Week 5 essay

mloi01

Week5link1.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Week 5 essay

Leaders and their use of motivating language

James C. Sarros and Elvira Luca Management Monash University, Caulfield, East Australia

Iain Densten School of Business, Monash University Malaysia,

Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Malaysia, and

Joseph C. Santora International School of Management, Paris, France

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to use Motivating Language Theory (MLT) as a framework in determining leader use of different language styles during times of dynamic change. Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study of executive members of the Australian Institute of Management examined how MLT may provide a mechanism for analyzing what leaders say in the context of a work setting. Written transcripts of interview data were analyzed to determine leaders’ use of three language styles: meaning-making (locutionary), direction giving (perlocutionary), and empathetic (illocutionary) language. The software program NVivo was used to help aggregate themes emerging from written and interview data into discrete modules to enable more robust and comprehensive analysis of the data. Findings – A range of issues pertinent to the way executives lead and manage their businesses, both in private and not-for-profit organizations, was identified in this study. Direction giving language was most prominent in management activities and leadership that was strategic or people related, followed by meaning-making and empathetic language. The findings suggest that business leaders could develop a repertoire of language approaches in order to achieve organizational outcomes. Research limitations/implications – More research of the language of leadership and its implications for organizational outcomes is warranted. For instance, the strategic integration of motivating language with a compatible set of leader behaviors, organizational objectives, and cultures may reveal mechanisms as yet unknown for achieving outcomes. Research is needed to determine the content and construct of these behaviors, objectives, and cultures. Some questions also remain regarding the appropriateness of using the Motivating Language Scale to examine the types of language used by managers and leaders in the work place. The authors recommend further application of MLT through the Motivating Language Scale in order to help clarify these queries. Originality/value – This paper used MLT as a framework for identifying leader use of different language styles during times of dynamic change. MLT has been used to identify the speech patterns of leaders during verbal communication exchanges with staff and work colleagues, but this study is the first example of the use of MLT when examining leader responses to interviews and in their written responses to survey questions.

Keywords Leadership, Communication, Motivating language, Interviews, Qualitative data

Paper type Research paper

Leadership and language Leader communication Leaders communicate verbally as well as through their actions and behaviors. In this paper, our focus is the type of language leaders use as they deal with workplace issues. King (2003, p. 1205) states that “managing is about talk,” where the power of language through “its ontological capacity [structures] our actions in the context of perceived realities” (for further evidence see Astley, 1985; Gergen, 1992; Sandelands and Drazin,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Received 18 June 2012 Revised 24 August 2012 20 January 2013 11 March 2013 Accepted 12 March 2013

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 35 No. 3, 2014 pp. 226-240 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/LODJ-06-2012-0073

226

LODJ 35,3

1989; Westwood and Linstead, 2001). Without the capacity to involve others in their strategic vision for the company, leaders lose their impact (Farkas and Wetlaufer, 1996; Ireland and Hitt, 1999). Conger (1991, p. 31) states that “effective leaders [are] skillful craftsmen of their organization’s mission [and] communicate their missions in ways that maximize their significance.” In his study of powerful international leaders and statesmen such as Margaret Mead, Martin Luther King, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John XX111, Gardner (1995, p. 22) writes of the cognitive and cultural elements of leadership that reside in the minds of leaders and in their work cultures. This approach deals with the stories and struggles that constitute a leader’s mission in life. Gardner (1995, p. 55) illustrates and evaluates the stories of leaders by listening to their words and reading their thoughts, thereby establishing a sense of value and meaning in the words and actions of these leaders: “introspection and discussion are additional sources of value systems.”

Yukl (2002) claims that the verbal behavior of leaders comprises up to 82 percent of their work time when communicating goals to followers, clarifying standards, or giving feedback. This perspective of managerial behavior has not fundamentally changed since Mintzberg (1973) first identified the variety, brevity, and fragmentation of managers’ work, which frequently was interspersed with verbal interactions. An update on Mintzberg’s (1973) study by Gentry et al. (2008) confirms that managers still maintain communication (verbal and written) as a key facet of their role. And this communication has impact. For instance, Mohr and Wolfram’s (2008) study of 140 leaders and 455 direct reports in Germany found that verbal consideration was associated with lower levels of follower irritation, and higher levels of job satisfaction and affective commitment.

Another study illustrates the power of language, spoken, and written. Emrich et al. (2001) examined US presidents’ speeches from Washington (first year in office 1789) to Reagan (first year in office 1981) and found that when image-based rhetoric such as “sweat” instead of “work,” “frontier” instead of “limit,” or “dream” instead of “idea” were used, the higher the president’s charisma level, and the more favorable historians’ assessments of his greatness. This finding is consistent with Bass’s (1985, p. 28) assertion that top managers possess “the ability to create, articulate, and communicate a compelling vision that induces commitment to it, clarity about it, and support for it.”

