Leadership Action Plan

leadership_-_chapter_9.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Leadership Action Plan

Chapter 9 Dyadic Relations and Followers

PRINTED BY: Joshua Lafriniere <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

• Understand why different dyadic relationships develop between a leader and subordinates. • Understand how leaders are influenced by attributions about subordinates. • Understand appropriate ways to manage a subordinate with performance deficiencies. • Understand how leaders and followers attempt to manage impressions. • Understand how attributions and implicit theories influence follower perception of a leader. • Understand how followers can have a more effective relationship with their leader.

Most of the early research on leadership behavior did not consider how much leaders vary their behavior with different subordinates. However, the discussion of delegation in Chapter 5 makes it clear that dyadic relationships are not identical for all of a leader’s direct subordinates. This chapter begins with a theory that describes how a unique exchange relationship is developed with each subordinate and the implications of these relationships for effective leadership. Next, attribution theory is examined to discover how leaders interpret subordinate performance and decide how to react to it. Research on upward impression management is examined to see how subordinates attempt to influence a leader’s perception of their competence and motivation. This part of the chapter also has some guidelines on how leaders can deal with unsatisfactory performance and improve the quality of the exchange relationship.

The chapter then turns to follower-based approaches to leadership. Most leadership literature over the past half-century has focused on leaders. The attitudes and behavior of leaders have been examined in detail, but until recently, follower attitudes and behavior were only examined as an indicator of leader influence and effectiveness. Without followers there would be no leaders, and interest in studying followership has been increasing. Chapter 5 described research on follower perceptions of empowerment, and the present chapter describes research on follower evaluation of leader effectiveness. The chapter includes guidelines on how to be an effective follower while remaining true to one’s values. The chapter ends with a brief discussion about integrating leader and follower roles in organizations.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Leader-Member Exchange Theory Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes the role-making processes between a leader and each individual subordinate and the exchange relationship that develops over time (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). The basic premise of the theory is that leaders develop an exchange relationship with each subordinate as the two parties mutually define the subordinate’s role. The exchange relationships are formed on the basis of personal compatibility and subordinate competence and dependability. According to the theory, most leaders develop a high-exchange relationship with a small number of trusted subordinates who function as assistants, lieutenants, or advisors. These relationships are formed gradually over a period of time, through reciprocal reinforcement of behavior as the exchange cycle is repeated over and over again. Unless the cycle is broken, the relationship is likely to evolve to the point where there is a high degree of mutual dependence, loyalty, and support.

The basis for establishing a high-exchange relationship is the leader’s control over outcomes that are desirable to a subordinate. These outcomes include such things as assignment to interesting and desirable tasks, delegation of greater responsibility and authority, more sharing of information, involvement in making some of the leader’s decisions, tangible rewards such as a pay increase, special benefits (e.g., better work schedule, bigger office), personal support and approval, and facilitation of the subordinate’s career (e.g., recommending a promotion, giving developmental assignments with high visibility). In return for receiving these benefits, the subordinate in a high-exchange relationship provides various types of benefits to the leader (Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). The subordinate is usually expected to work harder, to be more committed to task objectives, to be loyal to the leader, and to carry out additional responsibilities such as helping with some of the leader’s administrative duties.

The benefits to the leader from a high-exchange relationship are evident. Subordinate commitment is important when the leader’s work unit has tasks that require considerable initiative and effort on the part of some members to be carried out successfully. The assistance of committed subordinates can be invaluable to a manager who lacks the time and energy to carry out all of the administrative duties for which he or she is responsible. However, the high-exchange relationships create certain obligations and constraints for the leader. To maintain these relationships, the leader must provide attention to the subordinates, remain responsive to their needs and feelings, and rely more on time-consuming influence

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

methods such as persuasion and consultation. The leader cannot resort to coercion or heavy-handed use of authority without endangering the special relationship.

A low-exchange relationship is characterized by less mutual influence. These subordinates need only comply with formal role requirements (e.g., duties, rules, standard procedures, and legitimate directions from the leader), and each subordinate receives only the standard benefits for the job (such as a salary). The early version of the theory described an “in-group” of subordinates with high-exchange subordinates and an “outgroup” of subordinates with low-exchange relationships, but later versions did not make such a sharp dichotomy and included the possibility of a high-exchange relationship with all of a leader’s subordinates.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Research on LMX The way in which LMX has been defined has varied substantially from study to study. Quality of exchange relationship is usually assumed to involve such things as mutual trust, respect, affection, support, and loyalty. However, sometimes LMX is defined to include other aspects of the relationship, such as negotiating latitude, incremental influence, shared values, affect, reciprocity, obligation, and mutual trust (see Ferris et al., 2009; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Several different measures of LMX have been used since the theory was first proposed, making it more difficult to compare results from different studies.

Only a small number of studies have measured LMX from the perception of both the leader and the follower (e.g., Deluga & Perry, 1994; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Markham, Yammarino, Murry, & Palanski, 2010; Phillips & Bedeian, 1994; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Sin, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2009; Zhou & Schriesheim, 2009, 2010). It is reasonable to expect agreement about something as important as a leader–subordinate relationship, but the amount of agreement is often low, especially when there has been limited time together and limited interaction frequency. The reason for a lack of stronger agreement is not clear, but it appears to involve a difference in the basis for evaluating it. Subordinate ratings of LMX are strongly influenced by how supportive and fair the leader is with the subordinate, whereas leader ratings of LMX are strongly influenced by judgments about the subordinate’s competence and dependability. More research is needed to determine what LMX scores from each source actually mean and to clarify the implications of measuring exchange relationships from different perspectives.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Determinants and Consequences of LMX Most of the research on LMX theory has examined how LMX is related to other variables. This research includes a large number of survey field studies, a smaller number of laboratory experiments, a few field experiments, and a few studies that used observation and analysis of communication patterns within high versus low LMX relationships (e.g., Fairhurst, 1993; Kramer, 1995).

One set of studies examined factors that predict the quality of the exchange relationship for a dyad. A favorable relationship is more likely when the subordinate is perceived to be competent and has values and attitudes that are similar to those of the leader. Some personality traits for the leader and subordinate may also be related to their exchange relationship. For example, a study by Nahrgang, Morgeson, and Ilies (2009) found that high scores on extraversion and agreeableness for both leader and member predicted development of a more favorable exchange relationship in the early stages of a new team simulation exercise, presumably because these traits are associated with a more supportive and trusting style of interaction. However, after the initial period of interaction, performance was a more important determinant of LMX.

Another set of studies examined how LMX is related to leader and subordinate behavior. When the exchange relationship is favorable, behavior by the leader is more supportive and includes more consultation and delegation, more mentoring, less close monitoring, and less domination of conversations. The behavior of a high LMX subordinate includes more support of the leader, more honest communication with the leader, and less use of pressure tactics (e.g., threats, demands) to influence the leader. It is not clear how much a new subordinate can directly influence the role-making process, for example by using impression management behavior, but it is likely that some subordinates are proactive about developing a favorable relationship rather than passively accepting whatever the leader decides to do.

A substantial body of research has now examined the relationship between LMX and outcomes such as subordinate attitudes and performance, and detailed reviews of research on the correlates of LMX can be found in various articles (e.g., Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Schriesheim et al., 1999). The research found that a favorable downward exchange relationship was usually correlated with more role clarity, higher

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

satisfaction, stronger organizational commitment, more citizenship behaviors, and better subordinate performance. A favorable exchange relationship is also correlated with a high level of subordinate trust, although reciprocal causality is likely (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Most of the research on correlates of LMX involved survey field studies, but a rare field experiment found that leaders trained to develop favorable exchange relationships with their subordinates had subsequent gains in the objective performance and satisfaction of their subordinates (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Scandura & Graen, 1984). To incorporate the results of the research on outcomes, the revised theory included the prescription that the leader should try to establish a special exchange relationship with all subordinates if possible, not just with a few favorites (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

A few studies also found that a leader’s upward dyadic relationship affects downward dyadic relationships (Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1976; Graen, Cashman, Ginsburgh, & Schiemann, 1977). A manager who has a favorable exchange relationship with the boss is more likely to establish favorable exchange relationships with subordinates. A favorable upward relationship enables a manager to obtain more benefits for subordinates and to facilitate their performance by obtaining necessary resources, cutting red tape, and gaining approval of changes desired by subordinates. Subordinates feel less motivation to incur the extra obligations of a special exchange relationship if the leader has little to offer in the way of extra benefits, opportunities, and empowerment. The research found that the effects of a manager’s upward relationship were felt by subordinates regardless of their own relationship with the manager. Managers with a favorable upward relationship with their own boss were described by subordinates as having more technical skill, providing more outside information, allowing more participation in decision making, allowing more subordinate autonomy, and providing more support and consideration.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Evaluation of LMX Theory LMX theory still has a number of conceptual weaknesses that limit its utility (Dienesh & Liden, 1986; Schriesheim et al., 1999; Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984). Revisions of the theory have attempted to remedy some of the deficiencies, but additional improvements are needed. The theory needs more elaboration about the way exchange relationships evolve over time. Despite the growing body of research on LMX, we still know little about how the role-making process actually occurs. The theory implies that exchange relationships evolve in a continuous, smooth fashion, starting from initial impressions. The few longitudinal studies suggest that LMX relationships may form quickly and remain stable. However, evidence from other research on dyadic relationships suggest that they typically progress through a series of ups and downs, with shifts in attitudes and behavior as the two parties attempt to reconcile their desire for autonomy with their desire for closer involvement (see Fairhurst, 1993). To resolve these inconsistencies, longitudinal research is needed, with methods that can record the pattern of interactions over time in more detail and probe more deeply into each party’s changing perceptions of the relationship.

