answer questions

text.docx

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >answer questions

WHY ARE SOME LEADERS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHERS?

For our purposes, leader effectiveness will be defined as the degree to which the leader’s actions result in the achievement of the unit’s goals, the continued commitment of the unit’s employees, and the development of mutual trust, respect, and obligation in leader–member dyads. Now that we’ve described what it means for a leader to be effective, we turn to the critical question in this chapter: “Why are some leaders more effective than others?” That is, why exactly are some leaders viewed as more effective on a unitwide basis, and why exactly are some leaders better at fostering high-quality exchange relationships? Beginning as far back as 1904, research on leadership has attempted to answer such questions by looking for particular traits or characteristics of effective leaders. 15 The search for traits and characteristics is consistent with “great person” theories of leadership that suggest that “leaders are born, not made.” 16 Early research in this area frequently focused on physical features (e.g., gender, height, physical attractiveness, energy level), whereas subsequent research focused more squarely on personality and ability (see Chapter 9 on personality and cultural values and Chapter 10 on ability for more discussion of such issues).

14.2

What traits and characteristics are related to leader emergence and leader effectiveness?

After a century of research, leadership scholars now acknowledge that there is no generalizable profile of effective leaders from a trait perspective. 17 In fact, most studies have concluded that traits are more predictive of leader emergence (i.e., who becomes a leader in the first place) than they are of leader effectiveness (i.e., how well people actually do in a leadership role). Table 14-2 reviews some of the traits and characteristics that have been found to be correlated with leader emergence and leader effectiveness. Although a number of traits and characteristics are relevant to leadership, two limitations of this work have caused leadership research to move in a different direction. First, many of the trait–leadership correlations are weak in magnitude, particularly when leader effectiveness serves as the outcome. Second, the focus on leader traits holds less practical relevance than a focus on leader actions. Although research shows that traits can seemingly have an effect on leader effectiveness, these effects are generally explained much more strongly by leader behavior. 18 What exactly can leaders do that can make them more effective? This chapter reviews three types of leader actions: decision-making styles, day-to-day behaviors, and behaviors that fall outside of a leader’s typical duties.Page 447

DESCRIPTION OF TRAIT/CHARACTERISTIC	LINKED TO EMERGENCE?	LINKED TO EFFECTIVENESS?
High conscientiousness	√
Low agreeableness	√
Low neuroticism
High openness to experience	√	√
High extraversion	√	√
High general cognitive ability	√	√
High energy level	√	√
High stress tolerance	√	√
High self-confidence	√	√
TABLE 14-2 Traits/Characteristics Related to Leader Emergence and Effectiveness Table Summary: A table displays the traits or characteristics related to leader emergence and effectiveness. The table has three columns titled description trait or characteristic, linked to emergency, and linked to effectiveness.

Sources: Adapted from Judge, T. A., J. E. Bono, R. Ilies, and M. W. Gerhardt. "Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review." Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2002): pp. 765–780; Judge, T. A., A. E. Colbert, and R. Ilies. "Intelligence and Leadership: A Quantitative Review and Test of Theoretical Propositions." Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (2004): pp. 542–552; and Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.

LEADER DECISION-MAKING STYLES

Of course, one of the most important things leaders do is make decisions. Think about the job you currently hold or the last job you had. Now picture your boss. How many decisions did he or she have to make in a given week? How did he or she go about making those decisions? A leader’s decision-making style reflects the process the leader uses to generate and choose from a set of alternatives to solve a problem (see Chapter 8 on learning and decision making for more discussion of such issues). Decision-making styles capture how a leader decides as opposed to what a leader decides.

14.3

What four styles can leaders use to make decisions, and what factors combine to make these styles more effective in a given situation?

The most important element of a leader’s decision-making style is this: Does the leader decide most things for him- or herself, or does the leader involve others in the process? We’ve probably all had bosses (or professors, or even parents) who made virtually all decisions by themselves, stopping by to announce what had happened once the call had been made. We’ve probably also had other bosses (or professors, or parents) who tended to do the opposite—involving us, asking our opinions, or seeking our vote even when we didn’t care about what was being discussed. It turns out that this issue of leader versus follower control can be used to define some specific decision-making styles. Figure 14-2 shows those styles, arranged on a continuum from high follower control to high leader control.

FIGURE 14-2 Leader Decision-Making Styles

DEFINING THE STYLES

With an autocratic style , the leader makes the decision alone without asking for the opinions or suggestions of the employees in the work unit. 19 The employees may provide information that the leader needs but are not asked to generate or evaluate potential solutions. In fact, they may not even be told about the decision that needs to be made, knowing only that the leader wants information for some reason. This decision-making style was a favorite of ex-Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, who did his best to make sure decisions were made extraordinarily quickly—and he did that by making them himself. Marchionne gave out daily orders to more than 50 people who reported directly to him via WhatsApp on his numerous iPhones. The only time his phones got a rest were during the 3 to 4 hours he slept during the evening. One might think this would have caused a major bottleneck with regard to decisions, but Marchionne swore that speed was the only thing that would save Chrysler. He was known for always having the last word on every big decision whether that was a commercial or approving the design for the first Ferrari SUV. Marchionne once said, “I am a fixer by nature. Things that are not well run, well structured, ready to compete, are not good things. I need to fix them.” 20 The CEO was known for making decisions within minutes, or seconds. 21 Page 448

