Leadership Question
Daniel Orth
Topic8PowerpointReadingReview.pptxTopic 8. Followers and Followership. Readings.
Text
Green (1975) The Reciprocal Nature of Influence between the Leader and Subordinate
Sanford (1958) The Follower’s Role in the Leadership Phenomena
Hollander (1992) Leadership, Followership, Self, and Others
Dirks (2000) Trust in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball
Miller and Monge (1986) Participation Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review
Yun, Faraj, and Sim (2005) Contingent Leadership and Effectiveness of Trauma Resuscitation Teams
Supplemental
Zaleznik (1965) The Dynamics of Subordinacy
Crossman and Crossman (2011) Conceptualizing Followership: A Review of the Literature
The dynamics of subordinacy (Zaleznik,1965)
Adaptations to subordinacy grow out of developmental experiences
Tension between
Dominance and submission
Activity and passivity
Dominance
Desire to overpower and control authority figures
Submission
Desire to be dominated and controlled
Activity
Initiates action, intrudes into environment
Passivity
Waits for others to initiate action, then responds
2
Patterns of subordinacy (Zaleznik, 1965)
Dominance
Submission
Active
Passive
Impulsive
Acts without thinking
Compulsive
Acts under effect of over-elaborated thought, guilt,
doubt, attitude reversal, hidden aggression, denial of responsibility
Masochistic
Hurts self by provoking others
Identifies with underdog, sees oppression every where
Withdrawn
No longer cares about the orientation content of work
Aims to dominate relationships with superiors through acts of rebellion
Aims to dominate relationships with superiors through passivity
Hidden desire to endure suffering at hands of powerful aggressor
Withdrawal, apathy, depression
Motivation: unconscious aim of displacing the father, combined with fear of control
Constructive form: ability to speak frankly and constructively
Motivation: wish to dominate authority figures and the guilt associated with these wishes
Motivation: fears own aggression getting out of control, so instead of hurting others, hurts self by provoking others
Motivation: withdrawn father, cold hostile mother, inability to mobilize and constructively use aggressive impulses; aggression turned inward
Patterns of subordinacy (Zaleznik, 1965)
Advice for leaders
Know your mind
Avoid the reciprocal
Watch for resonance
Objectify conflict
Identify and address reality
Maintain contact
The Reciprocal Nature of Influence between the Leader and Subordinate Greene (1975)
Does subordinate performance and satisfaction cause the leader to vary his/her style of leadership?
Longitudinal data
Cross-lagged panel correlation
Dynamic correlational analysis
103 first line managers and two immediate subordinates
42 department heads for an insurance company
31 project managers research and engineering for a manufacturer
30 first line managers in finance and marketing for a chemical firm
The Reciprocal Nature of Influence between the Leader and Subordinate Greene (1975)
Leader who is rewarded contingent on the performance of his/her subordinates would be expected to
Develop more positive attitudes toward and reward higher performing subordinates
Restrict or further specify the work of lower performing subordinates (increased initiating structure) and express disapproval (reduction of consideration)
Engage in less structuring behavior and show greater approval and concern for higher performing subordinate (increased consideration)
Leader
Subordinates
Upper management
Performance
Rewards
Attitudes and
behavior
The Reciprocal Nature of Influence between the Leader and Subordinate Greene (1975)
Relationships investigated
Consideration and subordinate satisfaction
Consideration and performance
Initiating structure and satisfaction
Initiating structure and performance
Consideration-causes-subordinate satisfaction – strong support
Subordinate performance causes leader emphasis on consideration – strong support
Initiating structure and satisfaction – no support
Initiating structure and performance – moderate support low performance causes more initiating structure behavior
The Follower’s Role in Leadership Phenomena Sanford (1958)
How does “authoritarianism” affect orientation toward leadership?