Leaders today are increasingly subject to public scrutiny through the electronic media, so what they say not only has greater immediate impact, but also demands that the message is understood as intended. From that perspective, this paper reports on our study of interviews with leaders from various industry groupings, and is delimited to the spoken word interpreted through interview transcripts. The interview data helped answer the first research objective of this study:

(1) To identify the type of leadership enacted in times of dynamic global economic change. Tierney (1996, p. 374) comments on the need to examine more closely language as

“a key area of investigation” in leadership research. Tierney (1996) believes that the words of leaders help explain the social and historical dimensions in which an organization exists. Similarly, Bryman et al. (1996, pp. 353-354) identify “a growing interest in the use of qualitative research” in the examination of organizational leadership, and cite examples of interview studies of executives to illustrate this qualitative approach. Biggart and Hamilton (1987, p. 439) claim that qualitative studies of leadership provide a comprehensive understanding of leadership as “a relationship among persons embedded in a social setting at a given historical moment.” Our present study is conducted within these parameters of qualitative interview studies of organizational leadership.

227

Leaders and their use of motivating

language

Leader sense-making What leaders say and do inform us of the state of thinking in organizations and society. For instance, Conger (1991, p. 44) identifies leaders as “meaning makers [who] construct pictures of great possibilities.” When leaders translate ideas into actions, they participate in “the discursive process of constructing and interpreting their social world” (Gephart, 1993, p. 1485). Recent interview studies show that the language of leadership and management is the language of meaning and context. Francis’ (2002) interview study of individuals at all organizational levels in a large UK manufacturing firm confirmed that qualitative data gathered through interviews is akin to Alvesson and Deetz (2000) concept of “drilling” for greater detail and understanding. Further, in their interviews with 62 executives in 27 companies in the UK, Ezzamel et al. (1996, p. 158) observed the importance of interview data to better contextualize and interpret survey responses. And in an interview study of 40 managers and scientists in a science-based research and development company, Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003, pp. 378, 380) claimed that:

Language use (discourse) matters as much as what actually goes on [in leadership] in terms of how we understand increasingly ambiguous phenomena [y] We suggest that the possible existence of leadership – as behavior, meanings, identity, and discourse – should be critically studied, not be taken for granted.

One of the key skills required by leaders is the ability to motivate others which, as Zorn and Ruccio (1998, p. 468) noted, is based “almost entirely [on] communication skills.” Conger (1991, p. 32) described the language of leadership as “the process of defining the purpose of the organization and using symbolic language to give emotional power to the message.” Making sense of the words of the leaders interviewed for this study helps establish their state of thinking about important business issues such as strategy, organizational culture, leadership approaches, and professional development. We applied Motivating Language Theory (MLT) (Sullivan, 1988) as the theoretical framework to assist us in this analysis.

MLT MLT (Sullivan, 1988) provides a model for understanding how leadership language works and evaluating its impact on workers. Using a psycholinguistic framework, Sullivan (1988) conceptualized three types of supervisor-subordinate communications:

(1) perlocutionary language refers to uncertainty-reducing language and tends to be direction-giving or task oriented such as clarifying the job to be done;

(2) locutionary language is concerned with meaning making and uses stories to explain the culture, structure, and values of the organization; and

(3) illocutionary or empathetic language refers to relational communication which facilitates human bonding and interpersonal relationships, such as praise for work well done or consideration for work or personal problems.

According to Sullivan (1988), most motivational theories tend to address only uncertainty-reducing language and assume that this is the main form of organizational communication used to motivate workers. In comparison, MLT addresses other functions of motivational language that previously have been ignored, namely language as a meaning-making tool, and language as a means of human bonding and forming relationships. In particular, locutionary language is a relatively new field of study in the management literature (Mayfield et al., 1998; Sullivan, 1988). Locutionary or meaning-making language refers to communication that helps workers make sense

228

LODJ 35,3

of their workplace and assists in aligning employee behaviour to organizational goals. Sullivan (1988, p. 106) views work as “what one does as part of the ongoing process of constructing a specific sense of one’s place in the world,” and suggests communication that facilitates different meaning making is most appropriate. Meaning-making language helps workers construct schemas and scripts which then guide work behaviour in ways which benefit the organization (Sullivan, 1988, p. 107). This notion is supported by Barker and Camarata (1998) who maintained that the link between an individual’s mental models and the organization’s mission is managed through communication. Additionally, meaning making is one of the key tools of strategic leadership, and is particularly important during times of dynamic change as is the case today (Boal and Hooijberg, 2001; Crossan et al., 2008; Elenkov et al., 2005).

