[SOLVED] MGT 301- assignment 3- Case study – Business Finance

No plagiarism and no match please please follow instructions in assignment document Answer all questions Using APA reference style Using times new Roman ( size 12, double spaced) font14
Leadership: Styles
and Behaviors
ORGANIZATIONAL
MECHANISMS
Organizational
Culture
Organizational
Structure
INDIVIDUAL
MECHANISMS
GROUP
MECHANISMS
Job
Satisfaction
Leadership:
Styles &
Behaviors
Leadership:
Power &
Negotiation
Teams:
Processes &
Communication
Teams:
Characteristics &
Diversity
Stress
INDIVIDUAL
OUTCOMES
Job
Performance
Motivation
Trust, Justice,
& Ethics
Organizational
Commitment
Learning &
Decision Making
INDIVIDUAL
CHARACTERISTICS
Ability
Personality &
Cultural Values
LEARNING GOALS
After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer the following questions:
14.1
14.2
14.3
What is leadership and what does it mean for a leader to be “effective”?
14.4
14.5
What two dimensions capture most of the day-to-day leadership behaviors in which leaders engage?
14.6
14.7
How does leadership affect job performance and organizational commitment?
What traits and characteristics are related to leader emergence and leader effectiveness?
What four styles can leaders use to make decisions, and what factors combine to make these styles
more effective in a given situation?
How does transformational leadership differ from transactional leadership, and which behaviors set it
apart?
Can leaders be trained to be more effective?
©Rachel Woolf/Getty Images News/Getty Images
GENERAL MOTORS
M
ary Barra, 55, has topped Fortune’s list of most
powerful women for two years in a row. As CEO
and Board Chairman of General Motors, she is ultimately responsible for the leadership of an organization
with over 200,000 employees and $160 billion in revenue
in 2016. It’s quite a daunting task, but Barra seems to be
perfectly made for it so far. Barra took over the company
shortly after GM declared bankruptcy and had to take a government bailout in order to survive. She stepped in right as
GM had to fight through the recall of 2.6 million cars due to
a faulty ignition switch that was responsible for 21 deaths
and more than 500 injuries. Barra was placed front and
center testifying before Congress while being questioned
about the dysfunctional culture at GM. Most believe she
handled herself incredibly well, primarily by being open and
honest about the safety scandal both inside and outside the
company—even going so far as to commission an independent investigation (which resulted in a number of firings and
early retirements).
Known for having a collaborative leadership style, Barra
is not one to shirk from issues and encourages those around
her to tackle things head on. She says, “I want bad news—
the sooner the better. I want it when the person closest to it
realizes there’s a problem. Almost every problem at the start
is solvable. The longer it takes to solve, the higher it gets in
the organization and the bigger the problem gets.” Barra,
who has spent 36 years at GM (she started when she was
18), partly developed her leadership skills during her early
career in factory management. Some believe the reason
she’s been successful is a controlled ego—the exact opposite of many of her predecessors. Barra is willing to share
credit when it is deserved, which has allowed her to hang
on to the upper level executives that were competing with
her for the CEO job. Some say she’s assembled the best
management team in GM’s history.
One of Barra’s major gifts has been the ability to inspire
accountability inside a culture that has been known for the
exact opposite. Barra, speaking to a room full of newly promoted executives, said, “Remember your whole career, how
you’ve been talking about them? If only they would get it? If
only they would work this out? Well, you are now they. If you
don’t like something, you have to talk to yourself.”
444
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
LEADERSHIP: STYLES AND BEHAVIORS
14.1
What is leadership and
what does it mean for a
leader to be “effective”?
This is the second of two chapters on leadership, defined as the use of power and influence to
direct the activities of followers toward goal achievement.1 That direction can affect followers’
interpretation of events, the organization of their work activities, their commitment to key goals,
their relationships with other followers, or their access to cooperation and support from other
work units.2 The last chapter described how leaders get the power and influence needed to direct
others. In the case of Mary Barra, her power derives from her formal role as GM’s CEO, her
expertise, and her charisma. This chapter describes how leaders actually use their power and influence in an effective way. Although she’s worked for GM her entire 35-year career, Barra has a clear
vision of what GM can be in the future.
Of course, most leaders can’t judge their performance by pointing to how many cars they’ve
sold (over 10 million per year) or how long they’ve worked for a company. Fortunately, leader
effectiveness can be gauged in a number of ways. Leaders might be judged by objective evaluations
of unit performance, such as profit margins, market share, sales, returns on investment, productivity, quality, costs in relation to budgeted expenditures, and so forth.3 If those sorts of indices
are unavailable, the leader’s superiors may judge the performance of the unit on a more subjective basis. Other approaches to judging leader effectiveness center more on followers, including
indices such as absenteeism, retention of talented employees, grievances filed, requests for transfer, and so forth.4 Those sorts of indices can be complemented by employee surveys that assess
the perceived performance of the leader, the perceived respect and legitimacy of the leader, and
employee commitment, satisfaction, and psychological well-being. The top panel of Table 14-1
provides one example of these sorts of measures.
One source of complexity when judging leader effectiveness, particularly with more subjective, employee-centered approaches, is “Whom do you ask?” The members of a given unit often
disagree about how effective their leader is. Leader–member exchange theory, which describes
how leader–member relationships develop over time on a dyadic basis, can explain why those
differences exist.5 The theory argues that new leader–member relationships are typically marked
by a role taking phase, during which a manager describes role expectations to an employee and
the employee attempts to fulfill those expectations with his or her job behaviors.6 In this period
of sampling and experimentation, the leader tries to get a feel for the talent and motivation levels of the employee. For some employees, that initial role taking phase may eventually be supplemented by role making, during which the employee’s own expectations for the dyad get mixed
in with those of the leader.7 The role making process is marked by a free-flowing exchange in
which the leader offers more opportunities and resources and the employee contributes more
activities and effort.
Over time, the role taking and role making processes result in two general types of leader–
member dyads, as shown in Figure 14-1. One type is the “high-quality exchange” dyad, marked
by the frequent exchange of information, influence, latitude, support, and attention. Those
dyads form the leader’s “ingroup” and are characterized by higher levels of mutual trust,
respect, and obligation.8 The other type is the “low-quality exchange” dyad, marked by a more
limited exchange of information, influence, latitude, support, and attention. Those dyads form
the leader’s “outgroup” and are characterized by lower levels of trust, respect, and obligation.9
Tests of the theory suggest that employees who are competent, likable, and similar to the leader
in personality will be more likely to end up in the leader’s ingroup; those factors have even
greater impact than age, gender, or racial similarity.10 These ingroup relationships can be very
powerful attachments for some workers. Research suggests that employees are less likely to
leave an organization when they have a high LMX relationship with a specific leader, but they
are more likely to leave following a leadership succession.11 Leader–member exchange theory
also suggests that judgments of leader effectiveness should gauge how effective the most critical leader–member dyads appear to be. The bottom panel of Table 14-1 provides one example
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
TABLE 14-1
Employee-Centered Measures of Leader Effectiveness
Unit-Focused Approach
Ask all members of the unit to fill out the following survey items, then average the
responses across the group to get a measure of leader effectiveness.
1. My supervisor is effective in meeting our job-related needs.
2. My supervisor uses methods of leadership that are satisfying.
3. My supervisor gets us to do more than we expected to do.
4. My supervisor is effective in representing us to higher authority.
5. My supervisor works with us in a satisfactory way.
6. My supervisor heightens our desire to succeed.
7. My supervisor is effective in meeting organizational requirements.
8. My supervisor increases our willingness to try harder.
9. My supervisor leads a group that is effective.
Dyad-Focused Approach
Ask members of the unit to fill out the following survey items in reference to their particular
relationship with the leader. The responses are not averaged across the group; rather, differences across people indicate differentiation into “ingroups” and “outgroups” within the unit.
1. I always know how satisfied my supervisor is with what I do.
2. My supervisor understands my problems and needs well enough.
3. My supervisor recognizes my potential.
4. My supervisor would use his/her power to help me solve work problems.
5. I can count on my supervisor to “bail me out” at his/her expense if I need it.
6. My working relationship with my supervisor is extremely effective.
7. I have enough confidence in my supervisor to defend and justify his/her decisions when
he/she is not present to do so.
Sources: Adapted from B. Bass and B. Avolio, MLQ Manual (Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc., 2004); and G.B.
Graen and M. Uhl-Bien, “Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader–Member Exchange
(LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective,” Leadership Quarterly 6
(1995), pp. 219–47.
of this sort of measure, with more agreement indicating a higher-quality exchange relationship
and thus higher levels of leader effectiveness on a dyadic basis.12 Recent meta-analyses have
found that employees with higher-quality exchange relationships have higher levels of job performance and exhibit more organizational citizenship behaviors and fewer counterproductive
behaviors on average.13 It should be noted, though, that the development of high LMX relationships has proven to be more effective in individualistic (Western) cultures than in collectivistic
(Asian) cultures.14
445
446
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
FIGURE 14-1
Leader–Member Exchange Theory
MEMBER
MEMBER
High-Quality
Exchange (ingroup)
LEADER
MEMBER
Leader “Ingroups” have:
Greater mutual trust
Greater respect
Higher felt obligation
Low-Quality
Exchange (outgroup)
MEMBER
WHY AR E SOME LEADERS MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN OTHERS?
14.2
What traits and characteristics are related to leader
emergence and leader
effectiveness?