Study of attitudes toward Franklin D. Roosevelt
Expectations
People who score on the Authoritarian end of the A-E scale will want strong and directive leadership that pays off in material terms
Would respect FDR because was strong and produced results
People that score on the Equalitarian end will want a warmer, more rational leader
Would respect FDR for his humanitarianism
Sanford’s A-E scale
1-6 points per question
Agree very much 6
Agree very much 6
Agree very much 6
Agree very much 6
Agree very much 6
Agree very much 6
Disagree very much 6
Disagree very much 6
From: Sanford (1950-51)
The Follower’s Role in Leadership Phenomena Sanford (1958)
Procedure
Select 80 people in the $5000-$10000/year income group with at least high school education
Middle to upper-middle class
Split the 80 into two group based on A-E scores; 40 highs, 40 lows
Three judges classify responses to interview items with respect to: emphasis on function, material dependency, emphasis on power, personal warmth
Examine tendency of highs and lows in accordance with expectations
The Follower’s Role in Leadership Phenomena Sanford (1958)
Emphasis on function (e.g., “excellent administrator”)
19 of the 25 responses showing concern with function made by people in the low scoring group (E-end) (difference significant at .02 level)
Material dependency (e.g., “saved us from depression”)
5 of the 6 responses emphasizing material dependency made by high scorers (A-end) (not conclusive due to small number)
Power (e.g., “pillar of strength in time of need”)
18 of the 31 responses emphasizing power were from high scorers, 13 from low (not significant difference)
Warmth (e.g., “great humanitarian”)
12 of the 13 responses emphasizing warmth and humanity from low scorers (difference significant at .01 level)
Conclusion: Personality factors in the follower play a role in determining orientation to leader
Leadership, Followership, Self, and Others Hollander (1992)
Research Question: How do followers contribute to successful leadership?
Literature review
Conclusion: Need to accord a more active role for those considered followers
Leader qualities by stages
Leader qualities are likely to be perceived by followers in terms of relevance to the current context rather than as desirable absolutely
Wanting, getting, doing, maintaining the job
Qualities that seem appropriate for wanting and getting stages not satisfactory for doing and maintaining
Leadership, Followership, Self, and Others Hollander (1992)
Follower perceptions and expectations
Practical importance of follower perceptions of leader-follower relationship
Derailment – lack of interpersonal skills
Kouzes and Posner
Sensitivity to followers, support, praise dominated good relations, absent from bad
Leader-follower relationships
Reciprocal systems
Follower attributions about leaders
Followers’ perceptions of leader affects behavior
Leadership, Followership, Self, and Others Hollander (1992)
Dominance and identification motifs
Authority/power vs. participative ethos/mutual identification
Legitimacy
Election vs. appointment
Transactional leadership
Idiosyncrasy credit
Self-monitoring
Self-serving biases
Charismatic and transformational leadership
Trust in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball Dirkes (2000)
Trust
Expectation or belief that the team can rely on the leader’s actions of words and that the leader has good intentions toward the team
Trust is important in that it allows the team to accept the leader’s activities, goals, and decisions and work hard to achieve them
When the team feels it cannot rely on the leader or the that the leader does not have the team’s interest at heart, team members are unlikely to carry out the roles specified by the leader or to work toward performance-related objectives and strategies set the by the leader
Trust in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball Dirkes (2000)
Hypothesis 1 – Trust in leadership has a positive effect on team performance
Hypothesis 2 – Trust in leadership mediates the relationship between the past team performance and future team performance
Performance
Past
Performance
Trust in leadership
Trust in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball Dirkes (2000)
30 NCAA Division I and Division III basketball teams, 355 individuals completed surveys
Variables
Team performance (winning percentage in conference)
Team performance, prior (winning percentage in conference past 4 years)
Trust in leader (coach)
Trust in teammates
Team talent (measure based on number of players selected for all conference team)
Player tenure (mean length of time players played under coach)
Coach’s record (career winning percentage weighted by length of career)
Coach’s experience (number of games coached)
Trust in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball Dirkes (2000)
Trust in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball Dirkes (2000)
Performance
Past
Performance
Trust in leadership
Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review Miller and Monge (1986)
Meta-analysis of effects on participation on satisfaction and productivity
