A key way of differentiating between the two is to argue that the role of management is to promote stability or to enable the organization to run smoothly, whereas the role of leadership is to promote adaptive or useful changes.^[573] Persons in managerial positions could be involved with both management and leadership activities, or they could emphasize one activity at the expense of the other. Both management and leadership are needed, however, and if managers do not assume responsibility for both, then they should ensure that someone else handles the neglected activity. The point is that when we discuss leadership, we do not assume it is identical to management.

For our purposes, we treat leadership as the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.^[574] Leadership appears in two forms: (1) formal leadership, which is exerted by persons appointed or elected to positions of formal authority in organizations, and (2) informal leadership, which is exerted by persons who become influential because they have special skills that meet the needs of others. Although both types are important in organizations, this chapter will emphasize formal leadership.^[575]

The leadership literature is vast—thousands of studies at last count—and consists of numerous approaches.^[576] We have grouped these approaches into two chapters: Leadership Essentials, Chapter 13, and Strategic Leadership and Organizational Change, Chapter 14. This chapter focuses on trait and behavioral theory perspectives, attributional and symbolic leadership perspectives, and transformational and charismatic leadership approaches. Chapter 14 deals with such leadership challenges as how to be a moral leader, how to share leadership, how to lead across cultures, how to be a strategic leader of major units, and, of course, how to lead change. Many of the perspectives in each chapter include several models. While each of these models may be useful to you in a given work setting, we invite you to mix and match them as necessary in your setting, just as we did earlier with the motivational models discussed in Chapter 5.

For over a century scholars have attempted to identify the key characteristics that separate leaders from nonleaders. Much of this work stressed traits. Trait perspectives assume that traits play a central role in differentiating between leaders and nonleaders in that leaders must have the "right stuff."^[577] The great person-trait approach reflects the attempt to use traits to separate leaders from nonleaders. This list of possible traits identified only became longer as researchers focused on the leadership traits linked to successful leadership and organizational performance. Unfortunately, few of the same traits were identified across studies. Part of the problem was inadequate theory, poor measurement of traits, and the confusion between managing and leading.

Figure 13.1. Traits with positive implications for successful leadership.

Fortunately, recent research has yielded promising results. A number of traits have been found that help identify important leadership strengths, as outlined in Figure 13.1. As it turns out, most of these traits also tend to predict leadership outcomes.^[578]

Key traits of leaders include ambition, motivation, honesty, self-confidence, and a high need for achievement. They crave power not as an end in itself but as a means to achieve a vision or desired goals. At the same time, they have to be emotionally mature enough to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses, and oriented toward self-improvement. Furthermore, to be trusted, they must have authenticity; without trust, they cannot hope to maintain the loyalty of their followers. Leaders are not easily discouraged and stick to a chosen course of action as they push toward goal accomplishment. At the same time, they must be able to deal with the large amount of information they receive on a regular basis. They do not need to be brilliant, but usually exhibit above-average intelligence. In addition, leaders have a good understanding of their social setting and possess extensive knowledge concerning their industry, firm, and job.

Even with these traits, however, the individual still needs to be engaged. To lead is to influence others, and so we turn to the question of how a leader should act.

How should leaders act toward subordinates? The behavioral perspective assumes that leadership is central to performance and other outcomes. However, instead of underlying traits, behaviors are considered. Two classic research programs—at the University of Michigan and at the Ohio State University—provide useful insights into leadership behaviors.

Michigan Studies In the late 1940s, researchers at the University of Michigan sought to identify the leadership pattern that results in effective performance. From interviews of high- and low-performing groups in different organizations, the researchers derived two basic forms of leader behaviors: employee-centered and production-centered. Employee-centered supervisors are those who place strong emphasis on their subordinates' welfare. In contrast, production-centered supervisors are more concerned with getting the work done. In general, employee-centered supervisors were found to have more productive workgroups than did the production-centered supervisors.^[579]

These behaviors may be viewed on a continuum, with employee-centered supervisors at one end and production-centered supervisors at the other. Sometimes, the more general terms human-relations oriented and task oriented are used to describe these alternative leader behaviors.

Ohio State Studies At about the same time as the Michigan studies, an important leadership research program began at the Ohio State University. A questionnaire was administered in both industrial and military settings to measure subordinates' perceptions of their superiors' leadership behavior. The researchers identified two dimensions similar to those found in the Michigan studies: consideration and initiating structure.^[580] A highly considerate leader was found to be sensitive to people's feelings and, much like the employee-centered leader, tries to make things pleasant for his or her followers. In contrast, a leader high in initiating structure was found to be more concerned with defining task requirements and other aspects of the work agenda; he or she might be seen as similar to a production-centered supervisor. These dimensions are related to what people sometimes refer to as socio-emotional and task leadership, respectively.