For our purposes, leader effectiveness will be defined as the degree to which the leader’s actions
result in the achievement of the unit’s goals, the continued commitment of the unit’s employees,
and the development of mutual trust, respect, and obligation in leader–member dyads. Now
that we’ve described what it means for a leader to be effective, we turn to the critical question
in this chapter: “Why are some leaders more effective than others?” That is, why exactly are
some leaders viewed as more effective on a unitwide basis, and why exactly are some leaders
better at fostering high-quality exchange relationships? Beginning as far back as 1904, research
on leadership has attempted to answer such questions by looking for particular traits or characteristics of effective leaders.15 The search for traits and characteristics is consistent with “great
person” theories of leadership that suggest that “leaders are born, not made.”16 Early research
in this area frequently focused on physical features (e.g., gender, height, physical attractiveness,
energy level), whereas subsequent research focused more squarely on personality and ability
(see Chapter 9 on personality and cultural values and Chapter 10 on ability for more discussion
of such issues).
After a century of research, leadership scholars now acknowledge that there is no generalizable
profile of effective leaders from a trait perspective.17 In fact, most studies have concluded that
traits are more predictive of leader emergence (i.e., who becomes a leader in the first place) than
they are of leader effectiveness (i.e., how well people actually do in a leadership role). Table 14-2
reviews some of the traits and characteristics that have been found to be correlated with leader
emergence and leader effectiveness. Although a number of traits and characteristics are relevant
to leadership, two limitations of this work have caused leadership research to move in a different direction. First, many of the trait–leadership correlations are weak in magnitude, particularly
when leader effectiveness serves as the outcome. Second, the focus on leader traits holds less practical relevance than a focus on leader actions. Although research shows that traits can seemingly
have an effect on leader effectiveness, these effects are generally explained much more strongly by
leader behavior.18 What exactly can leaders do that can make them more effective? This chapter
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
447
TABLE 14-2 Traits/Characteristics Related to Leader Emergence
and Effectiveness
DESCRIPTION OF TRAIT/
CHARACTERISTIC
LINKED TO EMERGENCE?
High conscientiousness
√
Low agreeableness
√
LINKED TO EFFECTIVENESS?
Low neuroticism
High openness to experience
√
√
High extraversion
√
√
High general cognitive ability
√
√
High energy level
√
√
High stress tolerance
√
√
High self-confidence
√
√
Sources: Adapted from T.A. Judge, J.E. Bono, R. Ilies, and M.W. Gerhardt, “Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative
and Quantitative Review,” Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2002), pp. 765–80; T.A. Judge, A.E. Colbert, and R. Ilies,
“Intelligence and Leadership: A Quantitative Review and Test of Theoretical Propositions,” Journal of Applied Psychology
89 (2004), pp. 542–52; and G. Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998)
reviews three types of leader actions: decision-making styles, day-to-day behaviors, and behaviors
that fall outside of a leader’s typical duties.
LEADER DECISION-MAKING STYLES
Of course, one of the most important things leaders do is make decisions. Think about the job
you currently hold or the last job you had. Now picture your boss. How many decisions did he or
she have to make in a given week? How did he or she go about making those decisions? A leader’s
decision-making style reflects the process the leader uses to generate and choose from a set of
alternatives to solve a problem (see Chapter 8 on learning and decision making for more discussion of such issues). Decision-making styles capture how a leader decides as opposed to what a
leader decides.
The most important element of a leader’s decision-making style is this: Does the leader decide
most things for him- or herself, or does the leader involve others in the process? We’ve probably all
had bosses (or professors, or even parents) who made virtually all decisions by themselves, stopping by to announce what had happened once the call had been made. We’ve probably also had
other bosses (or professors, or parents) who tended to do the opposite—involving us, asking our
opinions, or seeking our vote even when we didn’t care about what was being discussed. It turns
out that this issue of leader versus follower control can be used to define some specific decisionmaking styles. Figure 14-2 shows those styles, arranged on a continuum from high follower control
to high leader control.
DEFINING THE STYLES With an autocratic style, the leader makes the decision alone without
asking for the opinions or suggestions of the employees in the work unit.19 The employees may
provide information that the leader needs but are not asked to generate or evaluate potential
solutions. In fact, they may not even be told about the decision that needs to be made, knowing
only that the leader wants information for some reason. Unlike Mary Barra at GM, this decisionmaking style seems to be a favorite of Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, who is doing his
best to make sure decisions are made extraordinarily quickly at Chrysler—and he’s doing that by
14.3
What four styles can leaders use to make decisions,
and what factors combine
to make these styles
more effective in a given
situation?
448
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
FIGURE 14-2
Leader Decision-Making Styles
Delegative
Style
High Follower
Control
Sergio Marchionne, CEO of
Fiat-Chrysler, is known for
his autocratic and speedy
decision-making style.
Facilitative
Style
Consultative
Style
Autocratic
Style
High Leader
Control
making them himself. Marchionne has flattened Chrysler’s organizational chart with him at the
top and has 25 direct reports (not counting 21 at Fiat). One might think this would cause a major
bottleneck with regard to decisions, but Marchionne swears that speed is the only thing that will
save Chrysler at this point and he is always within reach through the use of one of his six BlackBerrys. Marchionne says, “BlackBerrys are divine instruments. They [his direct reports] have
access to me 24/7.” The CEO is known for making decisions within minutes, or seconds.20
The next two styles in Figure 14-2 offer more employee involvement. With a consultative style,
the leader presents the problem to individual employees or a group of employees, asking for their
opinions and suggestions before ultimately making the decision him- or herself.21 With this style,
employees do “have a say” in the process, but the ultimate authority still rests with the leader.
Bob Brennan, ex-CEO of Iron Mountain, a $3 billion information management services company
headquartered in Boston, says, “I ask this question a lot in different situations: ‘What do you recommend we do?’ You can get a real sense for who’s invested in moving the company forward, and
who’s watching the company go by, with that very simple question. People lay out problems all the
time. If they’ve thought through what should be done from here, then you’ve got somebody who’s
in the game, who wants to move, and you can unlock that potential.”22
That ultimate authority changes with a facilitative style, in which the leader presents the problem
to a group of employees and seeks consensus on a solution, making sure that his or her own opinion
receives no more weight than anyone else’s.23 With this style, the leader is more facilitator than decision maker. Robert W. Selander, executive vice chair of MasterCard, said he had learned over time to
encourage discussion in a group. “From sort of a style standpoint, I prefer to do what I call more of a
consensus style of decision-making,” he said. “So when I’m around the table with our executive committee, the senior leadership of the company, I could easily make a bilateral decision. You’re knowledgeable about your area. I may have the best knowledge about your area or second best around the
table. You and I agree. Let’s get on with it. What we haven’t done is we haven’t benefited from the
wisdom, the insight, and the experience of the others around the table. And while they may not have
as much insight or knowledge about your area as you do, there’s a chance that we missed something.
So I try to get more engagement and discussion around topics and avoid what I would call bilateralism. I think what happens is sometimes you get an insight that’s startling and important and affects
the decision, but you also get
participative involvement so
that there is buy-in and a recognition of how we got to that
decision. It’s not as if the boss
went off in a corner and waved
a magic wand and, bang, out
came the decision.”24
With a delegative style,
the leader gives an individual employee or a group of
employees the responsibility
for making the decision within
some set of specified boundary
conditions.25 The leader plays
©Bloomberg/Getty Images
no role in the deliberations
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
unless asked, though he or she may offer encouragement and provide necessary resources behind
the scenes. Former American Apparel CEO Paula Schneider, known as a “macromanager,” took
over for a CEO who had a hardcore autocratic style. “If someone comes to me and says, ‘Everything is screwed up,’ then I make them list everything. And then after once or twice, no one does it
again, because no one wants to list everything. Here, it is about finding solutions.”26 Daniel Amos,
CEO and chair of Aflac, also believes strongly in a delegative style. He says, “My theory is that
when you start telling people what to do, they no longer are responsible; you are. I’ll give them my
opinion and say; ‘Look, this is my opinion, but if you choose that and you fail, you’re not blaming
it on me. It is your fault.’ I think it makes them stronger.”27
WHEN ARE THE STYLES MOST EFFECTIVE? Which decision-making style is best? As you
may have guessed, there is no one decision-making style that’s effective across all situations, and
all styles have their pluses and minuses. There are many factors to consider when leaders choose
a decision-making style.28 The most obvious consideration is the quality of the resulting decision,
because making the correct decision is the ultimate means of judging the leader. However, leaders
also have to consider whether employees will accept and commit to their decision. Research studies have repeatedly shown that allowing employees to participate in decision making increases their
job satisfaction.29 Such participation also helps develop employees’ own decision-making skills.30
Of course, such participation has a downside for employees because it takes up time. Many
employees view meetings as an interruption of their work. One recent study found that employees
spend, on average, six hours a week in scheduled meetings and that time spent in meetings relates
negatively to job satisfaction when employees don’t depend on others in their jobs, focus on their
own task accomplishment, and believe meetings are run ineffectively.31 Diane Bryant, EVP at Intel,
argues that “You need people who are critical to making the decisions on the agenda, not people
who are there only because they’ll be impacted. At Intel, if we see someone who doesn’t need to be
there, people will say, ‘Bob, I don’t think we need you here. Thanks for coming.’”32 Similarly, Mary
Barra is trying to speed things up at GM, which is known for having one of the most bureaucratic
cultures around—the company is known for decisions having to be made by committee. Once, they
even appointed a committee to take a look at how many committee meetings should be held!33
How can leaders effectively manage their choice of decision-making styles? The time-driven
model of leadership offers one potential guide.34 It suggests that the focus should shift away from
autocratic, consultative, facilitative, and delegative leaders to autocratic, consultative, facilitative,
and delegative situations. More specifically, the model suggests that seven factors combine to
make some decision-making styles more effective in a given situation and other styles less effective. Those seven factors include:
• Decision significance: Is the decision significant to the success of the project or the organization?
