Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 68
Through Different Perspectives on Leadership: Comparing the Full Range Leadership Theory to Implicit Leadership Theories
Heiko Verlage Jens Rowold TU Dortmund University Jan Schilling University of Applied Administrative Sciences Hannover, Germany
Abstract
According to constructivist tradition, leadership is understood as a phenomenon of subjective perception. With this in mind, we compared empirical theories of leadership with subjective leadership theories (Phillips & Lord, 1986; Calder, 1977). A sample of leaders' superiors and followers (N = 694) answered the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire which is associated to the Full Range of Leadership Theory (FRLT, Avolio & Bass, 1991). Additionally, the participants gave insight into their implicit leadership theories by answering open questions. The analysis of implicit leadership theories resulted in 17 categories of leadership traits and behaviors which are not covered by the FRLT. Some new categories show significant correlations with leadership outcome measures. In this regard the new categories explain unique variance beyond the dimensions of the FRLT. The results, limitations and implications are discussed.
"Leadership researchers may find that certain aspects of leadership are commonly understood or inferred (as indicated by their presence in implicit leadership theories) that are not taken into account in current theories and models of leadership. The study of implicit theories can provide clues that will help in the development of explicit theories to understand the phenomenon called leadership." (Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994, p. 45). The full range of leadership theory (FRLT; Avolio & Bass, 1991; House, 1977; Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985) is one of the best known exponents of the currently discussed neocharismatic leadership theories. One of the theorys central elements consists in the description of transformational leadership: Leaders motivate their followers by, for example, presenting an appealing vision of future, satisfying their followers needs or encouraging their creativity (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Nevertheless, there is criticism of the leadership behavior styles as described within the theory. It has been argued that the FRLT lacks some parts of the "full range", i.e. several important factors of leadership may still have to be included (Antonakis & House, 2004; Yukl, 1999). Offermann, Kennedy & Wirtz (1994) point out that the analysis of implicit leadership theories could lead to the identification of additional leadership factors which have not yet been considered. The present paper contributes to the discussion about identifying additional, important leadership factors. The examination of implicit leadership theories (ILT) of leaders followers and supervisors results in traits and behavior styles of leadership which correlate with measures of leadership effects. Overall, the goal was to extend current thinking on leadership and to add additional elements to the FRLT.
Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 69
Review of Full Range of Leadership Research
The full range of leadership theory postulates five transformational and three transactional factors of leadership. Additionally there is another factor which represents the absence of leadership (i.e., laissez-faire, Bass & Riggio, 2006).
The dimensions of transformational leadership are characterized by a high leadership efficacy and an intensive activity of the leader (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Inspirational motivation describes leader behavior which is based on an optimistic and enthusiastic way of communicating a vision to the followers. The job to be done should not be felt as an obligation but as a challenge. Idealized influence (attributed) refers to the degree to which followers attribute positive traits (e.g. charisma) to their leader. Idealized influence (behavior) represents a set of leadership behaviors which is based on high ethical standards in combination with a distinct achievement motive. Intellectual stimulation describes the leadership behavior a leader shows to involve followers in decision making processes. The leader emphasizes innovation and creativity in this behavior mode particularly. If followers make mistakes during the creative process of solving problems, they are not criticized in front of their colleagues (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Individualized consideration means promoting the followers career development and meeting their individual needs.
Compared to the dimensions of transformational leadership, those of transactional leadership share lower leadership efficacy. Among the transactional dimensions contingent reward is theoretically the most effective one. It describes a more or less implicit contract between leader and follower, as, in exchange for the work done by the follower, the leader promises a reward. This can consist in material boni, but also in verbal praising. Active management-by-exception is the label of leadership behavior which is shown by leaders who interfere only to prevent failure of their followers or to avert deviations from designated standards. In contrast, management-by-exception passive describes leaders who intervene after mistakes have occurred to limit possible damage (Rowold, 2005).
Many empirical studies have concluded that transformational leadership correlates with leadership efficacy and follower satisfaction (Smith, Matkin, & Fritz, 2004; House & Aditya, 1997; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007), around the globe and across organizational contexts (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Implicit Leadership Theories
The scientific construct of implicit theories (or naive theories) originates from the attribution theory (Heider, 1944) and from the theory of personal constructs (Kelly, 1955). Both theories focus on the subjective perception of everyday life. As the phenomenon of leadership also belongs to everyday life, Eden & Leviatan (1975) and Calder (1977) introduced the construct of implicit theories into leadership research (q.v. Hollander & Julian, 1969). Lhrmann (2004) refers to this as a cognitive, constructivist turnaround, because the basic principle of implicit leadership theories clarifies that the way in which leaders and their performance are perceived depends on the cognitive processing of the observer (Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005): [L]eadership is in the eye of the beholder (Kenny, Blascovich, & Shaver, 1994, p. 409).
