Ebook Organizational behavior (13E) Part 2

Find more at

The Leadership
Process

13

The Key Point
Although many people think of leadership as the behavior of leaders, it is actually
generated in interactions and relationships between people. Understanding leadership as a process opens our eyes to the fact that leadership is co-produced by
leaders and followers working together in organizational contexts. ■

What’s Inside?
■ Bringing OB to LIFE
BUILDING CHARISMA THROUGH POLISHED RHETORIC

■ Worth Considering . . . or Best Avoided?

Chapter at
a Glance
■
■
■

BOSSES ARE TO BE OBEYED AND MY JOB IS TO COMPLY. OR IS IT?

■ Checking Ethics in OB
WORKERS SHARE THEIR SALARY SECRETS

■ Finding the Leader in You
GOOGLE’S TRIUMVIRATE GIVES WAY TO NEW LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

■

What Is
Leadership?
What Is
Followership?
What Do We
Know about
Leader–Follower
Relationships?
What Do We Mean
by Leadership as a
Collective Process?

■ OB in Popular Culture
LEADER IDENTITY AND FORREST GUMP

■ Research Insight
PARTICIPATORY LEADERSHIP AND PEACE

281


Find more at

282

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process

Leadership
LE A R N ING
ROA DM A P

FORMAL AND INFORMAL LEADERSHIP
IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES

•

LEADERSHIP AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

When we think of leadership, we often think of leaders. But leaders are only one element
of leadership. Other key elements are followers, leader–follower relationships, and
context. It is only when all these elements come together effectively that leadership is
produced. For this reason, leadership should be thought of as a process.
The leadership process shown in the nearby figure is co-created by leaders and followers
Leadership is an influence
acting in context. Leadership is generated when acts of leading (e.g., influencing) are comprocess generated when acts
bined with acts of following (e.g., deferring). It represents an influence relationship between
of leading (e.g., influencing)
two or more people who depend on one another for attainment of mutual goals.1 The impliare combined with acts of
cation of this is that leadership is not only about the actions of leaders. It also involves the
following (e.g., deferring) as
actions of followers who contribute to, or detract from, leaders’ attempts to influence.
individuals work together to
attain mutual goals.

Because following is so important to leading, we could almost say that it is in following
that leadership is created. If others do not follow then, even if a person has a leadership
position, he or she is not really a leader. The person may be a manager—but not a leader.
For example, when students in a class act up and do not respect
the teacher, they are not following and the teacher is not leading.
The Leadership Process
The teacher may try to use position power to manage the
Leadership is cosituation, but in this case the teacher is acting as a manager
Leading
created in context
rather than a leader.
Leadership influence can be located in one person (i.e., a
“leader”) or be distributed throughout the group (i.e., collective
leadership). For example, some teams have one project leader
Outcomes
Leadership
who everyone follows. Other groups may be more self-managing,
where team members share the leadership function and responsibilities. While in the past leadership was largely the domain of
formal managerial leaders, in today’s environments leadership is
Following
broadly distributed more throughout organizations, with everyone expected to play their part.

Formal and Informal Leadership

Formal leadership is exerted
by persons appointed or
elected to positions of formal
authority in organizations.
Informal leaders is exerted
by persons who become

influential due to special skills
or their ability to meet the
needs of others.
Upward leadership occurs
when leaders at lower levels
influence those at higher
levels to create change.

Leadership processes occur both inside and outside of formal positions and roles. When
leadership is exerted by individuals appointed or elected to positions of formal authority,
it is called formal leadership. Managers, teachers, ministers, politicians, and student
organization presidents are all formal leaders. Leadership can also be exerted by individuals who do not hold formal roles but become influential due to special skills or their ability
to meet the needs of others. These individuals are informal leaders.2 Informal leaders can
include opinion leaders, change agents, and idea champions.
Whereas formal leadership involves top-down influence flows, informal leadership
can flow in any direction: up, down, across, and even outside the organization. Informal
leadership allows us to recognize the importance of upward leadership (or “leading-up”).
Upward leadership occurs when individuals at lower levels act as leaders by influencing
those at higher levels. This concept of leadership flowing upward is often missed in discussions of leadership in organizations, but it is absolutely critical for organizational
change and effectiveness.
Regardless of whether it is formal or informal, a key to effective leadership is “willing
followership,” as shown in Figure 13.1. Willing followership means that others follow
because they want to, not because they have to. This is closely related to the concept of
power. When leaders operate from a willing followership model, others follow out of


Find more at

283

Leadership
Leader

“Willing Followership”

• Personal Power
• High quality relationships

• Followers intrinsically motivated
• Follow because they “want” to

Manager

“Force”

• Position Power
• Low quality relationships

• Followers extrinsically motivated
• Follow because they “have” to

Results in
strong effort

Results in
minimal effort

FIGURE 13.1 The role of
“willing followership” in
leadership.

intrinsic motivation and power comes from personal sources. This differs from more
compliance-based approaches-common to managers who aren’t leaders, where others
follow out of extrinsic motivation and power is more position based. Managers who are
also effective leaders have both position and personal power. On the other hand, informal
leaders who do not have formal positions can only operate through personal power.

Research Insight

Participatory Leadership and Peace
n 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.
Spreitzer reasoned that business firms can provide open
egalitarian decisions by stressing participative leadership
and empowerment.
Spreitzer recognized that broad cultural factors could
also be important. The degree to which the culture is
future oriented and low in power distance appeared relevant. And she reasoned that she needed specific measures of peace. She selected two major indicators: (1) the
level of corruption and (2) 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.

I

Cultural factors:
Future Orientation
Power Distance

Participative
leadership

Peace
Corruption
Unrest

Empowerment:
Decision Freedom
Compliance

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.

Do the Research Do you agree that when
business used participatory leadership, it legitimated

the democratically based style and increased the
opportunity for individuals to express their voice?
What other research could be done to determine the
link between leadership and peace?11

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


Find more at

284

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process

Leadership as Social Construction
social construction of
leadership The social
construction of leadership
means that leadership is
constructed and produced
in social and relational
interactions among people
acting in context.

Understanding leadership as a process helps us see that leadership is socially constructed.

The social construction of leadership means that leadership is co-created in relational
interactions among people acting in context. Because of this, it cannot be meaningfully
separated from context. Each leadership situation is unique, having its own particular
dynamics, variables, and players. There is no one-size-fits-all solution in leadership.
Social construction approaches see leadership as socially defined. They recognize
leaders and followers as relational beings who “constitute” each other in dynamic, unfolding relational contexts.3 In other words, whether you are a leader or a follower depends
on the nature of the interactions you have with other people. Because of this, communication and the everyday interactions of people are a key element of constructionist
approaches to leadership.

Leadership as Identity Construction An example of social construction can
The leadership identity
construction process
involves individuals
negotiating identities as
leaders and followers.
Claiming refers to actions
people take to assert their
identity as a leader or follower.
Granting refers to actions
people take to bestow an
identity of a leader or follower
onto another person.

be seen in DeRue and Ashford’s model of the leadership identity construction
process. This model shows how individuals negotiate identities as leaders and followers.4
As seen in Figure 13.2, the identity construction process involves individuals “claiming” an
identity (as a leader or follower) and others affirming or “granting” that identity by going
along with the claim. Claiming refers to actions people take to assert their identity as a
leader or follower. Granting refers to actions people take to bestow an identity of a leader
or follower onto another person.5

We can see the identity construction process occurring every time a new group is
formed. When there is no designated leader, group members negotiate who will be leaders and who will be followers. For example, some might say, “I am willing to take the
leader role,” or “Leadership is not really my thing, so I prefer to follow.” It may also be more
implicit, with some people doing more influencing and organizing and others doing more
deferring and performing.
This process occurs even when there is a designated leader. In these cases it may be
more subtle, however, such as when individuals choose not to follow the designated
leader (i.e., when they do not grant the leader claim). In groups we often see informal

Person A
leader
Individual internalization

Relational recognition

Person B
Identity work
Claim leader/
Grant follower
identity
Claim leader/
Grant follower
identity

Collective endorsement

Leader

Claim leader/
Grant follower

identity

Claim follower/
Grant leader
identity
Grant leader/
Claim follower
identity
Grant leader/
Claim follower
identity

follower
Individual internalization

Relational recognition
Collective endorsement

Clarity and acceptance of
leader-follower relationship
FIGURE 13.2 DeRue and Ashford Leadership Identity Construction Process.

Follower


Find more at
Leadership

285

OB IN POPULAR CULTURE

Leader Identity
and Forrest Gump
In Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks plays a character who has a
mental impairment but, despite this, always seems to
find himself in extraordinary events and situations. One
of the most memorable is when he decides to go out for
a run, and ends up running for three and a half years.
Forrest’s passion for running began as a young boy when
his best friend, Jenny, tells him, “Run, Forrest, run!” to
get away from bullies. Forrest learns that running is a way
to get out of his problems as well as to get over them.
As an adult, Forrest is distraught over Jenny leaving
him and goes for a run. Once he starts, he just keeps
going. He reaches one coast and decides he isn’t done
running, so he runs to the other coast. This coast-to-coast
run goes on for years, with Forrest only stopping to sleep.
Forrest’s run attracts media attention, and soon he has
a large following of people who make attributions about
meaning behind Forrest’s running. Several of these followers are failing entrepreneurs who end up achieving
success as a result of inspiration they take from Forrest.
At the end of one scene we see Forrest on a highway with
his followers trailing behind him. We hear Forrest say, “I
had run for three years, two months, fourteen days, and
sixteen hours,” and then he stops running and turns
around. The followers behind him also stop and look to
Forrest to see what is going on. One says, “Quiet, quiet!
He’s gonna say something!” and after a pause Forrest
says, “I’m pretty tired—I think I’ll go home now.”

Paramount Pictures/Photofest

Forrest’s run raises fascinating questions for leadership.
Was Forrest a leader? He had followers, so does this make
him a leader? Others granted him leader identity and
claimed their own identity as a follower of Forrest. But
Forrest never claimed a leader identity himself. So was this
leadership? How do we know when something is leadership and when it isn’t?

Get to Know Yourself Better Take a look at Experiential Exercise 25: Interview a Leader and
Experiential Exercise 25: Leadership Skills Inventory in the OB Skills Workbook. These are designed to help you learn
more about what makes a person a leader and what constitutes leadership processes. Do these help you understand
whether Forrest was a leader in this case or do you need to know more? What would you add to these exercises to
help you better assess leadership and followership in the case of Forrest Gump?

norms emerging around leader and follower grants and claims in the form of people supporting or resisting each other’s claims.
Leader identity construction has important implications, particularly for those who
are high in motivation to lead.6 Although these individuals may want to lead, if others
do not grant them a leadership identity their efforts will not succeed. It also helps us

Motivation to lead is the
extent to which individuals
choose to assume leadership
training, roles and
responsibilities.


Find more at

286

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process

understand why some individuals seem to find themselves in a leader role even if they
don’t want to be. For these “natural leaders,” leadership is thrust upon them by others
who grant them leadership identities regardless of their desire to claim leadership (see
the “OB in Popular Culture” feature on Forrest Gump).
The leadership identity construction process brings a new understanding to the
importance of followership. Contrary to views that depict followers as passive bystanders
to leaders, identity construction shows that followers play an important role in leadership by (a) granting claims to leaders and (b) claiming roles as followers. When these
grants and claims do not align—for example, when followers do not grant leaders’ claims
or when followers do not accept their own role as followers—the result is conflict and
lack of legitimacy. Unless the problems are worked through, individuals will not be able
to negotiate compatible identities. In these cases conflict will prevail, and the leadership
process will break down.

Implicit Leadership Theories
A key element affecting whether leadership claims will be granted lies in the “implicit
theories” we hold about leadership. Implicit leadership theories are beliefs or understanding about the attributes associated with leaders and leadership.7 They can vary
widely depending on our experiences and understandings of leadership. For example,
some people believe leaders are charismatic, so they look for charismatic traits and
behaviors in those vying for leadership status. Others believe leaders are directive and
assertive, so they grant leadership status to those who take charge. Still others believe
leaders are confident and considerate, so they identify leaders as those who have
innovative and interesting ideas and involve others in bringing the idea to fruition.

Implicit theories cause us to naturally classify people as leaders or nonleaders.
We are often not aware this process is occurring. It is based in the cognitive categorization processes associated with perception and attribution. These processes help us
quickly and easily handle the overwhelming amounts of information we receive from
our environments every day. The categorization process is often particularly salient
when we are faced with new information. For example, on the first day of class did
you look around the room and find yourself making assessments of the teacher, and
even your classmates? If so, you did this using your cognitive categories and implicit
theories.
To understand your own implicit leadership theories, think about the factors you
associate with leadership. What traits and characteristics come to mind? Take a minute
and make a list of those attributes.
Now look at the sidebar on spotting
How to Spot Common Implicit Leadership
implicit leadership prototypes.8
How does your list compare? Did
Prototypes
you identify the same prototypical
leader behaviors as found in
People hold various prototypes of attributes they associate with leadership.
research? What is the nature of
Researchers find the following prototypes are most commonly used.
your implicit theory? Is it more
positive, such as sensitivity, dedica• Sensitivity—Sympathetic, compassionate, understanding
tion, intelligence, and strength, or
• Dedication—Disciplined, prepared, hard working
is it more negative, involving lead• Tyranny—Domineering, power hungry, manipulative
ers’ tendencies to dominate, con• Charisma—Inspiring, involved, dynamic
trol, or manipulate others? Why do
• Attractiveness—Classy, well dressed, tall
you think you have the implicit

• Intelligence—Clever, knowledgeable, wise
theory you do? What experiences
you’ve had make you see leader• Strength—Forceful, bold, powerful
ship in this way?

Implicit leadership
theories are our beliefs or
understanding about the
attributes associated with
leaders and leadership.


Find more at

287

Followership

BRINGING OB
TO LIFE

“Instead of putting charismatic leadership on an unreachable pedestal, perhaps
learning specific charismatic communication techniques is a pathway to success.”

w

Building Charisma through Polished Rhetoric
The next time you give a presentation, check to see
who’s really listening. Better yet, check to see who’s
showing signs that they are ready to accept and act

on what you are saying or proposing. That’s one of the
ways leadership claims get granted—framing and
requesting things in ways that cause others to respond
positively. We’re talking about people who turn listeners
into followers.
Some would argue this is a special skill associated
with a magnetic or charismatic quality that you either
have or don’t have at birth. Recent OB thinking suggests
there is a lot more to the story. Think of charisma as an
ability to inspirationally persuade and motivate others.
How is this positive impact achieved? In simple terms
it’s done by dropping bland business speech, such as
“We need to operationalize this process,” and practicing
more emotive language, such as “once we put this into
practice it’ll feel like we all threw fifty-yard touchdown
passes.”
Professor John Antonakis at the University of
Lausanne, Switzerland, believes that all of us
should and can learn charismatic communication
skills. “Some people are naturally more talented,
but everyone can improve with practice,” he says.
And he has a training program designed to do
just that. After one batch of corporate executives
was trained, their leadership ratings went up
60 percent.
Some charismatic leadership techniques taught by
Antonakis are verbal, breaking things down into basic

© Monalyn Gracia/Corbis

components: using metaphors and telling stories, asking
rhetorical questions, taking a moral stand, and
setting high goals. Others are nonverbal: using voice
modulations, gestures, and facial expressions to accent
what you are saying.
OB recognizes that not all managers are good
leaders even though they should be. Instead of putting
charismatic leadership on an unreachable pedestal,
perhaps learning specific charismatic communication
techniques is a pathway to success. Learning the
techniques and putting them to work in everyday
conversations is a way for more of us to be perceived
as “leaderlike” by others.

Followership
LE A R N ING
ROA DM A P

WHAT IS FOLLOWERSHIP? • HOW DO FOLLOWERS SEE THEIR ROLES?
HOW DO LEADERS SEE FOLLOWER ROLES?

Until very recently, followership has not been given serious consideration in leadership research. We are infatuated with leaders, but often disparage followers. Think
about how often you are told the importance of being an effective leader. Now think
about the times when you have been told it is important to be an effective follower—
has it ever happened? If you are like most people, you have received recognition and
accolades for leadership but rarely have you been encouraged or rewarded for being
a follower.


Find more at

288

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process

What Is Followership?
Followership is a process
through which individuals
choose how they will engage
with leaders to co-produce
leadership and its outcomes.

The romance of leadership
refers to the tendency to
attribute organizational
outcomes (both good and
bad) to the acts and doings
of leaders.

Followership represents the capacity or willingness to follow a leader. It is a process
through which individuals choose how they will engage with leaders to co-produce
leadership and its outcomes. These co-productions can take many forms. For example, it
may be heavily leader dominated, with passive followers who comply or go along. Or it
may be a partnership, in which leaders and followers work collaboratively to produce
leadership outcomes.
Our infatuation with leaders at the expense of followers is called the romance of

leadership: the tendency to attribute all organizational outcomes—good or bad—to the
acts and doings of leaders.9 The romance of leadership reflects our needs and biases for
strong leaders who we glorify or demonize in myths and stories of great and heroic
leaders. We see it in our religious teachings, our children’s fairy tales, and in news stories
about political and business leaders.
The problem with the romance of leadership is that its corollary is the “subordination
of followership.”10 The subordination of followership means that while we heroize (or
demonize) leaders, we almost completely disregard followers. Leo Tolstoy’s description of
the French Revolution provides an excellent example. According to Tolstoy, the French
Revolution was the product of the “spectacle of an extraordinary movement of millions of
men” all over Europe and crossing decades, but “historians . . . lay before us the sayings
and doings of some dozens of men in one of the buildings in the city of Paris,” and the
detailed biography and actions of one man, to whom it is all attributable: Napoleon. To
overcome the problem of the romance of leadership, we need to better understand the
role of followership in the leadership process.

How Do Followers See Their Roles?
Followers have long been considered in leadership research, but mainly from the standpoint
of how they see leaders. The question we need to consider is this: How do followers see their
own role? And how do leaders see the follower role? Research is now beginning to offer new
insight into these issues.

The Social Construction of Followership One of the first studies to
examine follower views was a qualitative investigation in which individuals were
asked to describe the characteristics and behaviors they associate with a follower
(subordinate) role.11 The findings support the socially constructed nature of followership and leadership in that, according to followers, they hold certain beliefs about
how they should act in relation to leaders but whether they can act on these beliefs
depends on context.
Some followers hold passive beliefs, viewing their roles in the classic sense of following—
that is, passive, deferential, and obedient to authority. Others hold proactive beliefs, viewing

their role as expressing opinions, taking initiative, and constructively questioning and
challenging leaders. Proactive beliefs are particularly strong among “high potentials”—
those identified by their organizations as demonstrating strong potential to be promoted
to higher-level leadership positions in their organization.
Because social construction is dependent on context, individuals are not always
able to act according to their beliefs. For example, individuals holding proactive beliefs
reported not being able to be proactive in authoritarian or bureaucratic work climates.
These environments suppress their ability to take initiative and speak up, often leaving
them feeling frustrated and stifled—not able to work to their potential. In empowering
climates, however, they work with leaders to co-produce positive outcomes. Individuals with passive beliefs are often uncomfortable in empowering climates because their


Find more at
Followership

289

CHECKING ETHICS IN OB

Workers Share Their
Salary Secrets
Pay secrecy is a long-held tradition in the workplace.
Workers are told they cannot discuss their pay or they
will be fired. Managers say pay secrecy is necessary
because it helps avoid potential conflicts and dissatisfaction among workers. But like many other things,
Millennials are questioning this practice—and shaking
up the workplace in the process.
Brian Bader took a tech-support job with Apple and
during his orientation was told that he was not allowed
to discuss his pay with co-workers. But this made the

25-year old Bader, curious, and he immediately set out
to survey his new colleagues about their wages. What he
learned was that he was twice as productive as the lowest performer in the group, but paid only 20 percent
more. Bader decided to quit his job: “It irked me. If I’m
doing double the work, why am I not seeing double the
pay?” asked Mr. Bader.
Keeping salary information private is much harder for
companies in today’s environment of social media,
with  Web sites like Glassdoor, Facebook, and Twitter.
Information is power, and despite company policies
against it many people—especially young workers—are
using their power to speak up against such policies. In
addition to pay secrecy, the seniority system and annual
performance reviews are two workplace institutions that

Maskot/Getty Images

Millennials are questioning. And answers like “because I
said so” and “because we’ve always done it that way”
are not enough for this generation. When they are dissatisfied, they take matters into their own hands, either
by acting on information power, or quitting, as demonstrated by Brian Bader.

What Do You Think?

Should companies be able to reasonably expect workers to keep their pay secret?
And if there is a company policy against sharing pay information, what is the obligation of the employee to follow this
policy? How far does our obligation go? In 2013 we saw Edward Snowden break his company policy because he didn’t
agree with the NSA policy regarding the government’s Internet and phone-tracking program. How does his action
compare to that of Mr. Bader, who shared his pay information against company policy?

natural inclination is to follow rather than be empowered. In these environments they
report feeling stressed by leaders’ demands, and uncomfortable with requests to be
more proactive. Passive followers are more comfortable in authoritarian climates
where they receive more direction from leaders.

Follower Role Orientation Follower beliefs are also being studied in research on
follower role orientation. Follower role orientation represents the beliefs followers hold
about the way they should engage and interact with leaders to meet the needs of the

Follower role orientation
is defined as the beliefs
followers hold about the way
they should engage and
interact with leaders to meet
the needs of the work unit.


Find more at

290

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process
Authoritarian climate
Passive
beliefs

FIGURE 13.3 Followership in
Context.

Power distance orientation
is the extent to which one
accepts that power in
institutions and organizations
is distributed unequally.

Proactive follower
orientation reflects the belief
that followers should act in
ways that are helpful, useful,
and productive to leadership
outcomes.

Proactive
beliefs

Empowering climate

Passive followers
act as traditional
“obedient” followers

Passive followers
uncomfortable–
experience stress

Proactive followers

act passively, but this
creates dissonance
and dissatisfaction

Proactive followers
act as constructive
partners in co-producing
leadership

work unit.12 It reflects how followers define their role, how broadly they perceive the tasks
associated with it, and how to approach a follower role to be effective.
Findings show that followers with hierarchical, power distance orientation believe
leaders are in a better position than followers to make decisions and determine direction.13 These individuals have lower self-efficacy, meaning they have less confidence in
their ability to execute on their own, and they demonstrate higher obedience to leaders.
They depend on leaders for structure and direction, which they follow without question.
These followers report working in contexts of greater hierarchy of authority and lower job
autonomy. This may be because these contexts are attractive to them, or it may be
because those with more proactive follower orientations are less likely to remain in these
environments.
Individuals with a proactive follower orientation approach their role from the
standpoint of partnering with leaders to achieve goals.14 These individuals are higher in
proactive personality and self-efficacy. They believe followers are important contributors to the leadership process and that a strong follower role (e.g., voice) is necessary for
accomplishing the organizational mission. Proactive followers tend to work in environments that support and reinforce their followership beliefs—that is, lower hierarchy of
authority, greater autonomy, and higher supervisor support. These environments are
important because proactive followers need support for their challenging styles. They
need to trust leaders and to know that they will not be seen as overstepping their
bounds.
The issue that is less clear is what managers want from followers. It seems that managers want voice, as long as that voice is provided in constructive ways. However, findings
with obedience are not significant, indicating that managers may be mixed on whether
obedience is positive or negative. This is true regardless of whether it comes from those

with a power distance or proactive follower orientation. Therefore, we are not quite sure
how obedience plays into followership. Do managers want obedience? Do only some managers want it, or do managers want only certain types of obedience? It turns out that
although we have spent decades learning about what followers want from leaders, we still
know very little about what leaders prefer in terms of follower behaviors and styles.
Research is now underway to better investigate the manager side of the leadership story.

How Do Leaders See Follower Roles?
Implicit followership
theories are preconceived
notions about prototypical
and antiprototypical
followership behaviors and
characteristics.

One area that helps us understand the manager’s view is the study of implicit followership
theories.15 Research on implicit followership theories takes the approach described in
implicit leadership theory research but reverses it—asking leaders (i.e., managers) to
describe characteristics associated with followers (e.g., effective followers, ineffective
followers). It then analyzes the data to identify prototypical and anti-prototypical follower characteristics.


Find more at
Followership

WORTH CONSIDERING

291

...OR BEST AVOIDED?

Bosses Are to Be Obeyed and
My Job Is to Comply. Or Is It?

B

efore you answer the question in the headline, read
further:

Yale University laboratory, 1963—Psychologist Stanley
Milgram runs an experiment with collaborators posing as
“learners” being taught word association tasks by their
“teachers” – the real subjects. When the learners behind
a wall missed a word association each of the 40 teachers
was instructed to give them an electric shock. The learners
faked their expressions of pain and cries to stop the process. When the teachers resisted going to higher levels of
electric voltage, they were told by the experimenter: “You
must go on. The experiment requires that you go on.”
Twenty-six of the teachers kept administering shocks until
the final level was reached, a level they were told would be
of danger to human life.
McDonald’s Restaurant, 2004— A telephone caller tells
an assistant store manager that he is a police officer investigating employee theft. Claiming to have “corporate” on the line he tells the assistant manager to take a
female employee into the back room and interrogate
her while he is on the line. The assistant manager does
so for over three hours and follows “Officer Scott’s” instructions to the point where the 18-year old employee
is naked and doing jumping jacks. The hoax was discovered only when the assistant manager called her boss to
check out the story. The caller was later arrested and was
found to have tried similar tricks at over 70 McDonald’s
restaurants.
Managers are supposed to make decisions, and the rest

of us are supposed to follow. Isn’t that the conventional wisdom? But these incidents suggest that even though we may
have a tendency to obey apparent authority figures, it isn’t
always the right thing to do.
There are times when it’s best to disobey the boss or any
other authority figure who is asking us to do something that
seems odd or incorrect or just plain suspicious. And if what
you are being asked to do is wrong but you still comply, you’ll

Arcady/Shutterstock

share the blame. It can’t be excused with the claim “I was just
following orders.”

Do the Analysis
If obedience isn’t always the right choice, how do we know
when it’s time to disobey? Can you give some examples
from personal experience when it was best not to comply
with what you were asked to do? How would your behavior in the situation stack up under scrutiny? What does the
literature have to say about reasons for obedience and
how to double-check to make sure our obedience is
justified in certain situations? How about the price of
disobedience? Is it possible to educate and train people to
be better followers—people who don’t always follow
orders and sometimes question them?

Findings shown in the sidebar on the next page indicate that characteristics associated with good followers include being industrious, having enthusiasm, and being a
good organizational citizen.16 Characteristics associated with ineffective followers
(i.e., anti-prototypical characteristics) include conformity, insubordination, and
incompetence. Of these anti-prototypical traits, it appears that incompetence is the
most impactful. In other words, leaders see incompetence as the greatest factor associated with ineffective followership.

Find more at

292

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process

What is interesting about the
findings on prototypes and antiprototypes (see the sidebar) is
that they may show why we are
uncertain of what managers
People hold various prototypes and antiprototypes of attributes they associate
desire from followers. What
with followership. Researchers find the following are most common.
managers see as insubordination
Prototypical
and incompetence, followers
may see as proactive follower
• Industry—Hardworking, productive, goes above and beyond
behaviors. There can be a fine
• Enthusiasm—Excited, outgoing, happy
line between these behaviors as
• Good citizen—Loyal, reliable, team player
provided by followers, and
Antiprototypical

whether leaders are ready and
able to effectively receive them.
• Conformity—Easily influenced, follows trends, soft spoken
Although it hasn’t been studied
• Insubordination—Arrogant, rude, bad tempered
yet in research, we can be pretty
• Incompetence—Uneducated, slow, inexperienced
sure that a key factor in influencing how managers view and
receive proactive follower behaviors is the quality of the relationship between the manager and the subordinate.

How to Spot Common Followership Prototypes
and Antiprototypes

The Leader–Follower
Relationship
LE A R N ING
ROA DM A P

LEADER–MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY
HOLLANDER’S IDIOSYNCRASY CREDIT

•

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

Among the strongest findings in leadership research are studies showing that the nature
of leader–follower relationships matter. When relationships are good, outcomes are
positive. When relationships are bad, outcomes are negative, and potentially even
destructive.

Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
Leader–member exchange
(LMX) is the study of
manager–subordinate
relationship quality.

The underlying premise of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is that leaders (i.e.,
managers) have differentiated relationships with followers (i.e., subordinates).17 With
some subordinates, managers have high-quality LMX relationships, characterized by
trust, respect, liking, and loyalty. With other subordinates, managers have low-quality
LMX relationships, characterized by lack of trust, respect, liking, and loyalty. Whereas the
former (high LMX relationships) are more like partnerships between managers and
subordinates in co-producing leadership, the latter (low LMX relationships) are more like
traditional supervision, with managers supervising and monitoring and subordinates
complying (or maybe resisting).
Leader–follower relationships are important because they are differentially related to
leadership and work outcomes. As you would expect, when relationship quality is high it
has all kinds of benefits: Performance is better, subordinates are more satisfied and feel
more supported, commitment and citizenship are higher, and turnover is reduced. When
relationship quality is low, outcomes are not only negative, they can also be destructive.
At the very least, workers in low LMX relationships are less productive and have more
negative job attitudes. At their worst, relationships are hostile, leading to abuse or even
sabotage.18


Find more at
The Leader–Follower Relationship

293

The implications of leader–member exchange theory are very clear. Bad relationships
are counterproductive for individuals and organizations, whereas good relationships
bring tremendous benefits. If you have a bad relationship with your boss, you can expect
it to negatively impact your work and possibly your career. In organizations, bad relationships create negative environments and poor morale. They drain organizations of the
energy needed to perform, adapt, and thrive.

Social Exchange Theory
To avoid these problems, we need to work to develop better-quality relationships
throughout the organization. The question is, how?
Social exchange theory helps explain the social dynamics behind relationship build- Social exchange theory
ing. According to social exchange theory, relationships develop through exchanges— describes how relationships
actions contingent upon rewarding reactions. We engage in exchanges every day when initiate and develop through
processes of exchange and
we say something or do something for another and those actions are rewarded or not reciprocity.
rewarded. Relationships develop when exchanges are mutually rewarding and reinforcing. When exchanges are one sided or not satisfactory, relationships will not develop
effectively, and will likely deteriorate or extinguish.
At the core of social exchange is the norm of reciprocity, the idea that when one The norm of reciprocity says
party does something for another an obligation is generated, and that party is indebted that when one party does
to the other until the obligation is repaid.19 We see this all the time when someone does something for another, that
party is indebted to the other
us a favor and then, depending on how close we are to them, we feel indebted to pay them until the obligation is repaid.
back. If the relationship is close (e.g., family) we don’t worry about paying back right away
because we know it will be repaid in some way in the future. If the exchange is with someone we don’t know as well (e.g., a classmate we just met), we are more anxious to repay so
that the other knows we are “good” for it.
The norm of reciprocity can be seen as involving three components.20 Equivalence Equivalence is the extent to
represents the extent to which the amount of what is given back is roughly the same as which the amount given back
what was received (e.g., the exact same or something different). Immediacy refers to the is roughly the same as what
was received.
time span of reciprocity—how quickly the repayment is made (e.g., immediately or an
indeterminate length of time). Interest represents the motive the person has in making Immediacy is how quickly

the exchange. Interest can range from pure self-interest, to mutual interest, to other the repayment is made.
Interest is the motive behind
interest (pure concern for the other person).
The way in which these components work together varies by the quality of leader- the exchange.
follower relationships. When relationships are first forming, or if they are low quality,
reciprocity involves greater equivalence (we want back what we give), immediacy is
low (we expect payback relatively quickly), and exchanges are based on self-interest
(we are watching out for ourselves). As relationships develop and trust is built, equivalence reduces (we don’t expect exact repayment), the time span of reciprocity
extends (we aren’t concerned about payback—we may bank it for when we need it at
some time in the future), and exchanges become more mutually or other (rather than
self ) interested.
What makes this process social and not economic is that it is based on trust. Trust Trust in social exchange is
is based on the belief regarding the intention and ability of the other to repay. Eco- based on the belief in the
nomic exchanges are necessarily devoid of trust. The reason we make economic con- intention and ability of the
other to repay.
tracts is to create a legal obligation in case one party breaks the contract. In social
exchange, trust is the foundational element upon
High quality relationships
which exchanges occur. If one party demon- Low quality or newly forming
relationships
strates that they are not trustworthy, the other
Reciprocity and Social • Low immediacy
• High immediacy
party will see this and stop exchanging—and the
• Low equivalence
• High equivalence Exchange in Leaderrelationship will degenerate.
Follower Relationships • Mutual interest
• Self-interest
If we want to build effective relationships,
therefore, we need to pay attention to reciprocity

Find more at

294

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process

and social exchange processes. We need to make sure that we are engaging in exchanges,
that we are doing so based on reciprocity, and that the exchanges are mutually satisfying
and rewarding for all involved.

Hollander’s Idiosyncrasy Credits
Idiosyncrasy credits refer to
our ability to violate norms
with others based on whether
we have enough “credits” to
cover the violation.

Another way to view the nature of exchange in relationships is idiosyncrasy credit theory,
developed by social psychologist Edwin Hollander in the 1950s.21 Idiosyncrasy credits
represent our ability to violate norms with others based on whether we have enough
“credits” to cover the violation. If we have enough credits, we can get away with idiosyncrasies (i.e., deviations from expected norms) as long as the violation does not exceed the
amount of credits. If we do not have enough credits, the violation will create a deficit.
When deficits become large enough, or go on for too long, our account becomes
“bankrupt,” and the deviations will no longer be tolerated, resulting in deterioration of

relationships.
Idiosyncrasy credits offer a fun and simple way to think about some key concepts
we need to keep in mind in relationship building. The main point is to manage your
balances. If you are expending credits by behaving in idiosyncratic ways (deviating
from expected norms), then you have to stop spending and start building. If you have
a rich account and the relationship is flying high, you can afford to expend some credits by acting in a quirky way or doing things that might not be seen as positively in the
other’s eyes. Others will be willing to stick with you—as long as you don’t go into a
deficit.

Collective Leadership
LE A R N ING
ROA DM A P

Collective leadership
represents views of leadership
not as a property of individuals
and their behaviors but
as a social phenomenon
constructed in interaction.
Distributed leadership
sees leadership as a group
phenomenon that is
distributed among
individuals.

DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP

•

CO-LEADERSHIP

•

SHARED LEADERSHIP

Relational interactions are the foundation of leadership, and relational approaches have
allowed us to understand that leadership is more aptly described as a collective rather
than an individual process. Collective leadership considers leadership not as a property
of individuals and their behaviors but as a social phenomenon constructed in interaction. It advocates a shift in focus from traits and characteristics of leaders to a focus on
the shared activities and interactive processes of leadership.

Distributed Leadership
One of the first areas to recognize leadership as a collective process was distributed
leadership research, distinguishing between “focused” and “distributed” forms of leadership. This research draws heavily on systems and process theory, and locates leadership
in the relationships and interactions of multiple actors and the situations in which they
are operating.22
Distributed leadership is based on three main premises. First, leadership is an emergent property of a group or network of interacting individuals, i.e., it is co-constructed in
interactions among people. Second, distributed leadership is not clearly bounded.
It occurs in context, and therefore it is affected by local and historical influences. Third,
distributed leadership draws from the variety of expertise across the many, rather than
relying on the limited expertise of one or a few leaders. In this way it is a more democratic
and inclusive form of leadership than hierarchical models.23
Leadership from this view is seen in the day-to-day activities and interactions of
people working in organizations. Rather than simply being a hierarchical construct, it
occurs in small, incremental, and emergent everyday acts that go on in organizations.


Find more at

295

Collective Leadership

These emergent acts, interacting with large-scale change efforts from the top, can be
mutually reinforcing to produce emergence and adaptability in organizations. Hence,
leadership is about learning together and constructing meaning and knowledge collaboratively and collectively. For this to happen, though, formal leaders must let go of some of
their authority and control and foster consultation and consensus over command and
control.24

Co-Leadership
Another form of collective leadership is co-leadership. Co-leadership occurs when top
leadership roles are structured in ways that no single individual is vested with the power
to unilaterally lead.25 Co-leadership can be found in professional organizations (e.g., law
firms that have partnerships), the arts (the artistic side and administrative side), and
healthcare (where power is divided between the community, administration, and medical sectors). Co-leadership has been used in some very famous and large businesses (e.g.,
Google, Goldman-Sachs).
Co-leadership helps overcome problems related to the limitations of a single individual and of abuses of power and authority. It is more common today because challenges
facing organizations are often too complex for one individual to handle. Co-leadership
allows organizations to capitalize on the complementary and diverse strengths of multiple individuals. These forms are sometimes referred to as constellations, or collective
leadership in which members play roles that are specialized (i.e., each operates in a
particular area of expertise), differentiated (i.e., avoiding overlap that would create confusion), and complementary (i.e., jointly cover all required areas of leadership).26

Co-leadership occurs when
leadership is divided so that
no one person has unilateral
power to lead.

FINDING THE LEADER
IN

YOU

Google’s Triumvirate Gives Way to New
Leadership Structure

he news came as a surprise: Eric Schmidt was out and
Larry Page was in as head of Google. Schmidt had
been brought in by the board of directors in 2001 to provide “adult supervision” to then twenty-seven-year-old
founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. For ten years Google’s
management structure represented triumvirate leadership,
with Page, Brin, and Schmidt sharing the leadership role.
To some, it was a three-ring circus, with co-founders Larry
Page and Sergey Brin running the business behind the
scenes and Schmidt as the public face. Now, the three
decided, it was time for Page to take the stage.
“For the last ten years, we have all been equally involved in making decisions. This triumvirate approach has
real benefits in terms of shared wisdom, and we will continue to discuss the big decisions among the three of us. But
we have also agreed to clarify our individual roles so there’s
clear responsibility and accountability at the top of the
company,” said Eric Schmidt.
The objective is to simplify the management structure and speed up decision making. “Larry will now
lead product development and technology strategy,
his greatest strengths . . . and he will take charge of our

T

day-to-day operations
as Google’s Chief
Executive Officer,” according to Schmidt.
That leaves Sergey

Brin, with title of cofounder, to focus on
strategic projects and
new products, and
David Strick/Redux
Schmidt to serve as executive chairman, working externally on deals, partnerships, customers, and government outreach. As described
on the official Google blog, “We are confident that this
focus will serve Google and our users well in the future.”
The question now is, with the leadership triumvirate
dead, will the new leadership structure work?

What’s the Lesson Here?
Do you think co-leadership models work? And would
they work for you—would you be able to operate
effectively as part of a co-leadership structure? Why
or why not?


Find more at

296

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process

Shared Leadership
Shared leadership is a
dynamic, interactive influence

process among team members
working to achieve goals.

According to shared leadership approaches, leadership is a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another
to the achievement of group or organizational goals, or both.27 This influence process
occurs both laterally—among team members—and vertically, with the team leader.
Vertical leadership is formal leadership; shared leadership is distributed leadership that
emerges from within team dynamics. The main objective of shared leadership approaches
is to understand and find alternate sources of leadership that will impact positively on
organizational performance.
In shared leadership, leadership can come from outside or inside the team. Within a team,
leadership can be assigned to one person, rotate across team members, or be shared simultaneously as different needs arise across time. Outside the team, leaders can be formally designated. Often these nontraditional leaders are called coordinators or facilitators. A key part of
their job is to provide resources to their unit and serve as a liaison with other units.
According to the theory, the key to successful shared leadership and team performance
is to create and maintain conditions for that performance. This occurs when vertical and
shared leadership efforts are complementary. Although a wide variety of characteristics
may be important for the success of a specific effort, five important characteristics have
been identified across projects: (1) efficient, goal-directed effort; (2) adequate resources;
(3) competent, motivated performance; (4) a productive, supportive climate; and (5) a
commitment to continuous improvement.28 The distinctive contribution of shared
leadership approaches is in widening the notion of leadership to consider participation
of all team members while maintaining focus on conditions for team effectiveness.

13

Study Guide

Key Questions and Answers
What is leadership?

• Leadership occurs in acts of leading and following as individuals work together to attain
mutual goals.
• Formal leadership is found in positions of authority in organizations, whereas informal
leadership is found in individuals who become influential due to special skills or abilities.
• Leadership involves an identity construction process in which individuals negotiate
identities as leaders and followers through claiming and granting.
• Implicit leadership theories are beliefs or understanding about the attributes associated
with leaders and leadership.

What is followership?

• Followership represents a process through which individuals choose how they will
engage with leaders to co-produce leadership and its outcomes.
• Romance of leadership is the tendency to attribute organizational outcomes (both
good and bad) to the acts and doings of leaders; its corollary is the “subordination of
followership.”
• The social construction of followership shows that followers hold beliefs about how
they should act in relation to leaders, but whether they can act on these beliefs depends
on context.


Find more at
Terms to Know

• Those with power distance orientation accept that power in institutions and organizations
is distributed unequally, whereas those with proactive follower orientations believe
followers should act in ways that are helpful and productive to leadership outcomes.
• Implicit followership theories show managers’ views of characteristics associated with
effective and ineffective followership.

What do we know about leader–follower relationships?

• Leader–member exchange theory shows that managers have differentiated relationships
with subordinates depending on the amount of trust, respect, and loyalty in the relationship.
• These relationships are important because they are differentially related to leadership
and work outcomes. When relationship quality is high, performance is better, subordinates are more satisfied and supported, commitment and citizenship are higher, and
turnover is reduced.
• Relationships develop through processes of social exchange based on the norm of reciprocity (i.e., when one party does something for another, an obligation is generated
until it is repaid).
• Reciprocity is determined based on three components: equivalence (whether the
amount given back is same as what was received), immediacy (how quickly the repayment is made), and interest (the motive behind the exchange).
• Idiosyncrasy credits mean that when we have enough credits built up in relationships
with others, we can get away with idiosyncrasies (i.e., deviations from expected norms)
as long as the violation does not exceed the amount of credits.

What do we mean by leadership as a collective process?

• Collective leadership advocates a shift in focus from traits and characteristics of leaders
to a focus on the shared activities and interactive processes of leadership.
• Distributed leadership sees leadership as drawing from the variety of expertise across
the many, rather than relying on the limited expertise of one or a few leaders.
• Co-leadership is when top leadership roles are structured in ways that no single individual is vested with the power to unilaterally lead.
• Shared leadership defines leadership as a dynamic, interactive influence process among
individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement
of group or organizational goals, or both.
• Shared leadership occurs both laterally, among team members, and vertically, with the
team leader. The main objective is to understand and find alternate sources of leadership that will impact positively on organizational performance.

Terms to Know
Claiming (p. 284)

Co-leadership (p. 295)
Collective leadership (p. 294)
Distributed leadership
(p. 294)
Equivalence (p. 293)
Followership (p. 288)
Follower role
orientation (p. 289)
Formal leadership (p. 282)
Granting (p. 284)
Idiosyncrasy credits (p. 294)
Immediacy (p. 293)

Implicit followership theories
(p. 290)
Implicit leadership theories
(p. 286)
Informal leaders (p. 282)
Interest (p. 293)
Leader–member exchange
(LMX) (p. 292)
Leadership (p. 282)
Leadership identity
construction process (p. 284)
Motivation to lead (p. 285)
Norm of reciprocity (p. 293)

Power distance orientation
(p. 290)
Proactive follower orientation

(p. 290)
Romance of leadership
(p. 288)
Shared leadership (p. 296)
social construction of
leadership (p. 284)
Social exchange theory
(p. 293)
Trust (p. 293)
Upward leadership (p. 282)

297


Find more at

298

CHAPTER 13

■

The Leadership Process

Self-Test 13
Multiple Choice
1. Leadership is a process of ____________.
(a) leading and following
(b) deferring and obeying
(c) managing and supervising

(d) influencing and resisting
2. We could almost say that it is in ____________ that leadership is created.
(a) positions
(b) authority
(c) following
(d) hierarchy
3. A type of leadership that is often missed in discussions of leadership is _______
leadership.
(a) face-to-face
(b) downward
(c) hierarchical
(d) upward
4. ___________ occurs through processes of claiming and granting.
(a) Followership
(b) Leadership identity construction
(c) Implicit theory
(d) Status
5. People use ____________ in deciding whether to grant a leadership claim.
(a) implicit theories
(b) social constructions
(c) collective leadership
(d) social exchange
6. _______ involves the choice of how to engage with leaders in producing
leadership.
(a) Implicit theories
(b) Followership
(c) Informal leadership
(d) Reciprocity
7. Power distance is an example of ________.
(a) an implicit followership theory

(b) upward leadership
(c) the leadership process
(d) a follower role orientation
8. Individuals who engage in voice likely have a ____________.
(a) weak feedback orientation
(b) prototypical leadership theory
(c) constructive follower orientation (d) power distance orientation
9. ____________ involves the process of revealing and reacting to disclosures.
(a) Relational violations
(b) Leadership identity construction
(c) Shared leadership
(d) Relational testing
10. The obligation created when someone does you a favor is ____________.
(a) feedback orientation
(b) the norm of reciprocity
(c) implicit followership theories
(d) distributed leadership
11. A rule of thumb for whether you can violate norms in a relationship is to not
overexpend your ____________.
(a) idiosyncrasy credits
(b) relational disclosures
(c) low LMX
(d) reciprocity


Find more at
Steps to Further Learning 13

12. ____________ says that leadership is an emergent property of a group or network of
interacting individuals.

(a) Leadership identity construction (b) Distributed leadership
(c) Leader–member exchange theory (d) Social exchange theory
13. If a manager and subordinate have a lot of trust and support for one another, we can
say they have a ____________.
(a) weak norm of reciprocity
(b) idiosyncratic relationship
(c) low LMX relationship
(d) high LMX relationship
14. When the leadership role at the top is divided among multiple people, it is called
____________.
(a) collective leadership
(b) distributed leadership
(c) co-leadership
(d) shared leadership
15. Conformity is an example of ____________.
(a) power distance orientation
(b) prototypical followership
(c) anti-prototypical followership
(d) constructive orientation

Short Response
16. What does it mean when we say leadership is socially constructed?
17. How do followers see their role in leadership?
18. How does the norm of reciprocity work in relationship development?
19. Why are scholars talking about collective leadership?

Applications Essay
20. Your roommate is student government president and has been having trouble
getting others to listen to him. Each night it is a different complaint about how terrible the other people in student government are, and how they are lazy and not
willing to do anything. You really want to help him figure out this problem. How do

you go about it?

Steps to Further Learning 13
Top Choices from The OB Skills Workbook
These learning activities from The OB Skills Workbook found at the back of the book
are suggested for Chapter 13.
Case for
Critical Thinking
• The New Vice President

Team and
Experiential Exercises
• Interview a Leader
• Leadership Skills
Inventories
• Leadership and
Participation in Decision
Making

Self-Assessment
Portfolio
• Student Leadership
Practices Inventory
• Least-Preferred Co-worker
Scale
• Leadership Style
• “TT” Leadership Style
• Empowering Others

299

Find more at

Thierry Boccin-Gibod/Getty Images

Great leaders know the way


Find more at

14

Leader Traits
and Behavioral
Styles
The Key Point
When leaders are effective, the people who are influenced by them tend to feel good
and are most often productive. But when leaders are ineffective, people and performance suffer. This chapter explores why some leaders can be more successful than
others, and identifies challenges facing leaders in today’s changing organizational
contexts. ■

What’s Inside?
■ Bringing OB to LIFE
STAYING THIN TO GAIN A LEADERSHIP EDGE

Chapter at
a Glance
■

■

■ Worth Considering . . . or Best Avoided?
NEWLY PROMOTED TO MANAGER? “DO NOTHING” MAY BE YOUR KEY TO SUCCESS

■ Checking Ethics in OB

■

TACKLING UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE

■ Finding the Leader in You
PATRICIA KARTER USES CORE VALUES AS HER GUIDE

■ OB in Popular Culture
LINCOLN AND LEADERSHIP

■

■ Research Insight
WHEN INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES MATTER MORE THAN CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

■

What Do We Know
About Leader Traits
and Behaviors?
What Do
Contingency
Approaches Tell Us

About leadership?
What Are
Charismatic and
Transformational
Theories of
Leadership?
What Are
Complexity
Leadership Views?
How Do We
Address Leadership
Ethics?

301


Find more at

302

CHAPTER 14

■

Leader Traits and Behavioral Styles

Leader Traits and Behaviors
LE A R N ING
ROA DM A P

EARLY TRAIT APPROACHES • LATER TRAIT APPROACHES
BEHAVIORAL LEADERSHIP APPROACHES • ARE LEADERS BORN OR MADE?

We all have experience with many different kinds of leaders. Some are task oriented and
authoritarian. Others are inspirational and motivating. Still others are hands off, with
laissez-faire or ineffectual styles that can make it frustrating when situations require
strong leadership.
These characteristics represent traits and behavioral styles of leaders. Trait and
behavioral approaches help us understand how characteristics of leaders are associated with their effectiveness. The basic premise is that we can identify more and less
effective leadership styles by studying how followers perceive and react to different
kinds of leaders.
As any of us who have worked in organizations know, managers play a crucial role in
creating the climates in which we work. When a manager fosters a supportive and motivating climate, our work is meaningful and going to work is fun. But when we have a bad
manager, morale plummets and we are drained of the energy we need to be productive in
work—and in life. Research has shown us what makes some managers more effective
than others. In this chapter we build from this knowledge to understand how we can
become more effective managers and leaders in the workplace.

Early Trait Approaches

Trait approaches assume
that leaders are endowed with
certain traits or qualities
associated with leader status
and success.

For over a century, scholars have been on a quest to identify the elusive qualities that
separate leaders from non-leaders. Based on the assumption that leaders are endowed
with certain traits or characteristics, much of the early work focused on identifying
qualities that predict who is a leader and who is not. These studies, collectively called

trait approaches, assumed that if we could identify leadership qualities, we could select
individuals for leadership positions based on their leadership traits.
The focus in this early work was on personality, needs, motives, values, and even physical characteristics such as height and sex. For this reason, these theories were often
called “great man theories” because one of the key traits they associated with leadership
was being male.
Early review were discouraging. Scholars concluded that traits were not significantly
associated with leadership. A primary reason was the failure to look for situational and
mediating variables, such as communication or interpersonal behaviors, that would help
explain how leader traits are causally linked to outcomes.1 Instead, researchers looked for
significant correlations between traits and leadership outcomes, such as group performance or leader advancement. When they failed to find strong relationships, they concluded that traits were not a significant predictor of leadership or its effectiveness.

Later Trait Approaches
These early reviews saying there was not a pattern of significant correlations caused
trait approaches to fall out of favor. In recent years, however, trait approaches have experienced a comeback as management scholars are developing new measures and new
ways to analyze the relationship between a manager’s traits and his or her leadership
effectiveness.
Some scholars are using the Big Five dimensions of personality in an attempt to
predict leader emergence (i.e., who is recognized as leader of a group) and leader effectiveness (i.e., how well a leader performs in the role). Findings show significant but small
relationships for four of the Big Five traits: extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional


Find more at
Leader Traits and Behaviors

BRINGING OB
TO LIFE

303

“When we see a senior executive who’s overweight, our initial reaction isn’t positive. . . .

If he can’t keep his hand out of the cookie jar, how can he do his job?”

w

Staying Thin to Gain a Leadership Edge
A good workout may return more than good health and
the body image you want. It might boost your leadership
potential as well. Although OB scholarship has
historically turned away from considering personal traits
such as height, weight, and physical attractiveness in
leadership, the real world may be moving in a different
direction. OB researchers are starting to look at the
workout as not only a personal wellness issue but also a
leadership one.
After seeing a video replay of a presentation he made
at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), Tim McNair
was shocked at the prominence of his “gut.” He guessed
co-workers back home were looking at the same thing
every time he spoke with them. Even worse, he wondered
if they were saying to each other “If he can’t keep his
hand out of the cookie jar, how can he do his job?”
That question doesn’t surprise OB professor and
leadership consultant Barry Posner of Santa Clara
University. “When we see a senior executive who’s
overweight,” he says, “our initial reaction isn’t positive.”
Recent research by CCL backs him up. A study of 757
executives showed that a leader’s weight had a strong
correlation with how good she or he was perceived as a
leader by peers, bosses, and subordinates. A BMI of 25
seemed to be the dividing line. Below it and you score

well as a leader; above it you score more poorly.

BelleMedia/Shutterstock

OB places a lot of importance on how perceptions
influence attitudes and behavior. So if perceptions of our
leadership abilities are affected in any part by our
physical appearance, maybe it’s time to get both weight
and perceptions under control. Whether you call it our
“leadership image” or something else, we own it. Even
the CEO of Weight Watchers International has had to
own up. He started the job at 245 pounds on a six-foottwo frame and says, “I sucked my gut in a lot.” After
losing 40 pounds he now says, “I probably carry myself
with more confidence and authority.”

stability, and openness to experience.2 This means that effective leaders seem to have a
bit more of these traits than ineffective and non-leaders.
Other scholars are pulling from evolutionary psychology to identify genetic factors
associated with leadership that have evolved through natural selection. These scholars
argue that our predilections toward leadership and followership are likely due to natural
selection that caused certain traits and behaviors to be retained because they solved
adaptive problems faced by our ancestors.3 According to evolutionary psychology
approaches, it may be engrained in some of us to voluntarily subordinate to others
because our ancestors learned that, in certain situations, it is better to defer to a central
command.

Behavioral Leadership Approaches
If you want to know whether a leader has a certain trait—that is, intelligence, extraversion,
or persuasiveness—how would you find out? The answer is that you would look at his or
her behaviors. Not surprisingly, then, when the early trait approaches failed to produce

meaningful results, researchers began considering other types of leader characteristics,
such as what leaders did, or how they behaved.


Find more at

304
The behavioral approach
focuses on identifying
categories of relevant
leadership behavior and
examining their effects on
performance and other
outcomes.

CHAPTER 14

■

Leader Traits and Behavioral Styles

This led to what is known as the behavioral approach in management research. The
behavioral approach focuses on identifying categories of relevant leadership behavior
and examining their relationships with outcomes. It does this primarily through the use
of interviews and questionnaires that gather subordinates’ perceptions of the supervisors’
behaviors.
Much of the early work on behavioral approaches was centered at two universities,
so they became known as the Ohio State and Michigan studies.4 These studies discovered that the majority of a manager’s leadership behaviors could be divided into two

Research Insight

When Individual Differences Matter More than
Cultural Differences
hen it comes to transSociety
formational leadership,
• United States
whether subordinates like it or
• People’s Republic
not may depend more on indiof Chinea
vidual differences than cultural
?
differences. At least this is what
researchers found in a study of
managers and subordinates in
Transformational
the United States and China.
leadership
Group level
The findings, published in the
Academy of Management Journal, show that when individuals
have a low power distance orientation they see transformaOrganizational
Individual level
Power distance
Procedural
tional leaders as more fair (i.e.,
citizenship
orientation
justice
procedural justice) than when
behavior

they have a high power distance
orientation. And this finding
seems to hold across both
Chinese and American respondents.
These findings indicate that cultural differences may
The authors suggest that the difference lies in one’s matter less than we think. Individuals both in the United
power distance orientation. When individuals have a high States and China appear to respond negatively to transpower distance orientation, they expect their leaders to formational leadership when they have high power
communicate strong directives. And they don’t want distance orientation. When power distance orientation is
leaders to provide explanation or clarification—their low, transformational leadership is seen as fair. But when
expectation is that solutions should come from leaders, power distance is high, transformational leaders better
not from followers. Transformational leaders, however, beware: Subordinates might not like their style!
are focused on stimulating followers to think for themselves and take on more leadership responsibility. They
use intellectual stimulation to encourage followers to
Do the Research Do you think these findings
think more like leaders. For those with high power diswould hold for other leadership styles? The study
tance orientation, this use of intellectual stimulation is
looked at power distance orientation, but what other
viewed with suspicion. They believe it is unfair for leaders
variables do you think might matter when it comes to
to pass on to followers what they should be taking care of
considering individual differences across cultures?
themselves.

W

Source: See Bradley Kirkman, Gilad Chen, Jiing-Lih Harh, Zhen Xiong Chen, and Kevin Lowe, “Individual Power Distance Orientation and
Follower Reactions to Transformational Leaders: A Cross-Cultural Examination,” Academy of Management Journal 52 (2009), pp. 744–764.


Find more at

Contingency Theories

305

meta-categories: relations-oriented and task-oriented behavior. Relations-oriented
behavior, or consideration, involves concern for relationships and interpersonal support.
It focuses on employee-centered, or socioemotional, concerns. Task-oriented behavior,
or initiating structure, involves directive behavior focused on providing clarity and task
focus. It addresses production-centered, or task-related, concerns of management.
These two behavioral categories form the foundation for much of the management
research that was to follow. Relations-oriented behavior focuses on the human relations
aspects of management. It shows that highly considerate managers are sensitive to people’s
feelings and try to make things pleasant for followers. They do this by listening to subordinates
and treating them as respected colleagues, defending subordinates when needed, being
willing to accept suggestions, and consulting with subordinates on important matters.5
Task-oriented behavior focuses on production. Its key concern is to provide structure
for subordinates by defining task requirements and specifying the work agenda.
Task-oriented behaviors include maintaining performance standards, assigning tasks,
identifying standard procedures, enforcing deadlines, correcting performance problems,
and coordinating activities.6

Relations-oriented
behavior, also known as
consideration, involves
concern for relationships and
socioemotional support.

Are Leaders Born or Made?
The focus on traits and behaviors raises another issue at the center of leadership. Is leadership restricted to those who are born with leadership ability, or can anyone be made
into a leader? This is known as the “born/made” argument in leadership. The “born” argument aligns with trait theory, which says that leaders have certain traits—that they are

natural-born leaders. The “made” argument aligns with the behavior approaches, which
say that leadership is associated with behaviors (i.e., if you behave like a leader you are a
leader). The made argument implies that anyone can be made into a leader through
training and development.
Where do you fall on this issue? Do you think anyone can be made into a leader? Or
do you think people have to have certain skills to be a leader? If the born argument is
right, then we should focus on selection by screening new hires for leadership traits and
skills. If the made argument is correct then we should focus on development by training
individuals to better demonstrate leadership behaviors.
Potential insight into the answer can be found in a series of research studies by Rich
Arvey and colleagues based on samples of fraternal and identical twins from the Minnesota Twin Registry. Examining how much leadership is determined by nature (i.e., genetics) and how much by nurture (i.e., environment), they found that 30 percent to 32 percent of the variance in role occupancy among twins could be accounted for by genetic
factors. This means that roughly 70 percent can be developed.7 The implication of these
findings is that not everyone can be a leader. Instead, individuals must possess at least
some set of basic leadership skills and abilities. In other words, just like being a musician
or a star athlete, leadership is a talent—and some people have it more than others.

Contingency Theories
LE A R N ING
ROA DM A P

THE CONTINGENCY MODEL • FINDINGS FROM CONTINGENCY THEORIES
FIEDLER’S LEADER MATCH • PROBLEMS WITH CONTINGENCY APPROACHES

Common sense would tell us that not all traits or behaviors of leaders are positively related
to effectiveness all of the time. Instead, whether a leader behavior is effective will depend
on the situation. On the first day of class, what do you want from your professor: Do you
want more considerate behavior, or do you want more structuring behavior? Most
students want more structuring behavior. If your professor comes in and is nice and
friendly (i.e., consideration) but does not hand out a syllabus (i.e., initiating structure), the

Task-oriented behavior, also
known as initiating structure,
involves providing direction
and enforcing performance
standards needed to drive
production.