At first, the Ohio State researchers believed that a leader high in consideration, or socio-emotional warmth, would have more highly satisfied or better performing subordinates. Later results suggested, however, that many individuals in leadership positions should be high in both consideration and initiating structure. This dual emphasis is reflected in the leadership grid approach.^[581]

Tiger Woods Masters Uncertainty

The consulting firm Accenture is running a series of ads featuring legendary golfer Tiger Woods. In one Tiger shades his eyes and looks ahead with an iron in hand, pondering a shot. The ad asks: "How can you plan ahead when you can hardly see ahead?" The leadership message is one of finding strength to master uncertainty.

The Leadership Grid Robert Blake and Jane Mouton developed the leadership grid approach based on extensions of the Ohio State dimensions. Leadership grid results are plotted on a nine-position grid that places concern for production on the horizontal axis and concern for people on the vertical axis, where 1 is minimum concern and 9 is maximum concern. As an example, those with a 1/9 style—low concern for production and high concern for people—are termed "country club management." They do not emphasize task accomplishment but stress the attitudes, feelings, and social needs of people.

Similarly, leaders with a 1/1 style—low concern for both production and people—are termed "impoverished," while a 5/5 style is labeled "middle of the road." A 9/1 leader—high concern for production and low concern for people—has a "task management" style. Finally, a 9/9 leader, high on both dimensions, is considered to have a "team management" style, the ideal leader in Blake and Mouton's framework.

RESEARCH INSIGHT

Participatory Leadership and Peace

In an unusual cross-cultural organizational behavior study, Gretchen Spreitzer examined the link between business leadership practices and indicators of peace in nations. She found that earlier research suggested that peaceful societies had (1) open and egalitarian decision making, and (2) social control processes that limit the use of coercive power. These two characteristics are the hallmarks of participatory systems that empower people in the collective. She reasoned that business firms can provide open egalitarian decisions by stressing participative leadership and empowerment.

Spreitzer also recognized that broad cultural factors could also be important. The degree to which the culture is future oriented and power distance appeared relevant. And she reasoned that she needed specific measures of peace. She selected two major indicators: (a) the level of corruption, and (b) the level of unrest. The measure of unrest was a combined measure of political instability, armed conflict, social unrest, and international disputes. While she found a large leadership database that directly measured participative leadership, she developed the measures of empowerment from another apparently unrelated survey. Two items appeared relevant: the decision freedom individuals reported (decision freedom), and the degree to which they felt they had to comply with their boss regardless of whether they agreed with an order (compliance).

You can schematically think of this research in terms of the following model.

As one might expect with exploratory research, the findings support most of her hypotheses but not all. Participative leadership was related to less corruption and less unrest as was the future-oriented aspect of culture. Regarding empowerment, there were mixed results; decision freedom was linked to less corruption and unrest but the compliance measure was only linked to more unrest.

What Do You Think?

Do you agree that when business used participatory leadership, it made the democratically based style legitimate and increased the opportunity for individuals to express their voice? What other research could be done to determine the link between leadership and peace?^[583]

Source: Gretchen Spreitzer "Giving Peace a Chance: Organizational Leadership, Empowerment, and Peace," Journal of Organizational Behavior 28 (2007), pp. 1077–1095.

Cross-Cultural Implications It is important to consider whether the findings of the Michigan, Ohio State, and grid studies transfer across national boundaries. Some research in the United States, Britain, Hong Kong, and Japan shows that the behaviors must be carried out in different ways in alternative cultures. For instance, British leaders are seen as considerate if they show subordinates how to use equipment, whereas in Japan the highly considerate leader helps subordinates with personal problems.^[582] We will see this pattern again as we discuss other theories. The concept seems to transfer across boundaries but the actual behaviors differ. Sometimes the differences are slight but in other cases, they are not. Even subtle differences in the leader's situation can make a significant difference in precisely the type of behavior needed for success. Successful leaders adjust their influence attempts to the situation.

Fred Fiedler's leadership contingency view argues that team effectiveness depends on an appropriate match between a leader's style, essentially a trait measure, and the demands of the situation.^[586] Specifically, Fiedler considers situational control—the extent to which a leader can determine what his or her group is going to do as well as the outcomes of the group's actions and decisions.