• Importance of commitment: Is it important that employees “buy in” to the decision?
• Leader expertise: Does the leader have significant knowledge or expertise regarding the problem?
• Likelihood of commitment: How likely is it that employees will trust the leader’s decision and
commit to it?
• Shared objectives: Do employees share and support the same objectives, or do they have an
agenda of their own?
• Employee expertise: Do the employees have significant knowledge or expertise regarding the
problem?
• Teamwork skills: Do the employees have the ability to work together to solve the problem, or will
they struggle with conflicts or inefficiencies?
Figure 14-3 illustrates how these seven factors can be used to determine the most effective
decision-making style in a given situation. The figure asks whether the levels of each of the seven factors are high (H) or low (L). The figure functions like a funnel, moving from left to right, with each
answer taking you closer to the recommended style (dashes mean that a given factor can be skipped
for that combination). Although the model seems complex at first glance, the principles within it
are straightforward. Autocratic styles are reserved for decisions that are insignificant or for which
employee commitment is unimportant. The only exception is when the leader’s expertise is high and
the leader is trusted. An autocratic style in these situations should result in an accurate decision
449
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
Employee
Expertise
Teamwork
Skills
H
–
–
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
–
L
H
L
START HERE
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
H
–
L
–
H
–
L
–
H
H
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
L
–
L
–
L
–
–
–
–
–
Autocratic
Delegative
Consultative
Facilitative
Consultative
Facilitative
Consultative
END HERE
Shared
Objectives
H
Likelihood of
Commitment
Leader
Expertise
The Time-Driven Model of Leadership
Decision
Significance
FIGURE 14-3
Importance of
Commitment
450
Autocratic
Facilitative
Consultative
Autocratic
Delegative
Facilitative
Autocratic
Source: Adapted from V.H. Vroom, “Leadership and the Decision-Making Process,” Organizational Dynamics 28 (2000),
pp. 82–94.
that makes the most efficient use of employees’ time. Delegative styles should be reserved for circumstances in which employees have strong teamwork skills and are not likely to commit blindly to
whatever decision the leader provides. Deciding between the remaining two styles—consultative and
facilitative—is more nuanced and requires a more complete consideration of all seven factors.
For our earlier example of Sergio Marchionne, decision significance is high, importance of
commitment is low, and leader expertise is high, so he adopts an autocratic decision style. However, for Jack Griffin, ex-CEO of Time Inc., autocratic decision making didn’t seem to go over too
well. Griffin became known within the company for his “imperious” decision-making behavior.
For example, he insisted that every magazine include a masthead with his name at the top (an
extra page that cost the company about $5 million a year) almost right after hundreds of employees were laid off—a decision that used to be left up to individual editors. A source within the
company was quoted as saying, “Time Inc. has long operated on the collegial consensus approach
and I don’t think that was Jack’s strength.”35 With magazine publishing operating during such a
precarious time, we would label decision significance as high, importance of commitment as high,
and the leader not appearing to have expertise in the subject matter of the decisions. As a result,
his autocratic style led to a rebellion by those working for him and his termination only six months
after his appointment. A key point about Figure 14-3 is that unless a leader is an expert with regard
to the focus of the decision, autocratic decisions are not the right style to choose.
Research tends to support many of the time-driven model’s propositions, particularly when it
uses practicing managers as participants.36 For example, one study asked managers to recall past
decisions, the context surrounding those decisions, and the eventual successes (or failures) of their
decisions.37 When managers used the decision-making styles recommended by the model, those decisions were rated as successful 68 percent of the time. When managers went against the model’s
prescriptions, their decisions were only rated as successful 22 percent of the time. It’s also interesting
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
to note that studies suggest that managers tend to choose the style recommended by the model
only around 40 percent of the time and exhibit less variation in styles than the model suggests they
should.38 In particular, managers seem to overuse the consultative style and underutilize autocratic
and facilitative styles. Sheila Lirio Marcelo, the CEO of Care.com, uses a unique approach by actually letting her staff know what type of decisions will be made prior to each meeting. “We do Type 1,
Type 2, Type 3 decisions,” she said. “Type 1 decisions are the decision-maker’s sole decision—
dictatorial [autocratic]. Type 2: people can provide input, and then the person can still make the
decision [consultative]. Type 3, it’s consensus [facilitative]. It’s a great way to efficiently solve a problem.”39 To try to use the time-driven model’s suggestions yourself, see this chapter’s OB on Screen.
OB
ON SCREEN
THE MARTIAN
This is something NASA expressly rejected. We’re talking about mutiny here, which is not a word
that I take lightly, so we do this together—or not at all.
With those words, Commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain) signals the decision-making
style she is going to use during a conversation with the crew of the Hermes in The Martian (Dir:
Ridley Scott, 20th Century Fox, 2015). The year is 2035 and the crew of the Ares III mission to
Mars has just been sent a clandestine communication from an unknown source within NASA.
The message provides details as to how they can re-route their spacecraft to potentially return to
Mars to save stranded crew member Mark Watney (Matt Damon) whom they left behind believing that he was dead. The decision is not an easy one and is rife with potential complications.
What decision-making style should Commander Lewis use to decide what to do?
©Photo 12/Alamy
If we work our way through Figure 14-3, it seems clear that the decision is significant. To re-route
their craft is to go against the decision of NASA and potentially jeopardizes the entire operation.
Commander Lewis also stresses to the crew that any mistake along the way could kill them all. Getting the crew’s commitment to the decision is highly important not only due to the danger, but also
because it adds 533 days to their voyage. Commander Lewis, while highly qualified, does not have
the expertise to do it alone. It’s likely the crew will commit; one does so before even thinking through
the options. The crew shares a great desire (objective) to rectify leaving one of their own behind
and they are each experts in their chosen fields (geologist, pilot, doctor, computer programmer, and
chemist). In addition, the crew has demonstrated their ability to work effectively with each other as
a team. If you’ve been keeping up with Figure 14-3 we have a H-H-L-H-H-H-H, suggesting that Commander Lewis’s most effective decision-making style would be facilitative. Even though it is within
her purview to order the crew to do what she wants, Commander Lewis presents the problem to the
group and seeks consensus on the solution, ensuring that her vote only counts as one of five.
451
452
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
DAY-TO-DAY LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS
14.4
What two dimensions
capture most of the day-today leadership behaviors in
which leaders engage?
Leaving aside how they go about making decisions, what do leaders do on a day-to-day basis?
When you think about bosses that you’ve had, what behaviors did they tend to perform as part
of their daily leadership responsibilities? A series of studies at Ohio State in the 1950s attempted
to answer that question. Working under grants from the Office of Naval Research and the International Harvester Company, the studies began by generating a list of all the behaviors leaders
engage in—around 1,800 in all.40 Those behaviors were trimmed down to 150 specific examples,
then grouped into several categories, as shown in Table 14-3.41 The table reveals that many leaders
spend their time engaging in a mix of initiating, organizing, producing, socializing, integrating,
communicating, recognizing, and representing behaviors. Although eight categories are easier to
remember than 1,800 behaviors, further analyses suggested that the categories in Table 14-3 really
boil down to just two dimensions: initiating structure and consideration.42
Initiating structure reflects the extent to which the leader defines and structures the roles of
employees in pursuit of goal attainment.43 Leaders who are high on initiating structure play a
more active role in directing group activities and prioritize planning, scheduling, and trying out
new ideas. They might emphasize the importance of meeting deadlines, describe explicit standards of performance, ask employees to follow formalized procedures, and criticize poor work
when necessary.44 Millard Drexler, CEO of J. Crew (the New York–based clothing retailer), has a
unique initiating structure approach as he belts out instructions, assigns tasks, discusses clothing
trends, and talks about sales statistics and goals about a dozen times a day over loudspeakers in
the main Manhattan office. If he isn’t in the office (and he often isn’t), he has his assistant patch
him in through his cell phone.45
Consideration reflects the extent to which leaders create job relationships characterized by
mutual trust, respect for employee ideas, and consideration of employee feelings.46 Leaders who
TABLE 14-3
Day-to-Day Behaviors Performed by Leaders
BEHAVIOR
DESCRIPTION
Initiating Structure
Initiation
Originating, facilitating, and sometimes resisting new ideas and
practices
Organization
Defining and structuring work, clarifying leader versus member
roles, coordinating employee tasks
Production
Setting goals and providing incentives for the effort and productivity of employees
Consideration
Membership
Mixing with employees, stressing informal interactions, and
exchanging personal services
Integration
Encouraging a pleasant atmosphere, reducing conflict, promoting
individual adjustment to the group
Communication
Providing information to employees, seeking information from
them, showing an awareness of matters that affect them
Recognition
Expressing approval or disapproval of the behaviors of employees
Representation
Acting on behalf of the group, defending the group, and advancing the interests of the group
Source: R.M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII, Bureau of Business Research,
The Ohio State University, 1963.
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
are high on consideration create a climate of good rapport and strong, two-way communication and exhibit a deep concern for the welfare of employees. They might do personal favors for
employees, take time to listen to their problems, “go to bat” for them when needed, and treat them
as equals.47 Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, attempts to do this with many of the officers in
his company by hosting a sleepover a couple of times a month. Immelt says, “We spend Saturday
morning just talking about their careers. Who they are, how they fit, how I see their strengths and
weaknesses—stuff like that. The personal connection is something I may have taken for granted
before that [and] I don’t want to ever take for granted again.”48 Google’s project OXYGEN was
a process that tried to identify the most effective behaviors of managers inside the organization.