Illocutionary or relational language refers to informal communication that develops interpersonal relationships. As Sullivan (1988, p. 109) notes, “it is an end in itself, an act of sharing unique to human beings.” Through a manager’s empathy and consideration, employees develop a sense of self-worth and trust, which in turn creates a bond between manager and worker, which translates to work motivation. Sullivan (1988) suggested that effective managers will use all three types of motivating language to achieve their goals.

MLT has been criticized by Zorn and Ruccio (1998) because of its perceived focus on discrete language types with single functions, and noted that messages always tend to be multifunctional. For example, a relational message (praise) may reduce uncertainty and modify meaning (Zorn and Ruccio, 1998). However, Sullivan (1988, p. 113) clearly stated that “all functions of language must be combined in a coherent discourse in order to have the greatest impact,” and mutually supportive speech acts will lead to improved worker motivation. Sullivan’s assumption was acknowledged by Mayfield et al. (1998, p. 237) who noted that “motivating language use cannot be piecemeal [y] [and] managers need to be adept in all three speech types.” Accordingly, this observation guides the second objective of our study:

(2) To examine the extent to which each type of motivating language was used by leaders in times of change.

Our premise is that with an ever increasing need by leaders to develop strategies for dealing with change, and the need to align workers to these new imperatives, that both perlocutionary (direction giving) and locutionary (meaning-making) language use by leaders will be prominent.

Based on Sullivan’s theory, Mayfield et al. (1995, 1998) developed a motivating language scale to test the veracity or otherwise of different communication styles intended for different organizational and worker outcomes and responses, such as performance and job satisfaction (Mayfield et al., 1998, p. 237). Their (Mayfield et al., 1998, p. 240) study of 164 nursing staff in a government health care facility in the southeastern USA found that a leader’s use of motivating language was strongly related to a worker’s job satisfaction (path coefficient of 0.67) and performance (0.22).

In an exploratory case study by Zorn and Ruccio (1998) involving interviews with 24 sales managers and sales representatives from a publishing firm in North Carolina in the USA, MLT was interpreted to emphasize the multifunctional nature of communication. The research considered the intentions of the manager, the message itself, the contextual situation, and the employee’s interpretation. The study found that managers tended to use motivational language styles in a variety of combinations, and the context or situation was also an important factor. In keeping with Sullivan (1988), Zorn and Ruccio (1998, p. 495) found that “MLT seemed to capture the flavor of many of the kinds of motivational speech acts [the sales] managers perform.” and

229

Leaders and their use of motivating

language

concluded that managers should not focus on uncertainty-reduction solely but “develop and use a repertoire of motivational speech acts” (Zorn and Ruccio, 1998, p. 497). As these studies show, the environmental context is a key element in the types of language leaders use to achieve organizational outcomes.

Methodology Research framework To reiterate, the two objectives of this study were to:

(1) identify the type of leadership enacted in times of dynamic global economic change; and

(2) examine the extent to which each type of motivating language was used by leaders in times of change.

This research used MLT (Sullivan, 1988) as the theoretical framework, and Mayfield et al.’s (1998) Motivating Language Scale to operationalize the language styles identified by Sullivan (1988). Mayfield et al. (1998, p. 239) reported robust reliability coefficients for meaning-making (locutionary) (0.93), direction giving (perlocutionary) (0.95), and empathetic (illocutionary) (0.97) language. Examples of meaning-making language are the items “[My boss] tells me stories about key events in the organization’s past,” and “[My boss] offers me advice about how to behave at the organization’s social gatherings.” Examples of direction giving language are “[My boss] gives me clear instructions about solving job-related problems,” and “[My boss] gives me useful explanations of what needs to be done in my work.” Examples of empathetic language are “[My boss] shows trust in me,” and “[My boss] gives me praise for my good work.”

Sample We surveyed 1,918 members of the Australian Institute of Management in relation to leadership style, organizational culture, and job outcomes, of whom 511 provided written comments on leadership and culture. From these 511 managers, we purposefully selected another group of managers across industry sectors to interview on the nature of leadership in a dynamic and competitive market place. In purposeful sampling, the size of the sample is determined by informational considerations, and generally the sampling is terminated when no new information is forthcoming. Often referred to as saturation, Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 202) noted that redundancy is the primary criterion when determining sample size. We terminated interviews when we believed saturation of information was reached (n¼129 interviewees). For the entire sample (n¼1,918), 76 percent of respondents were male, 61 percent of respondents were 49 years of age or younger, and companies ranged in size from fewer than 500 employees (62 percent) to more than 1,000 employees (31 percent). Most respondents (50 percent) were at CEO, COO, or executive (Vice-president, Director) levels of seniority. Around a quarter of the sample (24 percent) had five or fewer years experience as an executive, and 33 percent reported more than 20 years experience. The sample was relatively well educated, with 59 percent holding a bachelor or masters degree. Industry groups or positions most represented were administration (42 percent), advertising, manufacturing, R&D (26 percent in aggregate), MIS (8 percent), human resource management (6 percent), and accounting/finance (5 percent).