The next two styles in Figure 14-2 offer more employee involvement. With a consultative style , the leader presents the problem to individual employees or a group of employees, asking for their opinions and suggestions before ultimately making the decision him- or herself. 22 With this style, employees do “have a say” in the process, but the ultimate authority still rests with the leader. Bob Brennan, ex-CEO of Iron Mountain, a $3 billion information management services company headquartered in Boston, says, “I ask this question a lot in different situations: ‘What do you recommend we do?’ You can get a real sense for who’s invested in moving the company forward, and who’s watching the company go by, with that very simple question. People lay out problems all the time. If they’ve thought through what should be done from here, then you’ve got somebody who’s in the game, who wants to move, and you can unlock that potential.” 23

That ultimate authority changes with a facilitative style , in which the leader presents the problem to a group of employees and seeks consensus on a solution, making sure that his or her own opinion receives no more weight than anyone else’s. 24 With this style, the leader is more facilitator than decision maker. Robert W. Selander, executive vice chair of MasterCard, said he had learned over time to encourage discussion in a group. “From sort of a style standpoint, I prefer to do what I call more of a consensus style of decision-making,” he said. “So when I’m around the table with our executive committee, the senior leadership of the company, I could easily make a bilateral decision. You’re knowledgeable about your area. I may have the best knowledge about your area or second best around the table. You and I agree. Let’s get on with it. What we haven’t done is we haven’t benefited from the wisdom, the insight, and the experience of the others around the table. And while they may not have as much insight or knowledge about your area as you do, there’s a chance that we missed something. So I try to get more engagement and discussion around topics and avoid what I would call bilateralism. I think what happens is sometimes you get an insight that’s startling and important and affects the decision, but you also get participative involvement so that there is buy-in and a recognition of how we got to that decision. It’s not as if the boss went off in a corner and waved a magic wand and, bang, out came the decision.” 25

Mary Barra, CEO of GM, is trying to speed up decision making in a heavily bureaucratic culture.

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

With a delegative style , the leader gives an individual employee or a group of employees the responsibility for making the decision within some set of specified boundary conditions. 26 The leader plays no role in the deliberations unless asked, though he or she may offer encouragement and provide necessary resources behind the scenes. Former American Apparel CEO Paula Schneider, known as a “macromanager,” took over for a CEO who had a hardcore autocratic style. “If someone comes to me and says, ‘Everything is screwed up,’ then I make them list everything. And then after once or twice, no one does it again, because no one wants to list everything. Here, it is about finding solutions.” 27 Daniel Amos, CEO and chair of Aflac, also believes strongly in a delegative style. He says, “My theory is that when you start telling people what to do, they no longer are responsible; you are. I’ll give them my opinion and say; ‘Look, this is my opinion, but if you choose that and you fail, you’re not blaming it on me. It is your fault.’ I think it makes them stronger.” 28 Page 449

WHEN ARE THE STYLES MOST EFFECTIVE?

Which decision-making style is best? As you may have guessed, there is no one decision-making style that’s effective across all situations, and all styles have their pluses and minuses. There are many factors to consider when leaders choose a decision-making style. 29 The most obvious consideration is the quality of the resulting decision, because making the correct decision is the ultimate means of judging the leader. However, leaders also have to consider whether employees will accept and commit to their decision. Research studies have repeatedly shown that allowing employees to participate in decision making increases their job satisfaction. 30 Such participation also helps develop employees’ own decision-making skills. 31

Of course, such participation has a downside for employees because it takes up time. Many employees view meetings as an interruption of their work. One recent study found that employees spend, on average, 6 hours a week in scheduled meetings and that time spent in meetings relates negatively to job satisfaction when employees don’t depend on others in their jobs, focus on their own task accomplishment, and believe meetings are run ineffectively. 32 Diane Bryant, EVP at Intel, argues that “You need people who are critical to making the decisions on the agenda, not people who are there only because they’ll be impacted. At Intel, if we see someone who doesn’t need to be there, people will say, ‘Bob, I don’t think we need you here. Thanks for coming.’” 33 Similarly, Mary Barra is trying to speed things up at GM, which is known for having one of the most bureaucratic cultures around—the company is known for decisions having to be made by committee. Once, they even appointed a committee to take a look at how many committee meetings should be held! 34

How can leaders effectively manage their choice of decision-making styles? The time-driven model of leadership offers one potential guide. 35 It suggests that the focus should shift away from autocratic, consultative, facilitative, and delegative leaders to autocratic, consultative, facilitative, and delegative situations. More specifically, the model suggests that seven factors combine to make some decision-making styles more effective in a given situation and other styles less effective. Those seven factors include:

· Decision significance: Is the decision significant to the success of the project or the organization?

· Importance of commitment: Is it important that employees “buy in” to the decision?

· Leader expertise: Does the leader have significant knowledge or expertise regarding the problem?

· Likelihood of commitment: How likely is it that employees will trust the leader’s decision and commit to it?

· Shared objectives: Do employees share and support the same objectives, or do they have an agenda of their own?

· Employee expertise: Do the employees have significant knowledge or expertise regarding the problem?

· Teamwork skills: Do the employees have the ability to work together to solve the problem, or will they struggle with conflicts or inefficiencies?

Figure 14-3 illustrates how these seven factors can be used to determine the most effective decision-making style in a given situation. The figure asks whether the levels of each of the seven factors are high (H) or low (L). The figure functions like a funnel, moving from left to right, with each answer taking you closer to the recommended style (dashes mean that a given factor can be skipped for that combination). Although the model seems complex at first glance, the principles within it are straightforward. Autocratic styles are reserved for decisions that are insignificant or for which employee commitment is unimportant. The only exception is when the leader’s expertise is high and the leader is trusted. An autocratic style in these situations should result in an accurate decision that makes the most efficient use of employees’ time. Delegative styles should be reserved for circumstances in which employees have strong teamwork skills and are not likely to commit blindly to whatever decision the leader provides. Deciding between the remaining two styles—consultative and facilitative—is more nuanced and requires a more complete consideration of all seven factors.Page 450

FIGURE 14-3 The Time-Driven Model of Leadership

Source: Adapted from V. H. Vroom. "Leadership and the Decision-Making Process." Organizational Dynamics 28 (2000): pp. 82–94.

