LOC Lecture 2 (copy)

leader traits

personal characteristics that distinguish leaders from non-leaders

• extraversion

• agreeableness

• conscientiousness

• emotional stability

• openness

• intelligence

• charisma

• narcissism

• dominance

• machiavellianism

great person theory

suggests that leaders are born with innate qualities that make them successful.

trait approach leadership (trait theory)

universal explanation for being a leader.

Argues that effective leadership can be predicted by traits (= personal characterstics), that differ among people.

*Traits are different from states, in that states are depend on the situation.

*Traits predict behaviour across different situations, in that they are stable.

Theoretical basis for the Trait approach

• evolutionary psychology

• behavioural genetics (+/- 50%)

• socioanalytic theory (‘Getting along’ vs ‘getting ahead’ vs ‘finding meaning’)

evolutionary psychology

leader emergence is linked to fitness (the degree to which a person with certain traits fits in the environment to survive and reproduce; leaders are more likely to survive)

frequency-dependent (f-d) selection = suggests that a certain leader trait works better for the leader (and the group) if …

• … that trait is also largely present in the rest of the group (positive f-d selection)

• … that trait is not very present in the rest of the group (negative f-d selection).

behavioural genetics

leadership measures (emergence and effectiveness) are heritable. This is probably due to the heritability of leadership traits.

• 50% of personality variance is heritable

• Some situational variables have genetic sources: people with similar genes often find themselves in similar environments.

• Genes interact with environment, making it hard to attribute effects to just genes or environment.

It has been found that genetic factors account for 30% of the variance in the attainment or leadership roles/posession of leadership traits.

socioanalytic theory

• Interpersonal theory based on (1) group living and (2) status hierarchies

• Two group motives: getting along (communion) and getting ahead (agency; gaining access to resources)

  • Conscientious and extraverted personalities linked to getting ahead and leadership outcomes

  • also: finding meaning.

• Distinguishes between identity (= how people see themselves) and reputation (= how people are viewed by others)

• Reputation as important as identity for leadership outcomes: don’t merely use self-report.

• Suggests measuring personality and leadership outcomes by self-report, follower report, and objective measures.

The Leader Trait Emergence Effectiveness model

genetics and selection processes combine to establish an individual’s traits. Examples of traits that are related to leadership emergence are Big 5 traits (emotional stability instead of neuroticism), intelligence, charisma, etc. These traits affect the mediating variables getting along, getting ahead, providing meaning, and skills and abilities.

These mediating variables affect leadership emergence, specifically perceived leadership and actual leadership emergence (informal vs formal).

Leadership emergence affects subjective and objective leadership effectiveness (ratings/attitudes versus aggregated/collective unit performance).

The relationship between emergence and effectiveness is moderated by traits and ILTs (for subjective effectiveness), and by threats, resources and culture (for objective effectiveness).

how to research the Trait Theory

• Comparing leaders to non-leaders (leader emergence)

• Investigating relations of traits with various outcomes (leader effectiveness)

• Longitudinal: relations of traits with leader advancement

• Comparing successful leaders with ‘derailed’ leaders (leader effectiveness)

• Twin research (“born or bred?”) (leader effectiveness or emergence)

Genetic factors have been found to have partial influence on leadership.

Leadership (emergence/effectiveness) can be predicted by (5)

• traits (personality/social needs and motives)

• skills

• values (attitudes about what is right or wrong)

• self-concept/identity

• competencies

traits related to leadership effectiveness (6)

• High energy level and stress tolerance

• Internal locus of control

• Emotional stability and maturity

• High core self-evaluations (specifically self efficacy)

• Personal integrity (behaviour consistent with values)

• Moderately high self-confidence (not too high!)

internal locus of control

belief the events in your life are determined more by your own action than by chance or uncontrollable forces (as opposed to an external locus of control).

Internals take more responsibility for their actions and organizational performance.

self-confidence

high self-confidence also correlates with leadership advancement and is crucial for charismatic leadership. Excessive self-confidence on the other hand can lead to negative outcomes for leaders (and subordinates).

optimal combination of social motives (power, affiliation and achievement) for leadership effectiveness -- McClelland’s Theory of Needs

• Strong socialized power motivation (rather than personalized power orientation)

• Moderately high achievement orientation (not too low or high; curvilinear relationship)

• Moderately low need for affiliation

Leadership Emergence and the Big Five

• positively related to extraversion

• positively related to conscientiousness

• positively related to openness

• unrelated to neuroticism

• negatively related to agreeableness

explained variance of the big 5 traits is .53 for leadership emergence.

Leadership effectiveness and the Big Five

• positively related to extraversion

• positively related to openness

• unrelated to neuroticism

• unrelated to agreeableness

explained variance of the big 5 traits is .39 for leadership effectiveness.

why do conscientiousness and extraversion better predict leadership emergence than effectiveness

because it is hard to define what makes a leader effective: many different ways to do the job right

relation between conscientiousness and effectiveness is insignificant.

why conscientiousness and extraversion have been found to be related to leadership

• Conscientiousness is a trait that is positively correlated with favorable work behaviors such as discipline in pursuit of goal attainment, efficient, and strong sense of direction.