To measure a person's leadership style, Fiedler uses an instrument called the least—preferred co-worker (LPC) scale. Respondents are asked to describe the person with whom they have been able to work least well—their least preferred co-worker, or LPC—using a series of adjectives such as the following two:

Fiedler argues that high-LPC leaders (those describing their LPC very positively) have a relationship-motivated style, whereas low-LPC leaders have a task-motivated style. Because LPC is a style and does not change across settings, the leaders' actions vary depending upon the degree of situational control. Specifically, a task-motivated leader (low LPC) tends to be nondirective in high- and low-control situations, and directive in those in between. A relationship-motivated leader tends to be the opposite. Confused? Take a look at Figure 13.2 to clarify the differences between high-LPC leaders and low-LPC leaders.

Figure 13.2 shows the task-motivated leader as having greater group effectiveness under high and low situational control and the relationship-motivated leader as having a more effective group in those in-between situations. The figure also shows that Fiedler measures the range of control with the following three variables arranged in the situational combinations indicated:

Figure 13.2. Fiedler's situational variables and their preferred leadership styles.

Consider an experienced and well-trained production supervisor of a group that is responsible for manufacturing a part for a personal computer. The leader is highly supported by his group members and can grant raises and make hiring and firing decisions. This supervisor has very high situational control and is operating in situation 1 in Figure 13.2. For such high-control situations, a task-oriented leader style is predicted as the most effective. Now consider the opposite setting. Think of the chair of a student council committee of volunteers who are unhappy about this person being the chair. They have the low-structured task of organizing a Parents' Day program to improve university-parent relations. This low-control situation also calls for a task-motivated leader who needs to behave directively to keep the group together and focus on the task; in fact, the situation demands it. Finally, consider a well-liked academic department chair who is in charge of determining the final list of students who will receive departmental honors at the end of the academic year. This is a moderate-control situation with good leader-member relations, low task structure, and weak position power, calling for a relationship-motivated leader. The leader should emphasize nondirective and considerate relationships with the faculty.

Fiedler's Cognitive Resource Perspective Fiedler eventually moved beyond his contingency approach by developing a cognitive resource perspective.^[587] Cognitive resources are abilities or competencies. According to this approach, whether a leader should use directive or nondirective behavior depends on the following situational contingencies: (1) the leader's or subordinate group members' ability or competency, (2) stress, (3) experience, and (4) group support of the leader. Basically, cognitive resource theory is most useful because it directs us to leader or subordinate group-member ability, an aspect not typically considered in other leadership approaches.

Department of Homeland Security's Janet Napolitano

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told the House Homeland Security Committee her priorities include better interaction with state and local governments, improving immigration enforcement, and improving the Federal Emergency Management Administration's ability to support local first-responders in a disaster.

The theory views directiveness as most helpful for performance when the leader is competent, relaxed, and supported. In this case, the group is ready, and directiveness is the clearest means of communication. When the leader feels stressed, his or her attention is diverted. In this case, experience is more important than ability. If support is low, then the group is less receptive, and the leader has less impact. Group-member ability becomes most important when the leader is nondirective and receives strong support from group members. If support is weak, then task difficulty or other factors have more impact than either the leader or the subordinates.

Evaluation and Application The roots of Fiedler's contingency approach date back to the 1960s and have elicited both positive and negative reactions. The biggest controversy concerns exactly what Fiedler's LPC instrument measures. Some question Fiedler's behavioral interpretations that link the style measure with leader behavior in all eight conditions. Furthermore, the approach makes the most accurate predictions in situations 1 and 8 and 4 and 5; results are less consistent in the other situations.^[588] Tests regarding cognitive resources have shown mixed results.^[589]

In terms of application, Fiedler has developed leader match training, which Sears, Roebuck and Co. and other organizations have used. Leaders are trained to diagnose the situation in order to "match" their LPC score. The red arrows in Figure 13.2 suggest a "match." In cases with no "match," the training shows how each of these situational control variables can be changed to obtain a match. For instance, a leader with a low LPC and in setting 4 could change the position power to strong and gain a "match." Another way of getting a match is through leader selection or placement based on LPC scores.^[590] For example, a low LPC leader would be selected for a position with high situational control, as in our earlier example of the manufacturing supervisor. A number of studies have been designed to test this leader match training. Although they are not uniformly supportive, more than a dozen such tests have found increases in group effectiveness following the training.^[591]

We conclude that although there are still unanswered questions concerning Fiedler's contingency theory, especially concerning the meaning of LPC, the perspective and the leader match program have relatively strong support.^[592] The approach and training program are especially useful in encouraging situational contingency thinking.