For our earlier example of Sergio Marchionne, decision significance is high, importance of commitment is low, and leader expertise is high, so he adopts an autocratic decision style. However, for Jack Griffin, ex-CEO of Time Inc., autocratic decision making didn’t seem to go over too well. Griffin became known within the company for his “imperious” decision-making behavior. For example, he insisted that every magazine include a masthead with his name at the top (an extra page that cost the company about $5 million a year) almost right after hundreds of employees were laid off—a decision that used to be left up to individual editors. A source within the company was quoted as saying, “Time Inc. has long operated on the collegial consensus approach and I don’t think that was Jack’s strength.” 36 With magazine publishing operating during such a precarious time, we would label decision significance as high, importance of commitment as high, and the leader not appearing to have expertise in the subject matter of the decisions. As a result, his autocratic style led to a rebellion by those working for him and his termination only six months after his appointment. A key point about Figure 14-3 is that unless a leader is an expert with regard to the focus of the decision, autocratic decisions are not the right style to choose.

Research tends to support many of the time-driven model’s propositions, particularly when it uses practicing managers as participants. 37 For example, one study asked managers to recall past decisions, the context surrounding those decisions, and the eventual successes (or failures) of their decisions. 38 When managers used the decision-making styles recommended by the model, those decisions were rated as successful 68 percent of the time. When managers went against the model’s prescriptions, their decisions were only rated as successful 22 percent of the time. It’s also interesting to note that studies suggest that managers tend to choose the style recommended by the model only around 40 percent of the time and exhibit less variation in styles than the model suggests they should. 39 In particular, managers seem to overuse the consultative style and underutilize autocratic and facilitative styles. Sheila Lirio Marcelo, the CEO of Care.com, uses a unique approach by actually letting her staff know what type of decisions will be made prior to each meeting. “We do Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 decisions,” she said. “Type 1 decisions are the decision-maker’s sole decision—dictatorial [autocratic]. Type 2: people can provide input, and then the person can still make the decision [consultative]. Type 3, it’s consensus [facilitative]. It’s a great way to efficiently solve a problem.” 40 For a different (yet similar) take on what sets our best leaders apart from others, see our OB at the Bookstore feature.Page 451

OB At the Bookstore

THE DICHOTOMY OF LEADERSHIP

by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2018)

The list of dichotomies is infinite. Because for every positive behavior a leader should have, it is possible to take that behavior to the extreme, where it becomes a negative. Often a leader’s greatest strength can also be his or her greatest weakness. But knowing and understanding that these dichotomies exist is the first part of keeping them from becoming a problem. *

Roberts Publishing, Inc.

With those words, Jocko Willink and Leif Babin describe the difficulty of leadership and the need to balance different styles to match the situation. The Dichotomy of Leadership is a follow-up book to their best-selling Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win. The authors were the leaders of SEAL Team Three, Task Unit Bruiser, during the Battle of Ramadi in 2006, and both books derive from the leadership lessons they learned there. After leaving the U.S. Navy, the authors started a consulting company to share their leadership philosophy and principles. The core of Extreme Ownership revolved around leaders taking ownership of everything in their world and never placing blame on others. However, after speaking to their clients and readers, they found that those trying to follow the principles laid out in their first book were having a difficult time switching gears when the situation called for it.

Willink and Babin believe that highly effective leaders understand that they will need to change their style to match the situation. They write, “But leadership seldom requires extreme ideas or attitudes. In fact, quite the opposite is true: leadership requires balance.” * The 12 chapters in their book revolve around dichotomies that leaders face. Leaders should own it all, but empower others. Leaders should be resolute, but not overbearing. Leaders should be aggressive, but not reckless. Leaders should be focused, but detached at the same time. In essence, each of these chapters argues that, much like the time-driven model of leadership, leaders should constantly take stock of the situation around them, the people they are dealing with, and the goals they are trying to accomplish. Over time, the best leaders will learn when to exhibit certain styles in order to accomplish their mission.

Page 452

DAY-TO-DAY LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS

Leaving aside how they go about making decisions, what do leaders do on a day-to-day basis? When you think about bosses that you’ve had, what behaviors did they tend to perform as part of their daily leadership responsibilities? A series of studies at Ohio State in the 1950s attempted to answer that question. Working under grants from the Office of Naval Research and the International Harvester Company, the studies began by generating a list of all the behaviors leaders engage in—around 1,800 in all. 41 Those behaviors were trimmed down to 150 specific examples, then grouped into several categories, as shown in Table 14-3 . 42 The table reveals that many leaders spend their time engaging in a mix of initiating, organizing, producing, socializing, integrating, communicating, recognizing, and representing behaviors. Although eight categories are easier to remember than 1,800 behaviors, further analyses suggested that the categories in Table 14-3 really boil down to just two dimensions: initiating structure and consideration. 43

BEHAVIOR

DESCRIPTION

Initiating Structure

Initiation

Originating, facilitating, and sometimes resisting new ideas and practices

Organization

Defining and structuring work, clarifying leader versus member roles, coordinating

employee tasks

Production

Setting goals and providing incentives for the effort and productivity of employees

Consideration

Membership

Mixing with employees, stressing informal interactions, and exchanging personal services

Integration

Encouraging a pleasant atmosphere, reducing conflict, promoting individual adjustment to the group

Communication

Providing information to employees, seeking information from them,

showing an awareness of matters that affect them

Recognition

Expressing approval or disapproval of the behaviors of employees

Representation

Acting on behalf of the group, defending the group, and advancing the interests of

the group

TABLE 14-3

Day-to-Day Behaviors Performed by Leaders

Table Summary: A table displays day to day behaviors performed by leaders. The table has two

columns titled behavior and description. It has two sections titled initiating structure, and

considerations.

