Application 1 – Final Paper

Walden University

Faraji Edwards

Week 1 Assignment: PhD in Management: Leadership, & Power

(MGMT – 8410-1)

Ayman, R., &Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157-170.

Majority of the leadership studies conducted in the past usually concentrated on white people. However, there exists other diverse issues affecting affecting the diversity in leadership. In this journal article, Ayman & Korabik (2010) expound on how variables of culture, gender and ethnicity affect leadership. Consequently, the authors conduct a survey on leaders from different cultural and racial backgrounds. The results of the study indicate that leaders of color and women leaders firmly grasped their ethnic and sexual orientation characters contrasted and White male leaders (Ayman & Korabik, 2010). These social personalities together with lived encounters connected with minority status were seen as affecting their activity of leadership, displaying both difficulties and qualities (Ayman & Korabik, 2010). Differences in the leadership profile of this different leadership test with the Anglo bunch in the GLOBE considers propose the significance of inspecting assorted qualities in leadership (Ayman & Korabik, 2010). Conceptualizations of leadership should be comprehensive of the social characters and lived encounters that leaders and devotees both convey to the connections of leadership.

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482-497.

Issues of bounded rationality, mismanagement of firm resources among others are the major shortcomings witnessed in the leadership arena. There comes a time when leaders act contrary to the set principles or ignore vital information, the latter of which results to the organization deviating from its goals. At times, leaders might sacrifice team goals to pursue their selfish interests, requiring the effective use of defined frameworks to keep them in check. In a research conducted by Maner & Mead, (2010), the authors suggest the use of both linkage and climate theory to observe and analyze leadership. The study uses random sampling and experimentations to determine whether leaders often wield power with the intention of promoting self interests or team goals. However, the study is subject to various limitations. For instance, Maner & Mead, (2010), acknowledge that the studies used were designed to be rigorous, controlling group decisions in lab tests. In the real settings, group decision making is dynamic and uncontrolled.

Dixon, M. L., & Hart, L. K. (2010). The impact of Path-Goal leadership styles on work group effectiveness and turnover intention. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 52-69.

In this article, Dixon & Hart (2010) acknowledge that different leaders adopt different leadership philosophies. Further, the authors assert that both gender and team culture are essential variables that significantly impact the outcomes of any leadership styles. Leaders persistently try to enhance hierarchical execution and improve work bunch viability to drive aggressiveness and shorten the expense of worker turnover. The differences of numerous work groups in the U.S. makes potential advantages and difficulties for their leaders. Utilizing information accumulated from an assembling office in southeastern U.S., this study looks at how Path-Goal leadership styles, assorted qualities, work bunch adequacy, and work gathering individuals' turnover goal are connected. Albeit every one of the three Path-Goal leadership styles exhibited huge positive connections with work bunch viability, just the Supportive style demonstrated a critical negative association with turnover expectation. Strikingly, work bunch adequacy demonstrated no noteworthy relationship with turnover expectation.

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3), 216-224.

Representatives are regularly sorted out into work groups keeping in mind the end goal to increment authoritative efficiency and aggressiveness. Work bunch leaders are tasked with making and sustaining environments that rouse individuals' commitment to the accomplishment of basic work goals. In the U.S., numerous work groups are differing, mirroring the nation's demographic make-up. This exploration found that Path-Goal leadership styles had factually noteworthy, positive associations with different work bunch viability, with Instrumental leadership exhibiting the most grounded connection. An intriguing finding was that Supportive leadership (offering brotherhood, invitingness, and sympathy toward accomplishment and gathering individuals' prosperity) was the Path-Goal leadership style most very associated with diminished work gathering individuals' turnover goal. This study affirmed some current exploration about differences and work bunch viability and disconfirmed different discoveries by showing that obvious divergence among individuals does not fundamentally affect adequacy, and that individuals' disparity in qualities, standards, and practical experience just has a negative pattern impact on adequacy.

Limitations

Because all information utilized as a part of this study originates from one source utilizing a self-report study, it has the potential for normal technique difference, restricting the generalizability of the study's discoveries. Furthermore, on the grounds that quantitative information instead of subjective information were accumulated, the study does not catch up with members about their particular work circumstances. At long last, this concentrate just included Path-Goal leadership styles, barring different sorts of leadership styles that may have been more normal for this current association's work bunch leaders, which may have yielded extra knowledge for leadership specialists. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.

In this article, Hogan, Curphy & Hogan conduct a research to determine the impact of personal orientations such as culture, gender, race and ethnicity, on leadership styles. Leaders from five racial/ethnic groups inside the US were reviewed on their support of leadership measurements as characterized by the GLOBE considers and the impact of their race, ethnicity and gender on the activity of leadership in this exploratory study. While all leaders supported normal leadership measurements, social variety rose on an element predictable with a sympathetic introduction and community leadership style. Leaders of color and ladies leaders emphatically embraced their ethnic and gender personalities contrasted and White male leaders. These social personalities together with lived encounters connected with minority status were seen as affecting their activity of leadership, displaying both difficulties and qualities. Contrasts in the leadership profile of this different leadership test with the Anglo bunch in the GLOBE concentrates on recommend the significance of looking at diversity in leadership. Conceptualizations of leadership should be comprehensive of the social personalities and lived encounters that leaders and followers both convey to the settings of leadership.