Another well-known approach to situational contingencies is one developed by Robert House based on the earlier work of others.^[593] House's path-goal view of leadership has its roots in the expectancy model of motivation discussed in Chapter 5. The term "path-goal" is used because of its emphasis on how a leader influences subordinates' perceptions of both work goals and personal goals, and the links, or paths, found between these two sets of goals.

The theory assumes that a leader's key function is to adjust his or her behaviors to complement situational contingencies, such as those found in the work setting. House argues that when the leader is able to compensate for things lacking in the setting, subordinates are likely to be satisfied with the leader. For example, the leader could help remove job ambiguity or show how good performance could lead to an increase in pay. Performance should improve as the paths by which (1) effort leads to performance—expectancy—and (2) performance leads to valued rewards—instrumentality—becomes clarified.

House's approach is summarized in Figure 13.3. The figure shows four types of leader behavior (directive, supportive, achievement oriented, and participative) and two categories of situational contingency variables (subordinate attributes and work-setting attributes). The leader behaviors are adjusted to complement the situational contingency variables in order to influence subordinate satisfaction, acceptance of the leader, and motivation for task performance.

Before delving into the dynamics of the House model, it is important to understand each component. Directive leadership has to do with spelling out the subordinates' tasks; it is much like the initiating structure mentioned earlier. Supportive leadership focuses on subordinate needs and well-being and on promoting a friendly work climate; it is similar to consideration. Achievement-oriented leadership emphasizes setting challenging goals, stressing excellence in performance, and showing confidence in the group members' ability to achieve high standards of performance. Participative leadership focuses on consulting with subordinates, and seeking and taking their suggestions into account before making decisions.

Figure 13.3. Summary of major path-goal relationships in House's leadership approach.

Important subordinate characteristics are authoritarianism (close-mindedness, rigidity), internal-external orientation (i.e., locus of control), and ability. The key work-setting factors are the nature of the subordinates' tasks (task structure), the formal authority system, and the primary workgroup.

Predictions from Path-Goal Theory Directive leadership is predicted to have a positive impact on subordinates when the task is ambiguous; it is predicted to have just the opposite effect for clear tasks. In addition, the theory predicts that when ambiguous tasks are being performed by highly authoritarian and close-minded subordinates, even more directive leadership is called for.

Supportive leadership is predicted to increase the satisfaction of subordinates who work on highly repetitive tasks or on tasks considered to be unpleasant, stressful, or frustrating. In this situation the leader's supportive behavior helps compensate for adverse conditions. For example, many would consider traditional assembly-line auto worker jobs to be highly repetitive, perhaps even unpleasant or frustrating. A supportive supervisor could help make these jobs more enjoyable. Achievement-oriented leadership is predicted to encourage subordinates to strive for higher performance standards and to have more confidence in their ability to meet challenging goals. For subordinates in ambiguous, nonrepetitive jobs, achievement-oriented leadership should increase their expectations that effort leads to desired performance.

Participative leadership is predicted to promote satisfaction on nonrepetitive tasks that allow for the ego involvement of subordinates. For example, on a challenging research project, participation allows employees to feel good about dealing independently with the demands of the project. On repetitive tasks, open-minded or nonauthoritarian subordinates will also be satisfied with a participative leader. On a task where employees screw nuts on bolts hour after hour, for example, those who are nonauthoritarian will appreciate having a leader who allows them to get involved in ways that may help break up the monotony.

Evaluation and Application House's path-goal approach has been with us for more than 30 years. Early work provided some support for the theory in general and for the particular predictions discussed earlier.^[594] However, current assessments by well-known scholars have pointed out that many aspects have not been tested adequately, and there is very little current research concerning the theory.^[595] House recently revised and extended path-goal theory into the theory of work-unit leadership. It's beyond our scope to discuss the details of this new theory, but as a base the new theory expands the list of leader behaviors beyond those in path-goal theory, including aspects of both leadership theory and emerging challenges of leadership.^[596] It remains to be seen how much research it will generate.

In terms of application there is enough support for the original path-goal theory to suggest two possibilities. First, training could be used to change leadership behavior to fit the situational contingencies. Second, the leader could be taught to diagnose the situation and learn how to try to change the contingencies, as in leader match.