Source: Stogdill, R. M. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII. Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1963.

14.4

What two dimensions capture most of the day-to-day leadership behaviors in which leaders engage?

Initiating structure reflects the extent to which the leader defines and structures the roles of employees in pursuit of goal attainment. 44 Leaders who are high on initiating structure play a more active role in directing group activities and prioritize planning, scheduling, and trying out new ideas. They might emphasize the importance of meeting deadlines, describe explicit standards of performance, ask employees to follow formalized procedures, and criticize poor work when necessary. 45 Millard Drexler, CEO of J. Crew (the New York–based clothing retailer), has a unique initiating structure approach as he belts out instructions, assigns tasks, discusses clothing trends, and talks about sales statistics and goals about a dozen times a day over loudspeakers in the main Manhattan office. If he isn’t in the office (and he often isn’t), he has his assistant patch him in through his cell phone. 46

Consideration reflects the extent to which leaders create job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for employee ideas, and consideration of employee feelings. 47 Leaders who are high on consideration create a climate of good rapport and strong, two-way communication and exhibit a deep concern for the welfare of employees. They might do personal favors for employees, take time to listen to their problems, “go to bat” for them when needed, and treat them as equals. 48 Jeff Immelt, former CEO of General Electric, attempted to do this with many of the officers in his company by hosting a sleepover a couple of times a month. Immelt says, “We spend Saturday morning just talking about their careers. Who they are, how they fit, how I see their strengths and weaknesses—stuff like that. The personal connection is something I may have taken for granted before that [and] I don’t want to ever take for granted again.” 49 Google’s project OXYGEN was a process that tried to identify the most effective behaviors of managers inside the organization. The three most important habits that determined leader success were all oriented toward consideration: meeting regularly with employees, taking an interest in them personally, and asking questions rather than always providing answers. 50 Page 453

The Ohio State studies argued that initiating structure and consideration were (more or less) independent concepts, meaning that leaders could be high on both, low on both, or high on one and low on the other. That view differed from a series of studies conducted at the University of Michigan during the same time period. Those studies identified concepts similar to initiating structure and consideration, calling them production-centered (or task-oriented) and employee-centered (or relations-oriented) behaviors. 51 However, the Michigan studies framed their task-oriented and relations-oriented concepts as two ends of one continuum, implying that leaders couldn’t be high on both dimensions. 52 In fact, a meta-analysis of 78 studies showed that initiating structure and consideration are only weakly related—knowing whether a leader engages in one brand of behavior says little about whether he or she engages in the other brand. 53 To see how much initiating structure and consideration you engage in during leadership roles, see our OB Assessments feature.

OB Assessments

INITIATING STRUCTURE AND CONSIDERATION

How do you act when you’re in a leadership role? This assessment is designed to measure initiating structure and consideration. Please write a number next to each statement that reflects how frequently you engage in the behavior described. Then subtract your answers to the boldfaced questions from 6, with the difference being your new answer for that question. For example, if your original answer for question 16 was “4,” your new answer is “2” (6 – 4). Then sum up your answers for each of the dimensions. (Instructors: Assessments on transformational leadership, LMX, charisma, and readiness can be found in the PowerPoints in the Connect Library’s Instructor Resources and in the Connect assignments for this chapter.)

1 NEVER

2 SELDOM

3 OCCASIONALLY

4 OFTEN

5 ALWAYS

1. I let group members know what is expected of them.

2. I encourage the use of uniform procedures.

3. I try out my ideas in the group.

4. I make my attitudes clear to the group.

5. I decide what shall be done and how it shall be done.

6. I assign group members to particular tasks.

7. I make sure that my part in the group is understood by the group members.

8. I schedule the work to be done.

9. I maintain definite standards of performance.

10. I ask group members to follow standard rules and regulations.

11. I am friendly and approachable.

12. I do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group.

13. I put suggestions made by the group into operation.

14. I treat all group members as equals.

15. I give advance notice of changes.

16. I keep to myself.

17.

17. I look out for the personal welfare of group members.

18. I am willing to make changes.

19. I refuse to explain my actions.

20.

20. I act without consulting the group.

21.

SCORING AND INTERPRETATION:

· Initiating Structure: Sum up items 1–10. ____

· Consideration: Sum up items 11–20. ____

· For initiating structure, scores of 38 or more are high. For consideration, scores of 40 or more are high.

Source: R.M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire–Form XII (Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1963).

