994), pp. 75–82; R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne, and D. Stilwell, “A Longitudinal Study on the Early Development of Leader–Member Exchanges,” Journal of Applied Psychology (August 1993), pp. 662–674; Yammarino and Dansereau, “Individualized Leadership”; Jean-François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux, “The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome,” Harvard Business Review 76 (March–April 1998), pp. 101–113; Yukl et al., “Influence of Leader Behaviors on the Leader-Member Exchange Relationship”; and O’Donnell et al., “Leader Behavior and LMX: A Constructive Replication.”

49. W. E. McClane, “Implications of Member Role Differentiation: Analysis of a Key Concept in the LMX Model of Leadership,” Group and Organization Studies 16 (1991), pp. 102–113; and Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989).

50. Manzoni and Barsoux, “The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome.”

51. Donald F. Kuratko and Richard M. Hodgetts, Entrepreneurship: A Contemporary Approach, 4th ed. (Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press, 1998), p. 30.

52. Kristina L. Guo, “Core Competencies of the Entrepreneurial Leader in Health Care Organizations,” Health Care Manager 28 (January–March 2009), pp. 19–29; and Gary A. Knight, “Cross- Cultural Reliability and Validity of a Scale to Measure Firm Entrepreneurial Orientation,” Journal of Business Venturing 12 (1997), pp. 213–225.

53. Colleen Leahey, “Doing It for Themselves,” Fortune (October 17, 2011), pp. 144–148.

54. Reprinted with permission from Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organiza- tions, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998), pp. 66–67.