Like other situational contingency approaches, the situational leadership model developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard indicates that there is no single best way to lead.^[597] Hersey and Blanchard focus on the situational contingency of maturity, or "readiness," of followers, in particular. Readiness is the extent to which people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task. Hersey and Blanchard argue that "situational" leadership requires adjusting the leader's emphasis on task behaviors—for instance, giving guidance and direction—and relationship behaviors—for example, providing socioemotional support—according to the readiness of followers to perform their tasks. Figure 13.4 identifies four leadership styles: delegating, participating, selling, and telling. Each emphasizes a different combination of task and relationship behaviors by the leader. The figure also suggests the following situational matches as the best choice of leadership style for followers at each of four readiness levels.

This situational leadership approach requires the leader to develop the capability to diagnose the demands of situations and then to choose and implement the appropriate leadership response. The model gives specific attention to followers and their feelings about the task at hand and suggests that an effective leader focus on emerging changes in the level of readiness of the people involved in the work.

Figure 13.4. Hersey and Blanchard model of situational leadership.

In spite of its considerable history and incorporation into training programs by a large number of firms, this situational leadership approach has received very little systematic research attention.^[598]

Still another situational contingency perspective is Graen's leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. This perspective emphasizes the quality of the working relationship between leaders and followers. An LMX scale assesses the degree to which leaders and followers have mutual respect for one another's capabilities, feel a deepening sense of mutual trust, and have a strong sense of obligation to one another. Taken together, these dimensions tend to establish the extent to which followers will be a part of the leader's "in-group" or "out-group."^[599]

In-group followers tend to function as assistants, lieutenants, or advisers and to have higher-quality personalized exchanges with the leader than do out-group followers. The out-group followers tend to emphasize more formalized job requirements, and a relatively low level of mutual influence exists between leaders and out-group followers. The more personalized in-group exchanges typically involve a leader's emphasis on assignments to interesting tasks, delegation of important responsibilities, information sharing, and participation in the leader's decisions, as well as special benefits, such as personal support, approval, and favorable work schedules.

It is easy to say a manager should have a better leader-member exchange relationship with his or her followers. Mastering Management provides some tips on developing better relationships with an "in-group" of subordinates.^[600]

Research suggests that high-quality LMX is associated with increased follower satisfaction and productivity, decreased turnover, increased salaries, and faster promotion rates. These findings are encouraging, and the approach continues to receive increasing emphasis in organizational behavior research literature worldwide. Of course, many questions remain, such as: What happens in the event of too much disparity in the treatment of in-group and out-group members? Will out-group members become resentful and sabotage team efforts? Much more needs to be learned about how the in-group/out-group exchange starts in the first place and how these relations develop and change over time.^[601]

A final situational contingency approach is leadership substitutes.^[602] Scholars using this approach have developed a perspective indicating that sometimes hierarchical leadership makes essentially no difference. These researchers contend that certain individuals, jobs, and organization variables can serve as substitutes for leadership or neutralize a leader's impact on subordinates. Some examples of these variables are shown in Figure 13.5.

Substitutes for leadership make a leader's influence either unnecessary or redundant in that they replace a leader's influence. For example, in Figure 13.5 it will be unnecessary and perhaps impossible for a leader to provide the kind of task-oriented direction already available from an experienced, talented, and well-trained subordinate. In contrast, neutralizers can prevent a leader from behaving in a certain way or nullify the effects of a leader's actions. If a leader has little formal authority or is physically separated, for example, his or her leadership may be nullified even though task supportiveness may still be needed.

Research suggests some support for the general notion of substitutes for leadership.^[603] First, studies involving Mexican, U.S., and Japanese workers suggests both similarities and differences between various substitutes in the countries examined. Again, there were subtle but important differences across the national samples. Second, a systematic review of 17 studies found mixed results for the substitutes theory. The review suggested a need to broaden the list of substitutes and leader behaviors. It was also apparent that the approach is especially important in examining self-directed work teams. In such teams, for example, in place of a hierarchical leader specifying standards and ways of achieving goals (task-oriented behaviors), the team might set its own standards and substitute them for those of the leader's.

Figure 13.5. Some examples of leadership substitutes and neutralizers.