The theory would be improved by a clear description of the way a leader develops different dyadic relationships, how they affect each other, and how they affect group performance. Research on the antecedents and consequences of LMX differentiation was reviewed in a recent article (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, 2009). Some differentiation is likely to benefit group performance, especially if it is perceived by members as fair and appropriate to facilitate team performance (Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006). However, as differentiation increases, there is more likely to be feelings of resentment among low-exchange members who believe the leader’s “favorites” are getting more benefits than they deserve (McClane, 1991; Yukl, 1989). The negative effects of extreme differentiation will be greater in some types of situations than in others. For example, negative effects are more likely for an interacting team, because competition and hostility among members can undermine necessary cooperation. Leader behaviors directed at selected individuals to increase their self-efficacy and identification with the leader may have positive effects for those individuals but negative effects on group performance (Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010).

The challenge for a leader is to develop differentiated relationships with some subordinates to facilitate achievement of the team’s mission, while maintaining a relationship of mutual trust, respect, and loyalty

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

with the other subordinates. It is not necessary to treat all subordinates exactly the same, but each person should perceive that he or she is an important and respected member of the team rather than a “second-class citizen.” Not every subordinate may desire more responsibility, but each person should perceive an equal opportunity based on competence rather than arbitrary favoritism.

There has been little research on situational conditions affecting the development of exchange relationships (Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996). Some aspects of the situation that are likely to be relevant include demographic attributes of work unit members, job characteristics, work unit characteristics (e.g., size, function, stability of membership), and type of organization. These situational variables may affect the type of dyadic relationships that occur, the underlying exchange processes, and the implications for effective leadership. For example, in a large work unit with diverse activities, it is desirable to have one or more assistant managers if the organization has not created formal positions for them, whereas an assistant manager is less important in small units with simple activities.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Leader Attributions About Subordinates How a leader acts toward a subordinate varies depending on whether the subordinate is perceived as competent and loyal, or incompetent and untrustworthy. The assessment of competence and dependability is based on interpretation of the subordinate’s behavior and performance. Attribution theory describes the cognitive processes used by leaders to determine the reasons for effective or ineffective performance and the appropriate reaction (Green & Mitchell, 1979; Martinko & Gardner, 1987; Mitchell, Green, & Wood, 1981; Wood & Mitchell, 1981).

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Two-Stage Attribution Model Green and Mitchell (1979) described the reaction of a manager to poor performance as a two-stage process. In the first stage, the manager tries to determine the cause of the poor performance; in the second stage, the manager tries to select an appropriate response to correct the problem. Several studies confirm the major propositions of the model (see review by Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007).

Managers attribute the major cause of poor performance either to something internal to the subordinate (e.g., lack of effort or ability) or to external problems beyond the subordinate’s control (e.g., the task had inherent obstacles, resources were inadequate, information was insufficient, other people failed to provide necessary support, or it was just plain bad luck). An external attribution is more likely when (1) the subordinate has no prior history of poor performance on similar tasks; (2) the subordinate performs other tasks effectively; (3) the subordinate is doing as well as other people who are in a similar situation; (4) the effects of failures or mistakes are not serious or harmful; (5) the manager is dependent on the subordinate for his or her own success; (6) the subordinate is perceived to have other redeeming qualities (popularity, leadership skills); (7) the subordinate has offered excuses or an apology; or (8) evidence indicates external causes. Managers with prior experience doing the same kind of work as the subordinate are more likely to make external attributions, perhaps because they know more about the external factors that can affect performance (Crant & Bateman, 1993; Mitchell & Kalb, 1982). Manager traits such as internal locus of control orientation (see Chapter 6 ) can also influence attributions (Ashkanasy & Gallois, 1994).

A perceived reasons for a problem influences the manager’s response to it (e.g., Dugan, 1989; Offermann, Schroyer, & Green, 1998; Trahan & Steiner, 1994). When an external attribution is made, the manager is more likely to respond by trying to change the situation, such as providing more resources, providing assistance in removing obstacles, providing better information, changing the task to reduce inherent difficulties, or in the case of bad luck, by showing sympathy or doing nothing. When an internal attribution is made and the manager determines that the problem is insufficient ability, the likely response is to provide detailed instruction, monitor the subordinate’s work more closely, provide coaching when needed, set easier goals or deadlines, or assign the subordinate to an easier job. If the problem is perceived to be lack of subordinate effort and responsibility, then the likely reaction is to give

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

directive or nondirective counseling, give a warning or reprimand, punish the subordinate, monitor subsequent behavior more closely, or find new incentives.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Other Determinants of Leader Attributions Attributions about subordinates and the leader’s reaction are affected by a leader’s position power (Kipnis, Schmidt, Price, & Stitt, 1981; McFillen & New, 1979). The more position power a leader has, the more likely the leader will attribute effective performance and acceptable behavior by a subordinate to extrinsic factors (i.e., done only to gain rewards or avoid punishments) rather than to intrinsic motivation.

Research on attributions also found that the exchange relationship influences the manager’s perception of a subordinate’s performance (Duarte, Goodson, & Klich, 1994; Heneman, Greenberger, & Anonyuo, 1989; Lord & Maher, 1991). Leaders appear to be less critical in evaluating the performance of subordinates when there is a high-exchange relationship than when there is a low-exchange relationship. Effective performance is more likely to be attributed to internal causes for a high-exchange member and to external causes for a low-exchange member. In contrast, poor performance is likely to be attributed to external causes for a high-exchange member and to internal causes for a low-exchange member.

The leader’s behavior toward the subordinate is consistent with the attribution about performance. For example, effective behavior by a high-exchange subordinate is more likely to be praised, and mistakes by a low-exchange subordinate are more likely to be criticized. Thus, the leader’s perception of a subordinate tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low-exchange subordinates get less support, coaching, and resources, yet when they make mistakes or have performance difficulties, the manager blames them rather than recognizing situational causes and his or her own contribution to the problem.

The bias of many managers toward making internal attributions about poor performance by a subordinate is in sharp contrast to the self-serving bias of subordinates to blame their mistakes or failures on external factors (Martinko & Gardner, 1987). These incompatible biases make it more difficult for the manager to deal with performance problems. The manager’s bias results in greater use of punitive actions, which are resented all the more by subordinates who do not feel responsible for the problem (Harvey, Martinko, & Douglas, 2006; Tjosvold, 1985). Thus, a major implication of the attribution research is the need to help managers become more careful, fair, and systematic about evaluating subordinate performance. Managers need to become more aware of the many options available for dealing with different causes of performance problems and the importance of selecting an appropriate one.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Leader Influence on Follower Emotions Understanding the influence of a leader on followers requires an analysis of the emotions and moods of both parties in addition to their cognitions, actions, and decisions. Emotions are brief, intense reactions (e.g., joy, passion, elation, surprise, anger, sadness, despair, grief) to an event or person, whereas moods are longer, less intense, and are not focused on a specific event or person. Moods can affect the performance of individuals or groups, and leaders can influence the mood of followers in various ways. An important research question in recent years is how follower moods or emotions are affected by the leader’s mood or emotions, and the implications for effective leadership (Ashkanasy & Jordan, 2008; Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007; Gooty, Connelly, Griffith, & Gupta, 2010).