Schilling (2001) defines implicit leadership theories as a subcategory of implicit theories which refer to leaders and the process of leadership. This definition combines two aspects of implicit leadership theories which had been treated separately in the past: The first aspect consists in Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 70
implicit leadership theories in the function of categorization processes. In this case, implicit prototypes lead to the individual decision whether a person is perceived as a leader or not, dependent on the perception of the observed persons traits (Phillips & Lord, 1986; Lhrmann, 2004; House & Aditya, 1997). The second aspect refers to the process of leadership itself: In this context implicit leadership theories are patterns of explanation in regard to causes and effects of leadership behavior and results (Kenny et al., 1994).
Implicit leadership theories help to organize perceptions, permit reasonable predictions, and may even specify appropriate behavioral reactions to others (Phillips & Lord, 1986, p. 34), so they function as cognitive simplifications in everyday leadership contexts. The possibility of a biased (i.e., scheme-congruent) perception of leadership is only one factor in how implicit leadership theories may affect leadership processes. Additionally, implicit leadership theories themselves are part of the dyadic leadership process: The better the behavior shown by a leader fits to the implicit leadership theories of the followers, the more they evaluate their leaders efficacy in his/her favor, and furthermore a higher quality of the leader-member-exchange (LMX) can be observed (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Schyns & Hansbrough, 2008).
This finding becomes even more important when one considers that many leaders do their job in an international context, leading internationally composed teams. The question comes up whether there exist cultural similarities and differences concerning implicit leadership theories. A well known research activity in this field of science is the GLOBE study which was conducted in more than 900 organizations worldwide (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). One of its key results was the finding that charismatic leadership is seen as a good leadership style worldwide and seems to be a solid component of implicit leadership theories held by leaders (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003; Den Hartog, House, Hanges, & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1999; Steyrer, Schiffinger, & Lang, 2007; Schilling, 2008).
To conclude, implicit leadership theories hold that leadership could be described as a phenomenon of perception (Schilling, 2001). Consequently, a statement of requirements was formulated: If leadership resides, at least in part, in the minds of followers, then it is imperative to discover what followers are thinking (Lord & Emrich, 2001, p. 551), because we need to know more about the construction of leadership perception so that we can finally learn about leadership itself.
Exploratory Research Objectives
In the past years a few studies have been published examining both the FRLT and the concept of implicit leadership theories. In most cases the studies were seeking to answer the question whether charismatic/transformational leadership is an international leadership ideal (e.g. Den Hartog et al., 1999). These and other studies examining the FRLT and implicit leadership theories in combination are still few and far between. Utilizing implicit leadership theories, the goal of the present paper is to contribute to the examination and further development of the FRLT.
Given the overall goal (i.e., to examine and extend the FRLT), we plan to formulate explorative research objectives (c.f. Frh, 2001) instead of hypotheses. First, Yukl (1999) argues the FRLT discounted critical behavioral patterns of leadership. The analysis of implicit leadership theories may help to identify leadership behaviors and leaders traits that are individually perceived as being important to the process of leadership. The collective structure of the data to be examined leads to inferences that exceed the individual level of analysis. Thus, the first explorative research objective consists in the following question: Do any components of implicit leadership theories exist that are not Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 71
already taken into account by the FRLT (Research objective 1)?
If the first research objective turns out to be answered positively, the question arises whether the identified components of implicit leadership theories are relevant to organizational effectiveness. More specifically, do they add significant, unique variance to account for leadership outcome criteria (Research objective 2)?
Methods
For the purpose of the present study, a 360-feedback survey was utilized in various German profit and non-profit organizations. The participating organizations were heterogeneous: telecommunications enterprises and call center service providers took part in this study as well as research facilities, schools and other kinds of organization. The goal of the 360-feedback survey was to provide managers with feedback about their respective individual leadership strengths and weaknesses and thus to promote their development. Executive managers, their subordinates, supervisors and peers were asked to fill out the survey. The survey focused on managers leadership behavior (MLQ, see below).
Sample
A data set included N = 694 persons. Hereof, N = 544 (78.4 %) persons belong to the group of the managers subordinates and N = 150 (21.6 %) to the group of the managers supervisors. There were 51.4 % male and 48.6 % female executive managers. Due to concerns of anonymity of the subordinates and supervisors, additional demographic characteristics were not available.
The standard instrument to measure the dimensions of the FRLT is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1992). The theoretically intended (Avolio & Bass, 1991) nine- dimensional factor structure has been confirmed in Anglo-American countries (e.g. Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Bass & Riggio, 2006) as well as in Germany (Rowold & Rohmann, 2009; Rowold & Rohmann, 2008).
Rowolds (2004) German translation of the MLQ-5X was utilized in the present study. It was administered to the participants as a paper and pencil questionnaire and consists of 45 items. Hereof, 36 items form (in groups of 4 items each) the nine FRLT scales described above which constitute the following three categories of leadership styles: transformational leadership (inspirational motivation, idealized influence [attributed], idealized influence [behavior], intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration), transactional leadership (contingent reward, active management-by-exception, management-by-exception passive) and laissez-faire. The remaining items form three outcome scales named extra effort (3 items), effectiveness (4 items) and satisfaction (2 items). The participants answer the items via a five-point Likert scale (not at all once in a while sometimes fairly often frequently, if not always).