  • dark side = 1) conscientious people are less adaptable to change, which could result in poor organizational performance. 2) highly conscientious leaders may be perfectionists, and therefore be impersonal while delivering negative feedback to followers, and choose options, not in line with consensus opinion.

• Extraverts are assertive, active, energetic, upbeat, talkative and optimistic individuals who experience and express positive emotions and exhibit behaviors consistent with the transformational model of leadership.

  • dark side = 1) excessively extraverted leaders can behave aggressively and like to be the center of attention. 2) they also might fail to have a clear strategic plan and make hasty decisions with many risks.

meaning of the terms “bright” and “dark” in relation to the Trait approach of leadership

bright traits are likely to be valuable for leader emergence and effectiveness, while the dark traits are likely to be counterproductive for leader emergence and effectiveness (social desirability of traits).

Whether a trait expresses beneficial effects (actual positive/negative effects) depends on 1) context and 2) intensity. This means that bright traits can actually be bad for leadership outcomes when they are in a certain context or when they are too extreme (either low/high). This also goes for dark traits that could be good for leadership.

e.g., ‘too much’ conscientiousness makes a leader rigid/inflexible: less adaptable to change.

bright side of bright traits

socially desirable trait that has positive implications for leaders and stakeholders

e.g., conscientious leader follows strong moral principles to achieve goals that benefit their organization in the long run.

Dark side of dark traits

socially undesirable trait that has negative implications for leaders and stakeholders

e.g., narcissistic* leader manipulates stock price to coincide with exercise of personal stock options.

*positively related to emergence+performance.

Dark side of bright traits

socially desirable trait has negative implications for leaders and stakeholders.

e.g., self-confident leader pursues risky course of action built on overly optimistic assumptions.

Bright side of dark traits

socially undesirable trait has positive implications for leaders and stakeholders

e.g., dominant leader takes control of ambigious situation, and assumes responsibility for the outcome.

Limitations of the trait theory (Yukl Chapter 2)

• lack of comprehensive list of leadership traits.

• inability to predict leadership effectiveness based solely on traits.

  • linear relationships between traits and leader outcomes almost don’t exist. Even if they do, they are always influenced by the situation.

• failure to account for situational factors (moderator between traits&effectiveness).

• most trait studies are not guided by theories that explain how certain traits are related to managerial effectiveness.

• often the focus is on linear relationships, ignoring curvilinear trait-effectiveness relationships.

• the fact that traits and skills are interrelated is often ignored.

types of skills

• interpersonal skills = knowledge about human behaviour and group processes, understand feelings, communicate clearly.

• technical skills = knowing the methods, processes, and tools needed to get the job done; organizational knowledge.

  → managerial advancement.

• conceptual skills = good judgement, intuition, creativity, etc; find meaning in ambiguity.

also: administrative skills, political skills, etc.

importance of interpersonal, technical, and conceptual skills depends on …

… managerial level of the leader.

when managerial level is low:

most to least important

• technical skills

• interpersonal skills

• conceptual skills

when managerial level is high:

most to least important

• conceptual skills

• interpersonal skills

• technical skills

also dependent on type of organization (low-level vs. top-level managers), leader stress (low stress = stronger relationship between leader intelligence and subordinate performance), external environment, etc.

skills versus competencies

Competencies are defined as combinations of specific skills and traits (e.g., emotional/social intelligence, learning ability).

emotional intelligence = empathy, self-regulation, self-awareness

social intelligence = social perceptiveness, behavioural flexibility

learning ability = adapt to change/learn from experience

Behavioural theories of leadership

Focus on what effective leaders do, rather than their personal characteristics.

• descriptive studies show that leadership behaviours are often reactive rather than active

• also, decision making is often ad hoc (no planning for formal decision making)

• see task-oriented and people-oriented behaviour.

What behaviour is related to effective leadership?

• empowering and participative leadership behaviour

• proactive influence tactics

• transformational leadership behaviour

• change oriented behaviour

• external leadership behaviour

meta-categories of behaviour

overarching categories of leader behaviour; relevant and meaningful categories related to effectiveness measures:

• task and relations oriented behaviour (initiating structure versus consideration)

• empowering and participative behaviour

• transformational leadership behaviour

taxonomies = ways to classify leader behaviours.

task and relationship meta-categories of leader Behavior

consideration = extent to which a leader

• shows concern and respect for followers

• expresses care for their welfare, and …

• respects them.

initiating structure = extent to which a leader

• defines and organises his role and that of his followers

• orientation toward goal attainment, and …

• establishment of channels of communication.

Findings suggest that all leaders need to use both orientations

task-oriented leadership behaviour (initiating structure): examples

• Planning work activities

• Clarifying roles and goals

  • defining job responsibilities and requirements, setting performance goals, assigning specific tasks.

• Monitoring operations and performance

• Solving operational problems

E.g., clearly explain an assigment, provide necessary instruction on how to do it, set specific goals and deadlines for important tasks.

relationship-oriented leadership behaviour (consideration): examples

• Supporting

  consideration, acceptance, and concern for the needs/feelings of others.