47 studies found that contained quantifiable estimates of the relationship between participation in decision-making and productivity and satisfaction
41 estimates of effect on satisfaction
25 estimates of effect on productivity
Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review Miller and Monge (1986)
Models of participation effects
Cognitive
Information input by workers will lead to increased productivity
Affective
Increased participation by workers will lead to greater attainment of higher order needs and, in turn, increase satisfaction
Contingency
Participation will affect productivity and satisfaction differently for different people and situations
Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review Miller and Monge (1986)
Predictions
Cognitive
Effects of participation on an individual’s productivity will be strongest for decision that draw on the individual’s expertise
No direct influence on satisfaction, productivity mediates
Working in participative climate is not adequate to increase productivity or satisfaction
Affective
Working in participative climate is adequate to increase productivity
No direct link between participation and productivity
Participation may increase satisfaction more for employees not having higher needs met on other parts of job
Contingency
Employees with high independence needs and low authoritarianism will be most positively influence by participation
Some decisions more appropriate for participation
Employees who value participation will be the positively influenced by it
Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review Miller and Monge (1986)
* students
*
All subgroup estimates significant
Strongest effect for multiple issues
r = .34
Support for affective model
Strong effect size for satisfaction related to multiple issue perceived participation (.46) – effect on climate seems more important
Effect on satisfaction found in laboratory studies may diluted by organizational factors in field settings
No support for contingency model
Job type, level, service/manufacturing
No data on personality
Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review Miller and Monge (1986)
r =.15
Support for cognitive model
Effect size for productivity higher (.27) than for satisfaction (actual participation .16, perceived participation .21)
Tasks performed in laboratory settings may be simple, so authoritarian leadership more effective
25
Contingent Leadership and Effectiveness of Trauma Resuscitation Teams Yun, Faraj, and Sims (2005)
Research question: What contributes to leader effectiveness in high velocity environments?
Trauma team
Cross functional
Multi-disciplinary
Two main responsibilities
Medical care of trauma patients
Facilitate learning specialized practice of trauma care
Methodology – scenarios
Contingent Leadership and Effectiveness of Trauma Resuscitation Teams Yun, Faraj, and Sims (2005)
Research site: Level 1 trauma center in mid-Atlantic region
Questionnaires distributed to attending surgeons, attending anesthesiologists, trauma nurses, certified nurse anesthetists, residents, and trauma unit nurses and technicians
Contingent Leadership and Effectiveness of Trauma Resuscitation Teams Yun, Faraj, and Sims (2005)
Two patterns of leadership identified through ethnographic approach
Directive
Attending surgeon develops and finalizes patient plan with little consultation with other team members
Empowering
Attending surgeon encourages team members to actively participate in decision-making and task management
Contingent Leadership and Effectiveness of Trauma Resuscitation Teams Yun, Faraj, and Sims (2005)
Hypothesis 1 – the relationship between leadership and team effectiveness is moderated by the severity of patient trauma
Directive leaders provide better quality of care when a patient is very severely injured
Empowering leaders provide better quality of care when a patient is not severely injured
Hypothesis 2 – The relationship between leadership and team effectiveness is moderated by the degree of team experience
Directive leaders provide better quality of care when the trauma resuscitation team is inexperienced
Empowering leaders provide better quality of care when the trauma resuscitation team is experienced
Hypothesis 3 – An empowering leader provides more learning opportunities than does a directive leader
Contingent Leadership and Effectiveness of Trauma Resuscitation Teams Yun, Faraj, and Sims (2005)
Patient condition
Team experience
Experienced
Inexperienced
Severe
Not Severe
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
30
Contingent Leadership and Effectiveness of Trauma Resuscitation Teams Yun, Faraj, and Sims (2005)
Experienced team
Inexperienced team
Not Severe
Severe
Severe
Not Severe
31
Contingent Leadership and Effectiveness of Trauma Resuscitation Teams Yun, Faraj, and Sims (2005)
Hypothesis 1 Moderation by injury severity
supported
Hypothesis 2 Moderation by team experience
partially supported
Hypothesis 3 Empowering leadership and opportunities for learning
supported
Conclusions
Result support a contingency view of leadership
Results imply the importance of leader adaptability