Additionally, there are three items attached to the questionnaire which are formulated as open questions, i.e. they are presented without standardized response options: What are two or three things that would help this leader be more effective? One thing that gets in the way of this leader's effectiveness is... What I admire most about his/her leadership is... Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 72
Although these open items are not part of the MLQ in a theoretical perspective, they were added by Bass & Avolio (2002) to its commercially distributed version, because the open items were useful for executive development. In the context of the present study, these items were used for gathering implicit leadership theories. While the items are focused at a specific leader on the individual level, the aggregated answers (i.e. across the subjects in this study) to these questions reveal common thinking and everyday beliefs concerning (effective) leadership. In the present study we analyzed the data of (a) the managers subordinates and (b) of the managers supervisors. The managers themselves did not have the chance to enter qualitative data. Finally, the inclusion of data from the colleagues perspective would not be in line with the majority of leadership research as they are typically not concerned with their peers leadership.
Applied Methods of Qualitative Data Analysis
Within the present study, Mayring's (1994) principle of qualitative data analysis was used in combination with quantitative statistical methods. First, the participants answers had to be made anonymous. Names of persons and organizations were removed from the data. In the same procedural step we excluded answers which did not deliver any content (i.e. if there was nothing more than e.g. ????, No answer, I dont know etc.). The result consisted in what we defined as qualitative raw data that was to be inspected in the course of analysis.
The second procedural step included different kinds of qualitative content analysis. Mayring (2003) defines three different basic types of qualitative content analysis. We made use of two of them: summarizing and structuring content analysis. The summarizing type describes the process of reducing and abstracting qualitative data so that the result is less bulky but still contains the essential pieces of information of the original data. The structuring type of content analysis is used to examine certain aspects of qualitative data material. Developing a category system inductively means arranging data in categories which arise gradually during the process of analysis. The opposite method is to apply a category system deductively, i.e. using a given category system for the analysis right from the start (Mayring, 2000).
We began the actual content analysis using the summarizing type first. Before the start, a codebook was written which contained explicit rules for summarizing to provide a systematic approach for processing the given qualitative data. The codebook defined the steps of analysis and their sequence to ensure the maximum reduction in arbitrariness. In the course of the summarizing content analysis the participants statements were paraphrased, i.e. those parts of each statement which did not deliver much or any information were excluded while the relevant elements were rephrased, shortened and unified to the same level of linguistic complexity. In the same step the statements different units of meaning were identified and referred to as coding units. The paraphrased coding units were semantically generalized to a medium level of abstraction. Finally, we reduced the number of elements by excluding those coding units which were unimportant in respect of the research objectives. The decision whether a coding unit had to be excluded or not was made in reference to definite rules: Schilling (2001) formulated criteria of implicit leadership theories of which two are applicable in the present study. After the wording had been adjusted the criteria were used as rules to reduce the number of coding units. In each case, the fulfillment of both criteria was required to exclude the respective coding unit: (1) Content criterion regarding the research topic: Only those coding units are relevant to the subsequent analysis which refer to the nature or functionality of leadership; (2) Pragmatic action-related criterion: Coding units must refer to a greater or lesser extent directly to a leaders actions to be relevant Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 73
for the present study.
Because of the huge amount of qualitative data, the steps of generalization and reduction took place in parallel, as described by Schilling (2001). A practical insight into the process conducted in summarizing content analysis is provided in Table 1 by showing an exemplary extract of the data along with the different steps of the procedure. The output of the summarizing content analysis was checked by the analyst and one additional research team member in order to test (a) whether the paraphrases had been formulated adequately, (b) whether the generalizations did not change the meanings of the paraphrased coding units, and (c) whether the exclusion of coding units conformed to the rules (Schilling, 2006). The result of the summarizing content analysis consisted in definite and distinct elements concerning leadership for subsequent analyses.
Categorizing Data
After the summarizing content analysis had been finished, we used its results to conduct a structuring content analysis. The identified coding units had to be arranged in a category system. In consideration of the first research objective, we followed a deductive approach and used a category system that consisted in the nine aspects of leadership as postulated by the FRLT. Again, a codebook was written at the beginning. It explained the coding process and contained short descriptions of the nine leadership categories (together with their codes a1 a9). The descriptions were similar to the ones written by Avolio, Bass & Jung (1999). To guarantee a categorization process that was conducted as closely as possible to the theoretical assumptions of the FRLT, the codebook contained the corresponding MLQ items as model examples for each leadership category. Concerning the categorization process, the codebook explicitly suggested that the reader should perceive each category as distinct dimensions. Consequently, coding units which meant exactly the opposite of a particular category description, had also to be assigned to this very category, if both coding unit and category dealt with the same basic aspect of leadership: If there was a coding unit like e.g. to offer opportunities to communicate, it had to be aligned to the ninth category (laissez-faire), because this aspect of leadership deals (among other issues) with leadership behavior of (not) staying in contact to followers.
Additional to the nine FRLT-categories there was a category (coded as a10) for miscellaneous content, i.e. for coding units which did not fit into the nine theoretical categories. Table 2 shows an example of coding units which were assigned to different categories.