Data analysis techniques In order to address research objective one, “to identify the type of leadership enacted in times of dynamic global economic change,” we first content analyzed the written

230

LODJ 35,3

responses of the 511 respondents identified previously. A total of eight themes and sub-themes were generated as a result of this analysis. These themes were Management and Leadership, Leadership and Culture, Trust and Commitment, External and Internal Issues, Challenge and Change, Leadership Development, Innovation of Australian Companies, and Entrepreneurship of Australian Companies, and helped guide the preparation of questions for the interview stage of this study. The 129 executives who were interviewed by phone helped address research objective two, “to examine the extent to which each type of motivating language was used by leaders in times of change.”

As researchers, we were concerned with uncovering the patterns that emerged from the interviews, and grouping these patterns into meaningful themes as they related to each of the eight themes outlined above. The software program NVivo was used to help aggregate the themes into discrete modules to enable more robust and comprehensive analysis of the data (Richards, 1999). Themes were also double coded to check for inter-rater reliability (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1985, p. 7), which was 0.88 for this study. The greater the inter-rater reliability coefficient, the more likely it is that coders have identified similar themes independently of each other. Results that exceed 0.70 for inter-rater reliability are considered adequate (Miles and Huberman, 1984). We have selected comments most representative of the ideas and perspectives of the interviewees for question one only, that is, leadership and management, and associated sub-sections, as this theme best represents the two research objectives of this study.

Results The selected comments are presented in terms of their representation of one or more of the three motivating language schema, namely direction-giving, meaning-making, and empathetic language. Where appropriate, each comment is followed by the language type most applicable to that comment, where DG, direction giving; MM, meaning making; and EL, empathetic language. For all comments we provide selected demographic information that shows gender of respondent, level of seniority (CEO, COO), or Executive (Vice President, Director), or Upper Middle (Department Executive, Plant Manager), size of organization (number of employees), and type of organization or industry.

As shown in Table I and in response to research objective one, respondents identified that the day-to-day operations of management rely on direct communication to achieve results (n¼25, 100 percent). On the other hand, leadership was both

Motivating language type a

DG MM EL Totals Category f(%)b f(%)b f(%)b f(%)

Management Management – day-to-day operations 25(100) 25(100) Leadership Leadership – strategy 12(60) 5(25) 3(15) 20(100) Leadership – people related 12(60) 4(20) 4(20) 20(100) Combined Similar 4(36) 4(36) 3(28) 11(100) Totals 53(70) 13(17) 10(13) 76(100)

Notes: aDG, direction giving; MM, meaning-making; EL, Empathetic Language. bAs a percentage of

total number of examples of motivating language in this category

Table I. Frequency and

percentage frequency distributions of responses

classified by differences between leadership and

management and motivating language type

231

Leaders and their use of motivating

language

strategic and people related, and used a mixture of language types to achieve outcomes. In each case, that is for both management and leadership, direction giving language was most prominent.

Type of leadership needed today Management is – day-to-day operations In terms of MLT, the everyday operational functions of management represent the direction-giving and uncertainty reducing use of language intended to clarify the nature of the work and what needs to get done. The activities associated with this use of language include maintaining efficient and effective operations, financial management, and ongoing monitoring of the workplace. Examples follow:

So my management approach is about being open and communicating to people what my expectations are, letting them understand what’s required, and putting to them that if they’ve got any questions or need to seek advice, then I’m always here for them. But ultimately, given their level of training, skill and expertise, my expectation is that they will be given a problem and will solve it (male, upper middle, fewer than 500 employees, public sector).

I use very much what I call management by walking around, being confidently aware at least twice a day, walking through the factory, making a point of talking to people, listening to their comments as such, as I can refer it straight back to any queries by the Board (male, executive, fewer than 100, horticulture).

Leadership is – strategic In terms of MLT, leaders as strategic planners and communicators rely on all types of motivational language to do the job (Table I). The activities associated with direction giving are explanations of what work needs to get done, and providing a vision of where the organization is going. Direction giving also holds out the promise of reward for achieving projected outcomes. Meaning-making activities focus on explaining how workers fit into the company, and how they are part of a team working to a common goal. Meaning-making language and activities are grounded in the established culture and norms of the company. Empathetic language focusses on supporting the professional development of workers and encouraging their work efforts in a personal fashion. In this section, 12 comments (60 percent – as a percentage of total number of examples of motivating language) focus on direction giving language and activities, five (25 percent) on meaning-making language and activities, and three (15 percent) on empathetic language. Some selected comments are provided for illustrative purposes:

[When in] a leadership role you have to follow things such as policy or strategy, give direction. You have to be able to delegate from that role. But within a leadership role you need to be able to lead by example in regard to the business that you’re in (male, upper middle, medical/healthcare) (DG).