The three most important habits that determined leader success were all oriented toward consideration: meeting regularly with employees, taking an interest in them personally, and asking questions rather than always providing answers.49
The Ohio State studies argued that initiating structure and consideration were (more or less)
independent concepts, meaning that leaders could be high on both, low on both, or high on one
and low on the other. That view differed from a series of studies conducted at the University of
Michigan during the same time period. Those studies identified concepts similar to initiating
structure and consideration, calling them production-centered (or task-oriented) and employeecentered (or relations-oriented) behaviors.50 However, the Michigan studies framed their taskoriented and relations-oriented concepts as two ends of one continuum, implying that leaders
couldn’t be high on both dimensions.51 In fact, a meta-analysis of 78 studies showed that initiating structure and consideration are only weakly related—knowing whether a leader engages in
one brand of behavior says little about whether he or she engages in the other brand.52 To see
how much initiating structure and consideration you engage in during leadership roles, see our
OB Assessments feature.
After an initial wave of research on initiating structure and consideration, leadership experts
began to doubt the usefulness of the two dimensions for predicting leadership effectiveness.53
More recent research has painted a more encouraging picture, however. A meta-analysis of 103
studies showed that initiating structure and consideration both had beneficial relationships with
a number of outcomes.54 For example, consideration had a strong positive relationship with perceived leader effectiveness, employee motivation, and employee job satisfaction. It also had a
moderate positive relationship with overall unit performance. For its part, initiating structure had
a strong positive relationship with employee motivation and moderate positive relationships with
perceived leader effectiveness, employee job satisfaction, and overall unit performance. One of the
most amusing and unique CEOs in the country, Chobani’s Hamdi Ulukaya, is known for exhibiting both sets of behaviors. Employees say that there are, in essence, two Hamdi’s. Ulukaya says,
“I’m a shepherd and I’m a warrior—I come and go between those two.” CMO Peter McGuinness
says the two versions of Ulukaya mesh together well: “The leaders of tomorrow more and more
realize that having a strong head and big heart is where you need to be.”55
Although initiating structure and consideration tend to be beneficial across situations, there
may be circumstances in which they become more or less important. The life cycle theory of
leadership (sometimes also called the situational model of leadership) argues that the optimal
combination of initiating structure and consideration depends on the readiness of the employees
in the work unit.56 Readiness is broadly defined as the degree to which employees have the ability and the willingness to accomplish their specific tasks.57 As shown in Figure 14-4, the theory
suggests that readiness varies across employees and can be expressed in terms of four important
snapshots: R1–R4. To find the optimal combination of leader behaviors for a particular readiness snapshot, put your finger on the relevant R, then move it straight down to the recommended
combination of behaviors.
The description of the first two R’s has varied over time and across different formulations of
the theory. One formulation described the R’s as similar to stages of group development.58 R1
refers to a group of employees who are working together for the first time and are eager to begin,
but they lack the experience and confidence needed to perform their roles. Here the optimal
combination of leader behaviors is telling—high initiating structure and low consideration—in
which case the leader provides specific instructions and closely supervises performance. The
lion’s share of the leader’s attention must be devoted to directing followers in this situation,
453
454
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
OB
ASSESSMENTS
INITIATING STRUCTURE AND CONSIDERATION
How do you act when you’re in a leadership role? This assessment is designed to measure initiating structure and consideration. Please write a number next to each statement that reflects how
frequently you engage in the behavior described. Then subtract your answers to the boldfaced
questions from 6, with the difference being your new answer for that question. For example, if
your original answer for question 16 was “4,” your new answer is “2” (6–4). Then sum up your
answers for each of the dimensions. (Instructors: Assessments on transformational leadership,
LMX, charisma, and readiness can be found in the PowerPoints in the Connect Library’s Instructor Resources and in the Connect assignments for this chapter.)
1
NEVER
2
SELDOM
3
OCCASIONALLY
4
OFTEN
5
ALWAYS
1. I let group members know what is expected of them.
________
2. I encourage the use of uniform procedures.
________
3. I try out my ideas in the group.
________
4. I make my attitudes clear to the group.
________
5. I decide what shall be done and how it shall be done.
________
6. I assign group members to particular tasks.
________
7. I make sure that my part in the group is understood by the group members.
________
8. I schedule the work to be done.
________
9. I maintain definite standards of performance.
________
10. I ask group members to follow standard rules and regulations.
________
11. I am friendly and approachable.
________
12. I do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group.
________
13. I put suggestions made by the group into operation.
________
14. I treat all group members as equals.
________
15. I give advance notice of changes.
________
16. I keep to myself.
________
17. I look out for the personal welfare of group members.
________
18. I am willing to make changes.
________
19. I refuse to explain my actions.
________
20. I act without consulting the group.
________
SCORING AND INTERPRETATION:
Initiating Structure: Sum up items 1–10. _______
Consideration: Sum up items 11–20. _______
For initiating structure, scores of 38 or more are high. For consideration, scores of 40 or more
are high.
Source: R.M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire–Form XII (Columbus, OH: Bureau of
Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1963).
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
FIGURE 14-4
455
The Life Cycle Theory of Leadership
Readiness
HIGH
MODERATE
LOW
R4
R3
R2
R1
Firing on all
cylinders
Starting to
work well
together
Tasks seem
harder than
expected
Eager but
inexperienced
Delegating
Participating
Selling
Telling
Initiating Structure
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
Consideration
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
Source: Adapted from P. Hersey and K. Blanchard, “Revisiting the Life-Cycle Theory of Leadership,” Training and Development, January 1996, pp. 42–47.
because their goals and roles need to be clearly defined. In the R2 stage, the members have
begun working together and, as typically happens, are finding that their work is more difficult
than they had anticipated. As eagerness turns to dissatisfaction, the optimal combination of
leader behaviors is selling—high initiating structure and high consideration—in which the leader
supplements his or her directing with support and encouragement to protect the confidence
levels of the employees.
As employees gain more ability, guidance and direction by the leader become less necessary.
At the R3 stage, employees have learned to work together well, though they still need support
and collaboration from the leader to help them adjust to their more self-managed state of affairs.
Here participating—low initiating structure and high consideration—becomes the optimal combination of leader behaviors.
Finally, the optimal combination for the R4 readiness level is
delegating—low initiating structure and low consideration—
such that the leader turns
responsibility for key behaviors over to the employees.
Here the leader gives them the
proverbial ball and lets them
run with it. All that’s needed
from the leader is some degree
of observation and monitoring to make sure that the
group’s efforts stay on track.
Nick Woodman, CEO of
GoPro, had to learn the hard
way (after numerous project ©Brett Flashnick/AP Images
Jeff Immelt, CEO of
General Electric, exhibits
consideration by holding
“sleepovers” with his officers to get to know them
better.
456
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
failures) to recognize the readiness in his followers and that as the company’s projects moved
outside of his area of expertise, he had to delegate more to his staff.59
Estimates suggest that the life cycle theory has been incorporated into leadership training
programs at around 400 of the firms in the Fortune 500, with more than one million managers exposed to it annually.60 Unfortunately, the application of the theory has outpaced scientific
testing of its propositions, and the shifting nature of its terminology and predictions has made
scientific testing somewhat difficult.61 The research that has been conducted supports the theory’s
predictions only for low readiness situations, suggesting that telling and selling sorts of behaviors
may be more effective when ability, motivation, or confidence is lacking.62 When readiness is
higher, these tests suggest that leader behaviors simply matter less, regardless of their particular
combinations. Tests also suggest that leaders only use the recommended combinations of behaviors between 14 and 37 percent of the time,63 likely because many leaders adhere to the same
leadership philosophy regardless of the situation. It should also be noted that tests of the theory
have been somewhat more supportive when conducted on an across-job, rather than within-job,
basis. For example, research suggests that the performance of lower ranking university employees
(e.g., maintenance workers, custodians, landscapers) depends more on initiating structure and
less on consideration than the performance of higher ranking university employees (e.g., professors, instructors).64
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS
By describing decision-making styles and day-to-day leader behaviors, we’ve covered a broad spectrum of what it is that leaders do. Still, something is missing. Take a small piece of scrap paper and
jot down five people who are famous for their effective leadership. They can come from inside or
outside the business world and can be either living people or historical figures. All that’s important is that their name be practically synonymous with great leadership. Once you’ve compiled
your list, take a look at the names. Do they appear on your list because they tend to use the right
decision-making styles in the right situations and engage in effective levels of consideration and
initiating structure? What about the case of Mary Barra? Do decision-making styles and day-today leadership behaviors explain her importance to the fortunes of GM?
The missing piece of this leadership puzzle is what leaders do to motivate their employees to
perform beyond expectations. Transformational leadership involves inspiring followers to commit
to a shared vision that provides meaning to their work while also serving as a role model who
helps followers develop their own potential and view problems from new perspectives.65 Transformational leaders heighten followers’ awareness of the importance of certain outcomes while
Mother Teresa’s inspiring
humanitarian work with
India’s sick and poor,
and her founding of the
influential Missionaries of
Charity, became known
around the world and suggest that she was a transformational leader. She
was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1979.
©Tim Graham/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
increasing their confidence that those outcomes can be achieved.66 What gets “transformed” is the
way followers view their work, causing them to focus on the collective good more than just their
own short-term self-interests and to perform beyond expectations as a result.67 Former president
Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted, “Leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done, and
then to get others to want to do it.”68 Former president Harry S. Truman similarly observed, “A
leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don’t want to do, and like
it.”69 Both quotes capture a transformation in the way followers view their work and what motivates them on the job.