Intercoder Reliability
A comparison between the experimenters coding outcomes and the results of a coding assistant was drawn to control the categorization process quality. For this purpose, Frh (2001) states that 30-50 coding units should be re-coded at a minimum, but he recommends an amount of 200-300 coding units. A stratified random sample of the participants was drawn consisting of 15 supervisors and 55 subordinates. This sample was the source of 251 coding units out of the entire qualitative data.
The coding assistant was blind to the research objectives. She was trained to use the written code book and to handle the deductive categorization process via software. Subsequently, and independently of the experimenter, she conducted the deductive structuring content analysis by re-coding the coding units of the drawn sample. Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 74
The category system of the applied deductive structuring content analysis contained a category for miscellaneous content as aforementioned (a10). To organize the heterogeneous content of this category we conducted an inductive structuring content analysis for the above-named category. As done in the processes of the prior content analyses, a codebook was written to define the actions to be executed (e.g. repeated control steps). After the inductive categorization had been completed, the coding team was requested to discuss the coding units allocation to the developed categories (while adhering to the code book) and to think through these new categories themselves. The team discussions at the end of the analysis processes led to the final state of the category systems for each one of the inductive content analyses.
Linking the New Categories to Assessed Managers Parameter Values
Concerning the attempt to validate the new categories of the inductive categorization process, neither the rated managers nor the participants were available to generate data. Consequently, we had to switch to an indirect way of generating the necessary data: To evaluate the managers parameter values regarding the new categories, a frequency-based approach was used: The more a manager was described by raters/coding units (coded as miscellaneous in the first deductive categorization) which had been assigned to a certain new category (within the inductive categorization), the higher we estimated his or her parameter value regarding this special new category. To account for the fact that there were different numbers of raters per manager, neither absolute nor relative quantities were adequate to describe the managers parameter values. Instead, we used a bipolar four point Likert scale. It consisted of the points very low, low, high, very high. There was an additional point called unclear. An instruction was written to guide the experimenters through the process of analysis. In particular, the instruction explained how to use the aforementioned scale: If there was more than one rater whose coding units indicated a certain level of parameter value regarding a certain new category, the respective manager was graded as very high / very low in terms of this category. If there was only one rater whose coding units indicated a certain level of parameter value regarding a certain new category, the respective manager was (only) graded as high / low in terms of this category. If there was not any information about the parameter value of a particular new category, the respective manager had to be graded as unclear regarding this new category. In case of (inter- or intra-individual) contradictions the instruction told the experimenter to code the managers parameter values in accordance with the opinion held by the majority of the ratings. If a majority did not exist, the respective category had to be graded as unclear. After this process of generating data had been finished, two members of the research team checked the entire new data material for mistakes due to the possibility of incorrect scale use.
Results
The total volume of quantitative data originating from the MLQ includes 8.4 % missing data. We did not exclude single participants due to high amounts of missing data, because we did not want to reduce the extent of the qualitative data artificially.
The means, standard deviations and Cronbachs alpha coefficients of the MLQ scales are presented in Table 3. Obviously, the alpha coefficients are very heterogeneous and are ranging from = .12 (satisfaction) to = .90 (laissez-faire). According to conventions, we excluded the Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 75
MLQ outcome scale satisfaction from further analyses, because its alpha coefficient was below = .50 in both of the participant groups. The MLQ outcome scale effectiveness also shows a low alpha coefficient. In the supervisors participant group the coefficient ( = .47) is below the aforementioned limit. Nevertheless, scales with less than four items often have low reliabilities
(especially in sample sizes below N = 500), and should not be excluded from further analyses (Cortina, 1993; Charter, 2003).
Considering the qualitative data, there was a possible maximum of 2082 statements (694 participants multiplied by 3 open questions). In 22 cases a question remained completely unanswered (1.1 % of the possible maximum). 467 (22.7 %) of the actual 2060 answers were excluded because of lacking informative content. The remaining 1593 statements entered the process of the summarizing content analysis where they were split into 2688 coding units. Hereof 156 coding units (5.8 %) were excluded due to not meeting the defined criteria of implicit leadership theories. On average each supervisor introduced 4.66 coding units to the subsequently conducted structuring content analyses, while the subordinates produced 3.37 coding units on average (see Table 4).
Cohens kappa was calculated to check the quality of the deductive structuring content analysis. This coefficient, as used in the present study, expresses the degree of congruence between the coding outcomes of the experimenter and his research assistant concerning the drawn stratified sample of the qualitative data. Kappa coefficients of K ~ .60 are commonly considered as good, K ~ .75 as very good (Graham & Naglieri, 2003). For the deductive categorization a kappa coefficient of K = .77 was calculated, indicating a very good coding quality.
Descriptive Statistics
The first deductive categorization was about assigning the 2532 available coding units to the nine categories as taken from the FRLT leadership dimensions, while the tenth category (miscellaneous, a10) was reserved for not categorizable coding units. The descriptive statistics show the extensiveness of the miscellaneous category in both of the participant groups in a clear way: 327 coding units (46.8 %) originating from the supervisors group and 687 coding units (37.5 %) from the subordinates group included content differing qualitatively from the FRLT categories and had to be coded as miscellaneous.