Central to the substitutes for leadership perspective is the question of whether leadership makes a difference at all levels of the organization. At least one researcher has suggested that at the very top of today's complex firms, the leadership of the CEO makes little difference compared to environmental and industry forces. These leaders are typically accountable to so many groups of people for the resources they use that their leadership impact is greatly constrained, so the argument goes. Instead of a dramatic and important effect, much of the impact a top leader has is little more than symbolic. Further, much of what is described as CEO leadership is actually explanations to legitimize their actions.^[604]

Such symbolic treatment of leadership occurs particularly when performance is either extremely high or extremely low or when the situation is such that many people could have been responsible for the performance. The late James Meindl and his colleagues call this phenomenon the romance of leadership, whereby people attribute romantic, almost magical, qualities to leadership.^[605] Consider the firing of a baseball manager or football coach whose team does not perform well. Neither the owner nor anyone else is really sure why this occurred. But the owner can't fire all the players, so a new team manager is brought in to symbolize "a change in leadership" that is "sure to turn the team around."

Recall from Chapter 4 that attribution theory focuses on inferences people make when trying to understand causes, assess responsibilities, and evaluate personal qualities. People often attribute a cause or causes to an outcome even though they may not really know who is responsible or why it occurred. Think about a work group or student organization that you feel performs really well. Now assume that you are asked to describe the leader on one of the leadership scales discussed earlier in the chapter. If you are like many others, the group's high performance probably encouraged you to describe the leader favorably; in other words you attributed (inferred) good things to the leader based on the group's performance. Similarly, recall that leaders themselves make attributions about subordinate performance and react differently depending on those attributions. For example, if leaders attribute an employee's poor performance to lack of effort, they may issue a reprimand, whereas if they attribute the poor performance to an external factor, such as work overload, they will probably try to fix the problem. A great deal of evidence supports attributional views of subordinates and leaders.^[607]

Some researchers have concentrated on the inference processes of subordinates and leaders to develop inference-based attribution models. Such models emphasizes leadership effectiveness as inferred by followers based on how followers depict group or organizational performance outcomes.^[608] If the group or organization is seen as performing well, they tend to attribute good leadership to the person in charge. If not, they attribute poor leadership to the head manager. While you might want to dismiss such a simplistic view, most individuals have considerable difficulty separating the performance of the unit from the performance of the unit head. Further, when good things happen, we all like to attribute success to individuals. Finally, many of the depictions of successful corporate leaders are based on an inference perspective. How could the top manager be incompetent if the organization is performing well? The CEO could be lucky or basking in the glow of a prior executive's decisions.

Leadership prototypes are the second form of leadership considered to be in the mind of the beholder. Here, researchers argue that people have a mental image of the characteristics that make a "good" leader or that a "real" leader would possess to be considered effective in a given situation. Leadership prototypes are an alternative way to the inference-based approach to assess leadership and are termed recognition based. You may not be able to define great leadership, so to speak, but you know a great leader when you see one.^[609] These prototypes may be based on leadership legacies from the past as suggested in OB Savvy 13.1.^[610]

These recognition-based prototypes usually consist of a mix of specific, and more general, characteristics. For example, a prototype of a bank president would differ in many ways from that of a high-ranking military officer. However, you could expect some core characteristics reflecting leaders in our society in general—for example, integrity and self efficacy.^[611] You also would expect differences in prototypes by country and by national culture. For example, a typical business leader prototype in Japan is described as responsible, educated, trustworthy, intelligent, and disciplined whereas those in the United States are portrayed as determined, goal oriented, verbally skilled, industrious, and persistent.^[612] More in-depth insights on such prototypes, as related to culture, are provided by the broad-scale Project GLOBE.

A recent study suggests that national culture dimensions emphasize either an inference-based approach or a recognition-based approach in perceiving effective leaders.^[613] For example, the less power-distance is valued in a culture, the more followers will emphasize an inference-based process to perceive leadership. The reasoning is that in low-power-distance societies the relative equality means that people rely upon analytical cause-effect approaches in judging both outcomes and the leader. With higher power distance there is a tendency to analyze if the leader acts consistently with a particular prototype. Are these prototypes stable? At least one study suggests that the individual aspects of a prototype were reasonably stable across different kinds of groups. However, across time, the dimensions changed toward more sensitivity, intelligence, dedication, and dynamism and less tyranny and masculinity.^[614]

Robert House and his associates have done extensive studies of charismatic leadership.^[615] This body of research has found that charismatic leaders are leaders who, by force of their personal abilities, are capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on followers. These leaders are high in need for power and have high feelings of self-efficacy and conviction in the moral rightness of their beliefs. While the need for power motivates these people to want to be leaders, this need is then reinforced by their conviction of the moral rightness of their beliefs. Their feeling of self-efficacy, in turn, makes these people believe these individuals are capable of being leaders. These traits then influence such charismatic behaviors as role modeling, image building, articulating simple and dramatic goals, emphasizing high expectations, showing confidence, and arousing follower motives.

Some of the more interesting and important work based on aspects of House's charismatic theory involves a study of U.S. presidents.^[616] The research showed that behavioral charisma was substantially related to presidential performance and that the kind of personality traits described in House's theory, along with response to crisis among other things, predicted behavioral charisma for the sample of presidents.^[617]

When it comes to charisma there is also the potential negative side of this trait as seen in infamous leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, who had been considered charismatic. Negative, or "dark-side," charismatic leaders emphasize personalized power and focus on themselves—whereas positive, or "bright-side," charismatic leaders emphasize socialized power that tends to positively empower their followers.^[618] This helps explain the differences between a dark-side leader such as David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidian sect, and a bright-side leader such as Martin Luther King, Jr.^[619] Charismatic leaders often arise in difficult times. Before you start to think more about becoming a charismatic leader or following a charismatic leader, consider the eleven ethics questions in Ethics in OB.^[620]

Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo have developed a three-stage charismatic leadership model.^[621] In the initial stage the leader critically evaluates the status quo. Deficiencies in the status quo lead to formulations of future goals. Before developing these goals, the leader assesses available resources and constraints that stand in the way of the goals. The leader also assesses follower abilities, needs, and satisfaction levels. In the second stage, the leader formulates and articulates the goals along with an idealized future vision. Here, the leader emphasizes articulation and impression-management skills. Then, in the third stage, the leader shows how these goals and the vision can be achieved. The leader emphasizes innovative and unusual means to achieve the vision.

Leaders on Leadership

A MIAMI BANKER IS A HERO TO MANY

When we think of outstanding leaders we often think of heroes and celebrate their great accomplishments with national holidays such as Presidents Day (initially for Washington and Lincoln) and Martin Luther King Day. Current and former employees of City National Bank of Florida, one of the oldest and most profitable banks in the state, are considering a day that would honor their CEO, Leonard Abess.

In 1985, Abess bought the bank out of bankruptcy for $21 million; all of the money was borrowed. Over time, City National flourished and was given an A+ rating for financial security from TheStreet.com, placing it in the top 5 percent of all U.S. banks. In 2008, it was sold to a Spanish bank, Caja Madrid, for almost a billion dollars. Abess quietly took $60 million from his profits on the sale and distributed it to 471 current and former employees.

So what made Leonard Abess a hero? He didn't talk about his generosity publicly until a newspaper found out about it in 2009. Abess told the Miami Herald that long before the sale he had been trying to come up with a way to reward employees for their service. "I always thought some day I'm going to surprise them," Abess said. "I sure as heck don't need (the money)."

He also noted that with the recent downfall of the stock market bank employees had taken quite a hit on their retirement accounts. He wanted to reach out to the staff and show his appreciation. It is not, of course, the first time this heroic banker has shared his wealth. He is an active philanthropist who regularly contributes to local medical centers and universities.

With all the recent commentary about CEOs receiving hefty bonuses as their firms have experienced declining profitability, it is a nice reminder that some CEOs can be both excellent managers and generous leaders.

Martin Luther King Jr. illustrated these three stages in his nonviolent civil rights approach, thereby changing race relations in this country. Conger and Kanungo have argued that if leaders use behaviors such as vision articulation, environmental sensitivity, and unconventional behavior, rather than maintaining the status quo, followers will tend to attribute charismatic leadership to them. Such leaders are also seen as behaving quite differently from those labeled "non-charismatic."^[622] Want to build your image as a charismatic leader? Check out OB Savvy 13.2.^[623]

Finally, an especially important question about charismatic leadership is whether it is described in the same way for close-up or at-a-distance leaders. Boas Shamir examined this issue in Israel.^[624] He found that descriptions of distant charismatics (e.g., former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir) and close-up charismatics (e.g., a specific teacher) were generally more different than they were similar. Figure 13.6 shows the high points of his findings. Clearly, leaders with whom followers have close contact and those with whom they seldom, if ever, have direct contact are both described as charismatic but possess quite different traits and behaviors.

Figure 13.6. Descriptions of characteristics of distant and close-up charismatics.

