Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Communication
Empowering participation
Dr. Bell’s work has been used by an astounding 500,000 leaders in more than 4,700
organizations and from over 85 countries. Organizations such as the Young Presidents
Organization and the Chief Executives Organization call on him again and again for his
practical, thought-provoking delivery. Over the years, thousands have enrolled in Dr.
Bell’s open enrollment programs held in Chapel Hill or have sought his services for
company programs, master classes and executive retreats
In what many call the postindustrial age, more and more organizations face
high velocity environments which are characterized as dramatically
changing, uncertain, and high-risk (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Riolli-
Saltzman & Luthans, 2001). In such a dynamic environment, many
organizations find the use of teams efficient and productive (LePine, Erez, &
Johnson, 2002). For example, a recent survey found that most Fortune 1,000
firms use teams with at least some employees and that teams are one of the
fastest growing forms of employee 1 This study was supported by the
Institute of Management Research of Seoul National University, Korea and
by Grants from the R. H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland.
Thus, we have taken the natural next step and have examined citizenship
behavior at the team level of analysis.
Directive Leadership
The next archetype is directive leadership which might be considered an
older, traditional view of leadership. This archetype represents a highly
directive leadership style (e.g., Schriesheim, House, & Kerr, 1976).
Directive leadership represents a prototypical boss who engages in a highly
directive style (e.g., Schriesheim et al.). Relying on a formal position in the
organization; directive leaders make decisions, give instructions and
commands, and expect followers to carry out the decisions. Based on their
own judgment, directive leaders command subordinates and expect their
compliance. They clarify followers’ roles and tasks and provide instructions
(Howell & Costley, 2001).
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership emphasizes the constructing and clarifying of the
reward contingencies for subordinates. Transactional leaders engage in
instrumental exchange relationships with subordinates by negotiating and
strategically supplying rewards in return for achievement of goals.
Transactional leadership is based on a rational exchange relationship
between leader and subordinate (Bass, 1985; Howell & Costley, 2001). The
leader articulates what behaviors are required and what will be rewarded and
provides feedback to the subordinate about his or her behavior. The
subordinate, in turn, complies with these behavior requirements if rewards
are desired.
Transformational Leadership
The transformational leader leads by inspiring and stimulating followers and
by creating highly absorbing and motivating visions (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass,
Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Burns, 1978; Conger, 1989; Conger,
Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; House, 1977; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003;
Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Transformational leaders utilize behaviors such
as charisma and intellectual stimulation to induce performance of
subordinates beyond expectations. Transformational leaders develop a vision
and motivate their followers to strive for this vision. Also, they encourage
followers to challenge the status quo to be able to pursue that vision.
Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP
STUDIES 174
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193
©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Empowering Leadership
Empowering leadership represents a significant paradigm shift and
emphasizes follower self-influence rather than external, top-down influence
(e.g., Manz & Sims, 1990, 1991). Leaders who use empowering behaviors
believe that followers are an influential source of wisdom and
direction. These leaders emphasize self-influence; self-management; self-
control; or, to use Manz and Sims’ (1990, 1991) term, self-leadership.
Historical perspectives that were instrumental for the development of
empowering leadership variables are behavioral selfmanagement
(e.g., Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978), social learning theory (e.g., Bandura,
1997), and cognitive behavior modification (e.g., Meichenbaum, 1977).
Empowering leadership creates followers who are effective self-leaders.
Self-leadership, in turn, involves developing actions and thought patterns
that we use to influence our own behavior. Several recent studies (Ahearne,
Matthieu, & Rapp; 2005; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, in press; Manz &
Sims, 1987; Pearce & Sims, 2002, Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004; Yun, Cox, &
Sims, 2006; Yun, Faraj, & Sims, 2005) have recognized empowering
leadership as distinct from transformational leadership. Pearce et al.
(2003) developed a leadership typology based on literature review and
analysis of three samples, and argued that empowering leadership is distinct
from transformational leadership.
Citizenship Behavior
OCB
Organ (1988) defined OCB as “behavior [by the employee] that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward
system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
organization” (p. 4). Noting that discretionary behaviors vary in the
likelihood with which they will be rewarded, Organ (1988) viewed OCBs as
“non-required contributions that are regarded by the person as relatively less
likely to lead along any clear, fixed path to formal rewards” (p. 5). Hence,
the incentive for employees to engage in OCB is not any kind of immediate
extrinsic reward. However, Organ (1988) acknowledged that OCB can
have a beneficial cumulative effect for an individual and that the individual
may consider these long-term benefits. OCB can also benefit organizations
directly and/or indirectly. Examples of directly beneficial OCB include
volunteerism, assistance between coworkers, unusual attendance or
punctuality, and active participation in organizational affairs (Farh,
Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) stressed the
cumulative, indirect benefits of OCB for “lubricat[ing] the social machinery
of the organization” (p. 654). They linked OCB to spontaneous behavior that
“goes beyond role prescriptions”" (p. 653). Katz (1964) considered such
behavior essential for strong organizational social systems. The organization
gains a measure of systemic resiliency from these small, spontaneous acts of
selfless sensitivity, cooperation, and uncompensated contribution.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 175
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193
©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Anticitizenship
Puffer (1987) defined negative or noncompliant behaviors as “non-task
behaviors that have negative organizational implications” (p. 615). This is a
type of behavior that has been related to general job satisfaction (Fisher &
Locke, 1992). Based on preliminary research, Fisher and Locke developed
an inductive taxonomy of negative behavioral responses to job
dissatisfaction. Subsequent research built on this initial item pool
categorized the items into dimensions and developed ratings of the relative
“badness” of the items. Dimensions from the Fisher and Locke taxonomy
were later conceptualized as examples of anticitizenship behavior (ACB).
It is possible that OCB and ACB; while negatively correlated; may be
separate, coexisting dimensions that range from zero to some positive
quantity. Accordingly, reduced OCB need not necessitate a corresponding
increase in ACB. The absence of OCB, for example, might only signal
passivity with respect to positive citizenship. ACB, however, involves active
behaviors that have specific negative implications for the organization. Ball,
Trevino, and Sims (1994) found a substantial negative (-.60) correlation
between OCB and ACB, but their factor analysis supported the conceptual
distinctness of these two classes of behavior. This finding offers preliminary
support for the separate dimensionalities of OCB and ACB.
Another study that has found a relationship between job satisfaction and
OCB was conducted by Gibbs, Rosenfeld, and Javidi (1994). They studied
the relationship between job-related behavior/disposition, trait
communication apprehension, its effect on satisfaction with different
aspects of the job, and further job satisfaction’s effects on citizenship
behavior. They stated that a relationship was “found between workers’ job
satisfaction and their self-reported demonstration of organizational
citizenship behaviors” (p. 216). Some researchers have studied job
satisfaction at the group or organizational level and have demonstrated that
organizational level job satisfaction is positively related to organizational
level performance (e.g., Currall, Towler, & Judge, 2005; Harter & Schmidt,
2002; Schneider, Hanges, Smith, & Salvaggio, 2003). Currall et al. provided
theoretical justification of collective job satisfaction based on multilevel
theory (Morgeson & Hoffmann, 1999). Morgeson and Hoffmann (1999)
suggested that individual action and attitude does not exist in a vacuum and
collective structures can occur through a process termed double interact
where one employee makes a statement to which another employee
responds. In turn, the first employee responds back. As a result, collective
attitudes can be developed. Following this argument, we examine job
satisfaction as a collective construct and suggest that job satisfaction at the
team level is positively related to TOCB.
H3
b: Transformational leadership is indirectly, positively related to TOCB and
indirectly, negatively related to TACB.
H5
a: Empowering leadership is positively related to TOCB and negatively
related to TACB.
H5
b: Empowering leadership is indirectly, positively related to TOCB and
indirectly, negatively related to TACB.
H7
b: Aversive leadership is indirectly, negatively related to TOCB and
positively related to TACB through job satisfaction.
H9
b: Directive leadership is indirectly, negatively related to TOCB and
positively related to TACB through job satisfaction.
The relationship between transactional leadership and TOCB seems unclear.
At the individual level, contingent reward patterns of leadership may create
perceptions of a fair exchange and good will which, in turn, may produce a
positive citizenship response. However, reward policies can sometimes
generate only calculating compliance such that individuals do only what
they are paid to do. Under these conditions, compliance may not extend into
good citizenship or extra-role behaviors. Transactional behavior may be
neutral at best, perhaps even deleterious when it comes to TOCB. Therefore,
we did not develop specific hypotheses regarding transactional leadership
and TOCB.
Job Satisfaction
The five-factor model is correlated with overall level of job satisfaction experienced by
employees. In general, satisfied employees are more likely to remain in a position and to
avoid absences than are dissatisfied employees.
Initial research indicated that neuroticism is negatively correlated with job satisfaction,
whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are positively correlated with
job satisfaction. Openness to experience has a negligible impact on job satisfaction.
Additional research, however, has only been able to replicate correlations among the
factors of neuroticism and extraversion, with extraversion being positively correlated
with job satisfaction and neuroticism being negatively correlated. This could be due to
the social nature of the workplace (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).
This finding may be due to the low level of arousability for extraverted individuals
(Hebb's theory). If the workplace is a social environment, then extraverted employees are
more likely to be at a low level of arousal while at work, whereas at their home there is
less stimulation. Introverts, on the other hand, are more likely at their optimal level of
arousal outside of the workplace, where there is less stimulation, and therefore are more
likely dissatisfied with the level of stimulation that they experience while at work.
Workplace deviance occurs when an employee voluntarily pursues a course of action that
threatens the well-being of the individual or the organization. Examples include stealing,
hostile behavior towards coworkers, and withholding effort. Stealing and withholding
effort are categorized as organizational deviance, whereas hostile and rude behavior
toward coworkers are categorized as interpersonal deviance.
Workplace deviance is related to the five-factor model of personality. Interpersonal
deviance is negatively correlated with high levels of agreeableness. Organizational
deviance is negatively correlated with high levels of conscientiousness and positively
correlated with high levels of neuroticism. This implies that individuals who are
emotionally stable and conscientious are less likely to withhold effort or steal, whereas
those who are agreeable are less likely to be hostile to their coworkers.
Absences
Job absence is very much a part of job performance: employees are not performing
effectively if they do not even come to work. Introverted, conscientious employees are
much less likely to be absent from work, as opposed to extraverted employees who are
low on conscientiousness. Interestingly enough, neuroticism is not highly correlated with
absence (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997). The Judge et al. (1997) study is
interesting considering the Judge et al. (2002) research on job satisfaction and the five-
factor model. The results of the latter research suggests that extraverted individuals are
more satisfied in the workplace, because work gives them an opportunity to experience
an optimal level of arousal, whereas introverted individuals are less satisfied in the
workplace due to too much stimulation. Combining the results of these two studies
suggests that conscientiousness is the deciding factor regarding job absence.
Perhaps another factor in absenteeism is that, although introverts may be less satisfied in
the workplace, they go to work anyway. This behavior might imply either that introverts
are more conscientious or simply that introverts have no compelling reason not to go to
work (whereas extraverts may have friends who urge them to skip work and go see a
movie). This conclusion is debateable, however, because introverts might be tempted to
skip work to avoid the extra stimulation and might perhaps stay home and read a book (a
book on psychology, no doubt). Judge and his colleagues will likely continue their
research and perhaps provide answers in the future.
Teamwork
Oftentimes in the workplace the ability to be a team player is valued and is critical to job
performance. Recent research has suggested that conscientiousness, extraversion, and
agreeableness are all related to cooperative behavior but that they are not related to task
performance. Although this fortifies the case that job performance is related to the five-
factor model via increased cooperativeness among coworkers, it lays siege to the role of
personality by implying that actual job performance (task performance) is related to
cognitive ability and not to personality (LePine & Dyne, 2001).
Leadership abilities are often essential in the workplace, especially for individuals who
aspire to move up into the ranks of management. Studies of Asian military units have
found that neuroticism is negatively correlated with leadership abilities. Contrary to what
the researchers hypothesized, agreeableness is negatively correlated with leadership
abilities as well. Openness to experience is unrelated to leadership abilities, but
extraversion is positively correlated with leadership abilities (Lim & Ployhart, 2004).
This evidence is consistent with the long-standing idea that in teams there are leaders and
there are followers; the leaders make decisions and the followers abide by them.
Although agreeableness is positively correlated with working with a team, it is negatively
correlated with being a leader. Those followers who do not always agree and are willing
to voice their own opinions end up moving up the ranks, whereas those who blindly agree
are left as followers.
Personnel Selection
Research into the relation between the five-factors model and personnel hiring provides
additional evidence that conscientiousness is the most valid predictor of job performance
(Schmidt & Ryan, 1993). Given that conscientious individuals have a tendency to
perform better as employees, it is easy to believe that employers will seek out that factor
or the traits that coincide with it.
Summary
Job performance and personality (as measured in the five-factor model) are related. It
appears that the relation between job performance and the five factors is more a
consequence of the social aspects of the workplace than of ability. Research indicates that
cognitive ability is more strongly correlated with task performance than any of the five
factors are correlated with task performance. The five factors are strongly correlated with
cooperating with others and enjoying the overall workplace experience, which are key
components of long-term job success. Being absent from work or working as a team are
correlates of personality that directly affect whether one will succeed in the workplace,
and they are strongly correlated with the Big Five and not with cognitive ability.
It is worth noting that the majority of research has been on sales or other occupations in
which interacting with people is required. Is it possible that these studies are skewed?
Perhaps researching individuals in jobs that require very little human interaction (such as
authors of fiction, like Steven King) would yield different results.
Conscientiousness and extraversion are the two aspects of the five-factor model that are
always correlated with positive job performance, although conscientiousness is more
positively correlated (extraversion is negatively correlated with job performance in that it
appears to inspire more absence, but only when combined with low levels of
conscientiousness). Agreeableness is negatively correlated with job performance within a
leadership role. Openness to experience, in general, is unrelated. Neuroticism is
negatively correlated with job performance.
Cognitive ability may allow an employee to complete a specific task, but the ability to
work with others and to stay motivated are aspects of personality. The five-factor model
is a valid predictor of workplace performance. Personality is an indispensable
consideration for employers looking for quality employees.
Peer Commentary
The author rightly stated that the five-factor model's relation to job performance is most
likely due to the social aspects of the workplace rather than an individual's ability.
Cognitive ability is the major factor in job performance, and outside of jobs that are based
on social interaction, the model's effect is merely a product of background environment
in the workplace. The social aspects of most jobs are unnecessary to the actual work one
is required to do. Granted this social aspect can almost never be removed--and is a must
for many people due to personal needs for interaction--the model will have its affect in a
large number of cases.
In a large company, I believe that the five-factor model has much less impact. With a
larger company usually comes an impersonal relation between employee and employer.
This means that as long as employees have all the required cognitive abilities, provided
they have a job that does not involve teamwork or customer interaction, they will perform
just as well as those who have a favorable personality. In a smaller company, by contrast,
the relation between employee and employer is usually much more personal, and in some
cases the line between employee and employer is very small. In this case a non-favorable
personality could have a very large effect on a person's job performance. Cognitive
ability seems to be a concrete factor in all cases, but the effects of personality on job
performance seem to vary greatly depending on the importance or prevalence of social
situations in the workplace.
The research cited on the five-factor model seemed to consider someone as either having
a factor or completely lacking it. This is most obvious in the statement that agreeableness
is negatively correlated with job performance in leadership positions. I agree that an
unusually large level of agreeableness, such that one would allow oneself to be "used as a
door mat," would have a negative effect on leadership performance, but the trait is
definitely necessary to succeed as a leader. If one's boss were completely disagreeable,
would one willing follow his or her requests, or would one do everything in one's power
to slow or impede the completion of one's assigned work? A good leader needs to be
well-rounded in all the "positive" social aspects of the five-factor model, without any
traits being so pronounced as to reduce performance, such as high levels of agreeableness
impeding one's will to put forth one's own ideas.
The author cited many interesting points, and I agree with most of his conclusions. I
would like to see more research on a boarder range of professions to truly see how large a
role the five-factor model plays in one's job performance. I thought that certain aspects of
the model could be further explored to reveal varying level of certain factors being more
or less influential on job performance. The five-factor model may be a good indicator of
job performance, but I am not convinced that it is as big of a factor as the author
portrayed.
Peer Commentary
Overall, transformational leaders not only seek to improve the functioning of the team by
using only the brightest individuals but also work with all staff members to improve their
skills. The transformational leader knows that teams are often together for only a single
project. Thus, by helping the individual feel needed, the transformational leader gives
him or her a sense of accomplishment when the goal is reached. More importantly, the
transformational leader instills confidence in his or her employees. This translates into
not only better job satisfaction for employees but also better productivity for the
company.
Peer Commentary
A person's personality may not necessarily have a very high impact on a person's job or
productivity per se, depending on the type of work being done. As discussed by Sean P.
Neubert, the notion that salespeople who exhibit high levels of extraversion will have
better overall job performance is pretty evident, for being a salesperson requires a lot of
social interaction, and an introverted salesperson would obviously be less effective than
an extravert. Given that point, another point brought up is about conscientiousness in
addition to extraversion and its positive correlation with job performance in terms of the
social atmosphere present in most workplaces: a conscientious person is obviously more
likely to be a more productive worker and an extraverted person will experience an
optimal level of arousal in a social workplace. Personality influence would perhaps
become less palpable if an individual's place of work is not a highly social arena or the
job is non-traditional.
If one's job does not require constant or high levels of social interaction, then one's
cognitive ability can become a much greater factor. Depending on the type of job one
holds, one's personality may have very little impact on the quality of work being done or
other job performance indicators. As mentioned by Neubert, a job such as a writer may
not necessarily require high levels of extraversion. Other types of jobs that do not require
direct social interaction are probably similar in terms of cognitive abilities or other
factors affecting overall job performance.
Openness to experience has not been shown to correlate significantly with job
performance. This may seem counterintuitive, because openness to experience is
sometimes also referred to intellect, and cognitive ability and intellect are presumably
related. One's openness to experience should be indicative of creativity and originality;
consequently, there may be a direct but unobvious connection to job performance in
terms of creating and trying new things that may improve personal productivity or
otherwise maybe even affect general productivity on a greater scale--for example, a new
way of doing things may improve operation of an entire company. Openness would also
then tie into working with other people--for example, a person who is more open to
experience would be willing to try out new and different ideas presented by coworkers.
Openness may not relate to job performance due to limitations in the methodology of past
research, lack of a high enough correlation to reach statistical significance, or even
perhaps because there really is no direct relation between openness to experience and
overall job performance.
People's personalities obviously have an impact on many, many things that they do, if not
everything. How profound the effect of personality is on job performance depends of
course on the unique facets of an individual's personality. Does personality have a great
impact on overall productivity in a social workplace? Yes, it does. Cognitive ability,
however, has been shown to be more positively correlated to actual task performance.
From this fact, one can argue that personality comes into play again, because if one is
unwilling to perform the task and lacks conscientiousness, then the job will not get done,
regardless of potential ability. Social aspects of many traditional work environments may
overshadow some other unseen factors that affect overall workplace productivity. More
research needs to be conducted on other types of work environments.
Peer Commentary
The second and equally important predictor of long-term career performance is emotional
intelligence. Employees who are the best in their field, whether it is psychology, law,
medicine, engineering, or banking, are not just good at their jobs and friendly with their
co-workers. They are resilient, optimistic, and confident. Thus, it takes more than
traditional cognitive intelligence to be successful at work--it also takes emotional
intelligence, the ability to restrain negative feelings such as anger and self-doubt, and
instead focus on positive ones such as confidence and optimism. Emotional intelligence
is positively correlated with happiness at work, life success, and career salaries. This
shows a strong relation between personality and workplace success. People with more
emotional intelligence are more successful at work.
Finally, the fields of work that the paper discussed are very narrow. Depending on the
job, each of the five factors could be the most important. For example, a highly neurotic
accountant who fusses over every detail would be an extremely beneficial addition to a
company. A person high in openness to experience would succeed easily in a job that
places the person in a variety of situations, such as actor, doctor, or soldier. Extraversion
would really only be positive in a job that requires a lot of interpersonal contact; in jobs
that are mostly based on individual tasks, the importance of extraversion would be
negligible.
Finally, the paper neglected to mention creativity as having a viable place in the
workplace. Creative people at work are often the most useful. The creative worker is the
one who will innovate and try to move the company forward or come up with new ideas
for products. Creative workers will also come up with solutions that other people might
not consider. A creative solution could potentially save a company vast resources,
including money, manpower, and supplies. In jobs that involve independence, like artists,
designers, advertisers, and inventors, creativity is intrinsically necessary to the
profession.
Author Response
I would like to thank the authors of the peer commentaries for providing good points for
discussion with regards to my paper. Among the commentaries there appeared to be a
consensus that cognitive ability is a more crucial factor than personality in workplace
performance. Although it is indeed true that cognitive ability has been more strongly
correlated with completing a specific task, every study has found that conscientiousness
is strongly correlated with workplace performance. Conscientious employees are less
likely to be absent from work and are less likely to steal from the organization. Although
cognitive ability relates strongly to the ability of an employee, conscientiousness relates
strongly to how an employee applies that ability.
Howell reiterated that most of the research has been on persons who are in work
environments that require interaction, and that research into different professions, which
may not require so much interaction, may lead to different results. Despite over a decade
of research regarding this topic, there is not a prolific number of studies that have
attempted to find differing degrees of influence of personality in separate professions.
Every research sample has included sales representatives, convenience store clerks,
managers, or another occupation that requires social interaction. Future studies should
address this issue by looking at occupations that allow telecommuting and professions
that do not require working with other people directly.
Sinha questioned why openness to experience has not been positively correlated with
workplace performance. Studies have found positive correlations between this trait and
performance, but the findings were not replicated universally, nor were they strong
enough to be beyond chance.
Stupak suggested that emotional intelligence plays a key role in workplace performance,
whereas the five-factor model is not important for measuring actual performance.
Although emotional intelligence may be a part of workplace performance, research
indicating positive correlations between workplace performance and conscientiousness
have been more abundant.
This paper was an attempt to find correlations between personality and work
performance. With research on this topic spanning only the past 10 years, this is a
relatively new field of research. Although the question of whether different professions
are affected differently by the personality of an employee is a question for future
research, current data conclusively indicate that conscientiousness and cognitive ability
are two characteristics of an employee that strongly predict positive workplace
performance.
References
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job
performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004).
Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.
Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of personality
and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745-755.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor model of personality and
job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541.
LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms
of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-336.
Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-
factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 610-621.
Leadership can be defined as a process by which one individual influences others toward
the attainment of group or organizational goals. Three points about the definition of
leadership should be emphasized. First, leadership is a social influence process.
Leadership cannot exist without a leader and one or more followers. Second, leadership
elicits voluntary action on the part of followers. The voluntary nature of compliance
separates leadership from other types of influence based on formal authority. Finally,
leadership results in followers' behavior that is purposeful and goal-directed in some sort
of organized setting. Many, although not all, studies of leadership focus on the nature of
leadership in the workplace.
Leadership is probably the most frequently studied topic in the organizational sciences.
Thousands of leadership studies have been published and thousands of pages on
leadership have been written in academic books and journals, business-oriented
publications, and general-interest publications. Despite this, the precise nature of
leadership and its relationship to key criterion variables such as subordinate satisfaction,
commitment, and performance is still uncertain, to the point where Fred Luthans, in his
book Organizational Behavior (2005), said that "it [leadership] does remain pretty much
of a 'black box' or unexplainable concept."
In the sections that follow, the development of leadership studies and theories over time
is briefly traced. Table 1 provides a summary of the major theoretical approaches.
Table 1
Leadership Perspectives
Historical Leadership Theories
Leadership Time of
Major Tenets
Theory Introduction
Individual characteristics of leaders are different
Trait Theories 1930s
than those of nonleaders.
Behavioral 1940s and The behaviors of effective leaders are different than
the behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major
Theories 1950s classes of leader behavior are task-oriented behavior
and relationship-oriented behavior.
Factors unique to each situation determine whether
Contingency 1960s and
specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be
Theories 1970s
effective.
Historical Leadership Theories
Leadership Time of
Major Tenets
Theory Introduction
Leaders from high-quality relationships with some
Leader-
subordinates but not others. The quality of leader-
Member 1970s
subordinates relationship affects numerous
Exchange
workplace outcomes.
Effective leaders inspire subordinates to commit
Charismatic 1970s and themselves to goals by communicating a vision,
Leadership 1980s displaying charismatic behavior, and setting a
powerful personal example.
Characteristics of the organization, task, and
Substitutes foe
1970s subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects
Leadership
of leadership behaviors.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Three main theoretical frameworks have dominated leadership research at different points
in time. These included the trait approach (1930s and 1940s), the behavioral approach
(1940s and 1950s), and the contingency or situational approach (1960s and 1970s).
TRAIT APPROACH.
The scientific study of leadership began with a focus on the traits of effective leaders.
The basic premise behind trait theory was that effective leaders are born, not made, thus
the name sometimes applied to early versions of this idea, the "great man" theory. Many
leadership studies based on this theoretical framework were conducted in the 1930s,
1940s, and 1950s.
Leader trait research examined the physical, mental, and social characteristics of
individuals. In general, these studies simply looked for significant associations between
individual traits and measures of leadership effectiveness. Physical traits such as height,
mental traits such as intelligence, and social traits such as personality attributes were all
subjects of empirical research.
The initial conclusion from studies of leader traits was that there were no universal traits
that consistently separated effective leaders from other individuals. In an important
review of the leadership literature published in 1948, Ralph Stogdill concluded that the
existing research had not demonstrated the utility of the trait approach.
Several problems with early trait research might explain the perceived lack of significant
findings. First, measurement theory at the time was not highly sophisticated. Little was
known about the psychometric properties of the measures used to operationalize traits. As
a result, different studies were likely to use different measures to assess the same
construct, which made it very difficult to replicate findings. In addition, many of the trait
studies relied on samples of teenagers or lower-level managers.
Early trait research was largely atheoretical, offering no explanations for the proposed
relationship between individual characteristics and leadership.
Finally, early trait research did not consider the impact of situational variables that might
moderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness. As a
result of the lack of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadership
effectiveness, empirical studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in the 1950s.
Partially as a result of the disenchantment with the trait approach to leadership that
occurred by the beginning of the 1950s, the focus of leadership research shifted away
from leader traits to leader behaviors. The premise of this stream of research was that the
behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical, mental, or
emotional traits. The two most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio
State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. These
studies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely cited.
The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ),
administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing companies,
college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-
analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The
conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how
leaders carry out their role.
The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State.
Under the general direction of Rensis Likert, the focus of the Michigan studies was to
determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job
satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations: an
employee orientation and a production orientation. Leaders with an employee orientation
showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a production orientation
focused on the task or technical aspects of the job.
The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee orientation and general
instead of close supervision yielded better results. Likert eventually developed four
"systems" of management based on these studies; he advocated System 4 (the
participative-group system, which was the most participatory set of leader behaviors) as
resulting in the most positive outcomes.
One concept based largely on the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness was the
Managerial (or Leadership) Grid, developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. The grid
combines "concern for production" with "concern for people" and presents five
alternative behavioral styles of leadership. An individual who emphasized neither
production was practicing "impoverished management" according to the grid. If a person
emphasized concern for people and placed little emphasis on production, he was terms a
"country-club" manager.
Conversely, a person who emphasized a concern for production but paid little attention to
the concerns of subordinates was a "task" manager. A person who tried to balance
concern for production and concern for people was termed a "middle-of-the-road"
manager.
Finally, an individual who was able to simultaneously exhibit a high concern for
production and a high concern for people was practicing "team management." According
to the prescriptions of the grid, team management was the best leadership approach. The
Managerial Grid became a major consulting tool and was the basis for a considerable
amount of leadership training in the corporate world.
The assumption of the leader behavior approach was that there were certain behaviors
that would be universally effective for leaders. Unfortunately, empirical research has not
demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader
behaviors and leader effectiveness. Like trait research, leader behavior research did not
consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader
behaviors and leader effectiveness.
Introduced in 1967, Fiedler's contingency theory was the first to specify how situational
factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. The
theory suggests that the "favorability" of the situation determines the effectiveness of
task- and person-oriented leader behavior.
Favorability is determined by (1) the respect and trust that followers have for the leader;
(2) the extent to which subordinates' responsibilities can be structured and performance
measured; and (3) the control the leader has over subordinates' rewards. The situation is
most favorable when followers respect and trust the leader, the task is highly structured,
and the leader has control over rewards and punishments.
Fiedler's research indicated that task-oriented leaders were more effective when the
situation was either highly favorable or highly unfavorable, but that person-oriented
leaders were more effective in the moderately favorable or unfavorable situations. The
theory did not necessarily propose that leaders could adapt their leadership styles to
different situations, but that leaders with different leadership styles would be more
effective when placed in situations that matched their preferred style.
Fiedler's contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological
grounds. However, empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of
the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership
effectiveness.
Path-goal theory was first presented in a 1971 Administrative Science Quarterly article by
Robert House. Path-goal theory proposes that subordinates' characteristics and
characteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more
effective. Key characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus of control,
work experience, ability, and the need for affiliation. Important environmental
characteristics named by the theory are the nature of the task, the formal authority
system, and the nature of the work group. The theory includes four different leader
behaviors, which include directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative
leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership.
According to the theory, leader behavior should reduce barriers to subordinates' goal
attainment, strengthen subordinates' expectancies that improved performance will lead to
valued rewards, and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier for subordinates.
Path-goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplish these tasks
depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors.
Path-goal theory has been criticized because it does not consider interactions among the
contingency factors and also because of the complexity of its underlying theoretical
model, expectancy theory. Empirical research has provided some support for the theory's
propositions, primarily as they relate to directive and supportive leader behaviors.
There are five types of leader decision-making styles, which are labeled AI, AII, CI, CII,
and G. These styles range from strongly autocratic (AI), to strongly democratic (G).
According to the theory, the appropriate style is determined by answers to up to eight
diagnostic questions, which relate to such contingency factors as the importance of
decision quality, the structure of the problem, whether subordinates have enough
information to make a quality decision, and the importance of subordinate commitment to
the decision.
The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model has been criticized for its complexity, for its assumption
that the decision makers' goals are consistent with organizational goals, and for ignoring
the skills needed to arrive at group decisions to difficult problems. Empirical research has
supported some of the prescriptions of the theory.
The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by
Hersey and Blanchard. The theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting
leaders' choice of leadership style is the task-related maturity of the subordinates.
Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept
responsibility for their own task-related behavior. The theory classifies leader behaviors
into the two broad classes of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. The major
proposition of situational leadership theory is that the effectiveness of task and
relationship-oriented leadership depends upon the maturity of a leader's subordinates.
Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological
grounds. However, it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership
and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and
leadership style.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Although trait, behavioral, and contingency approaches have each contributed to the
understanding of leadership, none of the approaches have provided a completely
satisfactory explanation of leadership and leadership effectiveness. Since the 1970s,
several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been
advanced. Among the more important of these are leader-member exchange theory,
transformational leadership theory, the substitutes for leadership approach, and the
philosophy of servant leadership.
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory was initially called the vertical dyad linkage
theory. The theory was introduced by George Graen and various colleagues in the 1970s
and has been revised and refined in the years since. LMX theory emphasizes the dyadic
(i.e., one-on-one) relationships between leaders and individual subordinates, instead of
the traits or behaviors of leaders or situational characteristics.
Beginning in the 1970s, a number of leadership theories emerged that focused on the
importance of a leader's charisma to leadership effectiveness. Included within this class
of theories are House's theory of charismatic leadership, Bass's transformational
leadership theory, and Conger and Kanungo's charismatic leadership theory.
These theories have much in common. They all focus on attempting to explain how
leaders can accomplish extraordinary things against the odds, such as turning around a
failing company, founding a successful company, or achieving great military success
against incredible odds. The theories also emphasize the importance of leaders' inspiring
subordinates' admiration, dedication, and unquestioned loyalty through articulating a
clear and compelling vision.
Kerr and Jermier introduced the substitutes for leadership theory in 1978. The theory's
focus is concerned with providing an explanation for the lack of stronger empirical
support for a relationship between leader traits or leader behaviors and subordinates'
satisfaction and performance. The substitutes for leadership theory suggests that
characteristics of the organization, the task, and subordinates may substitute for or negate
the effects of leadership, thus weakening observed relationships between leader behaviors
and important organizational outcomes.
The substitutes for leadership theory has generated a considerable amount of interest
because it offers an intuitively appealing explanation for why leader behavior impacts
subordinates in some situations but not in others. However, some of its theoretical
propositions have not been adequately tested. The theory continues to generate empirical
research.
SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
This approach to leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It
suggests that leaders must place the needs of subordinates, customers, and the community
ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. Characteristics of servant leaders
include empathy, stewardship, and commitment to the personal, professional, and
spiritual growth of their subordinates. Servant leadership has not been subjected to
extensive empirical testing but has generated considerable interest among both leadership
scholars and practitioners.
Leadership continues to be one of the most written about topics in the social sciences.
Although much has been learned about leadership since the 1930s, many avenues of
research still remain to be explored as we enter the twenty-first century.
Tim Barnett
FURTHER READING:
Bass, Bernard M., Bruce J. Avolio, Dong I. Jung, and Yair Berso. "Predicting Unit
Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership." Journal of
Applied Psychology 88 (2003): 207–218.
Blank, Warren, John R. Weitzel, and Stephen G. Green. "A Test of the Situational
Leadership Theory." Personnel Psychology 43 (1990): 579–597.
Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
1967.
House, Robert J., and Ram N. Aditya. "The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo
Vadis?" Journal of Management 23 (1997): 409–473.
Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., and Edwin A. Locke. "Leadership: Do Traits Matter?" Academy
of Management Executive 5 (1991): 48–60.
Kinicki, Angelo, and Robert Kreitner. Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill Irwin, 2006.
Podsakoff, Philip M., et al. "Do Substitutes for Leadership Really Substitute for
Leadership? An Empirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier's Situational Leadership
Model." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54 (1993): 1–44.
Steers, Richard M., Lyman W. Porter, and Gregory A. Bigley. Motivation and
Leadership at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
Stogdill, Ralph M., and Bernard M. Bass. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory
and Research. New York, NY: Free Press, 1974.
Vroom, Victor H., and Phillip W. Yetton. Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.
Wren, Daniel A. The Evolution of Management Thought. New York, NY: Wiley, 1994.