Big differences stand out in analyzing the frequencies of the FRLT codes a1-a9 (see Table 5 and Figure 1). The issues of the FRLT categories idealized influence (attributed), individualized consideration, and laissez-faire were broached most frequently by the participants. In contrast, contingent reward, management-by-exception active and passive show very low occurrence.
Results and Further Analyses of the Inductive Categorizations
The miscellaneous category (a10) of the first deductive structuring content analysis contained a total sum of 1014 coding units. These were sorted within the process of the inductive structuring content analysis. The categorization led to 19 different categories aside the FRLT. We decided that a category should consist of at least 15 coding units to be relevant for subsequent analyses. According to this criterion, we excluded the category creativity and the comparatively unspecific category performing leadership tasks, because each of them contained only six coding units. A total of 3 coding units represented single deviant meanings and could not be assigned to any of Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 76
the other categories. They were also not considered in the continued course of this study. To present the final 17 new categories together with their main contents we refer to Schillings (2006) recommendation of using concept maps for visualizing results of qualitative content analyses (see Figure 2). Additionally, Table 6 offers an overview of the categories which emerged and the number of assigned coding units.
Validating the New Categories
The process of generating the managers parameter values regarding the new categories required 1785 scaling trials (105 managers multiplied by 17 categories). This approach resulted in many missing values. According to the rules of the written instructions, the applied principle of generating data led to leaving parameter values unclear if the qualitative data did not clearly indicate a single point of the scale we used. In 1250 (70 %) scaling trials we assigned unclear parameter values to the managers while 535 (30 %) parameter values were non-ambiguous in terms of the written guidelines. Among the 105 managers there was 1 person (0.95 %) whose parameter values were all identified as unclear. Regarding the other 104 managers (99.05 %) the scaling process resulted in at least one non-ambiguous parameter value per person (M = 5.08, SD = 2.66).
We used multidimensional scaling (MDS) to analyze the generated data. Janssen & Laatz (2007) recommend this method particularly in cases of explorative studies; it is especially regarded as useful in the field of management research (Wrona, 2008). First we calculated the rank correlations (Spearmans rho) between the managers parameter values [in the newly emerged categories and their MLQ factor scores (averaged about each managers raters), as presented in Table 7. The results were used as input into an ordinally scaled MDS. The standard quality criterion for MDS analyses is called stress, expressing the mismatch between the coordinate configuration of the MDS and the ranking of the similarities. According to conventions presented by Bortz & Dring (2006), the resulting two-dimensional scaling proves to be of a moderate quality (stress = 0.17). An additional criterion for the adequacy of the MDS results is the extent of explained variance (RSQ, R). Although no definite thresholds for acceptable RSQs exist, most authors agree that the MDS should be within the range RSQ .60 (Malhotra, 2002) to RSQ .90 (Lieven, 2009). The RSQ coefficient of the resulting two-dimensional scaling meets these requirements (RSQ = .86).
While analyzing the results of the MDS (see Figure 3) it is not obligatory to interpret the dimensions themselves (e.g., Ekman, 1954). In an ordinally-scaled MDS it is more important to interpret the relations of the shown constructs to each other than to the dimensions. The entire structure of the two-dimensionally positioned constructs looks slightly rhomboid. This indicates a multitude of only weak correlations which, consequently, result in big distances between most of the shown constructs. The structure mainly consists of three clusters. Most factors of transformational leadership are located close to each other because of high intercorrelations. The outcome scales extra effort and effectiveness can be found among these dimensions, too. In contrast, the factors of transactional leadership are comparatively scattered: Contingent reward is positioned closest to the transformational constructs, while management-by-exception passive is between contingent reward and laissez-faire. Active management-by-exception is integrated into another accumulation consisting of stress resistance, emotional self-control, encouraging team spirit, cooperation and conflict management as well as efficient communication & meetings. These categories allow an effective functioning of the leader in cooperation with the followers even in situations of stress, conflicts, problems and mistakes.
Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 77
The content of the third main accumulation (self-reflection in respect of leadership behavior & prioritizing role of leadership, humor & joy, practical self-management as well as team-mindedness & willingness to collaborate) appears to be quite heterogeneous, but in contrast to the aforementioned accumulation, these elements have in common that they refer more to the leaders character and less to the leaders function in the followers context. Consequently, the adjacently positioned category perfectionism & focusing on details is in line with this accumulation. The last named category forms the intersection to a low-density combination implying the categories delegating trustfully, administrative activity & long-term planning as well as experience and specialized knowledge. They represent leadership behaviors and traits which play an important role in the day- to-day work of leaders and describe the essence of leadership in a very basal way.
Interestingly, the distance between the new category rhetoric, ability to communicate & social competence and the factors of transformational leadership, respectively, was small. The category dominance, tyranny & intolerance is positioned as a peculiar outsider and seems to be antipodal to the factors of transformational leadership. This constellation is obviously caused by strikingly negative correlations between the new category dominance, tyranny & intolerance and all transformational leadership styles plus contingent reward (see Table 7)
As shown in Table 7, there are some significant correlations between the managers parameter values regarding the new categories and the outcome scales effectiveness and extra effort measured by the MLQ. According to this there is a coherence between the ability to practice efficient communication & meetings and the perceived leadership effectiveness ( = .34). Regarding the willingness for extra effort we found a positive correlation with the new category rhetoric, ability to communicate & social competence ( = .61) while the category dominance, tyranny & intolerance shows a negative correlation ( = - .46). Additionally, we want to point to the negative correlation between practical self- management and extra effort ( = -.32).