Page 454After an initial wave of research on initiating structure and consideration, leadership experts began to doubt the usefulness of the two dimensions for predicting leadership effectiveness. 54 More recent research has painted a more encouraging picture, however. A meta-analysis of 103 studies showed that initiating structure and consideration both had beneficial relationships with a number of outcomes. 55 For example, consideration had a strong positive relationship with perceived leader effectiveness, employee motivation, and employee job satisfaction. It also had a moderate positive relationship with overall unit performance. For its part, initiating structure had a strong positive relationship with employee motivation and moderate positive relationships with perceived leader effectiveness, employee job satisfaction, and overall unit performance. One of the most amusing and unique CEOs in the country, Chobani’s Hamdi Ulukaya, is known for exhibiting both sets of behaviors. Employees say that there are, in essence, two Hamdi’s. Ulukaya says, “I’m a shepherd and I’m a warrior—I come and go between those two.” 56 CMO Peter McGuinness says the two versions of Ulukaya mesh together well: “The leaders of tomorrow more and more realize that having a strong head and big heart is where you need to be.” 57

Although initiating structure and consideration tend to be beneficial across situations, there may be circumstances in which they become more or less important. The life cycle theory of leadership (sometimes also called the situational model of leadership) argues that the optimal combination of initiating structure and consideration depends on the readiness of the employees in the work unit. 58 Readiness is broadly defined as the degree to which employees have the ability and the willingness to accomplish their specific tasks. 59 As shown in Figure 14-4 , the theory suggests that readiness varies across employees and can be expressed in terms of four important snapshots: R1–R4. To find the optimal combination of leader behaviors for a particular readiness snapshot, put your finger on the relevant R, then move it straight down to the recommended combination of behaviors.

FIGURE 14-4 The Life Cycle Theory of Leadership

Chobani CEO and founder Hamdi Ulukaya does his best to balance initiating structure and consideration behaviors. “I’m a shepherd and a warrior,” he says.

DON EMMERT/Getty Images

The description of the first two R’s has varied over time and across different formulations of the theory. One formulation described the R’s as similar to stages of group development. 60 R1 refers to a group of employees who are working together for the first time and are eager to begin, but they lack the experience and confidence needed to perform their roles. Here the optimal combination of leader behaviors is telling —high initiating structure and low consideration—in which case the leader provides specific instructions and closely supervises performance. The lion’s share of the leader’s attention must be devoted to directing followers in this situation, because their goals and roles need to be clearly defined. In the R2 stage, the members have begun working together and, as typically happens, are finding that their work is more difficult than they had anticipated. As eagerness turns to dissatisfaction, the optimal combination of leader behaviors is selling —high initiating structure and high consideration—in which the leader supplements his or her directing with support and encouragement to protect the confidence levels of the employees.Page 455

As employees gain more ability, guidance and direction by the leader become less necessary. At the R3 stage, employees have learned to work together well, though they still need support and collaboration from the leader to help them adjust to their more self-managed state of affairs. Here participating —low initiating structure and high consideration—becomes the optimal combination of leader behaviors. Finally, the optimal combination for the R4 readiness level is delegating —low initiating structure and low consideration—such that the leader turns responsibility for key behaviors over to the employees. Here the leader gives them the proverbial ball and lets them run with it. All that’s needed from the leader is some degree of observation and monitoring to make sure that the group’s efforts stay on track. Nick Woodman, CEO of GoPro, had to learn the hard way (after numerous project failures) to recognize the readiness in his followers and that as the company’s projects moved outside of his area of expertise, he had to delegate more to his staff. 61 Page 456

Estimates suggest that the life cycle theory has been incorporated into leadership training programs at around 400 of the firms in the Fortune 500, with more than 1 million managers having been exposed to it. 62 Unfortunately, the application of the theory has outpaced scientific testing of its propositions, and the shifting nature of its terminology and predictions has made scientific testing somewhat difficult. 63 The research that has been conducted supports the theory’s predictions only for low readiness situations, suggesting that telling and selling sorts of behaviors may be more effective when ability, motivation, or confidence is lacking. 64 When readiness is higher, these tests suggest that leader behaviors simply matter less, regardless of their particular combinations. Tests also suggest that leaders only use the recommended combinations of behaviors between 14 and 37 percent of the time, 65 likely because many leaders adhere to the same leadership philosophy regardless of the situation. It should also be noted that tests of the theory have been somewhat more supportive when conducted on an across-job, rather than within-job, basis. For example, research suggests that the performance of lower ranking university employees (e.g., maintenance workers, custodians, landscapers) depends more on initiating structure and less on consideration than the performance of higher ranking university employees (e.g., professors, instructors). 66

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS

By describing decision-making styles and day-to-day leader behaviors, we’ve covered a broad spectrum of what it is that leaders do. Still, something is missing. Take a small piece of scrap paper and jot down five people who are famous for their effective leadership. They can come from inside or outside the business world and can be either living people or historical figures. All that’s important is that their name be practically synonymous with great leadership. Once you’ve compiled your list, take a look at the names. Do they appear on your list because they tend to use the right decision-making styles in the right situations and engage in effective levels of consideration and initiating structure? What about the case of Daniel Ek? Do decision-making styles and day-to-day leadership behaviors explain his importance to the fortunes of Spotify?