Leadership is setting the vision and the ideology behind the company. In other words, what we do and what our standards are comes from leadership, whereas the day-to-day running and the operations of it is more the management (male, CEO, fewer than 100, consulting) (MM).

My leadership is more in terms of ensuring the people who work for or with me – and I see those as being very similar – my way of dealing with those people is to get them to achieve their potential, that is to get them to be able to do the best they can do. And, if that means ultimately developing to a position that’s above and beyond mine, well, then, that’s fine. So, in

232

LODJ 35,3

simple terms – I’m going a long way around this question – and if it’s about the day-to-day running of things, leadership is about the development of the people and the longer term future of it (male, executive, building/construction) (EL).

Leadership is – people related In terms of MLT, leadership as a people-related activity in this study uses direction giving language in 12 (60 percent) cases, and both meaning-making and empathetic language in four (20 percent) cases, respectively:

I guess my leadership [works] through the way I relate to people by way of example, I guess [as] a role model to others [y] in the way I dealwith parents, students and other staff. That’s the real leadership focus (female, CEO, fewer than 500, education) (MM).

The way to leadership is to motivate people, provide direction, get people enthusiastic, a sense of confidence so it’s working with staff on that sort of thing. Also being able to identify peoples’ skills and actually help them to develop (male, CEO, fewer than 500, education) (DG, EL).

Leadership is all about creating visions and getting people to understand what that vision is, accept it and feel as though they have it as a common sense of purpose, and getting a group to try and achieve that as an objective (male, CEO, fewer than 100, consulting) (MM).

Leadership and management are similar One-fifth of all interviewees (26 from 129 participants) believed that leadership and management are one and the same thing. In the majority of cases, these two functions dealt with meaning-making language which involved staff in decision making by grounding strategies and activities in the company’s cultural heritage, and direction giving language by providing clear directions for getting the work completed. In this section, four of the selected comments focus on meaning-making and direction giving language (36 percent, respectively), and three (28 percent) on empathetic language:

It’s very difficult, because I see me being a leader as being a good manager as well, and as a good manager, I am also a leader. So it’s all entwined in my opinion. You do some things one way, you make the hard decisions, then you guide people, you let them [y] all of them learn by their mistakes without criticising them too much. But if you do criticise, it should be constructive (male, CEO, fewer than 100, medical/healthcare) (DG, EL).

For most organisations as I said, from an internal point of view I regard leadership as part of good management because clearly strategy, as indeed leadership, is not confined to the top of the organisation (male, CEO, public sector) (DG).

I don’t see the difference between leadership and management, so I suppose that’s the answer to the question. It’s all linked back to vision and culture, so if you create a vision and develop a culture then you’ve really got to address and maintain the strength of the culture by your leadership and that’s intrinsic with your management style. The whole thing rolls together. So if you have an open approach to your leadership style, your management is also like that as well. A lot of trust, openness and so forth, so to me they go hand in hand, there is no variation to my leadership approach (male, CEO, retail) (MM, EL).

Motivating language use by leaders Table II illustrates the key leadership categories examined in this study and aggregated on the basis of the three motivating language types of direction giving,

233

Leaders and their use of motivating

language

meaning-making, and empathetic language, and in response to research objective two. In relation to all interview categories, business executives were more likely to use direction giving or uncertainty reducing language in the majority of cases (53 percent), followed by meaning-making language (32 percent), and empathetic language in the least number of cases (15 percent).

Direction giving was the most used type of motivating language in this study (53 percent of cases, Table II), and was an essential element of strategic and people- related leadership (70 percent of all cases, Table I). Direction giving includes the components of strategic forward-looking behavior in its construct. To elaborate, direction giving language is characterized by the following activities: explaining what needs to be done in the workplace; offering directions on how to do the job; offering advice on how to improve the work; what is expected in order to be rewarded; how to solve work problems; and information on past and future changes to work. From this perspective, direction-giving leadership is strategic and informative. It involves workers in their work careers and promises future rewards for present day efforts. Our findings support the research by Mayfield et al. (1998) who also found direction giving was the most prominent form of motivating language among the sample of healthcare workers they surveyed.

Meaning-making language was the second type of motivating language most used by managers in this study (32 percent of cases, Table II). Meaning-making language is characterized by the following activities: explaining the culture of the company through stories of past key events; informal communication channels; identification of workers who are admired and have worked hard in the company; and advice on how to be a part of the company culture and norms. One of our leaders said that “if you create a vision and develop a culture [y] you have [to have] an open approach to your leadership style [y] a lot of trust, openness and so forth” (retail).

Managers also found time to use empathetic language, primarily as a means for praising workers and developing a sense of communal trust between workers and management. Empathetic language was the third type of motivating language most used by managers in this study, and is characterized by the following activities: praising and encouraging workers for good work; showing trust in workers; and promoting the professional development and job satisfaction of workers.

Motivating language typea

DG MM EL Category f(%)b f(%)b f(%)b f(%)c

1. Management and leadership 53(70) 13(17) 10(13) 76(10) 2. Leadership and culture 55(46) 43(36) 22(18) 120(17) 3. Trust and commitment 24(31) 46(59) 8(10) 78(11) 4. External and internal issues 91(59) 45(29) 18(12) 154(21) 5. Challenge and change 46(58) 16(20) 17(22) 79(11) 6. Leadership development 90(60) 36(24) 23(15) 149(20) 7. Innovation of Australian companies 12(29) 17(42) 12(29) 41(6) 8. Entrepreneurship of Australian companies 15(50) 14(47) 1(3) 30(4) Totals 386(53) 230(32) 111(15) 727(100)

Notes: aDG, direction giving; MM, meaning making; EL, empathetic language. bAs a percentage of

total number of examples of motivating language in this category. c As a percentage of total responses

(n¼727)

Table II. Frequency and percentage frequency distributions of responses classified by categories of leadership and motivating language type

234

LODJ 35,3

As indicated in Table II, the greatest number of comments and those with more detail were offered by respondents when describing the external and internal issues impacting on them as a leader in today’s fluid business environment (n¼154, 21 percent of all comments recorded and documented using the MLT framework). The least amount of comments was in relation to the entrepreneurial and innovative nature of Australian enterprises (4 and 6 percent, respectively, of comments).

Discussion This analysis of interview comments identified a range of issues relevant to leaders of private and not-for-profit organizations. MLT was used as a framework for exploring three language styles used by leaders when dealing with these specific issues (Mayfield et al., 1995, 1998; Sullivan, 1988), namely: first, perloctionary or direction-giving, uncertainty reducing language which clarifies the work to be done; second, locutionary or meaning-making language which uses stories to explain the culture, structure, and values of the organization; and third, illocutionary or empathetic language which shares emotions with the workers through praise for a job well done (Mayfield et al., 1998, p. 237).

Our findings reveal, and are consistent with our research proposition, that with an ever-increasing need by leaders to develop strategies for dealing with change, both direction giving (perlocutionary) and meaning-making (locutionary) language use by leaders will be prominent. In particular, direction-giving language was most used by leaders due to dynamic international and domestic market conditions that demand precise articulation of a company’s mission and objectives. Kouzes and Posner (1990, 1995) found through their studies of over 20,000 executives in the USA that forward- looking behavior is a critical dimension in credible leadership. These findings suggest that in times of unrelenting and ubiquitous change, direction-giving language is always in demand, and its use should be both encouraged and developed.

Next in order of priority were meaning-making (17 percent) and empathetic language (13 percent) (Table I). Providing direction, solving problems, and together with meaning-making language, envisioning the future state and direction of the company, are crucial leadership functions (Bigley and Wiersema, 2002; Greiner et al., 2003, p. 1). Porter et al. (2004, p. 72) claim that CEOs are always sending messages through their behaviours and by “setting and communicating strategy, [and] putting sound processes in place.” Meaning-making language engages workers in the organization’s cultural heritage by articulating to employees the structure and values of the company, the importance of achieving performance outcomes, and how these outcomes rely on the best fit between worker and organization needs and expectations (Cable and Judge, 1997; Cable and Parsons, 2001; Vandenberghe, 1999; Van Vianen, 2000). Good person-job fit appears to underlie many of the observations associated with meaning-making language.

Of some interest is the capacity of meaning making, as the second most used type of motivating language, to build trust, commitment, and loyalty in workers (category 3, Table II). Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 395) define trust as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another.” Trust and respect in workers are directly associated with faith in the leader’s capacity to get the job done and in their conviction that their mission and goals are achievable and representative of everyone’s needs (Conger and Kanungo, 1998, pp. 59-60). Thus, when executives role model appropriate leader behavior, employee trust, and commitment follow (Agle and Sonnenfeld, 1994; Podsakoff

235

Leaders and their use of motivating

language

et al., 1990). From this perspective, it is imperative that those in leadership positions recognize the moral imperatives associated with their actions if they wish to build worker trust. This finding reiterates the studies of Kouzes and Posner (1990) and Sims and Lorenzi (1992) who found that commitment is recognized as a key outcome of leader credibility or respect, and is most recently alluded to in the work by Luthans et al. (2007) on psychological capital. In addition, trust and loyalty to the leader have been used interchangeably in the research (Gottlieb and Sanzgiri, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995) and are related to effective organizational outcomes (Doney et al., 1998) and greater meaning and commitment among followers (Shamir et al., 1993, 1994).

Empathetic language was the third most used style in this study, and it allows managers to show their affective side when dealing with their employees, to the extent that levels of trust and job satisfaction are a major focus of their attention. Studies indicate that trust provides the building blocks for sustainable and competitive work environments (Costigan et al., 1998; Leana and Van Buren, 1999; McAllister, 1995; Simons, 2002). Other research indicates that job satisfaction is an outcome of trust (e.g. Driscoll, 1978; Flaherty and Pappas, 2000; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Shockley-Zabalak et al., 2000). Consequently, on the basis of these observations, managers are advised to: first, promote trusting workplaces that encourage workers to achieve to the best of their abilities; second, show concern for workers’ levels of job satisfaction; and third, promote the professional development of their staff and employees. In particular, the professional development of managers and employees has been often overlooked in management research as well as in companies generally.

Overall, our findings indicate that business leaders today could develop a repertoire of language approaches in order to achieve and promote differential outcomes and agenda. Whether one type of language approach works better in different industry settings was not examined in this study, and promises avenues for future research. For instance, if the use of language by leaders in a service industry is fundamentally different to that used by leaders in corporate finance, education, health, or law, are the outcomes also different? Are outcomes more effective as a result of one type of language use over another? Logically, it is likely that less direction-giving language is needed for high-end knowledge workers, while more meaning-making language is needed in more personnel-related workplaces such as education or healthcare systems. Similarly, what, if any, are the differences in language use and outcomes when categorized by other demographics, such as gender, organization size, location, domestic, and international events, and years of tenure as CEO? In particular, Mohr and Wolfram (2008, p. 13) suggest that national culture may influence gender-specific perceptions of leader verbal behavior patterns. Further, top management team heterogeneity in terms of length of tenure in the job has implications for leadership behavior (Elenkov et al., 2005; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996). Elenkov et al. (2005, p. 679) assert that when senior leadership teams are heterogeneous in their length of tenure, the more likely it is that transformational, visionary leadership will be used in the execution of company strategy. Our study has shown that this type of strategic leadership is associated primarily with meaning-making and direction giving language (Table I). Further research is needed to test this finding, as its validation has important ramifications not only for how long leaders remain on boards of directors or as senior executives of their companies, but also for the types of language approaches leaders need to use to achieve strategic outcomes.

To summarize, the outcomes leaders want to achieve may be associated with specific forms of motivating language. In order to explore this contention more

236

LODJ 35,3

comprehensively, the multi-faceted nature of leadership that draws on transformational or role modeling behaviors should be addressed in future research. For example, research could examine the extent to which motivating language approaches are associated with transformational, charismatic, and more direct and transactional leadership behaviors. Mayfield et al. (1998, p. 243) assert that “[Motivating language] will be most beneficial when it is strategically integrated with a compatible set of leader behaviors, organizational objectives, and culture.” More research is needed to determine the content and construct of these behaviors, objectives, and cultures.

Some questions also remain in terms of the appropriateness of using the Motivating Language Scale to examine the types of language used by managers and leaders when responding to interview questions. As Mayfield et al. (1995, 1998) have shown, MLT has been used to identify the speech patterns of leaders during verbal communication exchanges with staff and work colleagues. Responses to interview questions may not tap into the immediate needs of workers or help articulate the everyday workplace transactions that MLT is claimed to represent. We recommend further application of MLT through the Motivating Language Scale in order to help clarify these issues.

References

Agle, B.R. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1994), “Charismatic chief executive officers: are they more effective? An empirical test of charismatic leadership theory”, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 2-6.

Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000), Doing Critical Management Research, Sage, London.

Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2003), “The great disappearing act: difficulties in doing ‘leadership’”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 359-381.

Astley, W.G. (1985), “Administrative science as socially constructed truth”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 479-513.

Barker, R.T. and Camarata, M.R. (1998), “The role of communication in creating and maintaining a learning organisation: preconditions, indicators, and disciplines”, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 443-467.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Biggart, N.W. and Hamilton, G.G. (1987), “An institutional theory of leadership”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 429-441.

Bigley, G.A. and Wiersema, M.F. (2002), “New CEOs and corporate strategic refocusing: how experience as heir apparent influences the use of power”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 707-727.

Boal, K.B. and Hooijberg, R. (2001), “Strategic leadership research: moving on”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 515-549.

Bryman, A., Stephens, M. and Campo, C. (1996), “The importance of context: qualitative research and the study of leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 353-370.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1997), “Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 546-561.

Cable, D.M. and Parsons, C.K. (2001), “Socialization tactics and person-organization fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Conger, J.A. (1991), “Inspiring others: the language of leadership”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 31-45.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1998), Charismatic Leadership in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

237

Leaders and their use of motivating

language

Costigan, R.D., Ilter, S.S. and Berman, J.J. (1998), “A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 303-317.

Crossan, M., Vera, D. and Nanjad, L. (2008), “Transcendent leadership; strategic leadership in dynamic environments”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 569-581.

Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P. and Mullen, M.R. (1998), “Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 601-620.

Driscoll, J.W. (1978), “Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of job satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 44-56.

Elenkov, D.S., Judge, W. and Wright, P. (2005), “Strategic leadership and executive innovation influence: an international multi-cluster comparative study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 665-682.

Emrich, C.G., Brower, H.H., Feldman, J.M. and Garland, H. (2001), “Images in words: presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 527-557.

Ezzamel, M., Lilley, S. and Willmott, H. (1996), “The view from the top: senior executives’ perceptions of changing management practices in UK companies”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 155-168.

Farkas, C.M. and Wetlaufer, S. (1996), “The ways chief executive officers lead”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 110-122.

Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1996), Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects, West Publishing, Minneapolis, MN.

Flaherty, K.E. and Pappas, J.M. (2000), “The role of trust in salesperson-sales manager relationships”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 271-278.

Francis, H. (2002), “The power of ‘talk’ in HRM-based change”, Personnel Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 432-448.

Gardner, H. (1995), Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Gentry, W.A., Harris, L.S., Baker, B.A. and Leslie, J.B. (2008), “Managerial skills: what has changed since the late 1980s”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 167-181.

Gephart, R. (1993), “The textual approach: risk and blame in disaster sensemaking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1465-1514.

Gergen, K. (1992), “Organization theory in the postmodern era”, in Reed, M. and Hughes, M. (Eds.), Rethinking Organization, Sage, London.

Goodwin, L.D. and Goodwin, W.L. (1985), “Statistical techniques in AERJ articles, 1979-1983: the preparation of graduate students to read the educational research literature”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 5-11.

Gottlieb, J.Z. and Sanzgiri, J. (1996), “Towards and ethical dimension of decision making in organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 12, pp. 1275-1285.

Greiner, L., Cummings, T. and Bhambri, A. (2003), “When new CEOs succeed and fail: 4-D theory of strategic transformation”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (1999), “Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: the role of strategic leadership”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 43-57.

King, I.W. (2003), “Making space: valuing our talk in organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1205-1223.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1990), “The credibility factor: what followers expect from their leaders”, Management Review, Vol. 79 No. 1, 29-33.

238

LODJ 35,3

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1995), The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Leana, C.R. and Van Buren, H.J. (1999), “Organizational social capital and employment practices”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 538-555.

Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B. and Norman, S.M. (2007), “Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 541-572.

McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-24.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An interactive model of organizational trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.

Mayfield, J.R., Mayfield, M.R. and Kopf, J. (1995), “Motivating language: exploring theory with scale development”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 329-344.

Mayfield, J.R., Mayfield, M.R. and Kopf, J. (1998), “The effects of leader motivating language on subordinate performance and satisfaction”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4, pp. 235-248.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Mohr, G. and Wolfram, H.-J. (2008), “Leadership and effectiveness in the context of gender: the role of leaders’ verbal behavior”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-16.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leadership behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-298.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leadership behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.

Porter, M.E., Lorsch, J.W. and Nohria, N. (2004), “Seven surprises for new CEOs”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 62-72.

Richards, L. (1999), Using NVivo in Qualitative Research, QSR, Bundoora.

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all: a cross- discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.

Sandelands, L. and Drazin, R. (1989), “On the language of organization theory”, Organization Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 457-478.

Shamir, B., Arthur, M.B. and House, R.J. (1994), “The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: a theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 25-42.

Shamir, B., House, R. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.

Shockley-Zabalak, P., Ellis, K. and Winograd, G. (2000), “Organizational trust: what it means, why it matters”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 35-48.

Simons, T. (2002), “Behavioral integrity: the perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 18-35.

Sims, H.P. and Lorenzi, P. (1992), The New Leadership Paradigm, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

239

Leaders and their use of motivating

language

Sullivan, J. (1988), “Three roles of language in motivation theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 104-115.

Tierney, W.G. (1996), “Leadership and postmodernism: on voice and the qualitative method”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 371-383.

Vandenberghe, C. (1999), “Organizational culture, person-culture fit, and turnover: a replication in the health care industry”, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 175-184.

Van Vianen, A. (2000), “Person-organization fit: the match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences for organizational cultures”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 113-149.

Westwood, R. and Linstead, S. (2001), The Language of Organization, Sage, London.

Yukl, G. (Ed.) (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Zorn, T.E. and Ruccio, S.E. (1998), “The use of communication to motivate college sales teams”, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 468-499.