Transformational leadership is viewed as a more motivational approach to leadership than
other managerial approaches. Figure 14-5 contrasts various approaches to leadership according to
how active or passive they are and, ultimately, how effective they prove to be. The colored cubes in
the figure represent five distinct approaches to motivating employees, and the depth of the cubes
represents how much a leader prioritizes each of the approaches. The figure therefore represents
an optimal leadership approach that prioritizes more effective and more active behaviors. That
optimal approach includes low levels of laissez-faire (i.e., hands-off) leadership, represented by the
red cube, which is the avoidance of leadership altogether.70 Important actions are delayed, responsibility is ignored, and power and influence go unutilized. One common measure of leadership
reflects laissez-faire styles with this statement: “The leader avoids getting involved when important
issues arise.”71
The three yellow cubes represent transactional leadership, which occurs when the leader
rewards or disciplines the follower depending on the adequacy of the follower’s performance.72
With passive management-by-exception, the leader waits around for mistakes and errors, then takes
corrective action as necessary.73 After all, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”74 This approach is represented by statements like: “The leader takes no action until complaints are received.”75 With
active management-by-exception, the leader arranges to monitor mistakes and errors actively and
again takes corrective action when required.76 This approach is represented by statements like:
“The leader directs attention toward failures to meet standards.”77 Contingent reward represents
a more active and effective brand of transactional leadership, in which the leader attains follower
agreement on what needs to be done using promised or actual rewards in exchange for adequate
performance.78 Statements like “The leader makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved” exemplify contingent reward leadership.79
Transactional leadership represents the “carrot-and-stick” approach to leadership, with
management-by-exception providing the “sticks” and contingent reward supplying the “carrots.”
Of course, transactional leadership represents the dominant approach to motivating employees
in most organizations, and research suggests that it can be effective. A meta-analysis of 87 studies showed that contingent reward was strongly related to follower motivation and perceived
leader effectiveness80 (see Chapter 6 on motivation for more discussion of such issues). Active
management-by-exception was only weakly related to follower motivation and perceived leader
effectiveness, however, and passive management-by-exception seems actually to harm those
outcomes.81 Such results support the progression shown in Figure 14-5, with contingent reward
standing as the most effective approach under the transactional leadership umbrella.
Finally, the green cube represents transformational leadership—the most active and effective
approach in Figure 14-5. How effective is transformational leadership? Well, we’ll save that discussion for the “How Important Is Leadership?” section that concludes this chapter, but suffice it to say that transformational leadership has the strongest and most beneficial effects of
any of the leadership variables described in this chapter. It’s also the leadership approach that’s
most universally endorsed across cultures, as described in our OB Internationally feature. In addition, it probably captures the key qualities of the famous leaders we asked you to list a few paragraphs back. To understand why it’s so powerful, we need to dig deeper into the specific kinds
of actions and behaviors that leaders can utilize to become more transformational. It turns out
that the full spectrum of transformational leadership can be summarized using four dimensions:
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Collectively, these four dimensions of transformational leadership are often called “the
Four I’s.”82 For our discussion of transformational leadership, we’ll use Steve Jobs, former CEO
of Apple, who was widely recognized as one of the most transformational leaders in the corporate
457
14.5
How does transformational
leadership differ from
transactional leadership,
and which behaviors set it
apart?
458
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
FIGURE 14-5
Laissez-Faire, Transactional, and Transformational Leadership
EFFECTIVE
Transformational
Transactional:
Contingent Reward
Transactional:
Active Managementby-Exception
PASSIVE
ACTIVE
Transactional:
Passive Managementby-Exception
Laissez-Faire
INEFFECTIVE
Source: Adapted from B.M. Bass and R.E. Riggio, Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed. (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006).
world, as a running example. Fortune named Jobs “CEO of the Decade” for the 2000s.83 Although
Jobs died in 2011, his legacy as a transformational leader continues to this day. The fact that we
constantly hear good leaders being called “Steve Jobs-like” illustrates this fact. Jobs’s leadership
continues to affect employees at Apple in profound ways.84
Idealized influence involves behaving in ways that earn the admiration, trust, and respect of
followers, causing followers to want to identify with and emulate the leader.85 Idealized influence is represented by statements like: “The leader instills pride in me for being associated with
him/her.”86 Idealized influence is synonymous with charisma—a Greek word that means “divinely
inspired gift”—which reflects a sense among followers that the leader possesses extraordinary qualities.87 “Charisma” is a word that was often associated with Steve Jobs. One observer noted that
even though Jobs could be very difficult to work with, his remarkable charisma created a mysterious attraction that drew people to him, keeping them loyal to his collective sense of mission.88
To some extent, discussions of charisma serve as echoes of the “great person” view of leadership that spawned the trait research described in Table 14-2. In fact, research suggests that there
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
OB
INTERNATIONALLY
Does the effectiveness of leader styles and behaviors vary across cultures? Answering that question is one of the objectives of Project GLOBE’s test of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory,
which argues that effective leadership is “in the eye of the beholder” (see Chapter 9 on personality
and cultural values for more discussion of such issues). To test the theory, researchers asked participants across cultures to rate a number of leader styles and behaviors using a 1 (very ineffective)
to 7 (very effective) scale. The accompanying figure shows how three of the styles and behaviors
described in this chapter were rated across 10 different regions (note that the term “Anglo” represents people of English ethnicity, including the United States, Great Britain, and Australia).
Eastern Europe
7
Latin America
6
Middle East
5
Latin Europe
4
Germanic Europe
3
Southern Asia
Confucian Asia
Nordic Europe
Sub-Sahara Africa
Anglo
Transformational
Participative
Consideration
It turns out that transformational leadership is the most universally accepted approach to leadership of any of the concepts studied by Project GLOBE, receiving an average rating near 6 in
every region except the Middle East. That appeal is likely explained by the fact that transformational leaders emphasize values like idealism and virtue that are endorsed in almost all countries. The figure also shows that a participative style is favorably viewed in most countries, though
more variation is evident. Even more variation is seen with consideration behaviors, which are
endorsed a bit less across the board but especially in Europe. Understanding these kinds of results
can help organizations select and train managers who will fit the profile of an effective leader in
a given region.
Sources: P.W. Dorfman, P.J.Hanges, and F.C.Brodbeck, “Leadership and Cultural Variation: The Identification of Culturally Endorsed Leadership Profiles,” in Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, ed. R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan,
P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), pp. 669–720; R.J. House., P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W.
Dorfman, and V.Gupta, Culture, Leadership, and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004); and M. Javidan., R.J.
House, and P.W. Dorfman.,“A Nontechnical Summary of GLOBE Findings,” in Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, ed.
R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), pp. 29–48.
459
460
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
is a genetic component to charisma specifically and to transformational leadership more broadly.
Studies on identical twins reared apart show that such twins have very similar charismatic profiles, despite their differing environments.89 Indeed, such research suggests that almost 60 percent of the variation in charismatic behavior can be explained by genes. One explanation for such
findings is that genes influence the personality traits that give rise to charisma. For example,
research suggests that extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness have significant
effects on perceptions of leader charisma,90 and all three of those personality dimensions have a
significant genetic component (see Chapter 9 on personality and cultural values for more discussion of such issues).
Inspirational motivation involves behaving in ways that foster an enthusiasm for and commitment to a shared vision of the future.91 That vision is transmitted through a sort of “meaningmaking” process in which the negative features of the status quo are emphasized while highlighting the positive features of the potential future.92 Inspirational motivation is represented by statements like: “The leader articulates a compelling vision of the future.”93 At Apple, Steve Jobs
was renowned for spinning a “reality distortion field” that reshaped employees’ views of the current work environment.94  One Apple employee explained, “Steve has this power of vision that is
almost frightening. When Steve believes in something, the power of that vision can literally sweep
aside any objections, problems, or whatever. They just cease to exist.”95
Intellectual stimulation involves behaving in ways that challenge followers to be innovative and
creative by questioning assumptions and reframing old situations in new ways.96 Intellectual stimulation is represented by statements like: “The leader gets others to look at problems from many
different angles.”97 Intellectual stimulation was a staple of Jobs’s tenure at Apple. He pushed for
a different power supply on the Apple II so that the fan could be removed, preventing it from
humming and churning like other computers of the time. Years later, he insisted on removing
the floppy drive from the iMac because it seemed silly to transfer data one megabyte at a time, a
decision that drew merciless criticism when the iMac debuted. One employee talking about Jobs
stated, “There would be times when we’d rack our brains on a user interface problem, and think
we’d considered every option, and he would go ‘Did you think of this?’ He’d redefine the problem
or approach, and our little problem would go away.”98
Individualized consideration involves behaving in ways that help followers achieve their potential through coaching, development, and mentoring.99 Not to be confused with the consideration
behavior derived from the Ohio State studies, individualized consideration represents treating
employees as unique individuals with specific needs, abilities, and aspirations that need to be tied
into the unit’s mission. Individualized consideration is represented by statements like: “The leader
spends time teaching and coaching.”100 Of the four facets of transformational leadership, Steve
Jobs seemed lowest on individualized consideration. Employees who were not regarded as his
equals were given a relatively short leash and sometimes faced an uncertain future in the company.