Forms of influence that can influence a positive mood among followers include acting cheerful and enthusiastic, making an inspiring visionary speech about a new initiative, and expressing optimism and confidence when followers are discouraged by problems and stress in their work. The process may involve emotional contagion from leader to followers and among the followers themselves. In some situations, influence can be increased by the expression of negative emotions. For example, by expressing anger and disappointment, a leader can emphasize the seriousness of criticism for irresponsible actions or behavior that seriously endangers others. However, the effective use of negative emotions by a leader requires considerable skill.

The influence processes involving emotions and mood can occur at a group or organizational level as well as at a dyadic level (Dasborough, Ashkanasy, Tee, & Tse, 2009). Through a process of emotional contagion, the emotions of individual followers can spread to others. Positive or negative emotions can affect cognitive attributions about a leader and perception of the leader’s effectiveness by other members of the organization besides direct subordinates.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Guidelines for Correcting Performance Deficiencies Correcting performance deficiencies is an important but difficult managerial responsibility. People tend to be defensive about criticism, because it threatens their self-esteem and may imply personal rejection. Many managers avoid confronting subordinates about inappropriate behavior or poor performance, because such confrontations often degenerate into an emotional conflict that fails to deal with the underlying problem, or does so only at the cost of lower respect and trust between the parties. Corrective feedback may be necessary to help a subordinate improve, but it should be done in a way that will preserve a favorable relationship or improve a relationship that is already strained.

Insights about the most effective way to provide corrective feedback are provided by the research on dyadic leadership processes, together with related research on counseling, feedback, and conflict. Effective managers take a supportive, problem-solving approach when dealing with inappropriate behavior or deficient performance by a subordinate. The following guidelines show how to improve communication and problem solving while reducing defensiveness and resentment (see summary in Table 9-1 ).

Table 9-1 Guidelines for Correcting Performance Deficiencies • Gather information about the performance problem. • Try to avoid attribution biases. • Provide corrective feedback promptly. • Describe the deficiency briefly in specific terms. • Explain the adverse impact of ineffective behavior. • Stay calm and professional. • Mutually identify the reasons for inadequate performance. • Ask the person to suggest remedies. • Express confidence that the person can improve. • Express a sincere desire to help the person. • Reach agreement on specific action steps. • Summarize the discussion and verify agreement.

• Gather information about the performance problem. Before confronting a subordinate about a performance deficiency, it is helpful to have the facts straight. It is especially important to do some fact finding when you did not directly observe the

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

subordinate doing something improper. Gather information about the timing (when did problems occur, how many times), magnitude (what were the negative consequences, how serious were they), antecedents (what led up to the problems, what was the subordinate’s involvement), and scope (did the problems occur only for the subordinate, or did others experience the same problems). If information about a subordinate’s unsatisfactory behavior is second hand (passed on by somebody else), try to obtain a detailed account from the party who initiated the complaint. If the problem occurred previously, identify any prior actions that were taken to deal with it.

• Try to avoid attribution biases. There may be more than one reason for inadequate performance, and the leader should not assume that a performance problem is due to a lack of subordinate motivation or competence. As noted previously, a performance deficiency may be due to situational causes, internal causes, or a combination of both. Situational causes that are usually beyond the control of the subordinate include the following: shortages in supplies, materials, or personnel; unexpected or unusual events (e.g., accidents, bad weather, sabotage, lawsuits, new regulations); resource levels below budgeted levels due to last-minute cuts or shifts in priorities; and failure by people in other parts of the organization or outsiders to carry out their part of a project properly and on time. Internal causes for poor performance usually involve low motivation or deficiencies in subordinate skill. Examples of this type of problem include the following: failure to carry out a major action step on schedule, failure to monitor progress to detect a problem before it becomes serious, showing poor judgment in dealing with a problem, procrastinating in dealing with a problem until it gets worse, failure to notify superiors about a problem that requires their attention, making an avoidable error in the performance of a task, failure to follow standard procedures and rules, and acting in an unprofessional manner.

• Provide corrective feedback promptly. Corrective feedback should be provided soon after the problem is noticed rather than waiting until a later time when the person may not remember the incident. Deal immediately with improper behavior that you observe, and handle other performance problems (complaints about a subordinate, substandard quality or productivity) as soon as you can conduct a preliminary investigation. Some managers save up criticisms for the annual appraisal meeting or scheduled progress review meetings, but this practice is likely to be ineffective. By delaying feedback, you lose the opportunity to deal with the problem immediately before it becomes worse. Moreover, by not responding to inappropriate or ineffective behavior, the wrong message may be sent, namely that

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

the behavior is acceptable or not of any consequence. Finally, a person is likely to be more defensive after hearing a barrage of criticisms at the same time.

• Describe the deficiency briefly in specific terms. Feedback is more effective if it involves specific behavior or specific examples of performance deficiencies. Vague, general criticism (“Your work is sloppy”) may not communicate what the person is doing wrong and is easier for the person to deny. Provide specific examples of what was done, where it occurred, and when it occurred. For example, instead of saying a person is rude, point out that he interrupted you twice this week with trivial questions when you were talking to other people (describe when the incident happened and give examples). When criticizing performance, cite specific examples of unsatisfactory performance. For example, point out that two customers complained about slow service by the person’s department. Avoid exaggeration such as “You are always late.” Keep the description of ineffective behavior brief. The longer the person has to listen to criticism, even when constructive, the more defensive the person is likely to get.

• Explain the adverse impact of ineffective behavior. Corrective feedback is more useful if it includes an explanation of the reason why a person’s behavior is inappropriate or ineffective. For example, describe how the behavior causes problems for others and interferes with their work. Describe the discomfort and distress you or others experienced as a result of the person’s inappropriate behavior. Describe how the person’s behavior jeopardizes the success of an important project or mission and express your personal concern about it.

• Stay calm and professional. It is appropriate to show concern about a performance problem or mistake, but corrective feedback should be provided without expressing anger or personal rejection. A manager who blows up, yells at the person, and makes insulting remarks (e.g., calling the person stupid and lazy) is unlikely to motivate the person to improve his or her performance. Moreover, this type of behavior impedes problem solving and undermines the relationship between manager and subordinate. Avoid accusations and insults (“Why did you do such a stupid thing?”) that will make the person defensive. Criticize behavior instead of the person. Make it clear that you value the person and want to help him or her to deal with the performance problem.

• Mutually identify the reasons for inadequate performance. Even after a preliminary investigation into the causes of a performance problem, you may lack important information that would change your perception of it. It is essential to listen to the

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

subordinate’s explanation for the problem, rather than jumping to conclusions about the causes. Give the person an opportunity to explain errors, inadequate performance, or inappropriate behavior. Sometimes the person may not know the reason or may make excuses rather than admitting responsibility. Be careful to differentiate between situational causes and personal causes. Personal causes of inadequate performance are harder to detect, because a subordinate is usually reluctant to admit mistakes and failures. When probing to discover these causes, ask what lessons were learned from the experience and what the subordinate would do differently if given the opportunity to go back and start over again. Keep the discussion of personal causes focused on specific behavior that was ineffective or inappropriate rather than on personal attributes such as poor judgment, irresponsibility, or lack of motivation. Mutually identify all of the important reasons in a careful, systematic manner, rather than moving immediately to a discussion of corrective actions.

• Ask the person to suggest remedies. It is essential to get the person to take responsibility for dealing with a performance deficiency. Improvement is unlikely if the person makes excuses and denies responsibility for the problem. Commitment to improve is more likely if the person suggests ways to deal with the problem. Thus, when discussing how to correct performance deficiencies, begin by asking for suggestions rather than telling the person what to do. Use open-ended questions such as “What ideas do you have for improving performance?” and “What can we do to avoid this problem in the future?” Encourage the person to consider a variety of possible remedies, rather than focusing quickly on one narrow remedy. Try to build on the subordinate’s ideas rather than merely pointing out limitations. If the subordinate fails to identify some promising remedies, try to present your own ideas as variations of the subordinate’s ideas. State your ideas in a general, tentative way (“What about the possibility of . . . ?”) and let the subordinate develop the details so he or she feels some ownership of the improvement plans.

• Express confidence that the person can improve. A subordinate who lacks self-confidence and is discouraged about doing poorly on a task is less likely to improve. One important leadership function is to increase a person’s confidence that difficult things can be achieved with a concerted effort, despite past failures. Mention the beneficial qualities that can help the person do better. Describe how others overcame similar failures or setbacks. Express confidence that the person will succeed. Research shows that subordinates perform better when the leader has high expectations for them (Eden, 1990; McNatt, 2000).

• Express a sincere desire to help the person.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

It is essential to communicate your intention to help the person do better. Be alert for opportunities to provide assistance to the subordinate by using your knowledge, influence, or contacts. Subordinates may be reluctant to ask for help if they believe that it is an admission of weakness. If a person’s performance is being affected by personal problems (e.g., family problems, financial problems, substance abuse), be prepared to offer assistance if it is requested or is clearly needed. Examples of things that a leader can do include the following: help the person identify and express concerns and feelings, help the person understand the reasons for a personal problem, provide new perspectives on the problem, help the person identify alternatives, offer advice on how to deal with the problem, and refer the person to professionals who can provide assistance.

• Reach agreement on specific action steps. It is essential to identify concrete action steps to be taken by the subordinate. If you discuss possible remedies but end the discussion without agreement on specific action steps, the person may walk away from the meeting without a clear understanding of what he or she is expected to do. Likewise, it is not enough to tell the subordinate to try to do better. Unless the person makes an explicit promise to carry out specific action steps, he or she may quickly forget about the discussion. As part of the explicit agreement, you should clearly state any action steps you will take to help the subordinate improve performance.

• Summarize the discussion and verify agreement. After agreement has been reached, summarize the essence of the discussion. The purpose of a summary is to check for agreement and mutual understanding. As you end the meeting, repeat your willingness to provide assistance and indicate that you are available to discuss any additional problems or complications that may arise. You may also want to set a tentative date and time for a follow-up meeting to review progress.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Follower Attributions and Implicit Theories Just as leaders make attributions about follower competence, followers make attributions about leader competence and intentions. Followers use information about leader actions, changes in the performance of the team or organization, and external conditions to reach conclusions about responsibility for success or failure. More attributions are made for someone who occupies a high-level position with substantial prestige and power, especially in cultures where leaders are viewed as heroic figures (Calder, 1977; Konst, Vonk, & Van der Vlist, 1999; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Pfeffer, 1977b).

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Determinants of Follower Attributions about Leaders Several interrelated factors determine how followers assess leader effectiveness (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, & Judge, 1995; Lord & Maher, 1991; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). One factor is the extent to which clear, timely indicators of performance are available for the leader’s team or organization. A leader is usually judged more competent if his or her unit is successful than if it is unsuccessful. The performance trend will also influence follower assessment of the leader. A leader is more likely to be judged competent if performance is improving than if it is declining. Moreover, if performance suddenly increases (or decreases) soon after the leader’s term of office begins, more credit or blame for the change will be attributed to the person than if performance remains stable or changes slowly.

Followers also consider the leader’s actions. A leader who has done something that could explain a change in performance will be attributed more responsibility for it. Leaders who take direct actions that appear relevant get more credit for performance improvements than leaders who do not. Direct actions that are highly visible to followers influence attributions more than indirect actions that are not visible. The importance of direct action is increased when followers perceive an immediate crisis. A leader who acts decisively to resolve an obvious crisis is considered highly competent, whereas a leader who fails to take direct action in a crisis, or whose action has no apparent effect is likely to be judged incompetent. The uniqueness of changes made by a leader also influences attributions about the leader’s competence. Leaders who make innovative changes in the strategy (what is done or how it is done) get more credit for success and more blame for failure than leaders who stick with a traditional strategy.

Followers also use information about the situation to reach conclusions about responsibility for success or failure. Improving performance is less likely to be credited to the leader when external conditions are favorable (e.g., the economy is improving and sales are up for all firms in the industry). Likewise, declining performance is less likely to be blamed on the leader when external conditions are unfavorable (e.g., a new competitor enters the market). Followers may also consider constraints on the leader’s decisions and actions (e.g., new government regulations, pressure from superiors). A leader who appears to have considerable power and discretion in deciding what to do is attributed more responsibility for success or failure than a leader who is viewed as a puppet or figurehead.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Followers judge leader intentions as well as leader competence. A leader who appears to be more concerned about followers and the mission than about personal benefit or career advancement will gain more follower approval. Credibility is increased when the leader expresses strong and consistent convictions about a program or change and explains why it is necessary without exaggerating the benefits or ignoring the costs. Dedication to the organization is indicated when the leader takes personal risks to accomplish important objectives and does not benefit materially from them (Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). A leader who makes visible self-sacrifices in the service of the organization will be viewed as more sincere and committed. In contrast, leaders who appear insincere or motivated only by personal gain get less credit for making changes that are successful, and receive more blame for making changes that are unsuccessful.

The mood of the followers can also affect attributions about leader intentions. Leaders are more likely to be seen as manipulative and self-serving if followers are in a negative mood (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002). Followers also consider the extent to which the leader appears to be similar to them in terms of values, beliefs, and other qualities they consider important (e.g., religion, gender, ethnic background). Followers who identify strongly with the group or organization are likely to have more trust in a leader who appears to be “one of them” and will make more favorable attributions about the leader (Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998). The effect of perceived similarity (called “leader prototypicality”) seems to be stronger for leader assessments made after a group failure than after a group success (Giessner, van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, 2009).

It is more difficult to assess leader competence when reliable indicators of performance are absent, followers have no opportunity to observe the leader’s actions, or a long delay occurs before leader actions affect performance. Just as leaders tend to be biased toward making internal attributions about followers, followers seem to have a bias toward making internal attributions about leaders, especially when information is ambiguous. Followers usually attribute success or failure more to the leader’s personal qualities (e.g., expertise, initiative, creativity, dedication) than to situational factors beyond the control of the leader. Coaches are praised when the team is winning consistently and blamed for repeated losses. The CEO of a company gets credit for increasing profits and is blamed for declining profits. The implications of follower attributions for leadership effectiveness are also discussed in Chapters 8 , 11 and 12 .

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Implications of Follower Attributions about Leaders How followers perceive a leader has important implications for the leader and the organization. Leaders perceived to be competent are likely to retain their position or be advanced to a higher position, whereas leaders perceived to be incompetent are likely to be replaced. Leaders who are judged to be competent gain more power and have more discretion to make changes. As explained in Chapters 8 and 11, the amount of legitimate power and discretion allowed a leader depends on the perception by followers and other stakeholders (e.g., board of directors, banks, government agencies, stockholders) that the leader has the expertise to solve important problems facing the organization. This perception depends in large part on how the leader’s earlier decisions and actions are interpreted. Attributions about a leader’s competence are especially important for top executives, because their long-term influence on the survival and prosperity of the organization depends on their discretion to make innovative, major changes in key areas of organization strategy (Lord & Maher, 1991).

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Implicit Leadership Theories How leaders are evaluated is affected by implicit leadership theories, which are beliefs and assumptions about the characteristics of effective leaders (Eden & Leviatan, 1975; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Gioia & Sims, 1985; Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994; Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977; Shondrick, Dinh, & Lord, 2010). The implicit theories involve stereotypes and prototypes about the traits, skills, or behaviors that are relevant for a particular type of position (e.g., executive vs. lower-level leader, manager vs. military officer), context (e.g., crisis vs. noncrisis situation), or individual (e.g., male vs. female leader, experienced vs. new leader). Implicit theories are developed and refined over time as a result of actual experience, exposure to literature about effective leaders, and other social –cultural influences (Lord, Brown, Harvey, & Hall, 2001). The implicit theories are influenced by individual beliefs, values, and personality traits, as well as by shared beliefs and values about leaders in the organizational culture and the national culture (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Keller, 1999). Some differences in implicit theories are likely among countries with diverse cultures (see Chapter 14 ).

Beliefs about the ideal qualities for a particular type of leader (prototypes) influence the expectations people have for leaders and their evaluation of the leader’s actions. Implicit theories of leadership determine the perceived relevance of various types of leader behavior (Lord & Maher, 1991). Leaders who do things that are relevant for the situation but inconsistent with follower expectations may be evaluated less favorably than leaders who conform to role expectations. Follower beliefs about desirable leader qualities are influenced by gender role expectations, ethnic stereotypes, and cultural values (see Chapter 14 ). The same type of leader behavior may be evaluated more or less favorably depending on the identity of the leader (e.g., male vs. female) and the cultural values of followers (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism). Implicit theories and prototypes about ideal leaders are more important when followers agree about them and identify strongly with their group or organization (e.g., Hogg et al., 2006).

Implicit leadership theories, prototypes, and attributions can jointly influence ratings on leadership behavior questionnaires. For example, a leader who is liked or perceived to be effective may be rated higher on behaviors in the rater’s conception of an ideal leader than on behaviors not included in this “prototype,” regardless of the leader’s actual use of the behaviors. Effective performance by a leader’s group or organization may be attributed to the leader’s use of behaviors assumed to be relevant for performance, even though the respondent did not observe the behaviors or did not remember them

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

correctly. If most respondents in a survey study have a similar implicit theory, their biases may influence the factor structure found for a leader behavior questionnaire. The effects of biases from prototypes and attributions can increase the correlations among behaviors considered desirable and make them appear to be part of the same meta-category. The problem complicates the interpretation of results in survey research on broadly-defined conceptions of effective leaders, such as transformational leadership, authentic leadership, and servant leadership (see Chapter 12 and 13 ).

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Impression Management by Leaders and Followers Impression management is the process of influencing how others perceive you. Tactics such as excuses and apologies are used in a defensive way to avoid blame for weak performance or to seek forgiveness for a mistake. Other tactics are used to elicit positive affect and respect from others (e.g., Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986; Jones & Pitman, 1982; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). Impression management tactics that seem especially relevant for the study of leadership in dyads are exemplification, ingratiation, and self- promotion.

Exemplification. This tactic involves behavior intended to demonstrate dedication and loyalty to the mission, to the organization, or to followers. Exemplification tactics used to influence bosses include arriving early and staying late to work extra hours, demonstrating effective behavior when you know the person is watching, and doing voluntary tasks that are highly visible (“organizational citizenship behaviors”). Exemplification tactics used to influence subordinates or peers include acting in a way that is consistent with espoused values (“walking the talk”) and making self-sacrifices to achieve a proposed objective, change, or vision.

Ingratiation. This tactic involves behavior intended to influence the target person to like the agent and perceive the agent as someone who has desirable social qualities (e.g., friendly, considerate, caring, charming, interesting, attractive). Ingratiating behavior can take many different forms. Some examples include providing praise, agreeing with the target person’s opinions, showing appreciation for the target’s accomplishments, laughing at the target’s jokes, showing an interest in the target’s personal life, and showing deference and respect for the target person.

Self-Promotion. This tactic involves behavior intended to influence favorable impressions about your competence and value to the organization. The behavior may take the form of informing people about your achievements and talking about your skills. A more subtle form of self-promotion is to display diplomas, awards, and trophies in one’s office or workspace for others to see. An indirect form of self- promotion that is similar to a coalition tactic is to get other people to talk about your skills and loyalty.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Impression Management by Followers Most studies on impression management have examined how followers attempt to influence bosses. Wayne and Ferris (1990) developed a self-report agent questionnaire to measure how subordinates use impression management tactics for upward influence in organizations. Their study found support for a three-factor model that included “supervisor-focused tactics” (similar to ingratiation), “job-focused tactics” (similar to exemplification), and “self-focused tactics” (similar to self-promotion).

The usual way to measure the effectiveness of upward impression management is how the boss evaluates the subordinate’s competence, or the extent to which the subordinate gets favorable career outcomes such as a pay increase or promotion. The research indicates that ingratiation is often effective as an impression management tactic for upward influence (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991; Wayne & Liden, 1995). Ingratiation can increase how much a subordinate is liked by the boss and may also improve appraisals of subordinate performance. However, to be effective as an impression management tactic, ingratiation must appear to be sincere. If it seems manipulative, it will fail to have the desired effect and may have a negative effect.

The results for self-promotion tactics are less consistent, but they suggest that a negative reaction is more likely than a positive reaction (Higgins et al., 2003). A subordinate who uses this tactic too often or in an annoying way will be liked less by the boss and given a lower performance appraisal. Self- promotion is a more difficult form of impression management to pull off successfully. Unless used only infrequently and in a subtle way, self-promotion tactics are likely to be seen as bragging and conceit.

Research on the effects of upward impression management on job outcomes has some limitations that complicate interpretation of the results. An outcome such as a pay increase or job promotion may depend more on a subordinate’s actual skills and performance than on the use of self-promotion tactics to focus attention on these qualifications. Moreover, the effectiveness of impression management tactics depends to a great extent on the interpersonal skills of the agent (Ammeter et al., 2002; Turnley & Bolino, 2001), and these skills are also a determinant of performance. It is difficult to assess the independent effects of impression management tactics unless these other likely determinants of job outcomes are also measured, which seldom occurs in the research.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Impression Management by Leaders Many leaders attempt to create the impression that they are important, competent, and in control of events (Pfeffer, 1977b, 1981). Successes are announced and celebrated, and failures are covered up or downplayed. Salancik and Meindl (1984) analyzed annual reports for a sample of corporations over a period of 18 years and found that top management consistently credited themselves for positive outcomes and blamed negative outcomes on aspects of the environment.

Impression management is especially important when constraints and unpredictable events make it difficult for leaders to exert much influence over organizational performance. Highly visible symbolic actions are one way to create the impression that a leader is dealing with problems and making progress toward attaining organizational objectives, despite delays and setbacks. Examples include visiting a disaster site to demonstrate active involvement and personal interest, replacing people who are blamed for a failure, creating a blue ribbon commission to study a problem and make recommendations, implementing a new policy to deal with a serious problem, and creating new agency or position with responsibility for dealing with a serious problem. Dramatic changes in structure, policies, programs, and personnel may be relevant for solving problems and improving performance. However, it is often difficult to determine whether such changes will be beneficial, and the effects may not be known for months or years. In an effort to maintain a favorable impression, leaders who do not know how to solve a problem may be tempted to use symbolic actions that are irrelevant or even detrimental.

Impression management is also used by leaders to avoid the appearance of failure, or to shift the blame for it to other people or uncontrollable events. Some leaders seek to distort or cover up evidence that their strategy is not succeeding (Pfeffer, 1981; Staw, McKechnie, & Puffer, 1983). In the early stage of a developing crisis, many leaders discount the seriousness of the problem and continue with incremental approaches for dealing with it rather than proposing bold and innovative remedies. In part, the avoidance of dramatic action may be due to wishful thinking that things will get better. Even leaders who recognize an impending crisis may not have the courage to acknowledge the weakness of previous strategies and take dramatic new actions for which they will be held accountable. Many leaders with a limited term of office, such as elected officials, are tempted to put off serious problems and leave them to the next person who holds the office.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Impression management tactics can be manipulative, but some of the same behaviors can also be used in a positive way by leaders. Praise (a form of ingratiation) can be used to build the confidence of subordinates and improve their performance. Announcing achievements that demonstrate progress in implementing a change initiated by the leader (a form of self-promotion) can increase follower optimism and commitment to make the change successful. Forms of exemplification such as showing courage, making personal sacrifices, volunteering to do extra duties, and acting consistent with espoused values are ways to lead by example and inspire follower commitment to a vision or strategy.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Follower Contributions to Effective Leadership The tendency to credit successful events to leaders obscures the significant contributions of followers (Baker, 2007). Motivated, competent followers are necessary for the successful performance of work carried out by the leader’s unit. Consider the following example (Kelley, 1992).

Today most people regard the role of Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence as an example of effective leadership by someone who would later become one of our most famous presidents. At the time, however, Jefferson was in a follower role. He was a junior member of the committee and was assigned the task by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Few people outside the Continental Congress knew that Jefferson was the principal author, and he received no public recognition until eight years later when his role was explained in a newspaper article.

Followers can contribute to the effectiveness of a group by maintaining cooperative working relationships, providing constructive dissent, sharing leadership functions, and supporting leadership development. This section examines alternative conceptions of the follower role and describes how followers can actively contribute to the effectiveness of their leader.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Follower Identities and Behavior How followers act in a group or organization can be explained in part by their self- and social identities (Collinson, 2006; Lord & Brown, 2004). The follower identities are complex and not necessarily consistent. For example, the self-identity of a loyal member who conforms with norms and policies prescribed by the organization may be inconsistent with the self-identity of a courageous follower who challenges bad decisions and unethical practices. Researchers have begun to study how self- and social identities help to explain how followers perceive leaders and how they comply with or resist influence attempts by leaders (e.g., Carsten et al., 2010). Deference, passivity, and obedience will reflect the personality traits of followers, their relationship to the leader, the type of organization, and cultural values such as power distance (see Chapter 14 ).

Chaleff (1995) noted that many people define the role of follower in terms of conformity, weakness, and passivity. This negative conception is strongly influenced by early childhood experiences at home and in school, where others are responsible for our behavior but we are not responsible for their behavior. As adults, passivity in follower roles is encouraged by the fact that leaders typically are more powerful, have higher status, are older, and have more experience. The reluctance to challenge a leader is even worse for an established leader who is widely seen as brilliant and successful. Chaleff argues that it is essential to replace this negative conception of followers with a positive conception. In short, effective followers are courageous, responsible, and proactive.

The reason why courageous followers are likely to be more effective stems from the fact that all leaders have weaknesses as well as strengths. Followers can influence whether the strengths are fully utilized and the weaknesses overcome. Some of the qualities that contribute to leadership effectiveness (e.g., self-confidence, strong convictions, a passion for change) also make a leader prone to excessive ambition, risk taking, or righteousness. Followers can help the leader avoid these excesses. Rather than complaining about their leader, followers with valid concerns should help the leader to do better.

To be effective as a follower, it is necessary to find a way to integrate two different follower roles, namely to implement decisions made by a leader and to challenge decisions that are misguided or unethical. Followers must be willing to risk the leader’s displeasure, but the risk can be reduced by developing a high level of mutual trust and respect. In such a relationship, a leader is likely to view criticism and

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

dissent as an honest effort to facilitate attainment of shared objectives and values, rather than as an expression of personal rejection or disloyalty.

It takes time and effort to help a leader grow and succeed. If the leader is less competent than you or has been elevated to a position you really deserved, it is especially difficult to make this extra effort. Thus, effective followers are more likely to be people with a strong commitment to the organization and its mission. However, mentoring a weak leader is not without its benefits. In the process of helping the leader, the follower will also learn and develop.

Integrating Leader and Follower Roles Many members of an organization have the dual roles of leader and follower. For example, a middle manager is the leader of an organizational unit but also a follower of a higher- level manager. How to integrate these two diverse roles is an interesting question with important implications for leadership effectiveness.

To be effective in both roles simultaneously, it is necessary to find a way to integrate them. Inevitable role conflicts and dilemmas make integration of the two roles difficult. Superiors expect the leader to represent their interests and implement their decisions, but subordinates expect the leader to represent their interests and to challenge decisions that are unwarranted or unfair. Leaders are expected to initiate and guide change, but they are also expected to encourage and support “bottom-up” changes suggested by followers. A leader is held responsible for everything that happens in the team or work unit, but encouraged to empower followers to act on their own in resolving problems. Leaders are also expected to develop followers, which may involve gradually turning over most leadership responsibilities to one or two subordinates designated as likely successors. Issues of how to balance competing interests and resolve role conflicts deserve more attention in the leadership literature.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Self-Management Self-management is a set of strategies used to influence and improve an individual’s own behavior (Manz & Sims, 1980; Sims & Lorenzi, 1992). Self-management is based primarily on control theory. After comparing one’s current condition to the desired condition, a person can use behavior in an effort to reduce any discrepancy, monitor progress to assess consequences, and make any necessary corrections in behavior. When a person determines what tasks will be done and how the work will be done, this process is sometimes called self-leadership (Manz, 1991). Self-management and self- leadership are appropriately viewed as motivation and self-regulation theories rather than as a leadership theory, but they can serve as a partial substitute for leadership. By taking more responsibility for their own lives, followers do not need to depend so much on leaders to direct and motivate them. Leaders can encourage and facilitate self-management as a way to influence follower satisfaction and development.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Self-Management Strategies Self-management includes both behavioral and cognitive strategies (Sims & Lorenzi, 1992). The behavioral strategies include self-goal setting, self-monitoring, manipulation of cues, self-reward (or criticism), and rehearsal of planned actions. The cognitive strategies include positive self-talk and mental imagery.

Behavioral self-management strategies are useful when you are reluctant to do a necessary task or want to change your behavior. For example, set realistic goals to accomplish a task or change a behavior, including subgoals that can be achieved quickly (e.g., a goal to write the first page of a report today; a goal to get through the next hour without saying “you know” to anyone). Then, monitor your own behavior to note what you did and how others reacted (e.g., noticing each time you say something that annoys others; trying different ways of communicating ideas to see which one people respond to most favorably). Compliment yourself for doing something correctly, and reward yourself when you complete a difficult task or accomplish a goal or subgoal (e.g., go to a movie, purchase something you want). Use self-criticism or self-punishment after acting in an inappropriate way or relapsing into behavior you want to change; for example, after making a careless mistake, work extra hours to correct it. Rehearse a difficult behavior by yourself to improve skill and build confidence you can do it (e.g., practice a presentation in front of the mirror with a tape recorder). Rearrange cues in the immediate physical environment; remove cues that encourage undesirable behavior and replace them with cues that encourage desirable behavior (e.g., go to a quiet place where you will not be disturbed to write a report; purchase only healthy food to avoid being tempted to eat junk food).

Cognitive self-management strategies help you to build self-confidence and optimism about doing a difficult task. One cognitive strategy is positive self-talk, which means emphasizing positive, optimistic thoughts and avoiding negative, pessimistic thoughts (Manz, 1992). An example is to interpret a difficult situation as an opportunity rather than as a problem. The confidence and determination needed to improve are more likely to be found by concentrating on what can be done to make things better than by dwelling on the difficulties or what can go wrong.

To increase positive self-talk, it is necessary to do more than just look for the silver lining in a dark cloud. It is essential to identify and suppress destructive thinking patterns, such as viewing success and failure

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

as extreme conditions with nothing in between, exaggerating the significance of a mistake or setback, stereotyping yourself negatively, dismissing positive feedback as irrelevant (“She’s just saying that to be kind”), and assuming blame for something that is not your responsibility. This type of thinking encourages overreaction to mistakes, setbacks, or periods of slow improvement in performance when you are learning a complex new activity or task. A more constructive pattern of thinking is to view performance as a continuum rather than a dichotomy, understand the process involved in learning a complex activity, look for and celebrate signs of progress, accept positive feedback, and be careful about attributing responsibility for failure. Identify destructive thoughts (e.g., “It’s hopeless; even after practicing for a week I still made several mistakes”) and replace them with constructive thoughts (e.g., “I improved by 20 percent this week, and with additional practice I will do even better”).

Another cognitive strategy for self-management is mental imagery, which can be used instead of actually practicing a difficult task. First, you visualize yourself doing the task. Then, you imagine how it would feel to experience the satisfaction of performing it successfully. Before performing an activity, many professional athletes mentally rehearse it, carefully visualizing each movement and how it will feel (Sims & Lorenzi, 1992).

Effects of Self-Management The consequences of self-management and self-leadership have been assessed in a variety of ways. One research method is to administer a self-report questionnaire such as the one developed by Houghton and Neck (2002), then correlate the scores with measures of each respondent’s satisfaction and performance. Another method is a field experiment in which employees are trained to use more self- management, then subsequent job performance of these employees is compared to performance by a control group of employees who did not receive the training. Most studies find that individual self- management can increase satisfaction and performance (see Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 2010). Effects of self-managed teams are discussed in Chapter 10 .

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

How Leaders Encourage Self-Management A leader can do several things to encourage and facilitate self-management by followers. Encouragement is especially important when followers are dependent on the leader for direction and are not intrinsically motivated by the work. According to some theorists (Manz & Sims, 1991; Sims & Lorenzi, 1992), a primary role of the leader is to help subordinates develop skills in self-management. Leadership activities include explaining the rationale for self-management, explaining how to use behavioral and cognitive self-management strategies, encouraging efforts to use these techniques, and providing enough autonomy to make self-management feasible. The leader should model the use of self- management strategies to set an example for subordinates. The leader should also share information subordinates need to do the work, including sensitive information about strategic plans and the financial performance of the organization. As subordinates develop skills and confidence in self-management, the leader should encourage them to take more responsibility for their own work activities.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Guidelines for Followers The research on followers has some practical applications (Chaleff, 1995; Kelley, 1992; Whetton & Cameron, 1991). The following guidelines deal with issues such as how to improve one’s relationship with a leader, how to resist improper influence from the leader, how to provide advice and coaching to the leader, and how to challenge flawed plans and policies (see Table 9-2 ). Underlying themes in the guidelines include maintaining credibility and trust, taking responsibility for your own life, and remaining true to your own values and convictions.

Table 9-2 Guidelines for Followers • Find out what you are expected to do. • Take the initiative to deal with problems. • Keep the boss informed about your decisions. • Verify the accuracy of information you give the boss. • Encourage the boss to provide honest feedback to you. • Support efforts to make necessary changes. • Show appreciation and provide recognition when appropriate. • Challenge flawed plans and proposals made by bosses. • Resist inappropriate influence attempts by the boss. • Provide upward coaching and counseling when appropriate. • Learn to use self-management strategies.

• Find out what you are expected to do. It is difficult to be viewed as competent and reliable if you have role ambiguity and are unsure what you are expected to do. You may be working very hard, but doing the wrong things or doing things the wrong way. Earlier in the book, we saw that it is an important leader responsibility to clearly communicate the role expectations for subordinates. Nevertheless, many leaders fail to explain job responsibilities, scope of authority, performance standards, and the relative priority of different aspects of performance. Sometimes the message is inconsistent, such as when the leader says something is important but acts as if it is not. Sometimes the leader asks for something that is inconsistent with the needs of a client or customer. Followers should be assertive but diplomatic about resolving role ambiguity and conflict.

• Take the initiative to deal with problems. Effective followers take initiative to deal with serious problems that prevent the attainment of task objectives. These problems can take many forms, such as rules that prevent attainment of task

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

objectives, a process that does not achieve the desired results, traditions that are obsolete, conflicts between individuals with interrelated jobs, and unsatisfactory performance by someone over whom you have no authority. Taking initiative may mean pointing out the problem to the boss, suggesting ways to deal with the problem, or if necessary, handling the problem yourself. One way to gain support for changing a flawed process is to conduct a pilot demonstration to show the superiority of a different approach. Taking initiative often involves risks, but if done carefully it can make you a more valuable follower.

• Keep the boss informed about your decisions. Followers who take more initiative to deal with problems also have a responsibility to keep the leader informed about their actions and decisions. It is embarrassing for a leader to hear from someone else that changes have been made. An uninformed leader may appear incompetent to others, and lack of knowledge about ongoing changes may also adversely affect the leader’s own actions and decisions. How much and how often you inform the boss about your decisions and actions is a complex issue that may be a subject of continuing discussion and revision as conditions change. Finding the right balance is much easier within a relationship of mutual trust and respect.

• Verify the accuracy of information you give to the boss. An important role of followers is to relay information to their leader. Control over what information is passed on gives a follower power over the leader’s perception of events and choices. It is an important responsibility for followers to provide accurate, timely information needed by the leader to make good decisions. The responsibility includes relaying bad news as well as good news. It is important to verify the accuracy of information you are trusted to obtain for the leader. Rumors, complaints, and reports of problems can have a disproportionate effect on the leader’s decisions if not verified. It is also important to acknowledge when your information is limited or questionable. Rather than pretending to have expertise about a matter, say that you will look into it immediately and get back to the leader as soon as possible.

• Encourage the boss to provide honest feedback to you. One way to improve mutual trust with the leader is to encourage honest feedback about your performance. If the leader is uncomfortable about expressing concerns about a subordinate’s performance, it may be necessary to probe for more information. For example, ask the leader to identify the strongest and weakest aspects of your work. Ask what you can do to be more effective. After an initial response, ask if the leader has concerns about any other aspects of your performance.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

• Support efforts to make necessary changes. Contrary to the myth of heroic leaders, most major changes require a cooperative effort of many people in the organization. Leaders need the encouragement and support of loyal followers to overcome resistance to change in organizations. Look for opportunities to express support and encouragement to a leader who is frustrated by difficulties encountered in trying to implement necessary change. Offer to provide assistance to a leader who is temporarily overwhelmed with new work or too preoccupied with an immediate crisis to handle other work that still must be done.

• Show appreciation and provide recognition when appropriate. Leaders can feel unappreciated and taken for granted. It is appropriate to express appreciation when a leader makes a special effort to help you with a problem, represent your interests, or promote your career in the organization. It is also helpful to provide praise when the leader carries out a difficult activity successfully (e.g., negotiating a favorable contract with a client, lobbying successfully for a larger budget, finding a solution to a difficult problem, persuading superiors to authorize a proposed change). These forms of supporting are one way followers can provide feedback to the leader and reinforce desirable leadership practices. Praising the leader is a form of ingratiation that can be used in a manipulative way, but when praise is sincere it can help promote a more favorable relationship with a leader.

• Challenge flawed plans and proposals made by bosses. One of the most valuable contributions a follower can make is to provide accurate feedback about the leader’s plans and proposals. To minimize defensiveness, begin with a comment that shows respect and a desire to be helpful in accomplishing shared objectives. For example:

You know I respect what you are trying to accomplish, and I hope you won’t mind if I express some honest concerns about this proposal.

Describe any obvious faults in a plan or proposal using specific terms rather than vague generalities and avoid making the critique personal. If appropriate, suggest getting reactions from other credible people before going ahead with a plan or proposal that is questionable. Following is an example:

This change may cause some serious problems for the operations group. Shouldn’t we consult with them first before going ahead with it? They are likely to have some good ideas on how to avoid problems that are not obvious to us.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Sometimes a boss may be unwilling to listen to concerns about a decision or policy that is unethical, illegal, or likely to have adverse consequences for the organization. In this situation, it may be necessary to escalate your influence attempt and use pressure tactics such as threats and warnings. Threatening to resign is one way for a follower to express deep concern over a controversial decision. However, such threats should not be used lightly, and they are appropriate only after a serious effort has been made to influence the boss in other ways, such as rational persuasion and use of coalitions. The threat should be expressed with conviction but not personal hostility. Following is a specific example:

I cannot live with this decision, because it violates our basic principles and poses a serious risk to our people. Unless the decision can be changed, I will have no choice but to resign from my position.

• Resist inappropriate influence attempts by the boss. Despite the obvious power advantage a boss holds over a subordinate, it is not necessary to comply with inappropriate influence attempts or be exploited by an abusive leader. Followers often have more counter-power than they realize, and have some things they can do to deter a leader accustomed to exploiting people who are unassertive. It is essential to challenge abuse early before it becomes habitual, and the challenge must be firm but diplomatic. Point out the use of inappropriate or manipulative influence tactics (e.g., “I don’t respond well to threats” or “This offer might be misconstrued by some people as a bribe”). Insist on your rights (“It’s not right to ask me to cancel my vacation plans at the last minute to do this job when other people around here have the time and skills to do it.”). Remind the leader of a promise about to be violated (“Didn’t you promise that assignment to me just last month?”). Point out the negative consequences of complying with an inappropriate request. For example, explain how compliance with a demand to do something immediately will interfere with your other work or jeopardize an important project.

• Provide upward coaching and counseling when appropriate. Coaching is usually viewed as a leader behavior, but subordinates also have opportunities to coach the boss, especially one who is new and inexperienced. Upward coaching is easier to do when a follower has already developed a deep and trusting exchange relationship with the leader. Be alert for opportunities to provide helpful advice on technical matters (the leader may be reluctant to ask for help). Model effective behaviors the leader can learn from and imitate. Upward counseling is awkward, but at times it is appropriate and even appreciated by a boss. One form of counseling is to help the leader understand actions that are ineffective. For example,

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

describe how inappropriate behavior is having a different effect than the leader intended (“I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply Sue is unreliable when you said . . ., but that’s how she took it”). Another form of counseling is to be a good listener when the leader needs someone in whom to confide about worries and concerns. Look for opportunities to ask questions about things the leader should consider in handling a difficult problem.

• Learn to use self-management strategies. As noted earlier, cognitive and behavioral strategies for self-management can be useful to increase feelings of empowerment and job satisfaction, reduce dysfunctional behavior, and improve individual performance. Self-development aids are available to guide individuals in using these strategies effectively.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Summary Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes how leaders develop exchange relationships over time with different subordinates. A favorable exchange relationship is more likely when a subordinate is perceived to be competent, reliable, and similar to the leader in values and attitudes. A leader’s upward influence is another important determinant of the potential for establishing a favorable exchange relationship with subordinates. The behavior of the leader and subordinate is different in favorable exchange relationships than in unfavorable exchange relationships. Exchange relationships with subordinates have implications for leadership effectiveness. Subordinate satisfaction, commitment, and performance are usually higher when the relationship is favorable. Some differentiation of exchange relationships with subordinates may be necessary, but too much can be detrimental.

A manager’s reaction to mistakes or failures by a subordinate depends in part on attributions about the reasons for poor performance. Attribution theory explains how managers interpret performance information and make judgments about the competence and motivation of a subordinate. Managers may unwittingly create a self-fulfilling prophecy if their behavior is based on a biased perception about the ability and motivation of individual subordinates. For their part, subordinates can use impression management tactics to influence the leader to view them more favorably. Followers often do things to appear competent, loyal, and reliable. When a subordinate’s performance is unsatisfactory, corrective feedback is more likely to be successful if the leader is supportive rather than hostile and encourages the subordinate to take ownership of the problem.

How followers view leader competence and intentions has implications for leadership effectiveness. Followers are susceptible to the same types of attributions as leaders. A leader who takes visible actions that are followed by improvements in group performance will be viewed as more competent than one who takes no action or acts without apparent success. Leaders use impression management tactics in an effort to appear more decisive, competent, powerful, and trustworthy.

Self-management is a way for followers to become more effective as individual contributors. Self- management strategies can be used to increase confidence, spur greater effort, and manage time more effectively. One way for a leader to empower subordinates is to encourage and facilitate their self- management activities.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Followers are more likely to be effective if they view themselves as active and independent rather than passive and dependent on the leader. Followers can help make their leader more effective by providing accurate information, challenging weak decisions, resisting inappropriate influence attempts, giving support and encouragement, and providing coaching and advice.

All leaders are also followers, and to be effective in both roles, it is essential to find a way to integrate them. Moreover, it is essential to find appropriate ways to share leadership functions within teams, across authority levels, and between interdependent subunits of the organization.

Review and Discussion Questions 1. Briefly explain leader-member exchange theory. 2. What are some possible benefits and costs of developing different exchange relationships? 3. Is it possible to develop different dyadic relationships and still treat everyone fairly? 4. Use attribution theory to explain how leaders interpret the reason for poor performance. 5. How can subordinates influence a leader’s perceptions about them? 6. What are some guidelines for corrective feedback? 7. What factors influence follower attributions about leader competence? 8. What are some guidelines for improving effectiveness as a follower?

Key Terms empowerment exchange relationship external attribution implicit theories of leadership impression management internal attribution leader-member exchange self-management self-talk

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Case Cromwell Electronics Dan Dalton was the marketing vice president (VP) for Cromwell Electronics. Ten months earlier he had appointed Ed Corelli as the manager of a newly formed marketing unit for the eastern region. The unit was responsible for developing marketing presentations, advertising campaigns, and promotions for the sale of Cromwell products in the eastern region. The unit had six marketing specialists; two were long- time employees, and the other four were newly hired. Ed was promoted to the position based on a good reputation as a marketing specialist. Even though the marketing unit was new, Dan expected its performance to be better by now. The marketing unit for the western region was formed at the same time, and it had higher performance. Dan reflected on the comments made by two of Ed’s subordinates when asked how they liked working for him.

Pat Posner had worked for the company for nearly 10 years. He commented that Ed was “a great manager.” Pat especially liked the high level of autonomy he was allowed. Pat said, “Ed gives me complete discretion to plan the marketing campaigns for my set of products. If I have a problem, he encourages me to look at it from different perspectives, but he doesn’t say what he wants me to do about it. He trusts me to solve my own problems. When I make a mistake, which seldom happens, he doesn’t get upset. Instead, he expects me to learn from it.” Pat also noted that Ed showed sincere appreciation for good performance. “My marketing campaign for the new product was very successful, and I really appreciated the recognition Ed gave me in the monthly unit meeting. He also told me that he would try to get me a pay increase.”

Katie O’Toole, one of the new employees, was less satisfied with Ed as a manager. “Sometimes I wish Ed would give me more direction. He is always pushing me to make my own decisions. Maybe if I had more experience I would like it, but right now it makes me feel very insecure. I never really know if I am doing what he expects. When I go to him for help with a problem, he turns the question around and asks what I would do. He doesn’t seem to understand that I wouldn’t ask if I already knew the answer. And when I do something wrong, he doesn’t seem to care. Ed likes to pretend that mistakes will go away if you don’t talk about them.” Katie had another complaint as well. She said, “He seems to favor the two employees who have been with the company longer. He gives them the most interesting assignments, he consults with them more about his plans for the unit, and he recommends them for larger pay increases.” Katie noted that Sally and George, both new employees, agreed with her complaints about Ed.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

At lunch later that day, Dan asked Ed how things were going in his unit. Ed replied that he was disappointed in some of the new marketing specialists. Only one of the new employees (Linda) was performing well. The others seemed to lack drive and initiative. Ed emphasized that he tried to avoid any favoritism, which had been a serious problem for a former boss. Although he gave the most complex assignments to the marketing specialists with more experience, everyone had challenging assignments and opportunities to excel. Ed had attended the company workshop on empowerment, and he was trying to give employees the autonomy they needed to learn and develop new skills on the job. He was careful not to supervise too closely or criticize mistakes. He provided recognition for outstanding achievements and recommended pay raises for good performance. Ed asked his boss, “What am I doing wrong?”

Questions 1. What theories from this chapter are relevant for analyzing the case? 2. Evaluate Ed’s behavior as a manager, and identify effective and ineffective actions. 3. What should Dan say or do now?

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Case American Financial Corporation Betty Powell is the manager of human resources for American Financial Corporation, a large financial services company. When she arrived back in her office Monday after being away for a week, she discovered that a staffing report due the day before was still not finished. The report was for the vice president of the company’s brokerage division, and Betty was supposed to give him the report by Wednesday.

Six weeks earlier Betty had asked Don Adams, one of her subordinates to collect the information and to write the staffing report. At that time she told him what should be included in the report and when it was due. It is not the first time Don has missed a deadline. His work is careful and meticulous, but he appears to be compulsive about checking and rechecking everything several times to avoid any mistakes.

Betty called Don and asked him to meet with her immediately. When Don came into her office, she greeted him and asked him to sit down. The following dialogue occurred.

“Don, I understand the staffing report for the brokerage division is not completed yet. The division vice president needs that report to prepare his annual budget, and he is putting a lot of pressure on me to get it to him immediately. When I gave you this assignment, you assured me that six weeks was ample time to do it.”

“I’m sorry that the report wasn’t ready on schedule,” responded Don, “but it turned out to be much more complex than I initially expected. I had to spend extra time verifying the figures from the branch offices, because they just didn’t look right. Just when I thought…”

“Look Don,” interrupted Betty, “this is not the first time you have been late on an important project. You’re supposed to be a professional, and professionals plan their work and get it done on time.”

“It would not be very professional to do a report full of mistakes,” replied Don. “It’s important to me to do quality work that I can be proud of. It’s not my fault that the branch managers don’t keep accurate records.”

“What types of mistakes did you find when you checked their records?” asked Betty.

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

“Well . . ., I didn’t actually find any mistakes,” replied Don, looking embarrassed, “but after I entered the information into the computer and did the preliminary analysis, I discovered that the records were missing for one of the branch offices. I lost a week waiting to get the missing information, but without it the report would not provide an accurate picture of the division’s staffing needs. It’s a good thing I noticed the . . . ”

Betty interrupted impatiently, “Don, we have interns to do things like checking computer records and making sure they are complete. It sounds to me like you are not very efficient about managing your time. If you delegated some of these simple tasks, you wouldn’t get so far behind in your work.”

“The interns were busy working on the new financial reports,” Don protested. “I don’t get enough clerical support on any of my projects, and that’s why they are sometimes late.”

“Why didn’t you inform me there were problems that might delay the report?” asked Betty, her voice showing she was becoming very annoyed. “I could have found you some clerical support.”

Don was now becoming more defensive. “I tried to let you know last week, but you were on the West Coast for the management training workshop. I left a message for you to call me.”

“Don, you have an excuse for everything, and nothing is ever your fault,” Betty said sarcastically. “You seem to be incapable of planning the action steps needed to do a project like this one. You should have checked the records before you began the data analysis. As for the missing records, it wouldn’t surprise me if they are buried somewhere under the piles of stuff laying around your office. You have the messiest office in the company.”

Don looked sullen but did not reply. Betty continued her tirade.

“Don, your career in this company is going to be very short unless you get your act together. I want that report in my hands by noon tomorrow, and no more excuses.”

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...

Questions 1. What did Betty do wrong prior to the meeting, and what could have been done to avoid missing

the deadline? 2. What did Betty do wrong in the meeting itself, and what could have been done to make the

meeting more effective? 3. What should Don have done to be more effective?

3/14/2016http://e.pub/496fmg3j0mxg3r9ovaid.vbk/OPS/xhtml/fileP70004785650000000000000000...