Regression analyses were conducted to determine if variance in criteria of effective leadership could be explained by the new categories. For a conservative test, stepwise regression was applied: In the first step, the transactional leadership scales and laissez-faire were utilized to explain variance in the criteria of effective leadership (i.e. extra effort and effectiveness), respectively. Next, transformational leadership was utilized in the second step. Finally, in the third step, it was tested whether the new categories explained incremental variance in the criteria of effective leadership, over and above transactional and transformational leadership scales and laissez-faire. Table 8 displays the unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients.
Transactional leadership and laissez-faire explained 58% of variance in extra effort, and 73% in effectiveness, respectively. In the second step, transformational leadership accounted for 12% additional variance in extra effort and for 8% additional variance in effectiveness. The new leadership categories explained 3% of incremental variance in both extra effort and effectiveness. All these incremental amounts of variance were significant (p .01). Apparently, the new categories of leadership account for variances in criteria of leadership effectiveness that were hitherto untapped by the FRLT.
Discussion
The present study aimed at identifying effective leadership styles that are not included in the FRLT, the current most dominant leadership theory. Interestingly, 17 categories of leadership were extracted from an extensive data set. Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 78
The first research objective implied an examination of implicit leadership theories to identify aspects of leadership which have not hitherto been covered by the FRLT. In the deductive structuring content analysis more than a third of the coding units could not be assigned to one of the nine FRLT categories, but had to be assigned to the miscellaneous category. This is a clear indication of the high number of different leadership aspects which can be identified in implicit leadership theories. Finally, 17 new categories of leadership behavior and traits resulted from an inductive structuring content analysis. An MDS indicated that these new categories were distinct from the nine well- established MLQ subscales.
Several of these new leadership styles correlated with outcome measures of the MLQ. This is true for the new categories efficient communication & meetings and rhetoric, ability to communicate & social competence as well as dominance, tyranny & intolerance and practical self-management. Counter- intuitively, the last named category correlates negatively with the MLQ outcome scale extra effort. This result remains unclear until further research is conducted.
Comparing the findings of this study with other findings we would especially like to point to a study reported by Sims & Lorenzi (1992). The authors describe research on prototypical characterizations of good and poor managers (as described by managers). Among Sims & Lorenzis (1992) results are some characterizations which are similar to 7 of the 17 new categories found in the present study. Each of the new categories administrative activity & long- term planning, assertiveness & insistence, perfectionism & focusing on details, delegating trustfully, humor & joy as well as rhetoric, ability to communicate & social competence and team-mindedness & willingness to collaborate have one to two equivalents in Sims and Lorenzi's study. Furthermore, these authors presented the category of self-management. This can be associated with the new categories practical self-management and self-reflection in respect of leadership behavior & prioritizing role of leadership in the present study.
The FRLT has often been criticized for not considering certain aspects of leadership. Yukl (1999) states the FRLT lacked task behaviors (like clarifying and planning) and relations behaviors (like team building). Antonakis et al. (2003) point to the fact that the FRLT does not contain a construct of strategic leadership. The absence of these leadership aspects results in the necessity of assigning the respective coding units to the new categories efficient communication & meetings (clarifying), administrative activity & longterm planning (planning, strategic leadership) and encouraging team spirit, cooperation and conflict management (team building). According to Antonakis et al. (2003) , the authors of the FRLT wanted to limit the range of leadership aspects covered, because this limitation allowed them to examine the leadership aspects involved more intensively. We think this view should be reconsidered, given the fact that in the present study a large part of the participants statements could not be assigned to any of the FRLT dimensions. For instance, Antonakis & House (2004) postulate the construct instrumental leadership and explicitly discuss it as an extension of the FRLT. This construct adds four new dimensions to the FRLT (among them the already named dimension of strategic leadership). With the goal of complementing the FRLT in mind, this approach should be considered positively.
With regard to criterion validity, it could be demonstrated that the new categories accounted for incremental and unique variance in the MLQ outcome scales extra effort and effectiveness, over and above the nine dimensions of the FRLT. Thus, the new categories of leadership are not only relevant from a theoretical perspective, but also for practitioners. Consequently, the new categories seem to be organizationally relevant and should be considered for further investigation. Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 79
Sample and Generalizability
Consisting of 694 participants, the sample size is large enough to deliver results of interest. Nevertheless, the proportions of the group sizes are not equal: Many more subordinates were involved in the study compared to the number of supervisors. This turned out due to the hierarchical organizational structures and could not be changed without varying the basic study design.