In fact, some Apple employees resisted riding the elevator for fear of ending up trapped with Jobs
for the ride between floors. As one observer describes it, by the time the doors open, you might
have had your confidence undermined for weeks.101 For a different (yet similar) take on what sets
our best leaders apart from others, see our OB at the Bookstore feature.
One interesting domain for examining transformational leadership issues is politics. Many
of the most famous speeches given by U.S. presidents include a great deal of transformational
content. Table 14-4 includes excerpts from speeches given by presidents that rank highly on
transformational content based on scientific and historical study.102 One theme that’s notable
in the table is the presence of a crisis, as many of the presidents were attempting to steer the
country through a difficult time in history (e.g., World War II, the Cold War, the Civil War).
That’s not a coincidence, in that times of crisis are particularly conducive to the emergence of
transformational leadership.103 Times of stress and turbulence cause people to long for charismatic leaders, and encouraging, confident, and idealistic visions resonate more deeply during
such times. In addition, support for this suggestion comes from President George W. Bush’s
speeches before and after the tragedies on 9/11. Coding of his major speeches, public addresses,
and radio addresses shows a significant increase in the transformational content of his rhetoric
after the 9/11 attacks, including more focus on a collective mission and more articulation of
a values-based vision.104 As future research is conducted, we’re fairly confident that President
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
OB
AT THE BOOKSTORE
SUPERBOSSES
by Sydney Finkelstein (New York: Portfolio / Penguin, 2016)
Superbosses are the great coaches, the igniters of talent, and the teachers of leadership in most
industries. In effect, superbosses have mastered something most bosses miss—a path to extraordinary success founded on making other people successful.
©Roberts Publishing Services
With those words, Sydney Finkelstein describes what sets his idea
of a “Superboss” apart from most other managers or leaders. Finkelstein, a professor at Dartmouth University, spent 10 years interviewing over 200 renowned leaders across numerous industries to try to
unlock the secrets to what creates superlative leadership. The fundamental conclusion he reached is that what makes a superboss is primarily a leader’s desire and ability to make the people underneath
them successful. They are willing to do whatever it takes to hire the
right people (sometimes in spite of a lack of qualifications) and have
the ability to push them to be successful by using their authentic
leadership styles. You can spot a superboss by looking at the trail
of successful leaders behind them. For instance, at one point NFL
Coach Bill Walsh (one of the inspirations for Finkelstein’s research)
had trained 26 of the current head coaches in the NFL (out of 32).
He identifies the following characteristics present to some degree in
all superbosses: extreme confidence, competitiveness, imagination,
integrity, and authenticity.
Finkelstein argues that superbosses essentially fall into one of three categories. The first are
“Iconoclasts” who have a creative and passionate vision that inspires the employees around them.
Examples of iconoclasts are George Lucas, Lorne Michaels, and Jon Stewart. The second category is “Glorious Bastards” in which the leader is focused on only one thing: winning. However,
these leaders recognize that winning comes through hiring and developing the best people. Examples of glorious bastards are Larry Ellison, Michael Milken, and Bonnie Fuller. The third group of
superbosses are “Nurturers” who take pride in mentoring those around them and care about their
success. Examples include Mary Kay Ash, Bill Walsh, and Norman Brinker. Not surprisingly,
these categories actually map pretty well onto three of the four dimensions of transformational
leadership—namely, inspirational motivation (iconoclasts), intellectual stimulation (glorious bastards), and individualized consideration (nurturers).
Barack Obama’s speeches will be described similarly, as many of his campaign and postelection
speeches were high in transformational content. In fact, President Obama was known for being
a very charismatic leader in terms of both the messages he delivered and the mannerisms that
went along with them.105 It remains to be seen how President Trump’s speeches will be seen and
received by others.
SUMMARY: WHY ARE SOME LEADERS MORE EFFECTIVE
THAN OTHERS?
So what explains why some leaders are more effective than others? As shown in Figure 14-6,
answering that question requires an understanding of the particular styles that leaders use to make
decisions and the behaviors they perform in their leadership role. In terms of decision-making
461
462
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
TABLE 14-4
PRESIDENT
Transformational Rhetoric among U.S. Presidents
TERM
REMARK
WHICH “I”?
Abraham Lincoln
1861–1865
“Fourscore and seven years ago
our forefathers brought forth on
this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated
to the proposition that all men are
created equal.”
Idealized influence
Franklin Roosevelt
1933–1945
“First of all, let me assert my firm
belief that the only thing we have
to fear is fear itself—nameless,
unreasoning, unjustified terror
which paralyzes needed efforts to
convert retreat into advance.”
Inspirational
motivation
John F. Kennedy
1961–1963
“And so, my fellow Americans . . .
ask not what your country can do
you for you—ask what you can do
for your country. My fellow citizens
of the world: Ask not what
America will do for you, but
what together we can do for
the freedom of man.”
Intellectual
stimulation
Lyndon Johnson
1963–1969
“If future generations are to
remember us more with gratitude
than sorrow, we must achieve
more than just the miracles of
technology. We must also leave
them a glimpse of the world as it
was created, not just as it looked
when we got through with it.”
Idealized influence
Ronald Reagan
1981–1989
“General Secretary Gorbachev,
if you seek peace, if you seek
prosperity for the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate!
Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Idealized influence
Bill Clinton
1993–2001
“To realize the full possibilities
of this economy, we must reach
beyond our own borders, to shape
the revolution that is tearing down
barriers and building new networks among nations and individuals, and economies and cultures:
globalization. It’s the central reality
of our time.”
Intellectual
stimulation
Sources: J.S. Mio, R.E. Riggio, S. Levin, and R. Reese, “Presidential Leadership and Charisma: The Effects of Metaphor,”
Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005), pp. 287–94; http://www.usa-patriotism.com/quotes/_list.htm.
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
FIGURE 14-6
Why Are Some Leaders More Effective Than Others?
Optimal Choice of Decision-Making Styles
Delegative
Style
Facilitative
Style
Consultative
Style
Autocratic
Style
Optimal Mix of Day-to-Day Behaviors
Initiating
Structure
Consideration
Optimal Mix of Transactional and Transformational Behaviors
Transformational
Transactional:
Contingent-Reward
Transactional:
Active Managementby-Exception
Transactional:
Passive Managementby-Exception
Laissez-Faire
styles, do they choose the most effective combination of leader and follower control in terms of
the autocratic, consultative, facilitative, and delegative styles, particularly considering the importance of the decision and the expertise in the unit? In terms of day-to-day behaviors, do they
engage in adequate levels of initiating structure and consideration? Finally, do they utilize an effective combination of transactional leadership behaviors, such as contingent reward, and transformational leadership behaviors, such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration?
LEADER
EFFECTIVENESS
463
464
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
HOW IMPORTANT IS LEADERSHIP?
14.6
How does leadership affect
job performance and organizational commitment?
How important is leadership? As with some other topics in organizational behavior, that’s a
complicated question because “leadership” isn’t just one thing. Instead, all of the styles and
behaviors summarized in Figure 14-6 have their own unique importance. However, transformational leadership stands apart from the rest to some extent, with particularly strong effects in
organizations. For example, transformational leadership is more strongly related to unit-focused
measures of leadership effectiveness, like the kind shown in the top panel of Table 14-1.106 Units
led by a transformational leader tend to be more financially successful and bring higher-quality
products and services to market at a faster rate.107 Transformational leadership is also more
strongly related to dyad-focused measures of leader effectiveness, like the kind shown in the
bottom panel of Table 14-1. Transformational leaders tend to foster leader–member exchange
relationships that are of higher quality, marked by especially strong levels of mutual respect and
obligation.108
What if we focus specifically on the two outcomes in our integrative model of OB: performance and commitment? Figure 14-7 summarizes the research evidence linking transformational leadership to those two outcomes. The figure reveals that transformational leadership
indeed affects the job performance of the employees who report to the leader. Employees with
transformational leaders tend to have higher levels of task performance and engage in higher
levels of citizenship behaviors.109 Why? One reason is that employees with transformational
leaders have higher levels of motivation than other employees.110 They feel a stronger sense of
psychological empowerment, feel more self-confident, and set more demanding work goals for
themselves.111 Transformational leaders also help their followers frame stressful situations in
such a way that they are better able to cope with hindrance stressors and to be engaged by challenge stressors.112 (See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of these stressors.) They also trust
the leader more, making them willing to exert extra effort even when that effort might not be
immediately rewarded.113
Figure 14-7 also reveals that employees with transformational leaders tend to be more committed to their organization.114 They feel a stronger emotional bond with their organization and
a stronger sense of obligation to remain present and engaged in their work.115 Why? One reason
is that employees with transformational leaders have higher levels of job satisfaction than other
employees.116 One study showed that transformational leaders can make employees feel that
their jobs have more variety and significance, enhancing intrinsic satisfaction with the work
itself.117 Other studies have shown that charismatic leaders express positive emotions more
frequently and that those emotions are “caught” by employees through a sort of “emotional
contagion” process.118 For example, followers of transformational leaders tend to feel more
optimism and less frustration during their workday, which makes it a bit easier to stay committed to work.119
Although leadership is very important to unit effectiveness and the performance and commitment of employees, there are contexts in which the importance of the leader can be reduced.
The substitutes for leadership model suggests that certain characteristics of the situation can constrain the influence of the leader, making it more difficult for the leader to influence employee
performance.120 Those situational characteristics come in two varieties, as shown in Table 14-5.
Substitutes reduce the importance of the leader while simultaneously providing a direct benefit
to employee performance. For example, a cohesive work group can provide its own sort of governing behaviors, making the leader less relevant, while providing its own source of motivation
and job satisfaction. Neutralizers, in contrast, only reduce the importance of the leader; they
themselves have no beneficial impact on performance.121 For example, spatial distance lessens the
impact of a leader’s behaviors and styles, but distance itself has no direct benefit for employee job
performance.
The substitutes for leadership model offers a number of prescriptions for a better understanding of leadership in organizations. First, it can be used to explain why a leader who seemingly
“does the right things” doesn’t seem to be making any difference.122 It may be that the leader’s
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
FIGURE 14-7
Effects of Transformational Leadership on Performance and Commitment
Transformational
Leadership
Job
Performance
Transformational leadership has a moderate positive effect on Performance. Employees
with transformational leaders tend to have higher levels of Task Performance. They are
also more likely to engage in Citizenship Behavior. Less is known about the effects of
transformational leadership on Counterproductive Behavior.
Transformational
Leadership
Organizational
Commitment
Transformational leadership has a strong positive effect on Commitment. Employees
with transformational leaders tend to have higher levels of Affective Commitment and
higher levels of Normative Commitment. Transformational leadership has no effect on
Continuance Commitment.
Represents a strong correlation (around .50 in magnitude).
Represents a moderate correlation (around .30 in magnitude).
Represents a weak correlation (around .10 in magnitude).
Sources: T.A. Judge and R.F. Piccolo, “Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their
Relative Validity,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (2004), pp. 755–68; J.P. Meyer, D.J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch, and L.
Topolnytsky, “Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents,
Correlates, and Consequences,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 61 (2002), pp. 20–52; and P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie,
J.B. Paine, and D.G. Bachrach, “Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical
Literature and Suggestions for Future Research,” Journal of Management 26 (2000), pp. 513–63.
TABLE 14-5
SUBSTITUTES
Leader Substitutes and Neutralizers
DESCRIPTION
Task feedback
Receiving feedback on performance from the task itself
Training & experience
Gaining the knowledge to act independently of the leader
Professionalism
Having a professional specialty that offers guidance
Staff support
Receiving information and assistance from outside staff
Group cohesion
Working in a close-knit and interdependent work group
Intrinsic satisfaction
Deriving personal satisfaction from one’s work
NEUTRALIZERS
DESCRIPTION
Task stability
Having tasks with a clear, unchanging sequence of steps
Formalization
Having written policies and procedures that govern one’s job
Inflexibility
Working in an organization that prioritizes rule adherence
Spatial distance
Being separated from one’s leader by physical space
Source: Adapted from S. Kerr and J.M. Jermier, “Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22 (1978), pp. 375–403.
465
466
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
work context possesses high levels of neutralizers and substitutes. Second, it can be used to explain
what to do if an ineffective person is in a leadership role with no immediate replacement waiting
in the wings.123 If the leader can’t be removed, perhaps the organization can do things to make
that leader more irrelevant. Studies of the substitutes for leadership model have been inconsistent
in showing that substitutes and neutralizers actually make leaders less influential in the predicted
manner.124 What is clearer is that the substitutes in Table 14-5 have beneficial effects on the job
performance and organizational commitment of employees. In fact, the beneficial effects of the
substitutes is sometimes even greater than the beneficial effects of the leader’s own behaviors and
styles. Some leadership experts even recommend that leaders set out to create high levels of the
substitutes in their work units wherever possible, even if the units might ultimately wind up “running themselves.”125
APPLICATION: LEADERSHIP TRAINING
14.7
Can leaders be trained to
be more effective?
Given the importance of leadership, what can organizations do to maximize the effectiveness
of their leaders? One method is to spend more time training them. As mentioned in Chapter
8, organizations spend more than $150 billion on employee learning and development, and
much of that is devoted to management and supervisory training.126 One training analyst
explains the increasing emphasis on leadership training this way: “The biggest problem that
companies face today is an acute shortage of midlevel managers. They look around and just
don’t have enough qualified people.”127 This is exactly the determination that Walmart’s president and CEO Bill Simon made when he instituted a 16-week military-style leadership training
program. Walmart’s senior vice president of talent development, Celia Swanson, says, “Our
analysis showed we were capable of building new stores faster than we could prepare new
store managers.”128
Leadership training programs often focus on very specific issues, like conducting more accurate performance evaluations, being a more effective mentor, structuring creative problem solving,
or gaining more cultural awareness and sensitivity.129 However, training programs can also focus
on much of the content covered in this chapter. For example, content could focus on contextual
considerations that alter the effectiveness of decision-making styles or particular leader behaviors,
such as initiating structure and consideration. This is exactly what Campbell Soup Company is
doing through its “CEO Institute”—a two-year program focused on personal leadership development.130 Farmer’s Insurance puts all of its upper-level executives through a program that gives
them direct feedback from their peers on their leadership behaviors. The executives use this information to create individual leadership development plans.131
It turns out that many training programs focus on transformational leadership content, and
research suggests that those programs can be effective.132 One study of transformational leadership training occurred in one of the largest bank chains in Canada.133 Managers at all of the
branches in one region were randomly assigned to either a transformational training group or
a control group. The managers in the training group took part in a one-day training session that
began by asking them to describe the best and worst leaders they had ever encountered. Where
applicable, the behaviors mentioned as belonging to the best leaders were framed around transformational leadership. The transformational dimensions were then described in a lecture-style
format. Participants set goals for how they could behave more transformationally and engaged
in role-playing exercises to practice those behaviors. The managers then created specific action
plans, with progress on those plans monitored during four “booster sessions” over the next month.
The results of the study showed that managers who participated in the training were rated as more
transformational afterward. More importantly, their employees reported higher levels of organizational commitment, and their branches enjoyed better performance in terms of personal loan
sales and credit card sales.
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
TA K EAWAYS
14.1 Leadership is defined as the use of power and influence to direct the activities of followers
toward goal achievement. An “effective leader” improves the performance and well-being
of his or her overall unit, as judged by profit margins, productivity, costs, absenteeism,
retention, employee surveys, and so forth. An “effective leader” also cultivates high-quality
leader–member exchange relationships on a dyadic basis through role taking and role making processes.
14.2 Leader emergence has been linked to a number of traits, including conscientiousness,
disagreeableness, openness, extraversion, general cognitive ability, energy level, stress tolerance, and self-confidence. Of that set, the last six traits also predict leader effectiveness.
14.3 Leaders can use a number of styles to make decisions. Beginning with high leader control
and moving to high follower control, they include autocratic, consultative, facilitative, and
delegative styles. According to the time-driven model of leadership, the appropriateness
of these styles depends on decision significance, the importance of commitment, leader
expertise, the likelihood of commitment, shared objectives, employee expertise, and teamwork skills.
14.4 Most of the day-to-day leadership behaviors that leaders engage in are examples of either
initiating structure or consideration. Initiating structure behaviors include initiation, organization, and production sorts of duties. Consideration behaviors include membership,
integration, communication, recognition, and representation sorts of duties.
14.5 Transactional leadership emphasizes “carrot-and-stick” approaches to motivating employ-
ees, whereas transformational leadership fundamentally changes the way employees view
their work. More specifically, transformational leadership inspires employees to commit
to a shared vision or goal that provides meaning and challenge to their work. The specific
behaviors that underlie transformational leadership include the “Four I’s”: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
14.6 Transformational leadership has a moderate positive relationship with job performance
and a strong positive relationship with organizational commitment. It has stronger effects
on these outcomes than other leadership behaviors.
14.7 Leaders can be trained to be effective. In fact, such training can be used to increase trans-
formational leadership behaviors, despite the fact that charisma is somewhat dependent on
personality and genetic factors.
KE Y T ERMS
• Leadership
• Leader–member exchange
theory
• Role taking
• Role making
• Leader effectiveness
• Leader emergence
• Autocratic style
• Consultative style
• Facilitative style
• Delegative style
p. 444
p. 444
p. 444
p. 444
p. 446
p. 446
p. 447
p. 448
p. 448
p. 448
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Time-driven model of leadership
Initiating structure
Consideration
Life cycle theory of leadership
Readiness
Telling
Selling
Participating
Delegating
Transformational leadership
Laissez-faire leadership
p. 449
p. 452
p. 452
p. 453
p. 453
p. 453
p. 455
p. 455
p. 455
p. 456
p. 457
467
468
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transactional leadership
Passive management-by-exception
Active management-by-exception
Contingent reward
Idealized influence
Inspirational motivation
p. 457
p. 457
p. 457
p. 457
p. 458
p. 460
•
•
•
•
•
Intellectual stimulation
Individualized consideration
Substitutes for leadership model
Substitutes
Neutralizers
p. 460
p. 460
p. 464
p. 464
p. 464
DI SC US SION QUE STION S
14.1 Before reading this chapter, which statement did you feel was more accurate: “Leaders are
born” or “Leaders are made”? How do you feel now, and why do you feel that way?
14.2 The time-sensitive model of leadership argues that leaders aren’t just concerned about the
accuracy of their decisions when deciding among autocratic, consultative, facilitative, and
delegative styles; they’re also concerned about the efficient use of time. What other considerations could influence a leader’s use of the four decision-making styles?
14.3 The time-sensitive and life cycle models of leadership both potentially suggest that leaders
should use different styles and behaviors for different followers. Can you think of any negative consequences of that advice? How could those negative consequences be managed?
14.4 Consider the four dimensions of transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspi-
rational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Which of
those dimensions would you respond to most favorably? Why?
14.5 Can you think of any potential “dark sides” to transformational leadership? What would
they be?