The missing piece of this leadership puzzle is what leaders do to motivate their employees to perform beyond expectations. Transformational leadership involves inspiring followers to commit to a shared vision that provides meaning to their work while also serving as a role model who helps followers develop their own potential and view problems from new perspectives. 67 Transformational leaders heighten followers’ awareness of the importance of certain outcomes while increasing their confidence that those outcomes can be achieved. 68 What gets “transformed” is the way followers view their work, causing them to focus on the collective good more than just their own short-term self-interests and to perform beyond expectations as a result. 69 Former president Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted, “Leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done, and then to get others to want to do it.” 70 Former president Harry S Truman similarly observed, “A leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don’t want to do, and like it.” 71 Both quotes capture a transformation in the way followers view their work and what motivates them on the job.Page 457

Mother Teresa’s inspiring humanitarian work with India’s sick and poor, and her founding of the influential Missionaries of Charity, became known around the world and suggest that she was a transformational leader. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

Tim Graham/Contributor/Getty Images

Transformational leadership is viewed as a more motivational approach to leadership than other managerial approaches. Figure 14-5 contrasts various approaches to leadership according to how active or passive they are and, ultimately, how effective they prove to be. The colored cubes in the figure represent five distinct approaches to motivating employees, and the depth of the cubes represents how much a leader prioritizes each of the approaches. The figure therefore represents an optimal leadership approach that prioritizes more effective and more active behaviors. That optimal approach includes low levels of laissez-faire (i.e., hands-off) leadership , represented by the red cube, which is the avoidance of leadership altogether. 72 Important actions are delayed, responsibility is ignored, and power and influence go unutilized. One common measure of leadership reflects laissez-faire styles with this statement: “The leader avoids getting involved when important issues arise.” 73

FIGURE 14-5 Laissez-Faire, Transactional, and Transformational Leadership

The three yellow cubes represent transactional leadership , which occurs when the leader rewards or disciplines the follower depending on the adequacy of the follower’s performance. 74 With passive management-by-exception , the leader waits around for mistakes and errors, then takes corrective action as necessary. 75 After all, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” 76 This approach is represented by statements like: “The leader takes no action until complaints are received.” 77 With active management-by-exception , the leader arranges to monitor mistakes and errors actively and again takes corrective action when required. 78 This approach is represented by statements like: “The leader directs attention toward failures to meet standards.” 79 Contingent reward represents a more active and effective brand of transactional leadership, in which the leader attains follower agreement on what needs to be done using promised or actual rewards in exchange for adequate performance. 80 Statements like “The leader makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved” exemplify contingent reward leadership. 81

Transactional leadership represents the “carrot-and-stick” approach to leadership, with management-by-exception providing the “sticks” and contingent reward supplying the “carrots.” Of course, transactional leadership represents the dominant approach to motivating employees in most organizations, and research suggests that it can be effective. A meta-analysis of 87 studies showed that contingent reward was strongly related to follower motivation and perceived leader effectiveness 82 (see Chapter 6 on motivation for more discussion of such issues). Active management-by-exception was only weakly related to follower motivation and perceived leader effectiveness, however, and passive management-by-exception seems actually to harm those outcomes. 83 Such results support the progression shown in Figure 14-5 , with contingent reward standing as the most effective approach under the transactional leadership umbrella.

14.5

How does transformational leadership differ from transactional leadership, and which behaviors set it apart?

Finally, the green cube represents transformational leadership—the most active and effective approach in Figure 14-5 . How effective is transformational leadership? Well, we’ll save that discussion for the “How Important Is Leadership?” section that concludes this chapter, but suffice it to say that transformational leadership has the strongest and most beneficial effects of any of the leadership variables described in this chapter. It’s also the leadership approach that’s most universally endorsed across cultures, as described in our OB Internationally feature. In addition, it probably captures the key qualities of the famous leaders we asked you to list a few paragraphs back. To understand why it’s so powerful, we need to dig deeper into the specific kinds of actions and behaviors that leaders can utilize to become more transformational. It turns out that the full spectrum of transformational leadership can be summarized using four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Collectively, these four dimensions of transformational leadership are often called “the Four I’s.” 84 For our discussion of transformational leadership, we’ll use Steve Jobs, former CEO of Apple, who was widely recognized as one of the most transformational leaders in the corporate world, as a running example. Fortune named Jobs “CEO of the Decade” for the 2000s. 85 Although Jobs died in 2011, his legacy as a transformational leader continues to this day. The fact that we constantly hear good leaders being called “Steve Jobs-like” illustrates this fact. Jobs’s leadership continues to affect employees at Apple in profound ways. 86

OB Internationally

Does the effectiveness of leader styles and behaviors vary across cultures? Answering that question is one of the objectives of Project GLOBE’s test of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory, which argues that effective leadership is “in the eye of the beholder” (see Chapter 9 on personality and cultural values for more discussion of such issues). To test the theory, researchers asked participants across cultures to rate a number of leader styles and behaviors using a 1 (very ineffective) to 7 (very effective) scale. The accompanying figure shows how three of the styles and behaviors described in this chapter were rated across 10 different regions (note that the term “Anglo” represents people of English ethnicity, including the United States, Great Britain, and Australia).

It turns out that transformational leadership is the most universally accepted approach to leadership of any of the concepts studied by Project GLOBE, receiving an average rating near 6 in every region except the Middle East. That appeal is likely explained by the fact that transformational leaders emphasize values like idealism and virtue that are endorsed in almost all countries. The figure also shows that a participative style is favorably viewed in most countries, though more variation is evident. Even more variation is seen with consideration behaviors, which are endorsed a bit less across the board but especially in Europe. Understanding these kinds of results can help organizations select and train managers who will fit the profile of an effective leader in a given region.

Sources: P.W. Dorfman, P.J.Hanges, and F.C.Brodbeck, “Leadership and Cultural Variation: The Identification of Culturally Endorsed Leadership Profiles,” in Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, ed. R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), pp. 669–720; R.J. House., P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, Culture, Leadership, and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004); M. Javidan., R.J. House, and P.W. Dorfman.,“A Nontechnical Summary of GLOBE Findings,” in Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, ed. R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), pp. 29–48.

Page 458 Idealized influence involves behaving in ways that earn the admiration, trust, and respect of followers, causing followers to want to identify with and emulate the leader. 87 Idealized influence is represented by statements like: “The leader instills pride in me for being associated with him/her.” 88 Idealized influence is synonymous with charisma—a Greek word that means “divinely inspired gift”—which reflects a sense among followers that the leader possesses extraordinary qualities. 89 “Charisma” is a word that was often associated with Steve Jobs. One observer noted that even though Jobs could be very difficult to work with, his remarkable charisma created a mysterious attraction that drew people to him, keeping them loyal to his collective sense of mission. 90 Page 459

To some extent, discussions of charisma serve as echoes of the “great person” view of leadership that spawned the trait research described in Table 14-2 . In fact, research suggests that there is a genetic component to charisma specifically and to transformational leadership more broadly. Studies on identical twins reared apart show that such twins have very similar charismatic profiles, despite their differing environments. 91 Indeed, such research suggests that almost 60 percent of the variation in charismatic behavior can be explained by genes. One explanation for such findings is that genes influence the personality traits that give rise to charisma. For example, research suggests that extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness have significant effects on perceptions of leader charisma, 92 and all three of those personality dimensions have a significant genetic component (see Chapter 9 on personality and cultural values for more discussion of such issues).Page 460

Inspirational motivation involves behaving in ways that foster an enthusiasm for and commitment to a shared vision of the future. 93 That vision is transmitted through a sort of “meaning-making” process in which the negative features of the status quo are emphasized while highlighting the positive features of the potential future. 94 Inspirational motivation is represented by statements like: “The leader articulates a compelling vision of the future.” 95 At Apple, Steve Jobs was renowned for spinning a “reality distortion field” that reshaped employees’ views of the current work environment. 96 One Apple employee explained, “Steve has this power of vision that is almost frightening. When Steve believes in something, the power of that vision can literally sweep aside any objections, problems, or whatever. They just cease to exist.” 97

Intellectual stimulation involves behaving in ways that challenge followers to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions and reframing old situations in new ways. 98 Intellectual stimulation is represented by statements like: “The leader gets others to look at problems from many different angles.” 99 Intellectual stimulation was a staple of Jobs’s tenure at Apple. He pushed for a different power supply on the Apple II so that the fan could be removed, preventing it from humming and churning like other computers of the time. Years later, he insisted on removing the floppy drive from the iMac because it seemed silly to transfer data one megabyte at a time, a decision that drew merciless criticism when the iMac debuted. One employee talking about Jobs stated, “There would be times when we’d rack our brains on a user interface problem, and think we’d considered every option, and he would go ‘Did you think of this?’ He’d redefine the problem or approach, and our little problem would go away.” 100

Individualized consideration involves behaving in ways that help followers achieve their potential through coaching, development, and mentoring. 101 Not to be confused with the consideration behavior derived from the Ohio State studies, individualized consideration represents treating employees as unique individuals with specific needs, abilities, and aspirations that need to be tied into the unit’s mission. Individualized consideration is represented by statements like: “The leader spends time teaching and coaching.” 102 Of the four facets of transformational leadership, Steve Jobs seemed lowest on individualized consideration. Employees who were not regarded as his equals were given a relatively short leash and sometimes faced an uncertain future in the company. In fact, some Apple employees resisted riding the elevator for fear of ending up trapped with Jobs for the ride between floors. As one observer describes it, by the time the doors open, you might have had your confidence undermined for weeks. 103

One interesting domain for examining transformational leadership issues is politics. Many of the most famous speeches given by U.S. presidents include a great deal of transformational content. To see the same in a famous British Prime Minister, see this chapter’s OB on Screen . Table 14-4 includes excerpts from speeches given by presidents that rank highly on transformational content based on scientific and historical study. 104 One theme that’s notable in the table is the presence of a crisis, as many of the presidents were attempting to steer the country through a difficult time in history (e.g., World War II, the Cold War, the Civil War). That’s not a coincidence, in that times of crisis are particularly conducive to the emergence of transformational leadership. 105 Times of stress and turbulence cause people to long for charismatic leaders, and encouraging, confident, and idealistic visions resonate more deeply during such times. In addition, support for this suggestion comes from President George W. Bush’s speeches before and after the tragedies on 9/11. Coding of his major speeches, public addresses, and radio addresses shows a significant increase in the transformational content of his rhetoric after the 9/11 attacks, including more focus on a collective mission and more articulation of a values-based vision. 106 As future research is conducted, we’re fairly confident that President Barack Obama’s speeches will be described similarly, as many of his campaign and postelection speeches were high in transformational content. In fact, President Obama was known for being a very charismatic leader in terms of both the messages he delivered and the mannerisms that went along with them. 107 It remains to be seen how President Trump’s speeches will be seen and received by others.Page 461

OB On Screen

DARKEST HOUR

“What just happened?” *

“He mobilized the English language. . . and sent it into battle.” *

With those words, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) describes the transformational leadership that Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman) displayed in his famous speech to rally Great Britain’s Parliament to fight against Adolf Hitler and the German army in Darkest Hour (Dir: Joe Wright, Universal Pictures, 2017). The movie begins shortly before Winston Churchill takes power as Britain’s Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, is being forced to resign by a large contingent in Parliament. Reluctantly, Chamberlain chooses Churchill with the long-term plan to install Viscount Halifax as Prime Minister. The movie continues to follow Churchill's progression as Prime Minister as Hitler continues his rampage across Europe. After continued and unceasing calls from Halifax and Chamberlain for him to negotiate a peace settlement and a seemingly insurmountable situation with the British army at Dunkirk, Churchill finally agrees to consider it.