The participants worked in different German profit and non-profit organizations. Consequently, the results can be generalized to various organizations in Germany. Cause for concern about the representativeness might arise from the fact that we had to delete almost one quarter of the participants statements due to lacks of informative content. If one considers that the statements were given as answers to open questions which were asked after the participants had already answered the 45 items of the MLQ, this does not seem to be unusual.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
With regard to the research objectives, this study was conducted exploratively. Consequently, all results are to be regarded as preliminary and descriptive findings (Frh, 2001). Smith et al. (2004) point out that there are differences between implicit leadership theories of men and women. Thus, men have similar implicit leadership theories for male and female leaders while women associate active leadership behavior more to prototypical female than to prototypical male leaders (Maher, 1997). Because of matters of anonymity we cannot form any conclusions in the present study about sex-related differences.
While the reliability coefficient of the outcome scale effectiveness was not critical in the subordinates participant group, it was insufficient in the supervisors participant group. Nevertheless we decided to keep this scale, because the coefficient barely missed .50 - according to Lienert & Raatz (1998) a minimum for group comparisons - and the comparability of the results would have suffered from another scale exclusion. Originally, the MLQ was not designed for supervisors assessing managers who are in a hierarchically lower position. This could have caused the low alpha coefficients of the supervisors participant group compared to the subordinates.
The present study mixes traits and behaviors within the new categories of leadership, but in the long term of leadership research, traits and behaviors should be analyzed separately. Yukl (2002) criticizes the fact that many theoretical models of leadership still confound traits and behavior. A clear conceptual separation of behavior and traits makes very good sense on account of the resulting clear- cut interpretations and non-ambiguous options for a professional human resource management.
In conclusion, the findings of this study give cause for optimism that the analysis of implicit leadership theories may prove useful to enhance leadership theories and practice.
References
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295. Antonakis, J. & House, R. (2004). On instrumental leadership: Beyond transactions and Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 80
transformations. Omaha: UNL Gallup Leadership Institute Summit. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1992). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2002). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Feedback Report Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden. Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bortz, J. & Dring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation fr Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: Springer. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Busch, M. W. (2008). Kompetenzsteuerung in Arbeits- und Innovationsteams: Eine gestaltungsorientierte Analyse. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B.Staw & B. Salancik (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 179-204). Chicago: St. Clair Press. Charter, R. A. (2003). Study samples are too small to produce sufficiently precise reliability coeffcients. The Journal of General Psychology, 130, 117-129. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/ transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219-256. Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross- cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729-768. Eden, D. & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736-741. Ekman, G. (1954). Dimensions of color vision. Journal of Psychology, 38, 467-474. Epitropaki, O. & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293-310. Frh, W. (2001). Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis. Konstanz: UVK. Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 81
Graham, J. R. & Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Interrater consistency and consensus. In D.K.Freedheim & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Volume 10: Assessment Psychology (pp. 56-57). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358-374. Herrmann, T. (1992). Sprechen und Sprachverstehen. In H.Spada (Ed.), Lehrbuch Allgemeine Psychologie.. Bern: Hans Huber. Hollander, E. P. & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387-397. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 Theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G.Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J. & Aditya, R. M. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, N. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Janssen, J. & Laatz, W. (2007). Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS fr Windows: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einfhrung in das Basissystem und das Modul Exakte Tests. Berlin: Springer. Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Norton: New York. Kenny, R. A., Blascovich, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Prototypes for new leaders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 409-437. Lienert, G. A. & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz. Lieven, T. (2009). Markenpersnlichkeit und Mitarbeiterverhalten in Kundentelefonaten. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Lord, R. G. & Emrich, C. G. (2001). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 551-579. Lhrmann, T. (2004). "Leadership is like catching a cold": Zur (sozialen) Konstruktion von Fhrung. Organisationsberatung - Supervision - Coaching, 1, 79-93. Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional leadership. Sex Roles, 37, 209-225. Malhotra, N. K. (2002). Marketing research: An applied orientation. Moskau: Williams. Mayring, P. (1994). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 82