CASE: GEN E RAL MOTORS
When she gets out of bed, what does Mary Barra (CEO of GM) think about? “I spend a lot
of early mornings thinking about executing our plan quickly. The big thing I worry about is
speed,” says Barra. CFO Chuck Stevens agrees, highlighting a statement from the faulty ignition
switch internal investigation about the culture at GM, “No sense of urgency. No accountability
or responsibility. A siloed mentality.” Barra has reacted quickly and with force to make culture
change a reality by implementing a number of initiatives including “GM 2020,” which is a
program designed to create cross-functional labs throughout the company. Barra has also pushed
hard to create a new culture of speed by creating a year-long transformational leadership course
for upper-level executives that Barra personally leads. It’s not focused on company strategy, but
rather the interpersonal skills she believes are necessary to create change. HR chief John Quattrone says, “Mary believes that if we change the behaviors [of top managers], people who work
for us will see that and emulate it.”
Barra’s major vision for GM is to lead in safe autonomous driving. This puts them directly up
against the fast-moving cultures of Google, Uber, and Tesla. Barra believes GM’s recent acquisition of Cruise Automation ($581 million) puts them square in the driver’s seat. After a successful, high-profile test of an autonomous Chevy Bolt (with Barra riding in the back seat), Barra
told a large group of Cruise employees, “If somebody [at GM] says you can’t have something, or
you can’t do something, or it’s going to take this much time, and it doesn’t make sense to you,
challenge them. I want you to take the energy and speed and how you look at doing things and
drive it into the core of GM.”
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
GM believes that they have the advantage. GM product chief Mark Reuss says, “The piece
that is not well understood outside of the automotive industry is how hard it is to take technology
and integrate it into a car. It seems like you should be able to layer it in and have it work and that
would be great. Right. The effort to integrate that into the car is equal to or more than the technology itself. A car has to work right every time, all the time.” So far, the technology companies
have spent billions of dollars in development and have little to show for it. Still, Barra is not willing to bask in success for long. Onstage at GM’s headquarters she told her group, “Don’t confuse
progress with winning. Are you doing what you can? Or are you doing what it takes to win?”
14.1 Do you think GM can outduel the technology companies for safe autonomous driving
vehicles?
14.2 Would you consider Mary Barra to be the prototypical transformational leader? In what
ways does she fit or not fit that model?
14.3 Given GM’s history, why does Barra put a premium on her executives’ leadership
behaviors?
Source: M. DeBord. “Mary Barra Is About to Become the Most Influential CEO in GM History,” BusinessInsider.com,
February 17, 2017: http://www.businessinsider.com/mary-barra-most-influential-ceo-in-gm-history-2017-2; C. Fussman.
“What I’ve Learned: Mary Barra,” Esquire.com, April 26, 2016: http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/cars/interviews/a44325/
what-ive-learned-mary-barra/; P. Ingrassia. “Hail Mary,” Fortune, September 15, 2016, pp. 84–89; B. Luscombe. “13 Questions with Mary Barra,” Time, June 2, 2016: http://time.com/4354740/mary-barra/; and R. Tetzeli. “The Accelerators,”
Fast Company, November 2016, pp. 68–74, 100.
EX ER C ISE: TA K E ME TO YOUR LE AD E R
The purpose of this exercise is to explore the commonalities in effective leadership across different types of leaders. This exercise uses groups, so your instructor will either assign you to a
group or ask you to create your own group. The exercise has the following steps:
14.1 Imagine that a space alien descended down to Earth and actually uttered the famous line,
“Take me to your leader!” Having read a bit about leadership, your group knows that leaders come in a number of shapes and sizes. Instead of showing the alien just one leader,
your group decides it might be beneficial to show the alien a whole variety of leaders. Each
member should choose one type of leader from the table to focus on (each member must
choose a different type). Try to choose examples that are personally interesting but that also
maximize the diversity within the group.
Orchestra Conductor
Fashion Designer
Drummer in Rock Band
Coach
Personal Tax Accountant
Point Guard in Basketball
Film Director
Nightclub DJ
Bartender
College Professor
Fitness Trainer
Sheriff
Talk-Show Host
Prison Guard
Millionaire Philanthropist
Stockbroker
Real Estate Broker
Agent
Psychotherapist
MBA Program Director
Auditor
Campaign Manager
Construction Project Supervisor
CEO
Diplomat
Sports Color Commentator
Vice President of Marketing
469
470
C H A P T E R 1 4    Leadership: Styles and Behaviors
14.2 Individually, jot down some thoughts that highlight for the alien what is truly distinctive
about “leadership” for this type of leader. For example, if you were showing the alien a
coach, you might call attention to how coaches cannot control the game itself very much
but instead must make their influence felt on the practice field by instilling skills while being
anticipatory in their thinking. You might also call attention to how coaches need to be creative and adapt quickly during the game itself.
14.3 Share the thoughts you’ve jotted down in your groups, going from member to member, with
each person describing what “leadership” means for the given types of leaders.
14.4 Once all these thoughts about the various types of leaders have been shared, think about
whether there are certain traits, styles, or behaviors that are universal across all the types.
For example, maybe all of the types have some kind of organizing quality to them (e.g., leaders need to be organized, leaders need to do things to help others be organized). Create a
list of four “leadership universals.”
14.5 Now consider the situational challenges faced by the types of leaders you discussed, includ-
ing challenges rooted in the task, their followers, or the surrounding work context. For
example, the fact that the coach has little direct impact on the game is a situational challenge. Do other leader types also grapple with lack of direct control? Create a list of four
“situational challenges” faced by multiple types of leaders.
14.6 Elect a group member to write the group’s four universals and four challenges on the board.
14.7 Class discussion (whether in groups or as a class) should center on whether the theories
described in the chapter discuss some of the leadership universals identified by the groups.
Are there theories that also include some of the situational challenges uncovered? Which
leadership theory seems best equipped for explaining effective leadership across a wide variety of leader types?134
EN DN OTES
14.1 Yukl, G. Leadership in
Organizations, 4th ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1998.
14.2 Ibid.
14.3 Ibid.
14.4 Ibid.
14.5 Dansereau, F. Jr.; G.
Graen; and W.J. Haga.
“A Vertical Dyad
Linkage Approach
to Leadership within
Formal Organizations: A Longitudinal
Investigation of the
Role Making Process.” Organizational
Behavior and Human
Performance 13
(1975), pp. 46–78;
Graen, G.; M. Novak;
and P. Sommerkamp.
“The Effects of
Leader–Member
Exchange and Job
Design on Productivity and Satisfaction:
Testing a Dual Attachment Model.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance
30 (1982), pp.
109–31; Graen, G.B.,
and M. Uhl-Bien.
“Relationship-Based
Approach to Leadership: Development
of Leader–Member
Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over
25 Years: Applying
a Multi-Level MultiDomain Perspective.”
Leadership Quarterly
6 (1995), pp. 219–47;
and Liden, R.C.; R.T.
Sparrowe; and S.J.
Wayne. “Leader–
Member Exchange
Theory: The Past
and Potential for the
Future.” In Research in
Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Vol. 15, ed. G.R.
Ferris. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press, 1997,
pp. 47–119.
College of Administrative and Financial Sciences
Assignment 3
Deadline: 28/11/2020 @ 23:59
Course Name: Organizational Behavior
Student’s Name:
Course Code: MGT301
Student’s ID Number:
Semester: 1st
CRN:
Academic Year: 1441/1442 H
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name: Dr xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Students’ Grade: Marks Obtained/ 05
Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low
Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
• The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated
folder.
• Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
• Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be
reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
• Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
• Late submission will NOT be accepted.
• Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or
other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
• All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font.
No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
• Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Course Learning Outcomes-Covered
1 Develop the problem-solving skills for teamwork especially if the problem relates to the task
(Lo 3.2).
Assignment 3
Reference Source:
Textbook:Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2019). Organizational behaviour: Improving
performance and commitment in the workplace (6th ed). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Case Study: –
Case: General Motors
Please read the case “General Motors” from Chapter 14 “Leadership: Styles and Behaviors”
Page: – 469 given in your textbook – Organizational behaviour: Improving performance and
commitment in the workplace (6th ed). by Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2019) and
Answer the following Questions:
Assignment Question(s):
1. Do you think GM can outduel the technology companies for safe autonomous driving
vehicles? (1.25 Marks ) (Min words 150-200)
2. Would you consider Mary Barra to be the prototypical transformational leader? In what
ways does she fit or not fit that model? (1.25 Marks ) (Min words 200-250)
3. Given GM’s history, why does Barra put a premium on her executives’ leadership
behaviours? (1.25 Marks ) (Min words 200)
Important Note:- Support your submission with course material concepts, principles, and theories
from the textbook and at least two scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles.
Part:-2
Discussion Question: Please read Chapter 14 “Leadership: Styles and Behaviors” carefully
and then give your answers on the basis of your understanding.
4. Before reading this chapter, which statement did you feel was more accurate: “Leaders are born”
or “Leaders are made”? How do you feel now, and why do you feel that way? (1.25 Marks ) (Min
words 200-300)
Important Note:- Support your submission with course material concepts, principles, and theories
from the textbook and at least two scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles.
Due date for the submission of Assignment:- 3
• Assignment-3 should posted in the Black Board by end of Week-11.
• The due date for the submission of Assignment-3 is end of Week-13.
Answer:
1.
2.
3.
.
.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Why Choose Us

• 100% non-plagiarized Papers
• 24/7 /365 Service Available
• Affordable Prices
• Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
• Will complete your papers in 6 hours
• On-time Delivery
• Money-back and Privacy guarantees
• Unlimited Amendments upon request
• Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

• Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
• Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
• Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
• Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
• From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.