Building on notions originated by James MacGregor Burns, as well as on ideas from House's work, Bernard Bass has developed an approach that focuses on both transactional and transformational leadership.^[625]

Transactional leadership involves leader-follower exchanges necessary for achieving routine performance agreed upon between leaders and followers. Transactional leadership is similar to most of the leadership approaches mentioned earlier. These exchanges involve four dimensions:

Transformational leadership goes beyond this routine accomplishment, however. For Bass, transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden and elevate their followers' interests, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the group's purposes and mission, and when they stir their followers to look beyond their own self-interests to the good of others.

Transformational leadership has four dimensions: charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Charisma provides vision and a sense of mission, and it instills pride along with follower respect and trust. For example, Steve Jobs, who founded Apple Computer, showed charisma by emphasizing the importance of creating the Macintosh as a radical new computer and has since followed up with products such as the iPod and iPhone.

Inspiration communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts, and expresses important purposes in simple ways. As an example, in the movie Patton, George C. Scott stood on a stage in front of his troops with a wall-sized American flag in the background and ivory-handled revolvers in holsters at his side. Soldiers were told not to die for their country but make the enemy die for his. Intellectual stimulation promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful problem solving. For instance, your boss encourages you to look at a very difficult problem in a new way. Individualized consideration provides personal attention, treats each employee individually, and coaches and advises. For example, your boss drops by and makes remarks reinforcing your worth as a person.

Lynn Willenbring's Transformational Leadership

Within a few months of being appointed CIO (Chief Information Officer) of the City of Minneapolis, Lynn Willenbring needed to hire her entire executive team, renegotiate their outsourcing contract, and deal with the I-35W bridge collapse. At the end of her first six months, she had changed the IT department's direction and built credibility for their ability to deliver.

Bass concludes that transformational leadership is likely to be strongest at the top-management level, where there is the greatest opportunity for proposing and communicating a vision. However, for him, it is not restricted to the top level; it is found throughout the organization. Furthermore, transformational leadership operates in combination with transactional leadership. Leaders need both transformational and transactional leadership in order to be successful, just as they need to display both leadership and management abilities.^[626]

Reviews have summarized a large number of studies using Bass's transformational approach. These reviews report significant favorable relationships between Bass's leadership dimensions and various aspects of performance and satisfaction, as well as extra effort, burnout and stress, and predispositions to act as innovation champions on the part of followers. The strongest relationships tend to be associated with charisma or inspirational leadership, although in most cases the other dimensions are also important. These findings are consistent with those reported elsewhere.^[627] They broaden leadership outcomes beyond those cited in many leadership studies.

In respect to leaders and leadership development, it is reasonable to ask: Can people be trained in charismatic/transformational leadership? According to research in this area, the answer is yes. Bass and his colleagues have put a lot of work into developing such training efforts. For example, they have created a workshop where leaders are given initial feedback on their scores on Bass's measures. The leaders then devise improvement programs to strengthen their weaknesses and work with the trainers to develop their leadership skills. Bass and Avolio report findings that demonstrate the beneficial effects of this training. They also report the effectiveness of team training and programs tailored to individual firms' needs.^[628] Similarly, Conger and Kanungo propose training to develop the kinds of behaviors summarized in their model.

Approaches with special emphasis on vision often emphasize training. Kouzas and Posner report results of a week-long training program at AT&T. The program involved training leaders on five dimensions oriented around developing, communicating, and reinforcing a shared vision. According to Kouzas and Posner, leaders showed an average 15 percent increase in these visionary behaviors 10 months after participating in the program.^[629] Similarly, Sashkin and Sashkin have developed a leadership approach that emphasizes various aspects of vision and organizational culture change. They discuss a number of ways to train leaders to be more visionary and to enhance cultural change.^[630] All of these leadership training programs involve a heavy hands-on workshop emphasis so that leaders do more than just read about vision.

A second issue in leadership and leadership development involves this question: is charismatic/transformational leadership always good? As pointed out earlier, dark-side charismatics, such as Adolf Hitler, can have a negative effect on followers. Similarly, charismatic/transformational leadership is not always helpful. Sometimes emphasis on a vision diverts energy from more important day-to-day activities. It is also important to note that such leadership by itself is not sufficient. That leadership needs to be used in conjunction with all of the leadership theories discussed in this chapter. Finally, charismatic and transformational leadership is important not only at the top of an organization. A number of experts argue that for an organization to be successful, it must apply at all levels of organizational leadership.