• Developing subordinates’ skills

• Providing praise and recognition

E.g., encourage participation, show acceptance and positive regard, show interest in the person, provide sympathy.

meta-analysis findings on the validity of meta-categories of behaviour

inconsistent findings across studies/measures, relatively weak relations and causality mostly unresearched (correlational)

Contingency approach to leadership

states that the effectiveness of skills/traits/behaviours (IV) on leadership emergence/effectiveness (DV) partly depends on the situation/context (moderator).

The most effective leadership style depends on the situation, and leaders should adapt their behaviour to match the needs of their followers/demands of the situation.

early contingency theories

• path-goal theory (PGT)

• situational leadership theory (SLT)

• Less important: leadership substitutes theory (= a substitute of leadership makes leadership less important or unnecessary in that case).

path-goal theory (PGT)

• leaders should improve followers’ performance by enhancing motivation.

• employees have certain goals (can also be shared organizational goals) and that the role of the leader is to provide guidance and remove obstacles on the pathway to those goals of employees.

• Which behaviour the leader chooses to remove obstacles depends on the situation (leaders adjust behaviour according to subordinates’ needs and according to the environment/task).

situational leadership theory (SLT)

the behaviours of the leader depend on the amount of competence and commitment of the employee.

assumes that:

• Leaders are able and have to adjust their leadership style based on the situation and needs of their followers.

• There is a most effective combination of behaviour depending on readiness of employees (see image).

(employee) readiness

employee development level (scored by leader and employee themselves)

depends on ability and willingness (motivation)

= competence and commitment

congruent scoring = leader and employee agree on employee’s readiness

incongruent scoring = leader and employee disagree on employee’s readiness

directing stage (telling) of SLT

readiness level = competence is low but there is high commitment.

Leader behaviour:

• high directive (= high leader structuring)

• low supporting (= low consideration)

Leader makes the decisions.

coaching stage (selling) of SLT

readiness level = competence is low-to-moderate and commitment is low.

Leader behaviour:

• high directive

• high supporting

Here you discuss but the leader decides eventually.

supporting (participation) stage of SLT

readiness level = there is moderate-to-high competence but commitment may vary.

Leader behaviour:

• low directive

• high supportive

After a talk with the leader, employees decide.

delegating stage of SLT

readiness level = high competence and commitment.

leader behaviour

• low directive

• low supportive

Employees decide.

results from studies with contingency models (Thompson et al., 2018)

• The SLT predictions are (mostly) confirmed: the relationship between leadership styles* and employee performance is higher when leader and employee ratings of employee readiness are congruent rather than incongruent.

• In case of incongruence (between leader and employees’ ratings of readiness): SLT is confirmed for under-estimators (of readiness), but not for overestimators.

  • underestimators = followers’ self-reported competence and commitment < leader’s rating

  • overestimators = followers’ self-reports > leader’s rating

• In case of incongruence: SLT is confirmed only for leader-scores of employee readiness. But, mean performance score is lower than for congruent cases.

*consideration vs initiating structure.

**limitations = focus on just 1 (gas oil) company, self-report (survey).

conclusion from recent studies with contingency models

SLT seems to be valid, i.e., differential treatment based on the readiness of employees is required in order to be an effective leader.

some criticism on recent studies of contingency models

• Two of the readiness levels seem not to represent reality in current organizations.

• The two leadership styles used may not be the best ones to use.

• Unclarity on exact calculation of readiness scores.

General criticism on contingency approaches

• Meta-categories of leader behavior; difficult to test

• Causality not explained

• Impact behavioral patterns

• Little (to no) or even opposite evidence (except for the NDM)

• Little practical guidance

framework on The Contingency Approach of Leadership

Criticism on the Columbia records case study

Columbia records is a music company that implemented the path-goal theory approach. The article details a success-story.

Problems:

• In applying PGT to explain the success of an organization, the article was not nuanced enough: only discussed positive sides.

• single case study

• lacking empirical data.

upper echelon theory

CEOs and top managers characteristics have particularly strong effects on subordinates.

paradox theory

• individuals can have seemingly paradoxical ‘‘contradictory’’* traits that can coexist together

• this combination/interaction of humility and narcissism may promote greater creativity and productivity

  • humility = willingness to admit mistakes, seek feedback, and show openness to new ideas.

  • narcissism = excessive self-importance, overconfidence, sense of entitlement.

• narcissism as a moderator/contingency between the humility - innovation relationship.

*the study did not find the predicted negative relationship between humility and narcissism. So, according to this study, these states are not opposites/no paradox.

how do CEO humility and narcissism interact to predict innovation?

• no main effects of the humility and narcissism in isolation (on innovative culture/performance) → inconsistent with the traits approach.

• significant interaction of the two traits combined, which led to a positive effect on socialized charisma and thereby innovation.

  • When leader narcissism is high, the positive relationship between CEO humility and innovation is significant. When narcissism is low, however, the relationship between humility and innovation is insignificant.

  • innovation = innovative culture and performance.

• socialized charisma FULLY mediated the relationships between the traits and innovative culture and performance.