Kahn, W. A., &Kram, K. E. (1994). Authority at work: Internal models and their organizational consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 17-50.

The concept of leadership has always been multivariet and dynamic. Consequently, the authors of this journal article seek to define the concept of leadership. They also seek to elaborate on the several key issues that arise in the context of leadership. Kahn & Kram (1994), concentrates on how organization members approve and deauthorize both others and themselves over the span of doing their work. Kahn and Kram (1994), contend that these approving procedures are formed, to some degree, by persisting, regularly unacknowledged positions toward power itself. Thusly, Kahn and Kram (1994), recommend that these positions are instituted in comparative routes crosswise over progressive and shared work game plans and crosswise over different parts and positions. These positions are; as Hirschhom (1990) recommended disguised models. Working from a hypothetical framework that joins ideas from formative and clinical psychology, bunch progression, and organizational conduct, Kahn and Kram (1994), characterize and delineate three sorts of interior models of power: reliance, counter-dependence, and association. Kahn and Kram (1994), offer suggestions about how these inside models impact organization members' practices amid assignment exhibitions for the most part, and all the more particularly, as members of progressive dyads and work groups.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. J. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 546-553.

In the organizational context, different forms and sources of power and authority exist. These forms of authority are exerted differently in different organizations. Consequently, in this journal article, the authors portray how leaders exert power and authority to subordinates on daily errants in the organizational context. According to Koslowski & Doherty, (1989), power is the capacity to impact others. A standout amongst the most compelling speculations of power originates from the work of Koslowski & Doherty, (1989), who endeavored to decide the sources of power leaders use to impact others. French and Raven recognized five sources of power that can be gathered into two classifications: organizational power ( coercive, reward, legitimate) and individual power (master and referent). By and large, the individual sources of power are all the more emphatically identified with representatives' job fulfillment, organizational responsibility, and job execution than are the organizational power sources. One wellspring of organizational power, coercive power, is contrarily identified with work results. Be that as it may, the different sources of power ought not be considered as totally separate from each other. Once in a while leaders use them together in fluctuating mixes relying upon the circumstance. Another idea of power, alluded to as "empowerment," has turned into a noteworthy system for enhancing work results.

Robinson, S. K., & Kerr, R. (2009). The symbolic violence of leadership: A critical hermeneutic study of leadership and succession in a British organization in the post-Soviet context. Human Relations, 62(6), 875-903.

In this article, Robinson & Kerr (2009) revisit the work of French and Raven, expounding on the basis of power. Both authors focus on informational power. As per Robinson & Kerr (2009), One basis of power, which the administrator may utilize, then, is Informational Power. The administrator precisely discloses to the subordinate how the occupation ought to be done another way, with powerful reasons why that would be a superior and more successful technique. The subordinate comprehends and acknowledges the reasons and changes conduct. Informational impact then results in psychological change and acknowledgment by the objective. It is in this manner called "socially autonomous change" in that modified conduct, in spite of the fact that started by the impacting specialist (director) now proceeds without the objective fundamentally alluding to, or notwithstanding recalling, the manager as being the specialist of progress.

Strang, S. E., & Kuhnert, K.W. (2009). Personality and leadership developmental levels as predictors of leader performance. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 421-433.

The authors of this article expound on charismatic leadership and explain the core factors that facilitate the development of such skills among British leaders and expounds the differences between types of leadership styles. As per Strang & Kuhnert, (2009) Charismatic leadership looks like transformational leadership: both sorts of leaders move and persuade their colleagues. The difference lies in their expectation. Transformational leaders need to change their groups and associations, while leaders who depend on allure frequently concentrate on themselves and their own desire, and they might not have any desire to change anything. Charismatic leaders may trust that they can do no wrong, notwithstanding when others caution them about the way that they're on. This sentiment invulnerability can extremely harm a group or an association, as was appeared in the 2008 budgetary emergency.

Zhang, X., &Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.

The authors of this journal article conduct a study to investigate the empowering of leadership and its psychological impacts. As per Zhang & Bartol (2010), Blending speculations of leadership, empowerment, and creativity, this examination constructed and tried a hypothetical model connecting engaging leadership with creativity by means of a few mediating variables. Using study data from expert workers and their administrators in a vast data innovation organization in China, we found that, as foreseen, enabling leadership decidedly influenced mental empowerment, which thus affected both inborn motivation and inventive procedure engagement. These last two variables then affected creativity. Empowerment part character directed the connection between enabling leadership and mental empowerment, while pioneer support of creativity directed the connection between mental empowerment and imaginative procedure engagement.

References

Ayman, R., &Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157-170.

Dixon, M. L., & Hart, L. K. (2010). The impact of Path-Goal leadership styles on work group effectiveness and turnover intention. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 52-69.

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3), 216-224.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.

Kahn, W. A., &Kram, K. E. (1994). Authority at work: Internal models and their organizational consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 17-50.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. J. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 546-553.

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482-497.

Robinson, S. K., & Kerr, R. (2009). The symbolic violence of leadership: A critical hermeneutic study of leadership and succession in a British organization in the post-Soviet context. Human Relations, 62(6), 875-903.

Strang, S. E., & Kuhnert, K.W. (2009). Personality and leadership developmental levels as predictors of leader performance. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 421-433.

Zhang, X., &Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.