Lifestyle pictures/Alamy

However, after a visit from King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) encouraging him to continue the fight, Churchill decides to ask the people what they think by riding the London underground for the first time ever. Motivated by the fierce resolve the common people show, Churchill then begins to make the rounds to motivate other members of Parliament to avoid surrender. The movie concludes with what many consider to be the most transformational speech during World War II. Churchill delivers what most refer to as the “We shall fight on the beaches” * speech on June 4, 1940. The speech drips with idealized influence and inspirational motivation. “We shall go on to the end! We shall fight in France. We shall fight in the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!” * As the speech continues, Chamberlain decides to change his support to Churchill and the continuation of the war while all of Parliament applauds.

PRESIDENT

TERM

REMARK

WHICH “I”?

Abraham Lincoln

1861–1865

“Fourscore and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Idealized influence

Franklin Roosevelt

1933–1945

“First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Inspirational motivation

John F. Kennedy

1961–1963

“And so, my fellow Americans . . . ask not what your country can do you for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

Intellectual stimulation

Lyndon Johnson

1963–1969

“If future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than sorrow, we must achieve more than just the miracles of technology. We must also leave them a glimpse of the world as it was created, not just as it looked when we got through with it.”

Idealized influence

Ronald Reagan

1981–1989

“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Idealized influence

Bill Clinton

1993–2001

“To realize the full possibilities of this economy, we must reach beyond our own borders, to shape the revolution that is tearing down barriers and building new networks among nations and individuals, and economies and cultures: globalization. It’s the central reality of our time.”

Intellectual stimulation

TABLE 14-4

Transformational Rhetoric among U.S. Presidents

Table Summary: A table displays the transformational rhetoric among U S Presidents. The table has four columns titled president, term, remark, and which I.

Sources: Mio, J. S., R. E. Riggio, S. Levin, and R. Reese. “Presidential Leadership and Charisma: The Effects of Metaphor.” Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005): pp. 287–294; http://www.usa-patriotism.com/quotes/_list.htm.

Page 462

SUMMARY: WHY ARE SOME LEADERS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHERS?

So what explains why some leaders are more effective than others? As shown in Figure 14-6 , answering that question requires an understanding of the particular styles that leaders use to make decisions and the behaviors they perform in their leadership role. In terms of decision-making styles, do they choose the most effective combination of leader and follower control in terms of the autocratic, consultative, facilitative, and delegative styles, particularly considering the importance of the decision and the expertise in the unit? In terms of day-to-day behaviors, do they engage in adequate levels of initiating structure and consideration? Finally, do they utilize an effective combination of transactional leadership behaviors, such as contingent reward, and transformational leadership behaviors, such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration?Page 463

FIGURE 14-6 Why Are Some Leaders More Effective Than Others?

BEHAVIOR	DESCRIPTION
Initiating Structure
Initiation	Originating, facilitating, and sometimes resisting new ideas and practices
Organization	Defining and structuring work, clarifying leader versus member roles, coordinating employee tasks
Production	Setting goals and providing incentives for the effort and productivity of employees
Consideration
Membership	Mixing with employees, stressing informal interactions, and exchanging personal services
Integration	Encouraging a pleasant atmosphere, reducing conflict, promoting individual adjustment to the group
Communication	Providing information to employees, seeking information from them, showing an awareness of matters that affect them
Recognition	Expressing approval or disapproval of the behaviors of employees
Representation	Acting on behalf of the group, defending the group, and advancing the interests of the group
TABLE 14-3 Day-to-Day Behaviors Performed by Leaders Table Summary: A table displays day to day behaviors performed by leaders. The table has two columns titled behavior and description. It has two sections titled initiating structure, and considerations.

1 NEVER	2 SELDOM	3 OCCASIONALLY	4 OFTEN	5 ALWAYS
1. I let group members know what is expected of them.
2. I encourage the use of uniform procedures.
3. I try out my ideas in the group.
4. I make my attitudes clear to the group.
5. I decide what shall be done and how it shall be done.
6. I assign group members to particular tasks.
7. I make sure that my part in the group is understood by the group members.
8. I schedule the work to be done.
9. I maintain definite standards of performance.
10. I ask group members to follow standard rules and regulations.
11. I am friendly and approachable.
12. I do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group.
13. I put suggestions made by the group into operation.
14. I treat all group members as equals.
15. I give advance notice of changes.
16. I keep to myself.	17.
17. I look out for the personal welfare of group members.
18. I am willing to make changes.
19. I refuse to explain my actions.	20.
20. I act without consulting the group.	21.

PRESIDENT	TERM	REMARK	WHICH “I”?
Abraham Lincoln	1861–1865	“Fourscore and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”	Idealized influence
Franklin Roosevelt	1933–1945	“First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”	Inspirational motivation
John F. Kennedy	1961–1963	“And so, my fellow Americans . . . ask not what your country can do you for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”	Intellectual stimulation
Lyndon Johnson	1963–1969	“If future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than sorrow, we must achieve more than just the miracles of technology. We must also leave them a glimpse of the world as it was created, not just as it looked when we got through with it.”	Idealized influence
Ronald Reagan	1981–1989	“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”	Idealized influence
Bill Clinton	1993–2001	“To realize the full possibilities of this economy, we must reach beyond our own borders, to shape the revolution that is tearing down barriers and building new networks among nations and individuals, and economies and cultures: globalization. It’s the central reality of our time.”	Intellectual stimulation
TABLE 14-4 Transformational Rhetoric among U.S. Presidents Table Summary: A table displays the transformational rhetoric among U S Presidents. The table has four columns titled president, term, remark, and which I.