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz. Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43-58. Phillips, J. S. & Lord, R. G. (1986). Notes in the practical and theoretical consequences of implicit leadership theories for the future of leadership measurement. Journal of Management, 12, 31-41. Rowold, J. (2004). MLQ-5X. German translation of Bass & Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Redwood City: Mind Garden. Rowold, J. (2005). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the German translation by Jens Rowold. Redwood City: Mind Garden. Rowold, J. & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 121- 133. Rowold, J. & Rohmann, A. (2008). Relationships between leadership styles and followers' emotional experience and effectiveness in the voluntary sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 270-286. Rowold, J. & Rohmann, A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership styles, followers' positive and negative emotions, and performance in German non-profit orchestras. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20, 41-59. Schilling, J. (2001). Wovon sprechen Fhrungskrfte, wenn sie ber Fhrung sprechen? Eine Analyse subjektiver Fhrungstheorien. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac. Schilling, J. (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Designing the process for content analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 28-37. Schilling, J. (2008). Implicit leadership theories: Theory, research, and application. In K.Heinitz (Ed.), Psychology in organizations: Issues from an area ( Frankfurt: Lang. Schyns, B. & Hansbrough, T. (2008). Why the brewery ran out of beer: The attribution of mistakes in a leadership context. Social Psychology, 39, 197-203. Sims, H. P. & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership paradigm: Social learning and cognition in organizations. Newbury Park: Sage. Smith, K. K., Matkin, G. S., & Fritz, S. M. (2004). A review of gender and full-range leadership research and suggestions for future research. Journal of Leadership Education, 3, 52-68. Steyrer, J., Schiffinger, M., & Lang, R. (2007). Ideal- und Realbild von Fhrung: Zum Zusammenhang zwischen Fhrungswahrnehmung, organisationalem Commitment und Unternehmenserfolg. Zeitschrift fr Management, 4, 402-434. Wrona, T. (2008). Kognitive Strategieforschung - State of the Art und aktuelle Entwicklungen. In Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 83
T.Wrona (Ed.), Strategische Managementforschung (pp. 44-83). Wiesbaden: Gabler. Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 33-48. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Table 1. Example of the Summarizing Content Analysis Process, from Raw Data to Generalized and Reduced Coding Units
Raw data
Paraphrases (incl. identification of the coding units) Generalizing & Reduction
Answer to the first question: Being more often on the spot, giving insight into her tasks, so you can show more understanding for each other. to be on the spot to be present in the team to give insight into ones tasks to keep ones work transparent for employees Answer to the second question: Competitors from other departments who grant her nothing, and loafers who do nothing else but to denounce Competitors [excluded] Loafers [excluded] Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 84
Table 2. Exemplary View of Coded Coding Units within the First Deductive Structuring Content Analysis
Coding Unit Code Consistent e2 To treat all employees equally e3 Leadership on a par with employees e10 To be geared to ethical values e3 To want to control all situations e7 Note. e2 = idealized influence (attributed); e3 = idealized influence (behavior); e7 = active management-by-exception; e10 = miscellaneous.
Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 85
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients of the MLQ Scales for each Participant Group
Notes. EEF = extra effort; EFF = effectiveness; CR = contingent reward; AMbE = active management-by-exception; MbEP = management-by-exception passive; LF = laissez-faire; IM = inspirational motivation; IIa = idealized influence (attributed); IIb = idealized influence (behavior); IS = intellectual stimulation; IC = individualized consideration; #1 = stress resistance; #2 = assertiveness & insistence; #3 = administrative activity & long-term planning; #4 = practical self-management; #5 = emotional self-control; #6 = delegating trustfully; #7 = efficient communication & meetings; #8 = encouraging team spirit, cooperation and conflict management; #9 = dominance, tyranny & intolerance; #10 = perfectionism & focusing on details; #11 = team-mindedness & willingness to collaborate; #12 = self-reflection in respect of leadership behavior & prioritizing role of leadership; #13 = humor & joy; #14 = specialized knowledge; #15 = flexibility, spontaneity & pragmatism; #16 = rhetoric, ability to communicate & social competence; #17 = experience. * p < .05; ** p < .01 Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Figures
Figure 1. Relative proportions of coding units which were assigned to one of the nine FRLT categories a1-a9. SV = supervisors; SO = subordinates; IM = inspirational motivation; IIa = idealized influence (attributed); IIb = idealized influence (behavior); IS = intellectual stimulation; IC = individualized consideration; CR = contingent reward; AMbE = active management-by- exception; MbEP = management-by-exception passive; LF = laissez-faire. Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 94 Figure 2. Concept map of the new leadership categories (arranged in a concentric circle) which resulted from the first inductive structuring content analysis. Each category is shown together with min. 1 to max. 3 of the mainly mentioned issues. Dashed borders indicate issues which are diametrically opposed to the category name. Straight connecting lines indicate hierarchical relationships. Angled connecting lines are not hierarchical. The sizes of the categories decrease in clockwise direction, while stress resistance is the largest category and experience the smallest. Fall and Winter 2012 Volume 10, Number 2
Figure 3. Two-dimensional configuration of the rank correlations between the MLQ factor scores and the parameter values of the new categories. MLQ: IM = inspirational motivation; IIa = idealized influence (attributed); IIb = idealized influence (behavior); IS = intellectual stimulation; IC = individualized consideration; CR = contingent reward; AMbE = active management-by-exception; MbEP = management-by-exception passive; LF = laissez-faire; EEF = extra effort; EFF = effectiveness. New categories: |#1 = stress resistance; |#2 = assertiveness & insistence; |#3 = administrative activity & long-term planning; |#4 = practical self-management; |#5 = emotional self-control; |#6 = delegating trustfully; |#7 = efficient communication & meetings; |#8 = encouraging team spirit, cooperation and conflict management; |#9 = dominance, tyranny & intolerance; |#10 = perfectionism & focusing on details; |#11 = team-mindedness & willingness to collaborate; |#12 = self-reflection in respect of leadership behavior & prioritizing role of leadership; |#13 = humor & joy; |#14 = specialized knowledge; |#15 = flexibility, spontaneity & pragmatism; |#16 = rhetoric, ability to communicate & social competence; |#17 = experience. Dimension 1 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 D i m e n s i o n
The Impact of High Performance Work Systems in The Health-Care Industry, Employee Reactions, Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty