Research Paper – Organization leader and decision making
Note : Please write in APA formatting and use Grammarly to avoid grammar mistakes and write as per 3 questions and minimum five peer-reviewed journal articles.
This week’s journal articles focus on empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams, please answer the following questions:
- How do geographically dispersed teams collaborate effectively?
- Please find at least three tools on the market that teams can use to collaborate on a geographically dispersed team. Please note the pros and cons of each tool.
- Based on the research above, note which tool you would select if you were managing the geographically dispersed team and why.
Be sure to use the UC Library for scholarly research. Google Scholar is also a great source for research. Please be sure that journal articles are peer-reviewed and are published within the last five years. The paper should meet the following requirements:
- 3-5 pages in length (not including title page or references)
- APA guidelines must be followed. The paper must include a cover page, an introduction, a body with fully developed content, and a conclusion.
- A minimum of five peer-reviewed journal articles.
The writing should be clear and concise. Headings should be used to transition thoughts. Don’t forget that the grade also includes the quality of writing.
Optional Resources:Chapter 6, 7, & 8 Journal articles
- Journal Article 6.1: Russell, R.G. and Mizrahi, R. (1995) ‘Development of a situational model for transformational leadership,’ Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(3): 154–163.
- Journal Article 6.2: Tyssen, A.K., Wald, A. and Spieth, P. (2013) ‘Leadership in temporary organizations: a review of leadership theories and a research agenda’, Project Management Journal, 44(6): 52–67.
- Journal Article 6.3: Greenwood, R.G. (1996) ‘Leadership theory: a historical look at its evolution’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1): 3–16.
- Journal Article 7.1: Chaturvedi, S., Arvey, R.D., Zhang, Z. and Christoforou, P.T. (2011) ‘Genetic underpinnings of transformational leadership: The mediating role of dispositional hope’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4): 469–479.
- Journal Article 7.2: Groves, K.S. (2005). ‘Linking leader skills, follower attitudes, and contextual variables via an integrated model of charismatic Leadership’, Journal of Management, 31(2): 255–277.
- Journal Article 7.3: Heracleous, L. and Klaering, L. A. (2014) ‘Charismatic leadership and rhetorical competence: an analysis of Steve Jobs’s rhetoric’, Group & Organization Management, 39(2): 131–161.
- Journal Article 8.1: Madlock, P.E. (2008). ‘The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and employee satisfaction’, The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 45(1): 61–78.
- Journal Article 8.2: Carmeli, A., Tishler, A. and Edmondson, A.C. (2012) ‘CEO relational leadership and strategic decision quality in top management teams: the role of team trust and learning from failure’, Strategic Organization, 10(1): 31–54.
THE LINK BETWEEN
LEADERSHIP STYLE,
COMMUNICATOR COMPETENCE,
AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
Paul E. Madlock
West Virginia University
The current study examined the influence of supervisor communicator competence and leadership style
on employee job and communication satisfaction. Participants were 220 individuals (116 men and 104
women) working full-time for a variety of companies in the Midwest. The findings indicated a strong rela-
tionship between supervisors’ communicator competence and their task and relational leadership styles,
with supervisor communicator competence being a stronger predictor of employee job and communica-
tion satisfaction. More specifically, the findings indicated that supervisor communicator competence
accounted for 68% of the variance in subordinate communication satisfaction and nearly 18% of the vari-
ance in subordinate job satisfaction. More important, these findings provide an association between com-
munication, leadership, and employee job and communication satisfaction.
Keywords: leadership style; supervision; communicator competence; communication satisfaction;
job satisfaction
The link between leadership and competent communication has received
limited attention by business and communication scholars alike.
According to Holladay and Coombs (1993), leadership is a behavior
enacted through communication. Specifically, Holladay and Coombs sug-
gested that communication shapes the perceptions of a leader’s charisma,
and communication can be divided into the content of the leader’s mes-
sages and the presentation of those messages. Similarly, messages sent by
leaders are considered to contain both affective and cognitive strategies
(Hall & Lord, 1995), and when leaders effectively communicate their
vision, they win the confidence of followers, which in turn aids in com-
munication satisfaction between the leader and follower (Pavitt, 1999).
Paul E. Madlock is a PhD student in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia
University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul E. Madlock, West
Virginia University, Department of Communication Studies, P.O. Box 6293, 108 Armstrong Hall
WVU, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293; phone: 304-293-3905; fax: 304-293-8667; e-mail: pmad-
lock@mix.wvu.edu.
Journal of Business Communication, Volume 45, Number 1, January 2008 61-78
DOI: 10.1177/0021943607309351
© 2008 by the Association for Business Communication
Castaneda and Nahavandi (1991) suggested that subordinates who perceive
their supervisors’ behaviors to exhibit both relationship orientation and
task orientation report being the most satisfied.
Based on previous research, leadership appears to be enacted through
communication in such a way that it contains a relational (affective) and task
(content) component. Additionally, when leaders communicate effectively,
their followers experience greater levels of satisfaction. Thus, the purpose
of the current study was to examine the influence of supervisor task lead-
ership style, relational leadership style, and communicator competence on
employee job and communication satisfaction. This examination is of value
in that it extends prior research in three ways. First, the current study exam-
ines the link between communicator competence and leadership styles.
Second, this study highlights the specific influence of both task and relational
leadership and, third, offers insight into the influence that supervisor task
leadership, relational leadership, and communicator competence have on
subordinate job and communication satisfaction. The variables of communi-
cator competence, leadership, communication satisfaction, and job satisfac-
tion are discussed in more detail below.
Thus, the purpose of the current study
was to examine the influence of super-
visor task leadership style, relational
leadership style, and communicator
competence on employee job and
communication satisfaction.
Communicator Competence
Harris and Cronen’s (1979) research indicated that competent individuals
must not only achieve their goals (be effective) but also do so appropriately.
In following with this notion, communication competence has been concep-
tualized to encompass elements of knowledge, motivation, skill, behavior,
and effectiveness (Spitzberg, 1983). Spitzberg and Cupach (1981) stated,
“Competent interaction can be viewed as a form of interpersonal influence,
in which an individual is faced with the task of fulfilling communicative
functions and goals (effectiveness) while maintaining conversational and
interpersonal norms (appropriateness)” (p. 1).
62 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
Cushman and Craig (1976) argued that communicator competence
involves the ability of individuals to display competencies in areas such as
listening and negotiating. More recently, Salacuse (2007) indicated that as
a result of changing work environments in which employees are more
educated and intelligent than past generations, leaders are now required to
lead by negotiation. Specifically, Salacuse noted that in order for leaders
to persuade people to follow their vision, they need to communicate effec-
tively by appealing to the interests of the followers. In that competent
communicators must employ communicative resources such as language,
gestures, and voice (Stohl, 1984), and in order for supervisors to be per-
ceived as competent communicators, they must share and respond to
information in a timely manner, actively listen to other points of view,
communicate clearly and succinctly to all levels of the organization, and
utilize differing communication channels (Shaw, 2005).
Despite the vast amounts of research focused on competent communi-
cation, there appears to be a lack of prior research directly examining the
relationship between supervisor communicator competence and supervi-
sor task and relational leadership styles. However, there does appear to be
a limited amount of research examining the influence of supervisors’ com-
municator competence on employee outcomes.
One such study was that of Berman and Hellweg (1989), whose find-
ings indicated that the perceived communicator competence of a supervi-
sor was related to their subordinate’s satisfaction with that supervisor.
Another example was a study by Myers and Kassing (1998), who exam-
ined the relationship between subordinate perceptions of their supervi-
sor’s communication skills, including communicator competence, and the
subordinate’s level of organizational identification. Myers and Kassing’s
findings indicated that supervisor communication competence was a sig-
nificant predictor of subordinate organizational identification. A more
recent example was a study by Sharbrough, Simmons, and Cantrill (2006),
who examined the impact of motivational language on a number of out-
comes. Specifically, Sharbrough et al. found positive relationships between a
leader’s use of motivational language and their perceived effectiveness,
their communication competence, and their subordinates’ job and com-
munication satisfaction.
The current study differs from the prior examples in two significant
ways. First, the current study examined the influence of a supervisor’s
communicator competence, task, and relational leadership on subordi-
nates’ job and communication satisfaction. Second, the current study also
examined the influence that a supervisor’s task and relational leadership
style has on being perceived as a competent communicator. The following
Madlock / LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION 63
section highlights the importance of leadership in organizations and offers
support for the inclusion of leadership in the current study.
Leadership
Leadership has been defined in a number of ways, such as the ability to
guide followers toward shared goals (Bryman, 1992), as a form of influ-
ence (Hersey, 1984), and as simply something a leader does (Fleishman,
1973). Specific to the current study, Pfeffer and Salancik (1975) indicated
that leaders exhibit task- and relational-oriented behaviors. Additionally,
Castaneda and Nahavandi (1991) indicated that employees are most satis-
fied when they perceive their supervisors as exhibiting both relational-
and task-oriented behaviors.
A conceptualization of leadership that is composed of task and rela-
tional behaviors is considered as the styles approach to leadership. The
Ohio State and Michigan studies were strong representatives of the styles
approach. The Ohio State studies (Hemphill & Coons, 1957) identified
two types of behaviors explaining what leaders do: Leaders provide struc-
ture and nurture subordinates. At nearly the same time, the Michigan stud-
ies (Cartwrite & Zander, 1960; Likert, 1961, 1967) identified the
behaviors of effective leaders to contain employee-oriented behaviors and
production-oriented behaviors.
Prior research has examined the effects of leadership style in relation to
group satisfaction (Anderson, Madlock, & Hoffman, 2006), effective com-
munication skills (Fairhurst, 1993; Mintzberg, 1994), interpersonal commu-
nication (Quick & Macik-Frey, 2004), and rapport building (Campbell,
White, & Johnson, 2003). As such, there appears to be a gap in the research
relative to the examination of the task and relational leadership style and
communicator competence. This gap in the research also extends to the rela-
tionship between task and relational leadership style and employee outcomes
of job and communication satisfaction. Thus, communication satisfaction, as
discussed below, was included in the current study.
Communication Satisfaction
Employee satisfaction has been an area examined by business and com-
munication scholars primarily because satisfaction has been positively
related to job performance (Gruneberg, 1979). A conceptualization of com-
munication satisfaction was offered by Crino and White (1981), who argued
that organizational communication satisfaction involves an individual’s
64 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
satisfaction with various aspects of the communication occurring in the
organization, whereas Putti, Aryee, and Phua (1990) demonstrated that
organizational members’ communication satisfaction is associated with
the amount of information available to them. Although communication
provides employees with information that clarifies work tasks and may
contribute to communication satisfaction, Anderson and Martin (1995)
found that employees engage in communication interactions with cowork-
ers and superiors to satisfy interpersonal needs of pleasure and inclusion.
Thus, employee communication satisfaction appears to involve a task and
relational dimension.
Prior research indicates that interpersonal interactions involving the
exchange of information and affect between coworkers and between
employees and their supervisors can have significant effects on the
employees’ psychological job outcomes, including job satisfaction, orga-
nizational commitment, and burnout (e.g., Pincus, 1986; Postmes, Tanis,
& de Wit, 2001; Ray & Miller, 1994). Generally, as employees experience
more positive communication relationships, they also experience more
positive job outcomes such as job satisfaction.
Job Satisfaction
The most common factors leading to worker stress and dissatisfaction
are those emanating from the nature of the job itself, within which inter-
personal relationships between employees and supervisors take place
(Barnett & Brennan, 1997; Rodwell, Kienzle, & Shadur, 1998). According
to Korte and Wynne (1996), a deterioration of relationships in organiza-
tional settings resulting from reduced interpersonal communication
between workers and supervisors negatively influences job satisfaction
and sometimes leads to employees leaving their jobs.
Early work by Taylor (1970) suggested that worker satisfaction may be
attributed to the highest possible earnings with the least amount of fatigue,
whereas Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction from an employee’s standpoint
as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state from the appraisal of one’s job or
experiences” (p. 1297). Taylor’s classical theory prompted a number of stud-
ies that revealed differing factors behind job satisfaction. Some of these fac-
tors found to mediate job satisfaction include supervisors’ displays of
nonverbal immediacy (Madlock, 2006b; Richmond & McCroskey, 2000),
humor (Avtgis & Taber, 2006), communication satisfaction (Hilgerman,
1998), effects of gender (Madlock, 2006a), and supervisors’ communication
style (Richmond, McCroskey, Davis, & Koontz, 1980).
Madlock / LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION 65
The literature reviewed for this study appears to support the notion that
communication between employees and supervisors has an influence on the
employees’ job satisfaction. Based on the research reviewed and the gap in
prior research relevant to the influence that supervisor communicator compe-
tence, task leadership style, and relational leadership style have on employee
job and communication satisfaction, the following hypotheses and research
questions were advanced.
Hypotheses and Research Questions
Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant and positive relationship between
supervisor communication competence and employee job and commu-
nication satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant and positive relationship between
supervisor relational leadership style and employee job and communi-
cation satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant and positive relationship between
a supervisor’s task leadership style and employee job and communica-
tion satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: There will be a significant and positive relationship between
a supervisor’s task and relational leadership style and communication
competence.
Research Question 1a: Which behavior displayed by a supervisor—task
leadership, relational leadership, or communicator competence—will
serve as a greater predictor of employee communication satisfaction?
Research Question 1b: Which behavior displayed by a supervisor—task
leadership, relational leadership, or communicator competence—will
serve as a greater predictor of employee job satisfaction?
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 220 working adults (52.7% male, n = 116; and 47.3%
female, n = 104), with a range in tenure from 1 to 40 years (M = 8.6, SD = 10.0).
Of the participants, 112 reported working for a female supervisor and 108
reported working for a male supervisor. Participants ranged in age from 18 to
64 (M = 34.5, SD = 14), whereas supervisors’ ages ranged from 22 to 75 (M =
42.6, SD = 10.7). Participants reported working for a variety of organizations
including education (7.0%), government (15.0%), service (47.3%), high tech
(7.1%), manufacturing (14.9%), civil service (4.2%), and other (4.5%).
66 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
The literature reviewed for this study
appears to support the notion that
communication between employees
and supervisors has an influence on
the employees’ job satisfaction.
Procedures
A network sample was obtained for the current study in which students
enrolled in an advanced organizational communication course at a large
Midwest university contacted employees to participate in the study. The
students were instructed to deliver the questionnaire to full-time working
adults. Participants were approached in non-work settings so as to pre-
serve the anonymity of both the participants and their organization. The
questionnaire utilized for the study was composed of a variety of instru-
ments, including scales measuring subordinates’ perceptions of their
supervisors’ communication behaviors (see appendix for a copy of the
scales used in the study). One important note is that all the responses to
the survey questions were based on the perceptions of the subordinate. A
quantitative methodological approach was utilized for the current study in
an effort to maximize the generalizability of the findings based on the size
and diversity of the sample. The institutional review board granted exempt
status due to the limited risk involved with the study and the assurance of
confidentiality and anonymity for the participants because a self-addressed
stamped envelope was provided by the author as a means for the participants
to return the completed questionnaire.
Measures
The measures utilized in the current study were chosen for two primary
reasons. First, they have yielded consistently strong reliabilities across a
number of prior studies. Second, the measures tapped into the attitudes
and behaviors that were relevant to the current study. For example, the
Leadership Style Questionnaire by Northouse (2001) measures both the
task and relational leadership styles, which coincide with the behaviors
associated with a competent communicator. As such, the Communicator
Madlock / LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION 67
Competence Questionnaire developed by Monge, Backman, Dillard, and
Eisenburg (1982) appears to tap into the conceptualization of competent
supervision forwarded by Shaw (2005), suggesting that in order for super-
visors to be perceived as competent communicators, they must share and
respond to information in a timely manner, actively listen to other points
of view, communicate clearly and succinctly, and utilize differing com-
munication channels.
Communicator competence was measured by the 12-item Communicator
Competence Questionnaire developed by Monge et al. (1982). The items were
measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). Prior research reported scale reliability of .93 (Madlock,
2006a). Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .90 (M = 41.13, SD = 6.71).
Job satisfaction was measured by the 8-item Abridged Job In General
(AJIG) scale (Russell et al., 2004). A 5-point Likert-type response mea-
sure (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was used in the current
study instead of the original scale formatting (e.g., using 0 for “no,” 1 for
“?,” and 3 for “yes”) to ensure overall consistency throughout the ques-
tionnaire. The scale is composed of single words to short statements
regarding employees’ overall perception of their job (e.g., good, better
than most, undesirable). The AJIG scale was found to have prior reliabil-
ity of .87 (Russell et al., 2004). Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was
.92 (M = 24.0, SD = 2.41).
Communication satisfaction was measured by the 19-item Interpersonal
Communication Satisfaction Inventory (ICSI) developed by Hecht (1978). A
7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) was
used. A slight modification was made to the original scale with a lead-in sen-
tence (“When communicating with my supervisor, I feel . . .”) preceding
each statement. Prior studies reported reliabilities ranging from .72 to .93 and
strong validity (Rubin, Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994). Cronbach’s alpha for
the current study was .94 (M = 69.60, SD = 14.22).
Leadership style was measured by the 20-item Leadership Style
Questionnaire developed by Northouse (2001). The instrument measures
the task and relational leadership styles and, when summed, represents
a general leadership profile. A 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was used in the study. Prior research
reported scale reliabilities ranging from .92 to .95 (Anderson et al.,
2006). Cronbach’s alpha for the current study found that total leadership
style was .93 (M = 73.56, SD = 13.56), task leadership style was .90
(M = 37.13, SD = 7.17), and relational leadership style was .92 (M =
36.43, SD = 7.75).
68 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
RESULTS
The first hypothesis predicted significant and positive relationships between
supervisor communication competence and employee job and communication
satisfaction. Results of three Pearson correlations supported the hypothesis by
indicating statistically significant positive relationships between the predictor
and criterion variables. A strong relationship was found between supervisor
communicator competence and employee communication satisfaction,
whereas a moderate relationship was found between supervisor communicator
competence and employee job satisfaction. Table 1 contains the correlational
analysis results.
The second hypothesis predicted significant and positive relationships
between supervisor relational leadership style and employee job and com-
munication satisfaction. The results of Pearson correlations supported the
hypothesis by indicating statistically significant positive relationships
between the predictor and criterion variables. Specifically, a strong rela-
tionship was found between supervisor relational leadership style and
employee communication satisfaction, whereas a weak relationship was
found between supervisor relational leadership style and employee job
satisfaction. Table 1 contains the correlational analysis results.
A strong relationship was found
between supervisor communicator
competence and employee communi-
cation satisfaction, whereas a moder-
ate relationship was found between
supervisor communicator competence
and employee job satisfaction.
Madlock / LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION 69
Table 1. Pearson Correlations Among Variables
1 2 3 4 5
1. Communication satisfaction —
2. Job satisfaction .40 —
3. Task leadership style .55 .24 —
4. Relational leadership style .78 .29 .65 —
5. Communicator competence .82 .42 .51 .76 —
Note: All correlations are statistically significant at p < .001.
The third hypothesis predicted significant and positive relationships
between supervisor task leadership style and employee job and communi-
cation satisfaction. The results of Pearson correlations supported the
hypothesis by indicating statistically significant positive relationships
between the predictor and criterion variables. A strong relationship was
found between supervisor task leadership style and employee communi-
cation satisfaction, whereas a weak relationship was found between super-
visor task leadership style and employee job satisfaction. Table 1 contains
the correlational analysis results.
The fourth hypothesis predicted significant and positive relationships
between supervisors’ task and relational leadership style and their com-
municator competence. The results of Pearson correlations supported the
hypothesis by indicating statistically significant positive relationships
between the predictor and criterion variables. A strong relationship was
found between both supervisor task and relational leadership style and
supervisor communication competence. Table 1 contains the correlational
analysis results.
Research Question 1a concerned which supervisor behavior—task leader-
ship style, relational leadership style, or communication competence—would
serve as a greater predictor of employee communication satisfaction. Using
multiple regression, employee communication satisfaction was regressed on a
linear combination of the three predictor variables. Results indicated that
supervisor communicator competence accounted for 68% of the variance in
employee communication satisfaction, whereas the equation containing both
supervisor communicator competence and relational leadership style
accounted for 74% of the variance in employee communication satisfaction.
The addition of supervisor task leadership style did not contribute to the vari-
ance accounted for in employee communication satisfaction, F(3, 219) =
200.26, p < .001. Supervisors’ communication competence was found to be a
greater predictor of employee communication satisfaction, β = .55, p < .001,
than was relational leadership style, β = .37, p < .001, and supervisor task
leadership style was not found to be a significant predictor of employee com-
munication satisfaction.
Research Question 1b concerned which supervisor behavior—task lead-
ership style, relational leadership style, or communication competence—
would serve as a greater predictor of employee job satisfaction. Using
multiple regression, employee job satisfaction was regressed on a linear com-
bination of the three predictor variables. Results indicated that supervisor com-
municator competence accounted for 17.8% of the variance in employee job
satisfaction, whereas the equation containing both supervisor communicator
70 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
competence and relational leadership style accounted for 18% of the vari-
ance in employee job satisfaction. The addition of supervisor task leader-
ship style did not contribute to the variance accounted for in employee
communication satisfaction, F(3, 219) = 15.78, p < .001. Supervisors’
communication competence was found to be a predictor of employee job
satisfaction, β = .47, p < .001, whereas task and relational leadership style
were not found to be significant predictors of employee job satisfaction.
Post Hoc Analysis
Based on the findings, supervisors’ communication competence appears to
have a greater influence on employee outcomes than does supervisors’ lead-
ership style. However, a question yet to be examined is which of the two lead-
ership styles (task or relational) would be a greater predictor of communicator
competence. Using multiple regression, supervisor communication compe-
tence was regressed on a linear combination of the two predictor variables.
Results indicated that a combination of supervisor task and relational leader-
ship style accounted for 59% of the variance in supervisors’ communication
competence, F(2, 219) = 154.91, p < .001. However, relational leadership
style was found to be a greater predictor of supervisors’ communication com-
petence, β = .65, p < .001, than was task leadership style, β = .16, p = .006.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current study was to extend and support prior
research by examining the influence of supervisors’ task leadership style,
relational leadership style, and communication competence on employee
job and communication satisfaction. This study also sought to extend prior
research by providing a link between communication competence and
task and relational leadership style.
The current study validates the notion forwarded by Castaneda and
Nahavandi (1991) indicating that employee satisfaction was highest when
employees perceived their supervisors to be exhibiting both relational- and
task-oriented behaviors. The current study found both task and relational
leadership style to be positively related to subordinate job and communica-
tion satisfaction, with strong relationships indicated between leadership style
and employee communication satisfaction. These findings are unique to
leadership research in that they specifically indicate which leadership style,
task or relational, has the greatest influence on subordinate outcomes.
Madlock / LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION 71
Another finding relevant to the current study is that the strongest relation-
ships were found between supervisors’ communication competence and both
employee job and communication satisfaction. This finding extends the
research of Sharbrough et al. (2006) in that it directly assessed the relationship
between supervisors’ communication competence and employee outcomes,
whereas Sharbrough et al. assessed the perceptions of supervisors’ communi-
cation competence based on their use of motivational language. This finding
is also of importance to organizations in that prior research has indicated a link
between employee satisfaction and performance in such a way that increased
levels of employee satisfaction have been associated with increased perfor-
mance (Gruneberg, 1979). Thus, the current study provides organizations
with an area of focus (i.e., supervisor communication competence and lead-
ership styles) in order to maximize their employee satisfaction and potentially
increase the performance of their employees.
Thus, the current study provides orga-
nizations with an area of focus (i.e.,
supervisor communication competence
and leadership styles) in order to
maximize their employee satisfaction
and potentially increase the perfor-
mance of their employees.
A third finding of importance from the current study was that supervisors’
communication competence was found to be the greatest predictor of
employee job and communication satisfaction. Although supervisors’ rela-
tional leadership style was found to be a predictor of subordinate communi-
cation satisfaction, task leadership style was not found to be a predictor of
either subordinate job or communication satisfaction. These findings are of
value because they support the research findings of Pincus (1986), who indi-
cated that the behaviors of supervisors have an important influence on their
employees’ job and communication satisfaction. These findings also extend
the research of Pincus by indicating specific communicative behaviors
exhibited by supervisors that appear to influence employee job and com-
munication satisfaction.
Another interesting finding of the current study is based on the possi-
ble link between leadership styles and communication competence. This
72 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
finding is of value because it emphasizes the importance that communication
has on leadership. Further, the findings support the notion that leadership
may be considered a form of competent communication composed of mes-
sages containing both affective and cognitive strategies (Hall & Lord, 1995).
A final area of interest relative to the current study involves its possible
contributions to industry. Given the negative outcomes that result from
low levels of employee job and communication satisfaction such as absen-
teeism (Alder & Golan, 1981; Blau, 1985; Iverson & Deery, 2001) and
turnover (Porter & Steers, 1973), the current study identified specific
supervisor behaviors that appear to have a strong effect on employee job
and communication satisfaction. With that, organizations may want to
develop supervisory training programs in order to enhance the commu-
nicative behaviors of supervisors, which in turn may result in greater
employee satisfaction and increased performance.
Future Direction and Limitations
While supervisors’ communication competence accounted for the greatest
variance and was found to be the greatest predictors of employee job and
communication satisfaction, future researchers may want to provide further
support for this association between communication satisfaction competence
and leadership. The current findings provided a starting point for researchers
to expand upon this association and develop a causal link between leadership
and communicator competence beyond the limited scope of the current study.
Further, researchers may also want to include a qualitative component to pro-
vide a richer understanding as to the actual reasons employees attribute to per-
ceiving their supervisor as a competent communicator.
A limitation of the current study is that it was primarily a correlational
study. This limitation only allows for associations to be made between the
variables. Additionally, directionality would have been of value in determin-
ing which behaviors elicited the others. For example, do satisfied employees
perceive their supervisors as more communicatively competent and as effec-
tive leaders as a result of their being satisfied, or do the leadership and com-
petent communicative behaviors of the supervisor actually account for the
employee satisfaction? For example, the suggestion that companies train
supervisors to be better communicators may not necessarily cause employees
to experience greater satisfaction. Nonetheless, the findings of the current
study do suggest that supervisors who are communicatively competent are
likely to be perceived as leaders by their subordinates, which in turn may
result in positive employee and organizational outcomes.
Madlock / LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION 73
APPENDIX
Scales Used in the Study
A. Demographic Questions
Please provide the following information:
1. I am a man _____ woman _____.
2. I am _____ years old.
3. Years worked _____.
4. Is your immediate supervisor a man or woman? (please circle)
5. My immediate supervisor is approximately _____ years old.
6. Which best describes your organization? (circle one):
High Tech Manufacturing Service Education Civil Service Government Other _____
B. Communication Satisfaction Scale
Directions: The following statements concern communicating at work. In responding, think of the
communication relationship you have with your immediate supervisor. Choose the number that best
describes how you feel.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
5 4 3 2 1
When communicating with my immediate supervisor, I feel . . .
_____ 7. he or she lets me know that I am communicating effectively.
_____ 8. nothing is ever accomplished.
_____ 9. I would like to continue having conversations like ours.
_____ 10. he or she genuinely wants to get to know me.
_____ 11. very dissatisfied with our conversations.
_____ 12. like I have something else to do.
_____ 13. I am able to present myself as I want him or her to view me.
_____ 14. he or she shows me that he or she understands what I say.
_____ 15. very satisfied with our conversations.
_____ 16. he or she expresses a lot of interest in what I have to say.
_____ 17. I do NOT enjoy our conversations.
_____ 18. he or she does NOT provide support for what he or she says.
_____ 19. that I can talk about anything with my immediate supervisor.
_____ 20. that we each get to say what we want.
_____ 21. that we can laugh easily together.
_____ 22. conversations flow smoothly.
_____ 23. he or she changes the topic when his or her feelings are brought into the conversation.
_____ 24. he or she frequently said things that add little to the conversation.
_____ 25. we often talk about things that I am NOT interested in.
C. Job Satisfaction Scale
Directions: Think of your job in general. All in all, what is it like most of the time? Please indicate
your response by writing the number that best describes how you feel about the statement.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
5 4 3 2 1
_____ 26. Good
_____ 27. Undesirable
_____ 28. Better than most
74 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
_____ 29. Disagreeable
_____ 30. Makes me content
_____ 31. Excellent
_____ 32. Enjoyable
_____ 33. Poor
D. Communicator Competence Questionnaire
Directions: In this series of questions, I would like you to describe how your supervisor communi-
cates. Think about his or her behavior in general, rather than about a specific situation. Please indi-
cate your response by writing the number that best describes how you feel about the statement.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
5 4 3 2 1
My immediate supervisor . . .
_____ 34. has a good command of the language.
_____ 35. is sensitive to my needs of the moment.
_____ 36. typically gets right to the point.
_____ 37. pays attention to what I say to him or her.
_____ 38. deals with me effectively.
_____ 39. is a good listener.
_____ 40. is difficult to understand when communicating in written form.
_____ 41. expresses his or her ideas clearly.
_____ 42. is difficult to understand when he or she speaks to me.
_____ 43. generally says the right thing at the right time.
_____ 44. is easy to talk to.
_____ 45. usually responds to messages (memos, phone calls, reports, etc.) quickly.
E. Leadership Style Scale
Directions: Think about how often your immediate supervisor engages in the described behavior. For
each item, select the number that best represents the behavior that your immediate supervisor is most
likely to exhibit.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
5 4 3 2 1
My immediate supervisor . . .
_____ 46. tells group members what they are supposed to do.
_____ 47. acts friendly with members of the group.
_____ 48. sets standards of performance for group members.
_____ 49. helps others feel comfortable in the group.
_____ 50. makes suggestions on how to solve problems.
_____ 51. responds favorably to suggestions made by others.
_____ 52. makes his or her perspective clear to others.
_____ 53. treats others fairly.
_____ 54. develops a plan of action for the group.
_____ 55. behaves in a predictable manner toward group members.
_____ 56. defines role responsibilities for each group member.
_____ 57. communicates actively with group members.
_____ 58. clarifies his or her own role within the group.
_____ 59. shows concern for the personal well-being of others.
_____ 60. provides a plan for how the work is to be done.
_____ 61. shows flexibility in making decisions.
_____ 62. provides criteria for what is expected of the group.
Madlock / LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION 75
_____ 63. discloses thoughts and feelings to group members.
_____ 64. encourages group members to do quality work.
_____ 65. helps group members get along.
REFERENCES
Alder, S., & Golan, J. (1981). Lateness as a withdrawal behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 66, 544-545.
Anderson, C. M., Madlock, P. E., & Hoffman, P. (2006, April). Leadership, commitment,
and attitudes as predictors of satisfaction in small task groups. Paper presented at the
Central States Communication Association Convention, Indianapolis, IN.
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). The effects of communication motives, inter-
action involvement, and loneliness on satisfaction: A model of small groups. Small
Group Research, 26, 118-137.
Avtgis, T. A., & Taber, K. R. (2006). “I laughed so hard my side hurts, or is that an ulcer?”
The influence of work humor on job stress, job satisfaction, and burnout among print
media employees. Communication Research Reports, 23, 13-18.
Barnett, R., & Brennan, R. (1997). Change in job conditions, change in psychological distress,
and gender: A longitudinal study of dual-earner couples. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 253-274.
Berman, S. J., & Hellweg, S. A. (1989). Perceived supervisor communication competence
and supervisor satisfaction as a function of quality circle participation. Journal of
Business Communication, 26, 103-122.
Blau, G. (1985). Relationship of extrinsic, intrinsic, and demographic predictors to various
types of withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 442-450.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Campbell, K. S., White, C. D., & Johnson, D. E. (2003). Leader-member relations as a
function of rapport management. Journal of Business Communication, 40, 170-194.
Cartwrite, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics—research and theory. Evanston, IL:
Row Peterson.
Castaneda, M., & Nahavandi, A. (1991). Link of manager behavior to supervisor perfor-
mance rating and subordinate satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 16,
357-366.
Crino, M. E., & White, M. C. (1981). Satisfaction in communication: An examination of
the Downs-Hazen measure. Psychological Reports, 49, 831-838.
Cushman, D. P., & Craig, R. T. (1976). Communication systems: Interpersonal implica-
tions. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Exploration in interpersonal communication (pp. 37-58).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in indus-
try: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.
Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E. A. Fleishman
& J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership (pp. 1-37).
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction. New York: John Wiley.
Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1995). Multi-level information-processing explanations of fol-
lowers’ leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 265-281.
76 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
Harris, L., & Cronen, V. E. (1979). A rules-based model for the analysis and evaluation of
organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 27, 12-28.
Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communi-
cation satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253-264.
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description
questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description
and measurement (pp. 6-38). Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of
Business Research.
Hersey, P. (1984). The situational leader. Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership Studies.
Hilgerman, R. (1998). Communication satisfaction, goal setting, job satisfaction, concertive con-
trol, and effectiveness in self-managed teams. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 1661.
Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Communication visions: An exploration of the
role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management Communication
Quarterly, 6, 405-427.
Iverson, R. D., & Deery, S. J. (2001). Understanding the “personological” basis of
employee withdrawal: The influence of affect disposition on employee tardiness, early
departure, and absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 856-866.
Korte, W. B., & Wynne, R. (1996). Telework: Penetration, potential and practice in
Europe. Amsterdam: Ohmsha Press.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Madlock, P. E. (2006a). Do differences in displays of nonverbal immediacy and commu-
nicator competence between male and female supervisors affect subordinates, job sat-
isfaction. Ohio Communication Journal, 44, 61-78.
Madlock, P. E. (2006b, November). Supervisors’nonverbal immediacy behaviors and their
relationship to subordinates’ communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and willing-
ness to collaborate. Paper presented at the National Communication Association
Convention, San Antonio, TX.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). Rounding out the manager’s job. MIT Sloan Management Review,
36, 11-25.
Monge, P. R., Backman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenburg, E. M. (1982). Communicator
competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. Communication
Yearbook, 5, 505-528.
Myers, S. A., & Kassing, J. W. (1998). The relationship between perceived supervisory com-
munication behaviors and subordinate organizational identification. Communication
Research Reports, 15, 71-81.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship:
Input-process-output and functional models. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole
(Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 313–334).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1975). Determinants of supervisory behavior: A role set
analysis. Human Relations, 38, 138-153.
Madlock / LEADERSHIP STYLE AND COMMUNICATION 77
Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction and job performance.
Human Communication Research, 12, 395-419.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in
employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.
Postmes, T., Tanis, M., & de Wit, B. (2001). Communication and commitment in organizations:
A social identity approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 227-246.
Putti, J. M., Aryee, S., & Phua, J. (1990). Communication relationship satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 44-52.
Quick, J. C., & Macik-Frey, M. (2004). Behind the mask: Coaching through deep inter-
personal communication. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56,
67-74.
Ray, E. B., & Miller, K. I. (1994). Social support: Home/work stress and burnout: Who can
help? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 357-373.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The impact of supervisor and subordinate
immediacy on relational and organizational outcomes. Communication Monographs,
67, 85-95.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Davis, L. M., & Koontz, K. A. (1980). Perceived power
as a mediator of management style and employee satisfaction: A preliminary investi-
gation. Communication Quarterly, 28, 37-46.
Rodwell, J., Kienzle, R., & Shadur, M. (1998). The relationships among work-related per-
ceptions, employee attitudes, and employee perceptions and employee performance:
The integral role of communication. Human Resource Management, 37, 277-293.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (1994). Communication research measures:
A sourcebook. New York: Guilford.
Russell, S. S., Spitzmüller, C., Lin, L. F., Stanton, J. M., Smith, P. C., & Ironson, G. H.
(2004). Shorter can also be better: The Abridged Job In General scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64, 878-893.
Salacuse, J. W. (2007). Real leaders negotiate. University Business, 10, 2-3.
Sharbrough, W. C., Simmons, S. A., & Cantrill, D. A. (2006). Motivating language in
industry: Its impact on job satisfaction and perceived supervisor effectiveness. Journal
of Business Communication, 43, 322-343.
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy: Breaking down the bar-
riers to effective leadership communication. Strategic Communication Management, 9,
14-17.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression.
Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1981, November). Self-monitoring and relational com-
petence. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention,
Anaheim, CA.
Stohl, C. (1984, May). Quality circles and the quality of communication. Paper presented
at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Taylor, F. W. (1970). What is scientific management? In H. F. Merrill (Ed.), Classics in
management (pp. 67-71). New York: American Management Association.
78 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged
/DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize false
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Remove
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
/AGaramond-BoldScaps
/AGaramond-Italic
/AGaramond-Regular
/AGaramond-RomanScaps
/AGaramond-Semibold
/AGaramond-SemiboldItalic
/AGar-Special
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldExIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Ex
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-It
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdEx
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular
/AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super
/AlbertusMT
/AlbertusMT-Italic
/AlbertusMT-Light
/Aldine401BT-BoldA
/Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA
/Aldine401BT-ItalicA
/Aldine401BT-RomanA
/Aldine721BT-Bold
/Aldine721BT-BoldItalic
/Aldine721BT-Italic
/Aldine721BT-Light
/Aldine721BT-LightItalic
/Aldine721BT-Roman
/AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular
/AmericanaBT-Bold
/AmericanaBT-ExtraBold
/AmericanaBT-ExtraBoldCondensed
/AmericanaBT-Italic
/AmericanaBT-Roman
/Anna
/AntiqueOlive-Bold
/AntiqueOlive-Compact
/AntiqueOlive-Italic
/AntiqueOlive-Roman
/Arkona-Medium
/Arkona-Regular
/AshleyScriptMT
/AssemblyLightSSK
/AvantGarde-Bold
/AvantGarde-BoldObl
/AvantGarde-Book
/AvantGarde-BookOblique
/AvantGarde-CondBold
/AvantGarde-CondBook
/AvantGarde-CondDemi
/AvantGarde-CondMedium
/AvantGarde-Demi
/AvantGarde-DemiOblique
/AvantGarde-ExtraLight
/AvantGarde-ExtraLightObl
/AvantGarde-Medium
/AvantGarde-MediumObl
/BakerSignetBT-Roman
/BaskervilleBE-Italic
/BaskervilleBE-Medium
/BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic
/BaskervilleBE-Regular
/Baskerville-Bold
/BaskervilleBT-Bold
/BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleBT-Italic
/BaskervilleBT-Roman
/BaskervilleMT
/BaskervilleMT-Bold
/BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleMT-Italic
/BaskervilleMT-SemiBold
/BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold
/BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic
/BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman
/Baskerville-Normal-Italic
/BauerBodoni-Black
/BauerBodoni-BlackCond
/BauerBodoni-BlackItalic
/BauerBodoni-Bold
/BauerBodoni-BoldCond
/BauerBodoni-BoldItalic
/BauerBodoni-BoldItalicOsF
/BauerBodoni-BoldOsF
/BauerBodoni-Italic
/BauerBodoni-ItalicOsF
/BauerBodoni-Roman
/BauerBodoni-RomanSC
/BauhausITCbyBT-Bold
/BauhausITCbyBT-Heavy
/BauhausITCbyBT-Light
/BauhausITCbyBT-Medium
/Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT
/BellGothicBT-Bold
/BellGothicBT-Roman
/Bembo
/Bembo-Bold
/Bembo-BoldExpert
/Bembo-BoldItalic
/Bembo-BoldItalicExpert
/Bembo-Expert
/Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic
/Bembo-Italic
/Bembo-ItalicExpert
/Bembo-Semibold
/Bembo-SemiboldItalic
/Berling-Bold
/Berling-BoldItalic
/Berling-Italic
/Berling-Roman
/BernhardBoldCondensedBT-Regular
/BernhardFashionBT-Regular
/BernhardModernBT-Bold
/BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic
/BernhardModernBT-Italic
/BernhardModernBT-Roman
/BickhamScriptMM
/BickhamScriptMM-AltI
/BickhamScriptMM-AltII
/BickhamScriptMM-Beg
/BickhamScriptMM-End
/BickhamScriptMM-Lig
/BickhamScriptMM-Or
/BickhamScriptMM-SwCaps
/Bodoni
/Bodoni-Bold
/Bodoni-BoldItalic
/Bodoni-Italic
/Bodoni-Poster
/Bodoni-PosterCompressed
/Bookman-Demi
/Bookman-DemiItalic
/Bookman-Light
/Bookman-LightItalic
/Boton-Italic
/Boton-Medium
/Boton-MediumItalic
/Boton-Regular
/Boulevard
/CaflischScript-Bold
/CaflischScript-Regular
/Caliban
/Carta
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book
/Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic
/Caslon540BT-Italic
/Caslon540BT-Roman
/CaslonBT-Bold
/CaslonBT-BoldItalic
/CaslonOpenFace
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium
/CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt
/CastleT-Bold
/CastleT-Book
/Caxton-Bold
/Caxton-BoldItalic
/Caxton-Book
/Caxton-BookItalic
/Caxton-Light
/Century-Bold
/Century-BoldItalic
/Century-Book
/Century-BookItalic
/Century-Light
/Century-LightItalic
/CenturyOldStyle-Bold
/CenturyOldStyle-Italic
/CenturyOldStyle-Regular
/Century-Ultra
/Century-UltraItalic
/ChaparralMM
/ChaparralMM-Ep
/ChaparralMM-It
/ChaparralMM-ItEp
/ChaparralMM-ItSC
/ChaparralMM-Or
/ChaparralMM-SC
/CharterBT-Black
/CharterBT-BlackItalic
/CharterBT-Bold
/CharterBT-BoldItalic
/CharterBT-Italic
/CharterBT-Roman
/CheltenhamBT-Bold
/CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic
/CheltenhamBT-Italic
/CheltenhamBT-Roman
/Christiana-Bold
/Christiana-BoldItalic
/Christiana-Italic
/Christiana-Medium
/Christiana-MediumItalic
/Christiana-Regular
/Christiana-RegularExpert
/Christiana-RegularSC
/Clarendon
/Clarendon-Bold
/Clarendon-Light
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold
/ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic
/ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman
/CMB10
/CMBSY10
/CMBSY5
/CMBSY6
/CMBSY7
/CMBSY8
/CMBSY9
/CMBX10
/CMBX12
/CMBX5
/CMBX6
/CMBX7
/CMBX8
/CMBX9
/CMBXSL10
/CMBXTI10
/CMCSC10
/CMCSC8
/CMSS10
/CMSS12
/CMSS17
/CMSS8
/CMSS9
/CMSSBX10
/CMSSDC10
/CMSSI10
/CMSSI12
/CMSSI17
/CMSSI8
/CMSSI9
/CMSSQ8
/CMSSQI8
/CMSY10
/CMSY5
/CMTEX9
/ComicSansMS
/ComicSansMS-Bold
/ConcordeNova-Italic
/ConcordeNova-ItalicExp
/ConcordeNova-ItalicOsF
/ConcordeNova-Medium
/ConcordeNova-MediumExp
/ConcordeNova-MediumSC
/ConcordeNova-Regular
/ConcordeNova-RegularExp
/ConcordeNova-RegularSC
/ConduitITC-Bold
/ConduitITC-BoldItalic
/ConduitITC-Light
/ConduitITC-LightItalic
/ConduitITC-Medium
/ConduitITC-MediumItalic
/CooperBlack
/CooperBlack-Italic
/CooperBT-Bold
/CooperBT-BoldItalic
/CooperBT-Light
/CooperBT-LightItalic
/CopperplateGothicBT-Bold
/CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond
/CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy
/CopperplateGothicBT-Roman
/CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond
/Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC
/Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC
/Coronet-Regular
/Courier
/Courier-Bold
/Courier-BoldOblique
/Courier-Oblique
/Critter
/CS-Special-font
/Delta-Bold
/Delta-BoldItalic
/Delta-Book
/Delta-BookItalic
/Delta-Light
/Delta-LightItalic
/Delta-Medium
/Delta-MediumItalic
/DextorD
/DextorOutD
/DINEngschrift
/DINEngschrift-Alternate
/DINMittelschrift
/DINMittelschrift-Alternate
/DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond
/DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light
/Dom-CasItalic
/DomCasual
/DomCasual-Bold
/Dom-CasualBT
/Ehrhard-Italic
/Ehrhard-Regular
/EhrhardSemi-Italic
/EhrhardtMT
/EhrhardtMT-Italic
/EhrhardtMT-SemiBold
/EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic
/EhrharSemi
/ElectraLH-Bold
/ElectraLH-BoldCursive
/ElectraLH-Cursive
/ElectraLH-Regular
/ElGreco
/EnglischeSchT-Bold
/EnglischeSchT-Regu
/ErasContour
/ErasITCbyBT-Bold
/ErasITCbyBT-Book
/ErasITCbyBT-Demi
/ErasITCbyBT-Light
/ErasITCbyBT-Medium
/ErasITCbyBT-Ultra
/Euclid
/Euclid-Bold
/Euclid-BoldItalic
/EuclidExtra
/EuclidExtra-Bold
/EuclidFraktur
/EuclidFraktur-Bold
/Euclid-Italic
/EuclidMathOne
/EuclidMathOne-Bold
/EuclidMathTwo
/EuclidMathTwo-Bold
/EuclidSymbol
/EuclidSymbol-Bold
/EuclidSymbol-BoldItalic
/EuclidSymbol-Italic
/EuroMono-Bold
/EuroMono-BoldItalic
/EuroMono-Italic
/EuroMono-Regular
/EuropeanPi-Four
/EuropeanPi-One
/EuropeanPi-Three
/EuropeanPi-Two
/EuroSans-Bold
/EuroSans-BoldItalic
/EuroSans-Italic
/EuroSansITC-Black
/EuroSansITC-BlackItalic
/EuroSansITC-Bold
/EuroSansITC-BoldItalic
/EuroSansITC-Book
/EuroSansITC-BookItalic
/EuroSansITC-Medium
/EuroSansITC-MediumItalic
/EuroSans-Regular
/EuroSerif-Bold
/EuroSerif-BoldItalic
/EuroSerif-Italic
/EuroSerif-Regular
/Eurostile
/Eurostile-Bold
/Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo
/Eurostile-ExtendedTwo
/ExPonto-Regular
/FairfieldLH-Bold
/FairfieldLH-BoldItalic
/FairfieldLH-BoldSC
/FairfieldLH-CaptionBold
/FairfieldLH-CaptionHeavy
/FairfieldLH-CaptionLight
/FairfieldLH-CaptionMedium
/FairfieldLH-Heavy
/FairfieldLH-HeavyItalic
/FairfieldLH-HeavySC
/FairfieldLH-Light
/FairfieldLH-LightItalic
/FairfieldLH-LightSC
/FairfieldLH-Medium
/FairfieldLH-MediumItalic
/FairfieldLH-MediumSC
/FairfieldLH-SwBoldItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwHeavyItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwLightItalicOsF
/FairfieldLH-SwMediumItalicOsF
/Fences
/Fenice-Bold
/Fenice-BoldOblique
/Fenice-Light
/Fenice-LightOblique
/Fenice-Regular
/Fenice-RegularOblique
/Fenice-Ultra
/Fenice-UltraOblique
/FlashD-Ligh
/Flood
/FontanaNDEeOsF
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Bold
/FontanaNDEeOsF-BoldItalic
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Light
/FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold
/FormalScript421BT-Regular
/Formata-Bold
/Formata-MediumCondensed
/ForteMT
/FrakturBT-Regular
/FranklinGothic-Book
/FranklinGothic-BookItal
/FranklinGothic-BookOblique
/FranklinGothic-Condensed
/FranklinGothic-Demi
/FranklinGothic-DemiItal
/FranklinGothic-DemiOblique
/FranklinGothic-Heavy
/FranklinGothic-HeavyItal
/FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique
/FranklinGothic-Medium
/FranklinGothic-MediumItal
/FranklinGothic-Roman
/FreestyleScript
/FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold
/FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman
/Frutiger-Black
/Frutiger-BlackCn
/Frutiger-BlackItalic
/Frutiger-Bold
/Frutiger-BoldCn
/Frutiger-BoldItalic
/Frutiger-Cn
/Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn
/Frutiger-Italic
/Frutiger-Light
/Frutiger-LightCn
/Frutiger-LightItalic
/Frutiger-Roman
/Frutiger-UltraBlack
/Futura
/FuturaBlackBT-Regular
/Futura-Bold
/Futura-BoldOblique
/Futura-Book
/Futura-BookOblique
/FuturaBT-Bold
/FuturaBT-BoldCondensed
/FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic
/FuturaBT-BoldItalic
/FuturaBT-Book
/FuturaBT-BookItalic
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlack
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic
/FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic
/FuturaBT-Heavy
/FuturaBT-HeavyItalic
/FuturaBT-Light
/FuturaBT-LightCondensed
/FuturaBT-LightItalic
/FuturaBT-Medium
/FuturaBT-MediumCondensed
/FuturaBT-MediumItalic
/Futura-CondensedLight
/Futura-CondensedLightOblique
/Futura-ExtraBold
/Futura-ExtraBoldOblique
/Futura-Heavy
/Futura-HeavyOblique
/Futura-Light
/Futura-LightOblique
/Futura-Oblique
/Futura-Thin
/Galliard-Black
/Galliard-BlackItalic
/Galliard-Bold
/Galliard-BoldItalic
/Galliard-Italic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Bold
/GalliardITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Italic
/GalliardITCbyBT-Roman
/Galliard-Roman
/Galliard-Ultra
/Galliard-UltraItalic
/Garamond-Antiqua
/Garamond-BoldCondensed
/Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic
/Garamond-BookCondensed
/Garamond-BookCondensedItalic
/Garamond-Halbfett
/GaramondITCbyBT-Bold
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Book
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-BookNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Light
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow
/GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal
/GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic
/GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic
/Garamond-Kursiv
/Garamond-KursivHalbfett
/Garamond-LightCondensed
/Garamond-LightCondensedItalic
/GaramondThree
/GaramondThree-Bold
/GaramondThree-BoldItalic
/GaramondThree-Italic
/GarthGraphic
/GarthGraphic-Black
/GarthGraphic-Bold
/GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed
/GarthGraphic-BoldItalic
/GarthGraphic-Condensed
/GarthGraphic-ExtraBold
/GarthGraphic-Italic
/Geometric231BT-HeavyC
/GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA
/GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA
/GeometricSlab712BT-LightA
/GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA
/GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA
/GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA
/Giddyup
/Giddyup-Thangs
/GillSans
/GillSans-Bold
/GillSans-BoldCondensed
/GillSans-BoldItalic
/GillSans-Condensed
/GillSans-ExtraBold
/GillSans-Italic
/GillSans-Light
/GillSans-LightItalic
/GillSans-UltraBold
/Gill-Special
/Giovanni-Bold
/Giovanni-BoldItalic
/Giovanni-Book
/Giovanni-BookItalic
/Goudy
/Goudy-Bold
/Goudy-BoldItalic
/Goudy-BoldItalicOsF
/Goudy-BoldOsF
/Goudy-ExtraBold
/Goudy-Heavyface
/Goudy-HeavyfaceItalic
/Goudy-Italic
/Goudy-ItalicOsF
/GoudyModernMT
/GoudyModernMT-Italic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold
/GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman
/GoudySans-Black
/GoudySans-BlackItalic
/GoudySans-Bold
/GoudySans-BoldItalic
/GoudySans-Book
/GoudySans-BookItalic
/GoudySans-Medium
/GoudySans-MediumItalic
/Goudy-SC
/GoudyTextMT
/GoudyTextMT-Alternate
/GoudyTextMT-Dfr
/GoudyTextMT-LombardicCapitals
/Helvetica
/Helvetica-Black
/Helvetica-BlackOblique
/Helvetica-Black-SemiBold
/Helvetica-Bold
/Helvetica-BoldOblique
/Helvetica-Compressed
/Helvetica-Condensed
/Helvetica-Condensed-Black
/Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Bold
/Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Light
/Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl
/Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique
/Helvetica-ExtraCompressed
/Helvetica-Light
/Helvetica-LightOblique
/Helvetica-Narrow
/Helvetica-Narrow-Bold
/Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique
/Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique
/HelveticaNeue-Black
/HelveticaNeue-BlackCond
/HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-BlackExt
/HelveticaNeue-BlackExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-BlackItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Bold
/HelveticaNeue-BoldCond
/HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-BoldExt
/HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Condensed
/HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl
/HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond
/HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-Extended
/HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl
/HelveticaNeue-Heavy
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Italic
/HelveticaNeue-Light
/HelveticaNeue-LightCond
/HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-LightExt
/HelveticaNeue-LightExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-LightItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Medium
/HelveticaNeue-MediumCond
/HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic
/HelveticaNeue-Roman
/HelveticaNeue-ThinCond
/HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExt
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLigExtObl
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLight
/HelveticaNeue-UltraLightItal
/Helvetica-Oblique
/HelvLight
/Humanist521BT-Bold
/Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed
/Humanist521BT-BoldItalic
/Humanist521BT-ExtraBold
/Humanist521BT-Italic
/Humanist521BT-Light
/Humanist521BT-LightItalic
/Humanist521BT-Roman
/Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed
/Humanist521BT-UltraBold
/Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed
/Humanist777BT-BlackB
/Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB
/Humanist777BT-BoldB
/Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB
/Humanist777BT-ItalicB
/Humanist777BT-LightB
/Humanist777BT-LightItalicB
/Humanist777BT-RomanB
/Imago-Book
/Imago-BookItalic
/Imago-ExtraBold
/Imago-ExtraBoldItalic
/Imago-Medium
/Imago-MediumItalic
/IPAExtras
/IPAHighLow
/IPAKiel
/IPAKielSeven
/IPAsans
/JansonText-Bold
/JansonText-BoldItalic
/JansonText-Italic
/JansonText-Roman
/JansonText-RomanSC
/JoannaMT
/JoannaMT-Bold
/JoannaMT-BoldItalic
/JoannaMT-Italic
/KeplMM-Or2
/KisBT-Italic
/KisBT-Roman
/KlangMT
/Lapidary333BT-Black
/Lapidary333BT-Bold
/Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic
/Lapidary333BT-Italic
/Lapidary333BT-Roman
/LASY10
/LASY5
/LASY6
/LASY7
/LASY8
/LASY9
/LASYB10
/LCIRCLE10
/LCIRCLEW10
/LCMSS8
/LCMSSB8
/LCMSSI8
/LDecorationPi-One
/LDecorationPi-Two
/LegacySans-Bold
/LegacySans-BoldItalic
/LegacySans-Book
/LegacySans-BookItalic
/LegacySans-Medium
/LegacySans-MediumItalic
/LegacySans-Ultra
/LegacySerif-Bold
/LegacySerif-BoldItalic
/LegacySerif-Book
/LegacySerif-BookItalic
/LegacySerif-Medium
/LegacySerif-MediumItalic
/LegacySerif-Ultra
/LetterGothic
/LetterGothic-Bold
/LetterGothic-BoldSlanted
/LetterGothic-Slanted
/LINE10
/LINEW10
/Lithos-Black
/Lithos-Regular
/LOGO10
/LOGO8
/LOGO9
/LOGOBF10
/LOGOSL10
/LOMD-Normal
/LubalinGraph-Book
/LubalinGraph-BookOblique
/LubalinGraph-Demi
/LubalinGraph-DemiOblique
/LucidaHandwritingItalic
/LucidaMath-Symbol
/LydianBT-Bold
/LydianBT-BoldItalic
/LydianBT-Italic
/LydianBT-Roman
/LydianCursiveBT-Regular
/Marigold
/MathematicalPi-Five
/MathematicalPi-Four
/MathematicalPi-One
/MathematicalPi-Six
/MathematicalPi-Three
/MathematicalPi-Two
/Melior
/Melior-Bold
/Melior-BoldItalic
/Melior-Italic
/Memphis-Bold
/Memphis-BoldItalic
/Memphis-ExtraBold
/Memphis-Light
/Memphis-LightItalic
/Memphis-Medium
/Memphis-MediumItalic
/MercuriusCT-Black
/MercuriusCT-BlackItalic
/MercuriusCT-Light
/MercuriusCT-LightItalic
/MercuriusCT-Medium
/MercuriusCT-MediumItalic
/MercuriusMT-BoldScript
/Meridien-Medium
/Meridien-MediumItalic
/Meridien-Roman
/MexicanBorders
/Minion-Black
/Minion-Bold
/Minion-BoldCondensed
/Minion-BoldCondensedItalic
/Minion-BoldItalic
/Minion-Condensed
/Minion-CondensedItalic
/Minion-DisplayItalic
/Minion-DisplayRegular
/Minion-Italic
/Minion-Ornaments
/Minion-Regular
/Minion-Semibold
/Minion-SemiboldItalic
/MonaLisa-Recut
/MonolineScriptMT
/MrsEavesAllPetiteCaps
/MrsEavesAllSmallCaps
/MrsEavesBold
/MrsEavesFractions
/MrsEavesItalic
/MrsEavesPetiteCaps
/MrsEavesRoman
/MrsEavesRomanLining
/MrsEavesSmallCaps
/MSAM10
/MSAM10A
/MSAM5
/MSAM6
/MSAM7
/MSAM8
/MSAM9
/MSBM10
/MSBM10A
/MSBM5
/MSBM6
/MSBM7
/MSBM8
/MSBM9
/MTEX
/MTEXB
/MTEXH
/MT-Extra
/MTGU
/MTGUB
/MTMI
/MTMIB
/MTMIH
/MTMS
/MTMSB
/MTMUB
/MTMUH
/MTSY
/MTSYB
/MTSYH
/MTSYN
/Myriad-Bold
/Myriad-BoldItalic
/Myriad-Italic
/Myriad-Roman
/Myriad-Tilt
/NeuzeitS-Book
/NeuzeitS-BookHeavy
/NewBaskerville-Bold
/NewBaskerville-BoldItalic
/NewBaskerville-Italic
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Bold
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-BoldItal
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Italic
/NewBaskervilleITCbyBT-Roman
/NewBaskerville-Roman
/NewBerolinaMT
/NewCaledonia
/NewCaledonia-Black
/NewCaledonia-BlackItalic
/NewCaledonia-Bold
/NewCaledonia-BoldItalic
/NewCaledonia-Italic
/NewCaledonia-SemiBold
/NewCaledonia-SemiBoldItalic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Bold
/NewCenturySchlbk-BoldItalic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Italic
/NewCenturySchlbk-Roman
/NewsGothicBT-Bold
/NewsGothicBT-BoldCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-BoldCondItalic
/NewsGothicBT-BoldExtraCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-BoldItalic
/NewsGothicBT-Demi
/NewsGothicBT-DemiItalic
/NewsGothicBT-ExtraCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-Italic
/NewsGothicBT-ItalicCondensed
/NewsGothicBT-Light
/NewsGothicBT-LightItalic
/NewsGothicBT-Roman
/NewsGothicBT-RomanCondensed
/New-Symbol
/Nueva-BoldExtended
/Nueva-Roman
/NuptialScript
/OceanSansMM
/OceanSansMM-It
/OfficinaSans-Bold
/OfficinaSans-BoldItalic
/OfficinaSans-Book
/OfficinaSans-BookItalic
/OfficinaSerif-Bold
/OfficinaSerif-BoldItalic
/OfficinaSerif-Book
/OfficinaSerif-BookItalic
/Optima
/Optima-Bold
/Optima-BoldItalic
/Optima-ExtraBlack
/Optima-ExtraBlackItalic
/Optima-Italic
/OttaIA
/Otta-wa
/Ottawa-BoldA
/OttawaPSMT
/Oxford
/PalaceScriptMT
/PalaceScriptMT-SemiBold
/Palatino-Bold
/Palatino-BoldItalic
/Palatino-Italic
/Palatino-Roman
/Perpetua
/Perpetua-Bold
/Perpetua-BoldItalic
/Perpetua-Italic
/PhotinaMT
/PhotinaMT-Bold
/PhotinaMT-BoldItalic
/PhotinaMT-Italic
/PhotinaMT-SemiBold
/PhotinaMT-SemiBoldItalic
/PhotinaMT-UltraBold
/PhotinaMT-UltraBoldItalic
/Plantin
/Plantin-Bold
/Plantin-BoldItalic
/Plantin-Italic
/Plantin-Light
/Plantin-LightItalic
/Plantin-Semibold
/Plantin-SemiboldItalic
/Poetica-ChanceryI
/PopplLaudatio-Italic
/PopplLaudatio-Medium
/PopplLaudatio-MediumItalic
/PopplLaudatio-Regular
/ProseAntique-Bold
/ProseAntique-Normal
/QuaySansEF-Black
/QuaySansEF-BlackItalic
/QuaySansEF-Book
/QuaySansEF-BookItalic
/QuaySansEF-Medium
/QuaySansEF-MediumItalic
/Quorum-Black
/Quorum-Bold
/Quorum-Book
/Quorum-Light
/Quorum-Medium
/Revival565BT-Bold
/Revival565BT-BoldItalic
/Revival565BT-Italic
/Revival565BT-Roman
/Ribbon131BT-Bold
/Ribbon131BT-Regular
/RMTMI
/Rockwell
/Rockwell-Bold
/Rockwell-BoldCondensed
/Rockwell-BoldItalic
/Rockwell-Condensed
/Rockwell-ExtraBold
/Rockwell-Italic
/Rockwell-Light
/Rockwell-LightItalic
/RussellSquare
/RussellSquare-Oblique
/RuzickaFreehandLH-Bold
/RuzickaFreehandLH-BoldSC
/RuzickaFreehandLH-Roman
/RuzickaFreehandLH-RomanSC
/Sabon-Bold
/Sabon-BoldItalic
/Sabon-Italic
/Sabon-Roman
/Sanvito-Light
/SanvitoMM
/Sanvito-Roman
/ScotchRomanMT
/ScotchRomanMT-Italic
/Semitica
/Semitica-Italic
/SerifGothic
/SerifGothic-Bold
/SignaCondColumn-Light
/SignaCond-Light
/SignaCond-LightExpert
/SIVAMATH
/Siva-Special
/SMS-SPELA
/Souvenir-Demi
/Souvenir-DemiItalic
/SouvenirITCbyBT-Demi
/SouvenirITCbyBT-DemiItalic
/SouvenirITCbyBT-Light
/SouvenirITCbyBT-LightItalic
/Souvenir-Light
/Souvenir-LightItalic
/SpecialAA
/Special-Gali
/SpringLP
/SpringLP-Light
/Sp-Sym
/SpumoniLP
/StempelGaramond-Bold
/StempelGaramond-BoldItalic
/StempelGaramond-Italic
/StempelGaramond-Roman
/StoneSans
/StoneSans-Bold
/StoneSans-BoldItalic
/StoneSans-Italic
/StoneSans-PhoneticAlternate
/StoneSans-PhoneticIPA
/StoneSans-Semibold
/StoneSans-SemiboldItalic
/StoneSerif
/StoneSerif-Italic
/StoneSerif-PhoneticAlternate
/StoneSerif-PhoneticIPA
/StoneSerif-Semibold
/StoneSerif-SemiboldItalic
/Swiss721BT-Black
/Swiss721BT-BlackCondensed
/Swiss721BT-BlackCondensedItalic
/Swiss721BT-BlackExtended
/Swiss721BT-BlackItalic
/Swiss721BT-BlackOutline
/Swiss721BT-BlackRounded
/Swiss721BT-Bold
/Swiss721BT-BoldCondensed
/Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedItalic
/Swiss721BT-BoldCondensedOutline
/Swiss721BT-BoldExtended
/Swiss721BT-BoldItalic
/Swiss721BT-BoldOutline
/Swiss721BT-BoldRounded
/Swiss721BT-Heavy
/Swiss721BT-HeavyItalic
/Swiss721BT-Italic
/Swiss721BT-ItalicCondensed
/Swiss721BT-Light
/Swiss721BT-LightCondensed
/Swiss721BT-LightCondensedItalic
/Swiss721BT-LightExtended
/Swiss721BT-LightItalic
/Swiss721BT-Medium
/Swiss721BT-MediumItalic
/Swiss721BT-Roman
/Swiss721BT-RomanCondensed
/Swiss721BT-RomanExtended
/Swiss721BT-Thin
/Swiss721BT-ThinItalic
/Symbol
/Tekton
/Times-Bold
/Times-BoldA
/Times-BoldItalic
/Times-BoldOblique
/Times-Italic
/Times-NewRoman
/Times-NewRomanBold
/TimesNewRomanMT-BoldCond
/TimesNewRomanMT-Cond
/TimesNewRomanMT-CondItalic
/TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT
/TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT
/TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT
/TimesNewRomanPSMT
/Times-Oblique
/Times-PhoneticAlternate
/Times-PhoneticIPA
/Times-Roman
/Times-Sc
/Times-SCB
/Times-special
/TradeGothic
/TradeGothic-Bold
/TradeGothic-BoldCondTwenty
/TradeGothic-BoldCondTwentyObl
/TradeGothic-BoldOblique
/TradeGothic-BoldTwo
/TradeGothic-BoldTwoOblique
/TradeGothic-CondEighteen
/TradeGothic-CondEighteenObl
/TradeGothicLH-BoldExtended
/TradeGothicLH-Extended
/TradeGothic-Light
/TradeGothic-LightOblique
/TradeGothic-Oblique
/Trajan-Bold
/Trajan-Regular
/Univers
/Universal-NewswithCommPi
/Univers-Black
/Univers-BlackExt
/Univers-BlackExtObl
/Univers-BlackOblique
/Univers-Bold
/Univers-BoldExt
/Univers-BoldExtObl
/Univers-BoldItalic
/Univers-BoldOblique
/Univers-Condensed
/Univers-CondensedBold
/Univers-CondensedBoldOblique
/Univers-CondensedOblique
/Univers-Extended
/Univers-ExtendedObl
/Univers-ExtraBlack
/Univers-ExtraBlackExt
/Univers-ExtraBlackExtObl
/Univers-ExtraBlackObl
/Univers-Italic
/Univers-Light
/Univers-LightOblique
/Univers-LightUltraCondensed
/Univers-Oblique
/Univers-ThinUltraCondensed
/Univers-UltraCondensed
/Utopia-Regular
/VAGRounded-Black
/VAGRounded-Bold
/VAGRounded-Light
/VAGRounded-Thin
/Viva-BoldExtraExtended
/Viva-Regular
/Weidemann-Black
/Weidemann-BlackItalic
/Weidemann-Bold
/Weidemann-BoldItalic
/Weidemann-Book
/Weidemann-BookItalic
/Weidemann-Medium
/Weidemann-MediumItalic
/WindsorBT-Elongated
/WindsorBT-Light
/WindsorBT-LightCondensed
/WindsorBT-Roman
/Wingdings-Regular
/WNCYB10
/WNCYI10
/WNCYR10
/WNCYSC10
/WNCYSS10
/WoodtypeOrnaments-One
/WoodtypeOrnaments-Two
/ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Bold
/ZapfCalligraphic801BT-BoldItal
/ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Italic
/ZapfCalligraphic801BT-Roman
/ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Bold
/ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Demi
/ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-Medium
/ZapfChanceryITCbyBT-MediumItal
/ZapfChancery-MediumItalic
/ZapfDingbats
/ZapfDingbatsITCbyBT-Regular
/ZapfElliptical711BT-Bold
/ZapfElliptical711BT-BoldItalic
/ZapfElliptical711BT-Italic
/ZapfElliptical711BT-Roman
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Bold
/ZapfHumanist601BT-BoldItalic
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Demi
/ZapfHumanist601BT-DemiItalic
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Italic
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Roman
/ZapfHumanist601BT-Ultra
/ZapfHumanist601BT-UltraItalic
/ZiptyDo
/ZurichBT-Black
/ZurichBT-BlackExtended
/ZurichBT-BlackItalic
/ZurichBT-Bold
/ZurichBT-BoldCondensed
/ZurichBT-BoldCondensedItalic
/ZurichBT-BoldExtended
/ZurichBT-BoldExtraCondensed
/ZurichBT-BoldItalic
/ZurichBT-ExtraBlack
/ZurichBT-ExtraCondensed
/ZurichBT-Italic
/ZurichBT-ItalicCondensed
/ZurichBT-Light
/ZurichBT-LightCondensed
/ZurichBT-LightCondensedItalic
/ZurichBT-LightExtraCondensed
/ZurichBT-LightItalic
/ZurichBT-Roman
/ZurichBT-RomanCondensed
/ZurichBT-RomanExtended
/ZurichBT-UltraBlackExtended
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 300
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages true
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
/Description <<
/FRA
/JPN
/DEU
/PTB
/DAN
/NLD
/ESP
/SUO
/ITA
/NOR
/SVE
/ENU
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [2400 2400]
/PageSize [612.000 792.000]
>> setpagedevice
Group & Organization Management
2014, Vol. 39(2) 131 –161
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601114525436
gom.sagepub.com
Article
Charismatic Leadership
and Rhetorical
Competence: An
Analysis of Steve Jobs’s
Rhetoric
Loizos Heracleous1 and Laura Alexa Klaering2
Abstract
One of the primary ways leaders influence others is through their rhetoric.
Despite the clear link between charismatic leadership and rhetorical
competence, empirical studies of this link in the management field remain
sparse. We thus do not have a clear sense of the nature of the rhetoric
of charismatic leaders and whether or how they alter their rhetoric in
different situations. We conduct an in-depth case study of the rhetoric of
the late Steve Jobs, an acknowledged charismatic leader, to expand our
understanding of the fundamental link between charismatic leadership and
rhetorical competence. We found not only an integration of customization
to different audiences and situations but also continuity in central themes in
different rhetorical contexts, which may be a key attribute of the competence
of charismatic leaders. We also find that customized rhetorical strategies
are influenced by the leader’s perceived ethos (credibility) in the respective
situations, which in turn influences the extent of logos (appeal to logic) and
pathos (appeal to emotions) employed.
Keywords
charismatic leadership, rhetoric, situational context, ethos
1University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
2Geometry Global, Hamburg, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Loizos Heracleous, Professor of Strategy, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick,
Scarman Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Email: loizos.heracleous@wbs.ac.uk
525436 GOMXXX10.1177/1059601114525436Group & Organization ManagementHeracleous and Klaering
research-article2014
mailto:loizos.heracleous@wbs.ac.uk
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1059601114525436&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-02-26
132 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
Charismatic leaders are able to shape actors’ social realities and construct
meaning through how they communicate (Smircich & Morgan, 1982), in par-
ticular their rhetorical competence (Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Shamir, Arthur,
& House, 1994). Through the use of rhetorical features such as central
themes, metaphor and framing, leaders shape followers’ social realities
(Conger, 1991) and enact the distinguishing features of charismatic leader-
ship, such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimu-
lation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1996). However, despite some
insightful conceptual and empirical studies on organizational leaders’ rhetori-
cal competence (Conger, 1991; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Hartog & Verburg,
1997), research on charismatic leadership in the management field has largely
overlooked the critical link to rhetoric (Conger, 1991, 1999). Indeed, the
majority of studies that have empirically investigated the link between lead-
ership and rhetoric focus on the speeches of political leaders (e.g., Beasley,
2004; Bligh & Hess, 2007; Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004; Shamir et al.,
1994), leaving understanding of this link in management and organizational
theory in rather shallow waters (Conger & Kanungo, 1987).
Organizational leaders engage in a variety of dialogical contexts with dif-
ferent types of audiences, in some cases hostile, in others as defenders of their
company strategy, and in yet others as respected icons who share their wis-
dom. Understanding leaders’ rhetoric in such diverse settings can thus help
expand our understanding of the fundamental link between charismatic lead-
ership and rhetorical competence.
Rhetoric as a field of study has enjoyed a resurgence of interest in man-
agement and organization theory over the last few years (e.g., Green, Babb,
& Alpaslan, 2008; Hartelius & Browning, 2008; Jarzabkowski & Sillince,
2007; Jarzabkowski, Sillince, & Shaw, 2010). Understanding rhetoric is
important as rhetorical competence is not only a key attribute of leadership,
as noted above, but is also intimately bound up with its context (Bitzer, 1968)
and can have real effects on work arrangements such as how employees are
managed (Abrahamson, 1997), how organizations respond to stakeholder
concerns (Campbell, Follender, & Shane, 1998), or how organizations can
emphasize different aspects of their identity to help accomplish their strategic
objectives and achieve competitive advantage (Sillince, 2006).
As Hartelius and Browning (2008) observed, when rhetoric is not used as
a term that denotes empty words as contrasted with the substance of situa-
tions (e.g., Cooney & Sewell, 2008), management scholars view rhetoric
variously as control and manipulation aimed at controlling employees, as a
resource for influencing institutional logics through various devices, as con-
structive of group and organizational identities, or as a set of techniques and
approaches (such as the classical tropes of pathos, ethos, and logos) that can
Heracleous and Klaering 133
be employed by managers to persuade stakeholders in the pragmatic pursuit
of goals.
In this article, we analyze the rhetorical discourse of Apple Inc.’s former
CEO, the late Steve Jobs, an acknowledged charismatic leader, in three dif-
ferent contexts, to empirically explore how he employed rhetoric as an
“applied art of persuasion” (Heracleous, 2006a, p. 32). Our research aim is to
expand our understanding of the fundamental link between charismatic lead-
ership and rhetorical competence. Our research question is as follows:
Do charismatic leaders change their rhetoric in different contexts and if
yes, how do they do so?
In this way, we aim to contribute to both the understanding of the rhetorical
nature of charismatic leadership as well as to the field of rhetoric itself. We
identify the different rhetorical strategies (Hopkins & Reicher, 1997; Suddaby
& Greenwood, 2005) employed by Steve Jobs in different situations, includ-
ing his use of metaphor, recognized since Aristotle’s (1991) foundational trea-
tise on rhetoric as an essential aspect of rhetorical competence.
We find that Jobs’s rhetoric is characterized by an integration of custom-
ization as well as continuity. Whereas the rhetorical style changes, the central
themes employed are similar across the three rhetorical situations studied,
and the root metaphors employed are similar across two of the three situa-
tions studied (the third situation was characterized by an oppositional context
not conducive to employment of these metaphors, where Jobs aimed to be as
brief as possible, using mostly dead metaphors). We suggest that this ability
to customize the message to distinct audiences while consistently emphasiz-
ing certain key messages through central themes and root metaphors may be
a key attribute of the rhetorical competence of charismatic leaders. We also
find that these rhetorical strategies are shaped by one of the principal dynam-
ics of rhetoric; ethos (the perceived credibility or character of the speaker),
which, in turn, influences the extent of logos (appeal to logic) and pathos
(appeal to emotion) employed. Whereas the role of context in rhetoric is piv-
otal, the importance of ethos as an aspect of context that can shape rhetorical
strategies has not been recognized. The appendix contains a brief explanation
of the rhetorical terms employed in the analysis.
Charismatic Leadership as the Social Construction
of Meaning
Leadership is realized when an individual “succeeds in attempting to frame
and define the reality to others” through the foundational process of lan-
guage use (Smircich & Morgan, 1982, p. 258). Leaders can influence others
through processes such as the mobilization of meaning, articulation and
134 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
definition of what has previously remained implicit, and elaboration, con-
frontation or consolidation of existing wisdom (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996;
Peters, 1978; Pondy, 1978). An important leadership role is to simplify
ambiguous, complex messages into discrete, relevant meanings by employ-
ing utterances and actions in such a way that they provide a meaningful and
memorable point of reference to the audience (Pfeffer, 1981; Smircich &
Morgan, 1982). Often, the framing of messages in a certain way is linked to
political considerations and the effort to legitimate and maintain control
(Cooney & Sewell, 2008).
The use of rhetorical strategies plays a crucial role as rhetorical devices
are designed to shape meaning, engage emotions, and influence whether the
message will be remembered and endorsed by the audience (Conger, 1991;
Pondy, 1983). By the term rhetorical strategies, we refer to ways in which
agents configure their language in an intentional manner, through the use of
rhetorical devices which form patterns that persist over time and are consis-
tently employed across different situations and texts (Suddaby & Greenwood,
2005).
Given that an important aspect of charisma is the relationships among
leader, audience, and context (Klein & House, 1995), it would be essential to
gain a deeper understanding of leaders’ ability to customize their rhetoric to
audience and context. “New leadership” theories (Bryman, 1992) of charis-
matic leadership (Conger, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977;
Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985,
1996; Bass & Avolio, 1994) stress this interplay between leader and follow-
ers, substantiating the importance of the elements of audience and context.
Despite the need to investigate further how these elements interrelate, this
issue has scarcely been researched (Conger, 1999).
Building on the seminal formulation by Weber (1947), scholars have
viewed charisma as an influential trait that denotes almost magical abilities,
often involving revelations of heroism (Etzioni, 1961) through appealing to
the emotions and enduring motives of the audience (Emrich, Brower,
Feldman, & Garland, 2001). In this vein, Steve Jobs is often viewed in both
the academic literature (Conger, 1991; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Emrich et
al., 2001) as well as popular media as a charismatic leader with “effective
rhetorical skills and powers of persuasion” (Harvey, 2001, p. 254), who can
shape audiences’ perceived meaning through framing and rhetorical crafting
(Conger, 1991). Research indeed suggests that one of the primary ways
through which charismatic leaders influence followers is through rhetoric.
For example, Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper (1998) noted that charis-
matic leaders link required efforts to values and collective identities in fol-
lowers’ self concepts, through
Heracleous and Klaering 135
interpreting the present and the past in terms of the group’s values and identity,
articulating an ideological mission, amplifying values and identities by using
labels, slogans, and metaphors, linking the amplified values and identities to
expected follower behaviors, and emphasizing the group’s or organization’s
uniqueness and importance. (p. 388)
Johnson and Dipboye (2008) found that both content and delivery have
effects on both the attributions of charismatic leadership by the audience, as
well as employees’ quality of performance on complex organizational tasks.
Use of metaphor is integral to the art of rhetoric. Aristotle (1991) provided
extensive discussions of metaphor (Book 3, Chapters 2-11) as an element of
rhetorical style, addressing the nature, aesthetics, and functions of metaphor.
The concern with metaphor as an element of rhetoric has persisted with later
rhetoricians who discussed issues such as how metaphorical effectiveness
could be evaluated (e.g., Booth, 1978) and the prevalence and persistence of
root metaphors drawn from human experience (e.g., Osborn, 1967).
In this context, a key aspect of the rhetoric of charismatic leaders is the use
of metaphor. Mio, Riggio, Levin, and Reese (2005) found that presidents who
were viewed as charismatic employed almost twice the number of metaphors
as presidents who were not. Amernic, Craig, and Tourish (2007) showed how
Jack Welch’s letters to shareholders were imbued with five root metaphors
aiming to frame social reality in support of his transformational views.
Seyranian and Bligh (2008) found that charismatic leaders employed vivid
metaphorical imagery to introduce social change in frame-breaking, frame-
moving, and frame-realigning phases.
Powerful rhetoric, the ability to capture an audience through outstanding
oratorical skills, is thus tightly intertwined with charismatic leadership
(Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Bryman, 1992; Conger, 1989; Hartog & Verburg,
1997; House & Shamir, 1993; Shamir et al., 1994; Sharma & Grant, 2011). In
this manuscript, we seek to take this understanding further by examining,
though an in-depth case analysis of Steve Jobs’s rhetoric, how rhetorical
crafting may change in different contexts, seeking to identify patterns of rhe-
torical strategies and the rhetorical features that comprise these strategies.
Research Methodology
In the context of the rhetorical/metaphorical discourse analysis approach
described below, we analyzed three texts as follows: (a) an Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) deposition of Steve Jobs concerning stock
options backdating. This took place in March 2008 and is a 119-page docu-
ment, with a length of 18,394 words; (b) a CNBC interview with Steve Jobs
136 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
regarding Apple Inc.’s supplier shift from IBM to Intel. This was conducted
in June 2005 and is 521 words in length; and (c) a discussion with Steve Jobs
at Wall Street Journal’s “D8: All Things Digital Conference” regarding topi-
cal issues in media and technology. This took place in June 2010 and the
transcript of Jobs’s interview was 12,006-words long.
Text Selection and Analytical Approach
We selected these texts because of their context and temporal diversity while
featuring the same charismatic leader, which allowed us to study rhetorical pat-
terns across these different situations. Specifically, the differences in the rhe-
torical situation (in the first text, oppositional with low-ethos attribution to the
leader; in the second text fast-paced, tense, and inquisitive with medium ethos
attribution; and in the third text co-operative and pleasant within a sense of
community with high-ethos attribution, as outlined in Table 4), allowed us to
observe and understand both aspects of customization and continuity in Jobs’s
rhetorical style, including his use of central themes and root metaphors.
Of these elements, attribution of ethos was a key factor in our selection,
given our interest in the dynamics of rhetoric. We made our evaluation of
this element as follows: The D conference is an annual, usually sold-out
event organized by the Wall Street Journal in California, where global,
C-level technology leaders are invited to speak about the impact of digital
technologies on society. This context is one where high ethos is attributed to
the speakers. With respect to the SEC deposition, this is a context where wit-
nesses give sworn testimony that is transcribed for use in any later court
proceedings that may take place. A deposition takes place when the SEC is
investigating potential breaches of the law. In the SEC deposition where
Jobs spoke, Apple was under investigation for stock options backdating.
Backdating is an illegal practice, which allegedly occurred when Jobs was
CEO of Apple and could therefore be assumed to be potentially responsible.
The deposition is a situational context where low ethos was attributed to
Jobs. With respect to the CNBC interview, Jobs appeared as a CEO of a
listed company to explain a strategic decision of the company. This situation
represents a context where he was neither worshipped (as in the D8 confer-
ence) or even admired, nor was he offering sworn testimony with respect to
a potential breach of the law for which he might have been responsible (as
in the SEC deposition). We therefore assumed that in this context medium
ethos was attributed to Jobs.
We read the full transcripts of these texts to get a sense of context and
rhetorical style, and selected three 500-word portions for detailed analysis for
each of texts 1 (SEC deposition) and 3 (D8 conference); we analyzed the full
Heracleous and Klaering 137
transcript for text 2. These extracts related to important themes of the inter-
view, as shown in Table 1.
We studied these texts systematically and, initially, individually, which
then enabled the identification of emerging patterns across these three texts
in terms, for example, of the central themes and root metaphors employed.
We sought to understand the situational context and how Jobs himself was
seen in that context, so that we could explore whether ethos was influential
on the rhetorical styles employed. We sought to identify the various rhetorical
devices used as key aspects of Steve Jobs’s rhetorical strategies, which we
then investigated further to clarify the nature of the patterns observed. We
were conscious of the need to understand how the principal dynamics of rhet-
oric (ethos, pathos, logos) operated and how these elements could potentially
help us explain the patterns of rhetorical strategies we observed.
The analytical approach we employed draws from the field of rhetoric
(Aristotle, 1991; Gill & Whedbee, 1997) as well as metaphorical analysis
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Morgan, 1986; Oswick, Keenoy, & Grant, 2002). We
adopted a rhetorical orientation as rhetoric is the art of persuasion par excel-
lence, highly suited to the nature and purposes of charismatic leadership. Within
rhetorical analysis, we pay special attention to metaphor due to its centrality in
how actors make sense of the world (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), as well as its
status as a key element of rhetoric (Aristotle, 1991; Bryman, 1992). Below we
expand further on our rhetorical and metaphorical discourse analysis.
Rhetorical Analysis: Dynamics of Rhetoric and Root Metaphors
Our analysis was conducted within an interpretative approach to organizational
discourse (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001), which recognizes the role of language in
the social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) and accepts that
Table 1. Themes of Selected Text Extracts.
SEC deposition D8 conference
Extract 1 Positioning Jobs (educational and
professional background, role in
founding and leading Apple)
Positioning Apple (success due to
committed people and strategic
choices on technology)
Extract 2 Establishing rationale for
stock option grant to Apple
executives (retention)
Jobs replies to question about
trajectory of computer industry
(whether tablets would replace PCs)
Extract 3 Establishing rationale for stock
option grant to Steve Jobs (peer
recognition)
Jobs replies to question about his
leadership role at Apple and about
how Apple operates
138 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
any phenomenon may be framed in multiple ways which indicate agents’ assump-
tions, beliefs, and values. By discourse, we mean a body of texts that share key
structural features such as central themes, root metaphors, or rhetorical strategies
and are constructive of the subjects they address (Heracleous, 2006a). In our
analysis, we treated the three texts produced by Jobs at different situations and
points in time as a sample of his discourse and sought to identify the rhetorical
patterns occurring in these texts, so that we could expand our understanding of
the link between charismatic leadership and rhetorical competence.
Within an interpretative stance, context is vital to both the effectiveness of
rhetorical discourse (Bitzer, 1968) and its interpretative validity, given that
rhetoric must be suited to the context (Aristotle, 1991) and that context pro-
vides resources for discursive interpretation (Giddens, 1979). In this study, we
examine rhetoric in the context, bearing in mind that features of context include
the situation and the audience, which, in turn, affect the rhetorical strategies
employed (Gill & Whedbee, 1997). The sensitivity to context allowed us to
examine the role of the principal dynamics of rhetoric, (ethos, logos, and
pathos), as key modes of persuasion (Aristotle, 1991; Haskins, 2004; Hyde,
2004). These elements, respectively, refer to the rhetor’s credibility, use of
logic in arguments, and ability to ignite the audience’s emotions (Aristotle,
1991). In this sense, we examined whether the situations in which Jobs pro-
duced these texts were, for example, adversarial, where he was treated as a
potential defendant, implying low ethos (credibility) attributed to him, as in the
deposition. Or whether they were potentially tense and fast moving, where Jobs
had to justify his company’s strategic choices as a company leader (as in the
CNBC interview), where a medium level of ethos was attributed to him. Or,
finally, whether Jobs was seen as a charismatic leader and an icon of Silicon
Valley (as in the D8 conference), where a high level of ethos was attributed.
Apart from the rhetorical elements discussed above, we also explore the
use of more general rhetorical devices, including alliteration, antithesis, and
three-part-lists. All of these are rhetorical tactics intended to create a lasting
impression and a positive attitude in the minds of the audience with respect
to what the leader is rhetorically arguing for (Brown, 1977; Conger, 1991;
Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986).
As noted above, metaphor is not only central to how we make sense of the
world, as the seminal work by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) showed, but is also
a key element of rhetoric, being endemic to argumentation and storytelling
(Aristotle, 1991; Bryman, 1992). As Bryman (1992) suggested, the “deploy-
ment of metaphor seems to be a striking feature of the oratory of many char-
ismatic leaders” (p. 61).
We adopt a constructionist view of metaphor (Black, 1979), within which
metaphor is seen as fundamental to thought and action (Lakoff & Johnson,
Heracleous and Klaering 139
1980). From this perspective, metaphors, due to their multi-faceted nature,
can aid the understanding of complex and abstract organizational phenomena
through semantic leaps (Cornelissen, Kafouros, & Lock, 2005) and can
express and connect with an emotional dimension that lies beyond conscious
awareness in a way that would be unlikely through the use of literal language
(Srivastva & Barrett, 1988). Use of metaphors can lead to the creation of new
meaning through the creative juxtaposition of previously unrelated concepts,
as Morgan’s (1986) work demonstrates.
From the perspective of the rhetor, metaphors can be impactful, as they
appeal to various senses of the audience by challenging and engaging their
imagination, intellect, emotions, and values (Hartog & Verburg, 1997).
Metaphors can also appeal to people and groups with diverse interests, as
they are inherently ambiguous, and they convey a multiplicity of connota-
tions and meanings (Milne, Kearins, & Walton, 2006; Ortony, 1975). Because
metaphors operate below the radar of conscious examination, they can evoke
images and attitudes within subconscious experience, which can then be
manifested in more conscious awareness through talk and action (Marshak,
1993; Oswick & Montgomery, 1999). Root metaphors (deep-seated meta-
phors that operate across texts to structure discourses) are often subconscious
and deeply embedded because they represent the underlying worldview that
shapes thinking and interpretations of the issues they refer to (Audebrand,
2010; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Smith & Eisenberg, 1987).
Analysis and Findings
Based on the discussion in the previous section, Table 2 gives a brief outline
of the assumptions underlying the analytical process and also examples of
indicative research. The table clarifies the links between charismatic leader-
ship and rhetorical competence, and provides a context for the analysis and
discussion that follows in this section.
Below we present the analysis and findings of the three texts, beginning
with the SEC deposition, followed by the CNBC interview, and concluding
with the D8 conference interview. We examine these texts as instances of
rhetorical competence by an acknowledged charismatic leader, to gain
insights into the exercise of charismatic leadership, and in particular the pro-
cess of the social construction of meaning.
Analysis of SEC Deposition
The first text, the SEC deposition, is essentially a pre-trial interrogation and
thus presupposes two opposing objectives by the parties, whereby the
140 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
Table 2. Assumptions Underlying Analysis and Indicative Literature.
Assumptions underlying analysis Indicative literature
A key attribute of charismatic leadership
is the social construction of meaning
through the employment of rhetoric
Emrich, Brower, Feldman, and Garland
(2001); Hartog and Verburg (1997);
Shamir, Arthur, and House (1994);
Smircich and Morgan (1982)
Rhetorical devices that have been found
to be effective in this process include
the skillful use of framing, central
themes, and root metaphors
Amernic, Craig, and Tourish (2007);
Beasley (2004); Conger (1991);
Fairhurst and Sarr (1996); Mio, Riggio,
Levin, and Reese (2005)
The situational context influences the
rhetorical style and devices employed,
and is an important dimension of
rhetorical analysis
Bitzer (1968); Gill and Whedbee
(1997); Jarzabkowski and Sillince
(2007)
Consistent employment of particular
rhetorical devices over time and
across situations constitutes rhetorical
strategies
Campbell, Follender, and Shane (1998);
Hopkins and Reicher (1997); Suddaby
and Greenwood (2005)
Empirical studies of the employment of
such rhetorical devices can enable us
to gain insights into the exercise of
charismatic leadership
Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004);
Seyranian and Bligh (2008); Shamir et
al. (1994); Sharma and Grant (2011)
examiner seeks to uncover maximum information and the witness aims to
reveal minimal information. Here, Jobs’s rhetorical style is generally descrip-
tive, formal, and restricted to the facts. Overall, his statements are kept brief
and are characterized by sparse use of rhetorical techniques. An extract is
given below:
Examiner: All right. Again, I know there is a lot here, so we’ll just talk
generally about your employment history then. Can we just sort of
briefly go over your employment history, I guess after 1973.
Steve Jobs: I was employed by Atari, maker of video games.
Examiner: What timeframe?
Steve Jobs: I don’t know. Early ’70s.
Examiner: Okay.
Steve Jobs: And then my partner, Steve Wozniak, and I started Apple
about 1975 or -6. And then I was basically fired from Apple about 10
years after that.
Examiner: Let me just stop you there then. In other words, it sounds like
what you’re saying is you started Apple in approximately 1975 or 1976.
Is that correct?
Heracleous and Klaering 141
Steve Jobs: Yeah.
Examiner: And for 10 years you were with Apple?
Steve Jobs: Yes.
Examiner: And although I assume your responsibilities evolved over time,
could you generally describe what your duties or responsibilities were
over that 10-year period?
Steve Jobs: Mostly the product side of things, worrying about the prod-
ucts. I was not the CEO during that time period.
Examiner: And when you say “worry about products,” would that be prod-
uct development?
Steve Jobs: Yes.
Examiner: — creation?
Steve Jobs: Yes. And—yes.
This rhetorical style aligns with the adversarial and potentially hostile
context of the deposition. Steve Jobs subsequently portrays himself as some-
one who did not receive due recognition from the Board and employs the
rhetorical dynamic of pathos in an attempt to evoke sympathy from the audi-
ence, and to present himself as a human being rather than an all-powerful
CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. The use of pathos is augmented here
when compared with the other dynamics of rhetoric (ethos and logos) because
the very nature of the deposition as an investigative procedure severely
reduces Jobs’s perceived high-ethos character. As we see below, when Jobs
sees an opportunity arising to elaborate on his core argument, he makes more
extensive use of rhetorical techniques to strengthen his message; this elabora-
tion is scant, however, in the deposition, which is overall characterized by
brief, matter-of-fact statements.
Steve Jobs: Well, it was a tough situation, you know. It wasn’t so much
about the money . . . But everybody likes to be recognized by their
peers, and the closest that I’ve got, or any CEO has, is their Board of
Directors. And as we’ve seen in the discussions of the past hour, I spent
a lot of time trying to take care of people at Apple and to, you know,
surprise and delight them with what a career at Apple could be—could
mean to them and their families. And I felt that the board wasn’t really
doing the same with me . . . So I was hurt, I suppose would be most
accurate word, and, you know, the board had given me some options,
but they were all underwater. They weren’t underwater necessarily
because of our performance, but, you know, the bubble had burst in the
dot-coms, and here I had been working, you know, I don’t know, 4
years, 5 years of my life and not seeing my family very much and stuff,
and I just felt like there is nobody looking out for me here, you know.
142 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
Jobs reveals that he suffered mental and emotional distress as a result of
what he saw as the Board of Directors’ lack of care for him as their CEO. He
also employs the people theme, a theme that is central to his whole discourse.
He reacts similarly when asked about the impetus of a grant of 4.8 million
shares that was awarded to selected members of the executive team:
Steve Jobs: Well, as you know, many companies have converted to using
RSU grants, restricted stock unit grants, to their senior employees in
the present day, but back then option grants were the norm. And Apple
was in a precarious situation in that we’d, you know, had the Internet
bubble bursting, and I thought that Apple’s executive team and the sta-
bility of Apple’s executive team was one of its core strengths. And I
was very concerned because Michael Dell, one of our chief competi-
tors, had flown Fred Anderson, our CFO, down to Austin, I guess, him
and his, wife I think, to try to recruit him. And I was also concerned that
[—–] and [—–] (names deleted in official deposition transcript) two
very strong technical leaders, were also very vulnerable. So I was very
concerned that Apple could really suffer some big losses on its execu-
tive team with the business environment we were in and the competi-
tors coming after our people.
Within the above excerpt, Jobs utilizes a number of rhetorical strategies to
augment his main argument, which is that Apple used the grant—the focus of
the investigation—as a retention tool. First, he notes that option grants were
“the norm” and hence a standard procedure in organizations, connoting that
Apple (and himself as CEO) acted in accordance with what is considered to
be socially accepted behavior. Next, Jobs refers to the external circumstances
that jeopardized the success of Apple. In so doing, he describes the hostile
situation that gave rise to his concerns about keeping key people, to make
Apple’s actions appear justifiable, reasonable, and normal to the audience. In
this context, he emphasizes that the stability of Apple’s executive team was at
risk. Through elaborating on his concerns for the company, and noting that he
worked for very little financial reward at Apple for years, Jobs portrays him-
self as a self-sacrificing businessman who places the company above his own
interests.
The majority of the rhetorical techniques employed by Jobs in this text are
various forms of repetition, which serve as a means for amplification and
clarity and to create an emotional effect (Hartog & Verburg, 1997). Jobs, for
example, employs conduplicatio by using the word concerned and simultane-
ously forms a three-part-list of issues he was concerned with for emphasis, to
describe his concern about Apple’s potential retention issues. He also employs
Heracleous and Klaering 143
tautologia several times, repeating the difficult external circumstances and
the competitive threats Apple was confronted with using different words (the
appendix contains a brief explanation of the rhetorical terms employed here).
He utilizes intensifying adverbs, such as very, really, and big, to augment his
message.
The low-control and low-ethos position of Jobs in this context as well as
the expedient need to share as little information as possible in the context of
an investigation by the authorities grants him little leeway as a rhetorician.
He therefore responds by clarifying his stance in response to pointed, spe-
cific, often repetitive questions, for which relatively literal language and the
effective use of repetition are appropriate, as opposed to building up a more
elaborate argument, where more complex rhetorical features would be
appropriate. Jobs mostly employs dead metaphors, metaphors that have been
used so often they have become taken for granted, and have lost their gen-
erative power (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). His use of dead metaphors is con-
sistent with his attempt to use mostly literal language in his answers to avoid
any ambiguity or room for interpretation, both of which may lead to addi-
tional questions with the possibility of ultimately undergoing a criminal
prosecution.
In this context, Jobs makes an effort to employ the rhetorical dynamic of
pathos, possibly aiming to invoke the audience’s emotions by triggering feel-
ings of sympathy. He does so through presenting himself in a vulnerable light
(through noting, for example, that he was a financially disadvantaged student
and that he got “fired” from Apple), by portraying himself as a victim (e.g.,
revealing his feelings of “hurt” and self-sacrifice, and his perception that
nobody was looking out for him including the Board), and by reminding the
audience of the adverse external circumstances (the difficult business envi-
ronment, fierce competition, and the danger of key executives being poached)
that made the extensive use of stock option grants a natural response.
Analysis of the CNBC Interview
The second text, the CNBC interview, concerns Apple’s strategic decision
to gradually minimize its business relationship with IBM as a supplier of
memory chips and instead enter into an extensive business relationship
with Intel. The interviewer quizzing Jobs on this decision exhibits a fast-
paced, provocative rhetorical style, while Steve Jobs adopts a composed,
explicatory, and more neutral style. The context is one of a tense situation,
characterized by the reciprocal efforts of interviewer and interviewee to
frame the situation in a specific way through their distinct use of rhetorical
style and language.
144 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
The analysis exposes the representations of two distinct social realities of
the two parties, as shown by the different root metaphors they employed,
which have very different connotations. The interviewer frames the Apple/
IBM relationship as “tempestuous,” and the process of separation as “unplug-
ging.” He subsequently suggests that Jobs had been “harshly critical” of IBM
and asks what IBM had “failed to come up with.” The interviewer’s root
metaphor, “business is war,” connotes conflict between Apple and IBM and
Apple’s decision as a result of this conflict. In contrast, Jobs puts forth the
idea that business success inevitably involves gradual change, where part-
ners’ paths can gradually diverge, employing the root metaphor “business is
a journey,” and portraying Apple’s decision as a natural decision in the course
of doing business. The following extract illustrates the reciprocal framing
efforts:
Interviewer: Apple Computer is a company that does things in rather
unique and dramatic ways and it’s about to make a very dramatic move
in the technology business. It’s unplugging IBM after its tempestuous
10-year relationship and instead will use chips made by Intel from now
on.
Steve Jobs: Well, you know it’s not as dramatic as you’re characterizing it.
You know, we’ve got some great power PC products today and we’ve
even got some power PC machines in the pipeline which we haven’t
introduced yet. And this is gonna be a more gradual transition, I think
we’ll hopefully, when we meet with our developers a year from today,
we’ll have some Intel-based Macs in the marketplace, but its gonna
take maybe a 2-year transition.
In combination with dramatic, the word unique obtains a negative con-
notation here, so that Apple’s change from IBM to Intel appears to be out of
the ordinary because it is framed as a drastic, forceful, and radical move. The
interviewer enhances this framing through the use of diacope, a repetition of
the word dramatic within the same sentence that he intensifies through the
amplifier adverb very. The interviewer’s use of the term unplugging connotes
a sudden termination of the relationship between Apple and IBM and his use
of tempestuous gives an implicit rationale for this sudden termination.
There are two main factors that lead us to interpret the interviewer’s lan-
guage as underlay by the root metaphor “business is war.” First, Apple’s deci-
sion to change its supplier of chips from IBM to Intel was a strategic decision,
with very significant consequences for both IBM (negative) and Intel (posi-
tive). The field of strategy and practitioners’ interpretations of the field and
their utterances have been shaped since the origins of the field by the root
Heracleous and Klaering 145
metaphor “business is war” (Audebrand, 2010), which manifests particularly
in the context of strategic decisions involving significant resources as well as
winners and losers (Intel and IBM in this context, respectively). Second and
related, the terms associated with this root metaphor are consistent with com-
petition and aggression (Koller, 2004), and they manifest in language in dif-
ferent ways. The interviewer uses terms such as tempestuous, unplugging,
dramatic move, harshly critical, and fail to come up with, which in this con-
text connote both competition and aggression, indicating the links between
the interviewer’s way of interpreting Apple’s decision and the “business is
war” root metaphor.
Countering the interviewer’s fairly aggressive stance, Steve Jobs’s response
is underlay by the “business is a journey” root metaphor as a vehicle to portray
Apple’s decision as involving a more gradual transition, in essence a technical
decision that is consistent with Apple’s and Intel’s product “roadmap,” in con-
trast to IBM’s own “roadmap.” The decision is presented as essential to Apple’s
continuing development of “awesome products.” Jobs highlights the future
theme by referring to the future in three instances, in this way not only empha-
sizing the incremental nature of the switch but also justifying the legitimacy of
the decision as important for Apple’s future competitiveness.
Interviewer: People who were in the room suggested that you were some-
what harshly critical of IBM and its inability to deliver what you needed
at this point in your product development cycle. What did IBM fail to
come up with in your estimation?
Steve Jobs: You know we have a good relationship with IBM and they’ve
got a product roadmap and today the products are really good. But as
we look out into the future where we wanna go is maybe a little bit dif-
ferent. We can envision some awesome products we wanna build for
our customers in the next few years and as we look out a year or two in
the future, Intel’s processor roadmap really aligns with where we
wanna go much more than any others. So that’s why I think why we’re
gonna begin this transition now and its gonna take 2 years, but I think
its gonna get us where we wanna be to build the kind of future products
we wanna build. Our products today—our products today are fine, but
it’s really you know a year or two down the future where we see some
issues.
Throughout his rhetorical turns, Jobs concentrates on the core message he
intends to bring across—that this change was not a sudden decision in the con-
text of conflict between Apple and IBM, related to inadequate performance by
IBM in their relationship, but rather a gradual shift, justified by product
146 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
“roadmaps,” aimed to support future development of great products by Apple.
His statement that Apple has “great power PC machines in the pipeline” simul-
taneously displays the future theme, the product theme, and the journey meta-
phor. Jobs supports the gradual nature of the shift through the future theme in
relation to the product theme, exploiting the mutually reinforcing effect of the
themes products and future within the underlying journey metaphor.
Table 3 juxtaposes Jobs’s responses to the interviewer’s questions to highlight
the re-framing process that Jobs employs as well as to show illustrations of how
the root metaphors of both interviewer and Jobs manifest in their language:
Due to the interdependent nature of dialog, which affects both parties to a
conversation, it emerges that Steve Jobs’s construction of the situation in the
end prevails and influences the interviewer’s construction away from the war
metaphor and toward the journey metaphor, as the following extract shows:
Interviewer: I know you’re not gonna give away any trade secrets here
but to the best that you can, describe where is it that you want to go
Table 3. Framing and Re-Framing the Apple–IBM Relationship.
CNBC interviewer (root
metaphor of “business is war”)
Steve Jobs (root metaphor of “business is a
journey”)
“Apple Computer is a company
that does things in rather
unique and dramatic ways”
“It’s not as dramatic as you are characterizing
it”
“It’s unplugging IBM” “This is gonna be a more gradual transition” . .
. “Its gonna take maybe a 2-year transition”
“Tempestuous 10-year
relationship”
“We’ve got some great power PC products
today”
“People who were in the room
suggested that you were
somewhat harshly critical of
IBM and its inability to deliver”
“We have a good relationship with IBM and
they’ve got a product roadmap and today the
products are really good, but as we look out
into the future where we wanna go is maybe
a little bit different”
“What did IBM fail to come up
with in your estimation?”
“We envision some awesome products we
wanna build for our customers, and Intel’s
roadmap aligns with where we wanna go
much more than any other”
“Where is it that you want to go
that Intel you know is willing to
go along with?”
“We never talk about unannounced products,
so I can’t say. There used to be a saying at
Apple ‘isn’t it funny a ship that leaks from the
top’?”
Heracleous and Klaering 147
that Intel you know is willing to go along with, go along with you I
should say?
In sum, Jobs’s status here is as a company leader who is being quizzed on
a key company strategic decision and has to defend that decision. His rhetori-
cal style is composed, explicatory, and neutral; whereas the interviewer’s
style is pointed, fast-paced, and provocative. The interviewer’s underlying
root metaphor that frames his statements, as exhibited by the vocabulary he
employs, is business is war, whereas Jobs’s underlying root metaphor is busi-
ness is a journey, which reframes the situation in his terms. Jobs employs the
central themes of future, people, and product, themes that are endemic to his
discourse across texts.
Analysis of D8 Conference Interview
The third text, from the D8 conference, presents an instance in which the
discursive aims of Steve Jobs and the interviewer’s are akin, which results in
a more co-operative, mutually reinforcing dialogical situation. In this sense,
the D8 conference context is the opposite of the SEC deposition context. The
purpose of the interview at the D8 conference is to encourage Steve Jobs to
express his opinions and viewpoints freely, which results in Jobs, being the
dominant speaker throughout the interaction process. His status here is as a
respected expert sharing wisdom, an icon of Silicon Valley, within a situa-
tional context that affords him high levels of ethos. His rhetorical style here
is courteous, entertaining, and informal, with substantial elaboration of
themes and with a broad use of rhetorical devices.
Jobs employs the journey metaphor in terms of a life journey, to illustrate
Apple’s strategy of focusing on a limited number of prospective opportuni-
ties early in its life, and concentrating its resources on these prospects only.
He highlights the scarcity of resources and the importance of making the
right strategic choices and, in so doing, connects the journey metaphor to the
future theme:
Steve Jobs: The way we’ve succeeded is by choosing what horses to ride
really carefully, technically. We try to look for these technical vectors
that have a future and that are headed up and you know. Technology,
different pieces of technology kinda go in cycles, they have their
springs and summers and autumns and then they, you know, go to the
graveyard of technology. So we try to pick things that are in their
springs.
148 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
Consistent with the business is a journey metaphor, in saying that Apple
searches for “technical vectors” that have a future, Steve Jobs implies that
Apple bases its investment decisions on the direction and the magnitude or
significance of the available opportunities. A vector may also be defined as a
compass direction in which an aircraft or a ship moves, again connoting the
journey metaphor. The concept of “direction” is reinforced, as these vectors
ought to “have a future” and be “headed up,” in this way also introducing the
future theme.
Steve Jobs uses the four seasons as a metaphor for the product life cycle.
By stating that Apple chooses technologies “that are in their springs,” he
refers to the introduction phase of the product life cycle, a phase that is char-
acterized by high failure rates. This reference reiterates Steve Jobs’s main
point, which is to choose with great caution at the early stages of the product
life cycle. To enhance the meaning of this point, he replaces “winters” with
“graveyards of technology” and so creates a dark picture, which generates a
sharp contrast to the colorful imagery of “springs.” The product life cycle
originates from the biological life cycle, which, in turn, relates to the circle-
of-life metaphor, where “spring” refers to birth and “graveyard of technol-
ogy” equals death. Jobs extends the circle-of-life metaphor when he describes
that Apple “was on its way to oblivion,” then struggled for “survival,” upon
which the company experienced a rebirth, which is indicated through the
expression “bring it back” as well as through a taken-for-granted understand-
ing shared with the audience, as Apple has been an incredibly successful
company after Jobs’s return.
Consistent with his other texts, Jobs elaborates on the people theme to
stress the intense collaboration at Apple:
Steve Jobs: There is tremendous teamwork at the top of the company,
which filters down to tremendous teamwork throughout the company.
Teamwork is dependent on trusting the other folks to come through
with their part without watching them all the time—but trusting that
they’re gonna come through with their parts. That’s what we do really
well. And we’re great at figuring out how to divide things up into these
great teams that we have and all work on the same thing, touch base
frequently and bring it all together into a product. We do that really
well.
Jobs stresses collaboration at Apple by continuously using the inclusive
pronoun “we” as well as referring to “teamwork” and “trust”; he also compli-
ments his employees generously. In the above passage, Jobs also makes
extensive use of the rhetorical device of repetition to facilitate recall; he
Heracleous and Klaering 149
applies conduplicatio, the repetition of keywords as a means of emphasis
throughout the entire passage (“teamwork,” “trusting,” “great,” and “really
well”) and makes use of the effect of alliteration when mentioning “tremen-
dous teamwork.”
Jobs adapts his rhetorical style to the courteous, pleasant atmosphere of
the conference, in a context characterized by high levels of ethos. He exhibits
an entertaining, open, and expansive rhetorical style through employing a
wide range of rhetorical techniques, and relatively complex arguments whose
interplay heightens the effectiveness of his rhetoric through mutual reinforce-
ment. Jobs’s answers are expansive; he discusses what he deems to be rele-
vant, sometimes not even in direct response to the original question. This
license to be expansive is consistent with Jobs’s high-ethos status in the con-
ference, as opposed to the deposition for example. Jobs employs the root
metaphors of the circle of life and business is a journey and the central themes
of people, products and future; these central themes and root metaphors are
synergistic with each other and endemic. As structural elements of discourse,
central themes and root metaphors can persist over time, can apply to a vari-
ety of situational contexts, and are constructive of their subjects (Heracleous,
2006b; Heracleous & Barrett, 2001). The main findings of the empirical anal-
yses are summarized in Table 4.
Discussion and Contributions
Following earlier studies highlighting the links between charismatic leader-
ship and rhetorical competence (e.g., Conger, 1991; Mio et al., 2005; Shamir
et al., 1994), our analysis of the rhetoric of an acknowledged charismatic
leader from a rhetorical and metaphorical discourse analysis perspective has
shed further light on this link. We provide further empirical evidence for this
link as well as for the dynamics of its operation, which has been scarce in the
management field. Specifically, by examining Jobs’s rhetoric in three differ-
ent situations, we found that he did not exhibit a single rhetorical style, but
rather altered it depending on the situation, particularly on the attributed
ethos of the situation. Furthermore, we found that Jobs balanced customiza-
tion with continuity, in effect employing similar central themes in different
situational contexts.
Limitations and Further Research
Despite the insights gained, our research has some limitations. The first one
is the small sample size and the limited number of contexts in which we study
rhetorical competence. This is a study of one charismatic leader, with a focus
150 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
Table 4. Patterns of Rhetorical Strategies in Three Different Situations.
SEC deposition CNBC interview D8 conference
Situational
context
Oppositional,
seeking to
extract maximum
information on a
sensitive topic
Fast-paced,
potentially tense,
inquisitive
Co-operative, pleasant,
sense of community
Jobs’s status
and ethos,
logos, and
pathos
Possible defendant,
under examination.
Low ethos, low
logos, high pathos
Company leader,
being quizzed on
company strategic
decision. Medium
ethos, medium
logos, low pathos
Charismatic leader,
respected expert
sharing wisdom, icon
of Silicon Valley. High
ethos, high logos, low
pathos
Rhetorical
style
Descriptive, formal
and restricted
to the facts.
Defensive,
disengaged, and
self-protective
Fast-paced and
provocative by
interviewer;
composed,
explicatory, and
neutral by Jobs
Courteous,
entertaining, and
informal; open and
expansive
Types of
central
themes
employed
People theme
Product theme
Future theme
People theme
Product theme
Future theme
People theme
Product theme
Root
metaphors
employed
No root metaphors
evident. Mostly
dead metaphors
employed
“Business is
war” metaphor
(interviewer)
“Business is a
journey” metaphor
(jobs)
“Business is a journey”
metaphor
“Circle of life”
metaphor
Types of
rhetorical
devices
employed
Alliteration,
Antithesis,
Conduplicatio,
Metaphor,
Polyptoton,
Synonymia,
Tautologia,
Three-part-list
Diacope,
Commoratio,
Humor,
Hyperbole,
Metaphor
(use of various
types of devices
is limited due to
short length of
interview)
Alliteration, Analogy,
Anaphora, Antithesis,
Auxesis, Climax,
Conduplicatio,
Diacope,
Dinumeratio,
Epimone, Humor,
Hyperbole,
Hypophora,
Metaphor, Position
taking, Storytelling,
Tautologia, Three-
part-list
Heracleous and Klaering 151
on three rhetorical contexts (as outlined in Table 4). Given that this is an
exploratory, in-depth study, the limited sample size is appropriate and was
determined based on theoretical rather than statistical sampling. Having said
that, this sample size detracts from the generalizability of our findings. I
order to address this limitation, the insights gained can be explored in future
research, potentially in the context of multiple case studies (Eisenhardt,
1989), so as to strengthen generalizability.
The second limitation is that we do not have behavioral data on the effects
of the employment of rhetoric by charismatic leaders. Given that this is a
study of rhetoric based on textual data, we did not have access to such behav-
ioral data as the effects of rhetoric on the audience, therefore we could not
empirically identify the existence of charismatic leadership effects such as
individualized consideration or idealized influence (Bass, 1996). This is a
direction that could be employed in future research. In this case, we have
clarified the assumptions of our analytical process, in particular the links
between charismatic leadership and rhetorical competence. We focused on
identifying empirical data relating to rhetorical competence under the
assumption, based on previous research, that this is an indicator of the exer-
cise of charismatic leadership.
The third limitation is that the analysis was conducted in the tradition of
interpretive discourse analysis where there is no set number of steps or a
structured recipe. Rather, the process was one of hermeneutic exploration,
pattern-seeking, moving from textual fragments to the whole text and vice
versa, until saturation of understanding was reached (i.e., further iterations
did not lead to further insights). Hermeneutic methods afford the flexibility
for in-depth exploration of the data, but may make it difficult to replicate a
particular study. Future research therefore may seek to codify the analytical
approach in a more structured fashion to facilitate the generation of additive
knowledge.
Charismatic Leadership and Rhetorical Strategies
Our findings suggest that charisma is not an ineffable, magical quality as clas-
sically understood, but can rather be seen as a consequence of the relationships
among leader, audience, and context (Klein & House, 1995). We show that
this relationship is one of social constructions of meaning, accomplished by
charismatic leaders through their rhetorical competence. In particular, we
extend the current understanding of the importance of rhetoric customization
by leaders (Conger, 1991; Shamir et al., 1994) and specify particular rhetorical
strategies showing how this customization can be carried out.
152 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
These findings provide a different perspective on the treatment of rhetori-
cal strategies in prior research. For example, Heracleous (2006a, 2006b)
operationalized rhetorical strategies through analytical application of
enthymemes (rhetorical argumentations), Suddaby and Greenwood (2005) in
terms of institutional vocabularies and theorizations of change, and Sharma
and Grant (2011) in terms of a dramaturgical metaphor emphasizing manage-
ment of front and back stages. We extend the understanding of the nature of
rhetorical strategies, through our findings on the use of the classical dynam-
ics of rhetoric and on the balance between continuity and customization.
Furthermore, our findings reaffirm and extend the idea that the ability of
discourse to shape social reality is based primarily on discursive deep struc-
tures, such as rhetorical strategies, which enshrine and reaffirm similar ideas
over time (Heracleous, 2006b). Discursive structures are “persistent features
of discourse, which transcend individual texts, speakers or authors, situa-
tional contexts and communicative actions and pervade bodies of communi-
cative action as a whole and in the long term” (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001,
p. 758). As we found in our study of Steve Jobs’s rhetoric, such deep struc-
tures include central themes (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1987; Thachankary,
1992), root metaphors (Audebrand, 2010; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Smith &
Eisenberg, 1987), and rhetorical strategies (Hopkins & Reicher, 1997).
Relationships Among the Classical Dynamics of Rhetoric
Our analysis shows that one element of the situation, the rhetorician’s per-
ceived ethos, is fundamental in offering clues as to the appropriate rhetorical
style to be employed. As Roberts (1954) noted, a leader’s ethos “may almost be
called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses” (p. 25). It has
indeed been suggested that rhetorical effectiveness is highest when ethos,
logos, and pathos are seen as simultaneous dimensions of arguments (Faure,
2010). Research suggests that there is a specific sequence of emphasis on these
dynamics of rhetoric at different stages of institutionalization processes; in the
first few years, pathos, followed by logos, and finally ethos (Green, 2004;
Green et al., 2008). What is the relationship among these rhetorical dynamics,
however, when employed simultaneously in leadership rhetoric? What hap-
pens, for example, when perceived ethos is low, as in the SEC deposition?
To the best of our knowledge, prior empirical research on managerial rhet-
oric has not yet examined the simultaneous interplay among the three dynam-
ics of rhetoric. Our data suggest that perceived ethos is a basic situational
feature, which structures the whole rhetorical dynamics. We found that Steve
Jobs’s perceived ethos in each rhetorical situation influenced the extent of
employment of logos and pathos.
Heracleous and Klaering 153
The audience’s receptivity of the leader’s key message depends partially
on the leader’s perceived ethos. With respect to the deposition, its very nature
undermines authority and confidence, while placing honesty and trustworthi-
ness into question. In this situation, the less that is said, the better. We found
that Jobs’s rhetoric in this low-ethos situation emphasized pathos and de-
emphasized logos. In this situation, Jobs skillfully managed to use his less
authoritative position to his advantage by portraying himself in a vulnerable
light, as an under-appreciated person with honorable goals putting the com-
pany above his own interests, in an attempt to build an emotional bond with
the audience. Therefore, it may be hypothesized that when ethos is low, logos
may be de-emphasized and pathos highlighted as a potentially effective
means of persuasion.
We can see the CNBC interview as an intermediate situation, where attrib-
uted ethos was medium, employment of logos was medium as far as the time-
constrained situation allowed, and use of pathos also low, given the low level
of need for its employment.
In contrast to the deposition, in the D8 conference, Jobs was perceived as
a high-ethos character, employing his credibility to amplify the meaning of
his oratory, which led to the use of more complex and expansive rhetoric (a
higher use of logos) and little use of pathos. In high-ethos situations, the audi-
ence is highly receptive to arguments by the rhetor, which may lead to a
higher use of logos and a low need to employ pathos. It may therefore be
hypothesized that when ethos is high, logos is emphasized, and pathos is de-
emphasized. Table 4 summarizes the relationship among these rhetorical
dynamics.
Balancing Customization with Continuity in Leadership Rhetoric
As Shamir et al. (1994) noted, the message itself matters, not just the way it
is delivered, which reaffirms the classical definition of rhetoric that it is
essential to customize the message to particular audiences and situations.
Jarzabkowski and Sillince (2007), for example, found that rhetoric use in
context is an essential means of increasing stakeholders’ commitment to mul-
tiple strategic goals, and that rhetorical congruence is important (rhetorical
congruence occurs when rhetoric is appropriate for contingencies and when
the different elements of rhetoric in use are balanced; Sillince, 2005). Sillince
(2006) showed how leaders can customize their rhetoric to emphasize differ-
ent aspects of the organization’s identity to different stakeholders, to achieve
their strategic objectives and build competitive advantage, while at the same
time supporting identities that can remain stable for years. We reinforce and
extend these understandings through our finding of a balance between
154 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
customization and continuity. We found that Jobs’s rhetoric exhibits both
continuity (in terms of central themes and root metaphors) as well as custom-
ization (in terms of rhetorical style and emphasis on the principal dynamics
of rhetoric) to suit the circumstances. We can view this ability to effectively
integrate continuity and customization in a leader’s rhetoric as an important
competence of charismatic leadership, especially as the social construction of
reality by leaders necessitates persistent and consistent messages over time to
the various audiences (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
In sum, we found first that Steve Jobs exhibited high proficiency in cus-
tomizing his rhetorical style to the broader contextual situation, but simulta-
neously there were constant features in his rhetoric, in terms of central themes
and root metaphors, indicating that an important skill of charismatic leader-
ship may be the integration of continuity and customization in leadership
rhetoric. Second, we found that the customization process took place through
rhetorical strategies such as re-framing, selective emphasis on the principal
dynamics of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos), the level of precision or expan-
siveness of the rhetoric, and the use of additional rhetorical devices, such as
amplification and repetition. In this context, we found that the driving factor
in the dynamics of rhetoric was Steve Jobs’s perceived ethos, which signifi-
cantly influenced the pattern of customization and has respective effects on
logos and pathos. When ethos was low, high levels of pathos were employed
and low levels of logos. When ethos was high, lower levels of pathos were
employed, and higher levels of logos.
Further research could establish whether the interrelations among the prin-
cipal dynamics of rhetoric found in this study hold for other charismatic leaders
and in different contexts. It could also explore whether the ability to integrate
customization and continuity through their rhetoric is a key capability of char-
ismatic leaders. Third, further research could explore what influences the
nature of the central themes and root metaphors employed by charismatic lead-
ers. Are these, for example, also influenced in some way by context, as is rhe-
torical style? If so, do different charismatic leaders in similar industries or
organizations employ similar central themes and root metaphors?
Practical Implications
In terms of practical implications, this research highlights the need for lead-
ers to develop the competence to customize their rhetorical styles in accor-
dance with the characteristics of the audience as well as with the broader
context. As Conger (1998) suggested, leaders ought to have an “accurate
sense of [the] audience’s emotional state, and . . . adjust the tone of their argu-
ments accordingly” (p. 93). Our findings suggest that leaders should
Heracleous and Klaering 155
specifically try to understand not only the emotional state of the audience but
also the level of their perceived ethos in that particular situation and then
adjust their rhetorical style accordingly. Given that effective language skills
can be learned (Bryman, 1992; Conger, 1991), organizational leaders may be
able to increase their self-awareness on their respective rhetorical styles and
consequently more consciously alter their rhetoric toward the context at hand.
Furthermore, leaders could gain a better understanding of how customiza-
tion of style can be accomplished; for example, through the use of re-fram-
ing, of expansive or precise rhetoric, and specific rhetorical tools. One
example of re-framing from our data shows how Jobs responded to the CNBC
interviewer, in effect countering the interviewer’s use of the underlying meta-
phor of business is war with his own metaphor, business is a journey, which
had the effect of presenting Apple’s decision to change suppliers as a natural,
un-contentious one in the normal course of business rather than a radical
break from an existing dominant supplier.
Furthermore, our findings also show that, while it is important to customize
rhetorical style, leaders can still proceed to share a constant message, no matter
what the context. This element of stability across situations is important for the
effectiveness of leaders in influencing followers or shaping their social reality
(Heracleous, 2006b; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). It would therefore be impor-
tant for leaders first to be clear about the central themes they wish to emphasize
and second to employ these across all rhetorical situations as far as possible. As
Sillince (2006) found, rhetoric is intimately linked to developing competitive
advantage and leaders can accomplish this through skillful balancing of conti-
nuity and customization in their rhetorical performances.
Collectively, these findings help us go beyond a view of charismatic lead-
ership as a magical quality that cannot be explicated. We suggest that leaders
can learn these rhetorical skills and employ them to increase followers’ attri-
butions of charisma as well as their own effectiveness.
Appendix
Glossary of Rhetorical Terms
Alliteration: Recurrence of an initial consonant sound and sometimes a vowel
sound at the beginning of a number of successive words
Analogy: Reasoning or arguing from parallel cases
Anaphora: Repetition of same word or phrase at beginning of successive
clauses or verses
Antithesis: Conjoining contrasting ideas
Auxesis: Words or clauses placed in climatic order
156 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
Climax: A gradual increase in intensity of meaning with words arranged in
ascending order of importance
Commoratio: Emphasizing a strong point by repeating it several times in dif-
ferent words
Conduplicaio: Repetition of a word or words in succeeding clauses
Denotatio: Dissuasion or advice to the contrary; used to express strong
emotion
Diacope: Repetition of a word with one or a few words in between
Dinumeratio: Amplifying a general fact or idea by giving all of its details;
offering a summary or recapitulation
Enthymeme: Rhetorical structures of argumentation that draw from the prem-
ises already held by the audience in particular social contexts
Epimone: Frequent repetition of a phrase or question to dwell on a point
Ethos: Persuasive appeal based on the perceived character or credibility of
the rhetor
Hyperbole: An extravagant statement or the use of exaggerated terms for the
purpose of emphasis or heightened effect
Hypophora: Asking a question and immediately commenting upon it
Logos: A, means of persuasion by demonstration of the truth, real or appar-
ent, and through logical argumentation
Metaphor: Framing A in terms of B; assertion of identity between two
domains
Pathos: The means of persuasion that appeal to the audience’s emotions
Polyptoton: Repetition of words from the same root but with different endings
Synonymia: Amplification by synonym
Tautologia: Repetition of the same idea in different words
Source. Based on Lanham (1991).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1997). The emergence and prevalence of employee management
rhetorics: The effects of long waves, labor unions, and turnover, 1875 to 1992.
Academy of Management Journal, 40, 491-533.
Heracleous and Klaering 157
Amernic, J., Craig, R., & Tourish, D. (2007). The transformational leader as peda-
gogue, physician, architect, commander, and saint: Five root metaphors in Jack
Welch’s letters to stockholders of General Electric. Human Relations, 60, 1839-
1872.
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric (G. Kennedy, Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Audebrand, L. K. (2010). Sustainability in strategic management education: The
quest for new root metaphors. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
9, 413-428.
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effective-
ness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance.
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345-374.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational
leadership. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beasley, V. (2004). You, the people: American national identity in presidential rheto-
ric. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. London,
England: Penguin.
Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought
(pp. 19-43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bligh, M. C., & Hess, G. D. (2007). The power of leading subtly: Alan Greenspan,
rhetorical leadership, and monetary policy. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 87-104.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, A. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charisma under crisis: Presidential
leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th ter-
rorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211-239.
Booth, W. C. (1978). Metaphor as rhetoric: The problem of evaluation. Critical
Inquiry, 5, 49-72.
Brown, R. (1977). A poetic for sociology. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London, England:
Sage.
Campbell, K. S., Follender, S. I., & Shane, G. (1998). Preferred strategies for deal-
ing with hostile questions in environmental public meetings. Management
Communication Quarterly, 11, 401-421.
Conger, J. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leader-
ship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of
Management Executive, 5, 31-45.
158 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
Conger, J. (1998). The necessary art of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 76(3),
82-95.
Conger, J. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations:
An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 145-179.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leader-
ship in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-483.
Cooney, R., & Sewell, G. (2008). Shaping the other: Maintaining expert manage-
rial status in a complex change management program. Group & Organization
Management, 33, 685-711.
Cornelissen, J., Kafouros, M., & Lock, A. (2005). Metaphorical images of organi-
zation: How organizational researchers develop and select organizational meta-
phors. Human Relations, 58, 1545-1578.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Emrich, C., Brower, H., Feldman, J., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words:
Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
46, 526-557.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Fairhurst, G., & Sarr, R. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of lead-
ership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Faure, M. (2010). Rhetoric and persuasion: Understanding enthymemes in the public
sphere. Acta Academica, 42, 61-96.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London, England: Macmillan.
Gill, A., & Whedbee, K. (1997). Rhetoric. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A
multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 157-183). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Green, S. E. (2004). A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of Management
Review, 29, 653-669.
Green, S. E., Babb, M., & Alpaslan, C. M. (2008). Institutional field dynamics and
the competition between institutional logics: The role of rhetoric in the evolving
control of the modern corporation. Management Communication Quarterly, 22,
40-73.
Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory
in managerial research: A literature review. Management Communication
Quarterly, 22, 13-39.
Hartog, D., & Verburg, R. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques
of international business leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 355-391.
Harvey, A. (2001). A dramaturgical analysis of charismatic leader discourse. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 14, 253-255.
Haskins, E. (2004). Logos and power in Isocrates and Aristotle. Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press.
Heracleous and Klaering 159
Heracleous, L. (2006a). Discourse, interpretation, organization. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Heracleous, L. (2006b). A tale of three discourses: The dominant, the strategic and the
marginalized. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1059-1087.
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse:
Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information tech-
nology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755-778.
Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D. (1986). Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and
response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 110-
157.
Hopkins, N., & Reicher, S. (1997). Social movement rhetoric and the social psy-
chology of collective action: A case study of anti-abortion mobilization. Human
Relations, 50, 261-186.
House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. Hunt & L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-270). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charis-
matic, and visionary theories of leadership. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.),
Leadership: Perspectives and research directions (pp. 18-107). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Hyde, M. (2004). The ethos of rhetoric. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to build-
ing commitment to multiple strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28, 1639-1665.
Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J. A. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhe-
torical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 63, 219-248.
Johnson, S. K., & Dipboye, R. L. (2008). Effects of charismatic content and delivery
on follower task performance: The moderating role of task charisma conducive-
ness. Group & Organization Management, 33, 77-106.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1987). Interpreting organizational texts. Journal
of Management Studies, 24, 233-247.
Klein, K., & House, R. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 183-198.
Koller, V. (2004). Businesswomen and war metaphors: “Possessive, jealous and pug-
nacious?” Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 3-22.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago
University Press.
Lanham, R. (1991). A handlist of rhetorical terms (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Marshak, R. (1993). Managing the metaphors of change. Organizational Dynamics,
22, 44-56.
Milne, M. J., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures in wonderland: The
journey metaphor and environmental sustainability. Organization, 13, 801-839.
Mio, J. S., Riggio, R. E., Levin, S., & Reese, R. (2005). Presidential leadership and
charisma: The effects of metaphor. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 287-294.
160 Group & Organization Management 39(2)
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London, England: Sage.
Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational
Theory, 25, 45-53.
Osborn, M. (1967). Archetypal metaphor in rhetoric: The light-dark family. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 53, 115-126.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and analogical reasoning in
organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27,
294-303.
Oswick, C., & Montgomery, J. (1999). Images of an organization: The use of metaphor
in a multinational company. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12,
501-523.
Peters, T. (1978). Symbols, patterns and settings: An optimistic case for getting things
done. Organizational Dynamics, 7(2), 3-23.
Pfeffer, L. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of
organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.
Pondy, L. (1978). Leadership is a language game. In M. McCall & M. Lombardo
(Eds.), Leadership: Where else can we go? (pp. 87-101). Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Pondy, L. (1983). The role of metaphors and myths in organization and the facili-
tation of change. In L. Pondy, P. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. Dandridge (Eds.),
Organizational symbolism (pp. 157-166). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Roberts, W. (Trans.). (1954). The rhetoric and poetics of Aristotle. New York, NY:
Random House.
Seyranian, V., & Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring
the rhetoric of social change. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 54-76.
Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic lead-
ership: A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research.
Leadership Quarterly, 5, 25-42.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept theory. Organization Science, 4, 1-17.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic
leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics and
superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 387-409.
Sharma, A., & Grant, D. (2011). Narrative, drama and charismatic leadership: The
case of Apple’s Steve Jobs. Leadership, 7, 3-26.
Sillince, J. A. A. (2005). A contingency theory of rhetorical congruence. Academy of
Management Review, 30, 608-621.
Sillince, J. A. A. (2006). Resources and organizational identities: The role of rhet-
oric in the creation of competitive advantage. Management Communication
Quarterly, 20, 186-212.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.
Heracleous and Klaering 161
Smith, R. C., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Conflict at Disneyland: A root-metaphor
analysis. Communication Monographs, 54, 367-380.
Srivastva, S., & Barrett, F. (1988). The transforming nature of metaphors in group
development: A study in group theory. Human Relations, 41, 31-64.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35-67.
Thachankary, T. (1992). Organizations as “texts”: Hermeneutics as a model for
understanding organizational change. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.),
Research in organization change and development (pp. 197-233). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. Henderson &
T. Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Author Biographies
Loizos Heracleous is Professor of Strategy and Organization at Warwick Business
School. He earned his PhD at the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
His research interests include strategy from an organizational perspective, organiza-
tional discourse and organization change and development.
Laura Alexa Klaering is Account Executive at Geometry Global. She graduated
with an MSc in Marketing and Strategy from Warwick Business School in 2010.
1
0.1177/0149206304271765ARTICLEJournal of Management / April 2005Groves /
Charismatic Leadership
Linking Leader Skills, Follower Attitudes,
and Contextual Variables via an
Integrated Model of Charismatic Leadership†
Kevin S. Groves
*
College of Business and Economics, Department of Management, California State University, Los Angeles,
5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032-8126
A charismatic leadership model consisting of leader social and emotional skills, follower open-
ness to organizational change, and organizational-change magnitude was tested using data from
108 leaders and 325 direct followers in 64 organizations. Leader social control and emotional
expressivity skills predicted charismatic leadership whereas follower openness to change medi-
ated the relationship between charismatic leadership and leadership effectiveness. Surprisingly,
organizational-change magnitude did not moderate the relationship between charismatic leader-
ship and leadership effectiveness. Implications for leadership theory, practice, and future
research are discussed.
Keywords: charismatic leadership; leader social/emotional skills; organizational change;
follower attitude
s
Dozens of empirical studies and several meta-analytic reviews have demonstrated the pow-
erful effects of charismatic leadership behavior in organizations. Recent research has shown
that charismatic leadership strongly affects follower performance and attitudes (Lowe,
Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), perceptions of leadership effectiveness (Shamir, Zakay,
† This research project was funded by the Rudolph Haynes Social Science Dissertation Grant, and this article repre-
sents work from the author’s dissertation. I wish to thank my dissertation chair, Susan Murphy, for her tutelage
throughout the research project, and committee members Ronald Riggio and Stewart Donaldson for their many
insightful suggestions.
* Corresponding author. Tel: 323 343-5429; fax: 323 343-6461.
E-mail address: kgroves@calstatela.edu
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, April 2005
255
-277
DOI: 10.1177/0149206304271765
© 2005 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
255
Breinin, & Popper, 1998), stock performance (Agle & Sonnenfeld, 1994), and organizational
profitability (Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001). Although charismatic leader-
ship theory and the hypothesized relationships between charismatic behaviors and various
outcomes have received considerable empirical support, several conceptual and methodologi-
cal weaknesses limit this area of leadership research. First, research on charismatic leadership
has generated very limited empirical support for the mediating influence processes through
which these leaders create their powerful effects in organizations (Yukl, 1999). Second, very
little is known about the role that followers play in charismatic leadership and how charismatic
leaders influence follower characteristics and attitudes in organizations (Conger, 1999).
Third, few empirical studies (e.g., Shamir & Howell, 1999; Waldman et al., 2001) have inves-
tigated the contextual variables that facilitate or inhibit charismatic leadership. Finally, recent
meta-analyses (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Lowe et al., 1996) indicate that mono-
method bias limits the majority of charismatic leadership studies due to a predominance of
single-source follower survey ratings for both leadership behavior and leadership
effectiveness.
The purpose of the present study is to test an integrated model of charismatic leadership
consisting of leader characteristics and behaviors, follower attitudes, and contextual variables
and address the limitations of charismatic leadership theory mentioned above. Specifically, I
argue that leader social and emotional skills, follower openness to organizational change, and
organizational-change magnitude are critical components that collectively explain the effi-
cacy of charismatic leadership in organizations. A key goal of the present investigation is to
expose the manner in which charismatic leaders influence followers’ attitude toward organiza-
tional change and subsequent outcomes, thereby establishing support for an important medi-
ating process of charismatic leadership. Both the lack of attention devoted to followers’ role in
the leadership process and the very limited empirical support for the mediating variables that
explain the efficacy of charismatic leadership continue to limit our understanding of this pow-
erful phenomenon. Another objective of this study is to advance the developing stream of
leadership research on the role of social and emotional intelligence by demonstrating empiri-
cal support for specific leader social and emotional skills that contribute to charismatic leader-
ship. Furthermore, this study will assess the magnitude of organizational change as a key con-
textual variable that facilitates charismatic leadership and also address an important
methodological limitation of charismatic leadership research by testing the integrated model
with a split sample of followers.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Integrated model. As illustrated in Figure 1, the central component of the proposed inte-
grated model is charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership is defined as a process of trans-
forming followers from an existing present state to an improved future state by demonstrating
sensitivity to member needs, environmental sensitivity, vision and articulation, personal risk,
and unconventional behavior (Conger & Kanungo, 1994). The integrated model postulates
that specific social and emotional skills facilitate a leader’s ability to enact these behavioral
dimensions. Furthermore, follower attributions of charismatic qualities to a leader positively
256 Journal of Management / April 2005
influence follower attitudes toward organizational change and perceptions of leadership effec-
tiveness. In addition, organizational contexts characterized by highly significant change are
modeled to strengthen the relationship between charismatic leadership and leadership effec-
tiveness. Thus, follower attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is collectively deter-
mined by the leader’s social and emotional skills, the leader’s demonstration of charismatic
behavioral dimensions, and the magnitude of organizational change in the work unit. Below,
I offer the integrated model by first examining leader social and emotional skills and their re-
lationship to charismatic leadership, followed by a review of charismatic leadership and how it
is potentially related to follower openness to change, organizational-change magnitude, and
leadership effectiveness.
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 257
Leader
Social
Control
Leader
Emotional
Expressivity
Leader
Emotional
Control
Follower
Ratings of
Charismatic
Leadership
Follower
Ratings of
Leadership
Effectiveness
.22*
Leader and
Follower Ratings
of Organizational
Change
Magnitude
.
Control
Variables
Leader Gender
Leader Tenure
For-/Non-profit
.05 .19*
.20*
.33*
-.09
H1
(.20*)
H2
(.22*)
H3
(.
15
+
)
H4
(.40**)
H5
(.42**)
H6
(.16 )
Follower Openness
to Organizational
Change
+
Figure 1
Proposed Integrated Model of Charismatic Leadershipa
a. Model fit: χ2 = 46.98 (df = 30, p < .05); Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = .96; Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = .90; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05; Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = .93; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .92. + p < .10 *p < .05 **p < .01
Leader social and emotional skills. The first component of the integrated model addresses
several sets of social and emotional skills that enable charismatic leadership behaviors. A
recent development in leadership research, particularly transformational and charismatic
leadership, is the importance of leader social and emotional intelligence and related interper-
sonal communication competencies. For example, Zaccaro’s (2002) notion of social intelli-
gence includes various social interaction competencies, such as the ability to identify and
interpret social cues, and subsequently adjust behavioral responses. Similarly, Mayer and
Salovey’s (1997) ability model of emotional intelligence involves several nonverbal commu-
nication competencies, including the ability to perceive and understand emotions, regulate
emotions, and generate or express emotions. Clearly, these popular models of social and emo-
tional intelligence subsume interpersonal communication competencies, yet there is surpris-
ingly little empirical research that links specific social and emotional skills with charismatic
leadership.
However, a recent trend in research on emotional intelligence and charismatic leadership
considers the role of self-monitoring, which is defined as the ability to monitor and control
one’s expressive behaviors (Snyder, 1974). Although theoretical (Garnder & Avolio, 1998)
and empirical research (Sosik & Dworakivsky, 1998) has linked self-monitoring ability to
charismatic leadership, several scholars have questioned the validity of self-monitoring on
grounds that it is a multidimensional construct consisting of several components (acting,
extroversion, and other-directedness) that are inconsistent with one another (Briggs & Cheek,
1988). Some research suggests that social control (Riggio, 1989), a social skill conceptually
similar to self-monitoring, may be a more valid means of measuring one’s ability to control
expressive behavior. Social control is a one-dimensional construct defined as social self-
presentation skill that enables an individual to adjust personal behavior to fit with what he or
she considers appropriate in a given situation (Riggio, 1989). Persons high in social control
are tactful, socially adept, self-confident, and excel in social role-playing abilities. Indeed,
Riggio’s (1989) validation studies showed that social control demonstrated strong positive
relationships with the acting and extroversion factors of self-monitoring and a strong negative
relationship with the other-directedness factor.
Theoretical and empirical research suggests that social control skill may be a key interper-
sonal competency related to charismatic leadership. For instance, research has shown that
individuals possessing social control report greater comfort in public speaking (Riggio, 1989),
accurately assess interpersonal relationships, understand the meaning of verbal and behav-
ioral cues in different contexts, and successfully pose basic emotional expressions (Tucker &
Riggio, 1988). Charismatic leaders rely heavily on impression management and image build-
ing to express conviction, self-confidence, and dedication to their vision (Conger, 1999; Con-
ger & Kanungo, 1994) and construct a charismatic identity that is valued by followers
(Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Furthermore, charismatic leaders must be acutely sensitive to fol-
lowers’ needs and values and use these cues as input for constructing and articulating their
vision. Social control skills may also be used by charismatic leaders to estimate how well they
are convincing both supporters and detractors that their vision is right for the organization. In
short, leaders with social control skills can detect critical cues from adversaries and refine their
message accordingly. Given the evidence linking social control and charismatic leadership,
the following hypothesis is presented:
258 Journal of Management / April 2005
Hypothesis 1: Leader social control skills will be positively related to charismatic leadership.
In addition to the integral role of social control skills, recent research suggests that charis-
matic leaders rely on various nonverbal, emotional skills to influence and motivate followers.
Although no study to date has examined the relationship between specific emotional skills and
charismatic leadership, several studies have examined the role of vision delivery in eliciting
perceptions of leader charisma. Studies by Howell and Frost (1989), Holladay and Coombs
(1994), and Awamleh and Gardner (1999) found that a strong delivery style characterized by
nonverbal, emotional communication is a key determinant of perceived charisma. In each of
these studies, delivery style was manipulated according to such nonverbal communication
skills as eye contact, animated facial expressions, body gestures, and posture. Interestingly,
Holladay and Coombs (1994) found that the combination of nonvisionary content and strong
delivery elicited greater perceptions of charisma than visionary content and weak delivery.
Although these studies provide support for the importance of vision delivery through non-
verbal communication, the findings discussed above are somewhat limited in that each study
used professional actors to portray strong (charismatic) and weak (noncharismatic) delivery.
The present investigation will test the relationship between emotional skills and charismatic
behavior using a sample of senior organizational leaders and a validated measure of nonverbal
emotional skills, emotional expressivity (Riggio, 1989). Defined as basic nonverbal expres-
sion of emotions through facial expressions, tone of voice and other paralinguistic cues, and
posture/body movements, emotional expressivity has been described by many as an integral
component of charisma (Riggio, 1992). In a review of the research on emotional expressivity,
Riggio (1992) concluded that emotionally expressive individuals have the ability to establish
subtle connections with others at an emotional level and transmit emotional messages that can
affect the moods and emotional states of others. Similarly, Gardner and Avolio (1998) argued
that charismatic leaders use body posture and gestures, speaking rate, smiles, eye contact, and
touch to project a powerful and confident presence and that such nonverbal displays may be
used to elicit desired responses from followers. Based on the preceding discussion of leader
emotional expressivity and charismatic leadership, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 2: Leader emotional expressivity skills will be positively related to charismatic
leadership.
Although research supports the notion that nonverbal expressiveness and the ability to
communicate emotional messages to followers are important skills for charismatic leaders, no
empirical study to date has addressed leaders’ ability to regulate or control their emotional dis-
plays. Riggio (1989) defined emotional control as the ability to control and regulate nonverbal
and emotional displays and asserted that individuals high on emotional control are likely to be
good nonverbal actors capable of posing emotions on cue and adjusting their nonverbal behav-
ior to “fit in” to various social situations. If emotional displays and nonverbal expressiveness
are critical elements of charismatic leaders’ ability to motivate followers, it stands to reason
that these leaders must also sufficiently regulate their emotional communications. Certainly,
ill-timed emotional pleas or excessive emotional displays may cause followers to perceive
their leader as frivolous and disingenuous. Indeed, several authors have asserted that percep-
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 259
tions of charisma may reflect a leader’s balanced possession of communication skills
rather than exclusively emotional expressiveness (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Riggio, 1989;
Sosik & Dworakivsky, 1998). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3: Leader emotional control skills will be positively related to charismatic leadership.
Charismatic leadership. The concept of charisma and how it relates to organizations can be
traced back to Weber’s (1947) analysis of authority and imperative control in organizations.
Intrigued by the forces of authority in society, Weber defined charisma as legitimacy derived
from a leader’s exceptional powers or qualities. Upon recognizing the exceptional qualities of
a charismatic leader, followers are likely to exhibit complete personal devotion to the leader
and his or her articulated vision. Weber was also intrigued with the creation, maintenance, and
transformation of institutional arrangements and categorized charisma as bringing about
change and innovation in society. Given this conceptualization, many leadership researchers
of the 1980s and 1990s examined charismatic leaders as the focal point for understanding
organizational change.
Across the many prominent theories of charismatic leadership, including House’s 1976
theory (1977); Shamir, House, and Arthur’s (1993) self-concept-based theory; and Gardner
and Avolio’s (1998) model, Conger and Kanungo’s (1994) behavioral model (C-K) provides
several advantages for the present investigation. The C-K model defines charismatic leader-
ship as a process of transforming followers from an existing present state to an improved
future state through the following behavioral dimensions: sensitivity to member needs, envi-
ronmental sensitivity, vision and articulation, personal risk, and unconventional behavior. Fol-
lower attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is determined by the leader’s demonstra-
tion of the behavioral dimensions, several of which are well suited for testing the integrated
model and examining the research questions of the present study. For example, a leader’s abil-
ity to demonstrate sensitivity to followers’ needs and feelings is a critical facet of charismatic
leadership that requires social and emotional skills. Similarly, effective articulation of
an inspiring vision and goals to followers often requires emotional, nonverbal communication
skills such as emotional expressivity. Furthermore, the C-K model makes explicit the role of
leadership behaviors in the context of organizational change; the present study’s analysis of
the change context and follower attitudes toward change necessitates a leadership theory that
models the necessary leadership behaviors for effectively navigating followers through the
change process. Finally, the other prominent charismatic leadership theories (e.g., Bass, 1985;
House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1993) have been criticized for including both leader behaviors and
follower effects as part of their conceptualizations of the leadership process (Conger, 1999),
whereas the C-K model is unique in its focus on the specific distinguishing behavioral
dimensions of charismatic leaders. For a more detailed discussion of the C-K model compared
to other charismatic leadership theories, see Conger and Kanungo (1998).
Follower attitudes toward organizational change. A central goal of the present study is to
examine follower attitudes toward organizational change as an important factor that helps
explain the efficacy of charismatic leadership in organizations, particularly those organiza-
260 Journal of Management / April 2005
tions experiencing large-scale changes. Of all the streams of research on transformational and
charismatic leadership, issues surrounding the role of followers and how they affect the charis-
matic relationship and organizational change have been neglected most. Although there are
theoretical contributions regarding followers’ role in charismatic leadership (Gardner &
Avolio, 1998), no empirical research to date supports the notion that follower attitudes toward
change influence the charismatic relationship between leaders and followers or follower per-
ceptions of leadership effectiveness. Because charismatic leadership behavior is predicated on
the development and implementation of a vision that contrasts with the status quo (Bass, 1985;
Conger & Kanungo, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993), significant organizational changes and ensu-
ing employee resistance to such changes are likely outcomes of the charismatic leadership
process. Although there is a great deal of theoretical research on employee resistance to
change (e.g., Piderit, 2000), no empirical study to date has addressed the relationship between
charismatic leadership and follower attitudes toward organizational change.
However, recent work on psychological ownership in organizations (Dirks, Cummings, &
Pierce, 1996) suggests that key follower beliefs may help explain the relationships between
charismatic leadership, organizational change, and leadership effectiveness. On the basis of
the concept of psychological ownership, defined as the feeling of being psychologically tied to
an organization, Dirks et al. assert that three human needs are related to psychological owner-
ship: self-enhancement, self-continuity, and control/efficacy. The model predicts that individ-
uals will promote change efforts under conditions that meet their needs for self-enhancement,
self-continuity, and/or control and efficacy. Accordingly, when charismatic leaders provide
followers with a sense of ownership of the organization’s collective vision (Conger &
Kanungo, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993), followers’ needs for self-enhancement, self-continuity,
and control are maintained. Indeed, research on Shamir et al.’s self-concept-based theory
shows that follower self-esteem, self-worth, and self-consistency are enhanced when follow-
ers perceive a sense of ownership of the vision (Shamir et al., 1998). Thus, charismatic leader-
ship may suppress followers’ resistance to organizational change by actively addressing their
needs throughout the change process.
Pawar and Eastman’s (1997) analysis of organizational factors that affect the receptivity of
charismatic leadership provides additional evidence of the relationship between charismatic
leadership and follower attitudes toward organization change. They suggest that the leader’s
role in organizations undergoing adaptation periods, which are characterized by large-scale
organizational change, is to overcome follower resistance to change and align the organization
to its new environment through charismatic leadership behaviors. According to Pawar and
Eastman, follower resistance to change will occur unless leaders cause followers to experience
a “felt need” for the changes taking place. Indeed, several core charismatic behaviors affect
followers’ receptivity of organizational change, including the ability to powerfully articulate a
deficient status quo and inspiring vision, communicate to followers a sense of ownership of the
vision, and demonstrate confidence in followers’ abilities to realize the vision. Given the pre-
ceding discussion of charismatic leadership and follower attitudes toward change, the
following hypotheses are presented:
Hypothesis 4: Charismatic leadership will be positively related to follower openness to organiza-
tional change.
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 261
Hypothesis 5: Follower openness to organizational change will partially mediate the relationship
between charismatic leadership and follower ratings of leadership effectiveness.
Leadership effectiveness and organizational change. The final component of the integrated
model concerns the effectiveness of charismatic leaders in the context of organizational
change. Clearly, empirical research has provided great support for the theorized direct effects
of charismatic leadership in organizations. Meta-analytic reviews (e.g., Dumdum et al., 2002;
Lowe et al., 1996) summarizing years of empirical research have concluded that charismatic
leadership demonstrates strong positive relationships with a range of important outcomes,
particularly follower perceptions of leadership effectiveness. However, as noted by several
leadership scholars (e.g., Conger, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1999), the literature on
charismatic leadership has failed to adequately address the organizational context in which
such leadership and follower effects are embedded. Although several theorists (Shamir et al.,
1993; Shamir & Howell, 1999) have proposed contextual variables that facilitate charismatic
leadership, including environmental uncertainty, crisis, and organic organizational structure,
only a few empirical studies have demonstrated situational effects (Waldman et al., 2001).
An important contextual variable of charismatic leadership that has gained recent momen-
tum from researchers is the organizational environment in which such leadership takes place.
In a review of the organizational and contextual influences on charismatic leadership, Shamir
and Howell (1999) proposed that the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership
are more likely in organizational environments characterized by a high degree of change than
in stable environments that provide few opportunities for change. Because dynamic environ-
ments and requisite organizational changes require novel responses from leaders and extraor-
dinary effort and commitment from followers, Shamir and Howell assert that “the charismatic
leader’s vision often brings to potential followers’ attention the existence of opportunities for
change, infuses them with hope and faith regarding that change, and mobilizes their energies
to single mindedly devote themselves to the vision” (p. 264). Similarly, Nadler and Tushman
(1990) argued that although organizations routinely experience change, the magnitude of
organizational changes varies from minor changes to large-scale changes. Furthermore, they
assert that the role of leadership differs according to organizational-change magnitude such
that existing management structures and processes are capable of implementing minor
changes, whereas charismatic leadership is necessary for engineering large-scale changes.
Thus, charismatic leadership behaviors, including sensitivity to follower needs, environmen-
tal sensitivity, and visioning, are critical for initiating major movements in organizations by
inducing necessary changes in followers’ attitudes toward change, level of effort, and trust in
the leader’s vision. On the basis of the preceding discussion of organizational change and
charismatic leadership, I present the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: The strength of the relationship between charismatic leadership and leadership effec-
tiveness will vary depending on the magnitude of organizational change. The charismatic leader-
ship–leadership effectiveness relationship will be stronger in conditions of high-change magni-
tude compared with low-change magnitude.
262 Journal of Management / April 2005
Method
Participants, Sample Organizations, and Procedures
A total of 433 respondents, both senior organizational leaders (n = 108) and their direct fol-
lowers (n = 325) from 64 organizations participated in this study. The organizations represent
the following industries: higher education (n = 21, 33%), community development (n = 14,
22%), government (n = 10, 16%), health care (n = 7, 11%), and other (n = 12, 19%), whereas
78% (n = 50) were not-for-profit institutions. The senior leaders in the sample included 67
men (62%) and 41 women (38%). The ethnic breakdown of the leaders was as follows: White
(n = 70, 65%), Asian American (n = 10, 9%), African American (n = 10, 9%), Hispanic (n =
14, 13%), and Other (n = 4, 4%). The leaders were employed at their current management
position for an average of 5.59 years (SD = 5.89). There was a total of 325 followers in this
study, with 3.01 followers per leader. Across the sample of 108 leaders, 34 leaders had two fol-
lower participants, 44 leaders had three followers, 25 leaders had four followers, and 5 leaders
had five followers.
Sample organizations. Leaders’ and their respective followers’ participation in the present
study was completely voluntary, as the present study was an independent research project
completed by the author. Participants were drawn from four sources: a professional health sci-
ences university, a public services and works government agency, a professional association
of U.S. medical colleges, and a community-based leadership development program. The pro-
fessional health sciences university participants included 24 institutional leaders at several
management levels, including senior vice presidents (n = 4, 17%), deans (n = 5, 21%), and
functional managers (n = 15, 62%). Participants from the public services and works govern-
ment agency included 22 engineering managers responsible for a range of public services such
as environmental services and flood control engineering. Participants from the professional
association of medical colleges included 12 presidents and chief executive officers (CEOs) of
U.S. osteopathic medical schools. Finally, participants from the community-based leadership
development program included 50 organizational leaders from a wide range of local organiza-
tions, including governmental agencies, for-profit businesses, universities, and nonprofit
organizations. The leaders in this program did not receive training in charismatic leadership
behaviors nor any of the leader skills or behaviors in this study.
Procedures. For the health sciences university, government agency, and professional asso-
ciation of medical colleges, an invitation to participate in the study was sent via e-mail to man-
agerial personnel, enclosed with a questionnaire measuring organizational change and social/
emotional skills (“leader questionnaire” hereafter). After leader participants identified the
members of their departments or work groups, I sent a second questionnaire to each leader’s
direct followers that measured follower openness to organizational change and their respec-
tive manager’s charismatic leadership behavior and leadership effectiveness (“follower ques-
tionnaire” hereafter). The veracity of the reported members of each manager’s department or
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 263
work unit was established through consultation with a human resource manager at each orga-
nization and official organizational charts. For the community-based leadership development
program, 162 local business leaders who had participated in the program during the past 3
years were sent an invitation to participate in the study, the leader questionnaire, and five sepa-
rate envelopes that each included the follower questionnaire. The leaders were instructed to
deliver the separate envelopes to their respective direct reports. Of the 162 leaders who
received the packet of materials, 50 agreed to participate for a response rate of 31%. The over-
all response rate for leaders at all sample organizations was 45%, whereas the overall response
rate for followers at all sample organizations was 62%.
Measures
Leader social and emotional skills. Leader social control, emotional expressivity, and emo-
tional control skills were measured using scales from an abbreviated version of Riggio’s
(1989) Social Skills Inventory, which assesses an individual’s repertoire of social and emo-
tional communication skills. On a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5
(exactly like me), leaders were asked to provide a self-report of their social and emotional
skills. To help limit the potential for inflated self-assessments, this section of the leader survey
was titled “Self-Description Inventory,” and leader participants were instructed to rate a series
of statements that “indicate an attitude or behavior that may or may not be characteristic or
descriptive of you” (Riggio, 1989). Thus, leader participants had no reason to believe they
were self-assessing social and emotional skills, which is critical given research suggesting that
individuals tend to overrate their abilities and skills on self-assessments (Kruger & Dunning,
1999). The following are sample items for social control, emotional expressivity, and emo-
tional control, respectively: “I can easily adjust to being in just about any social situation,”
“My facial expression is generally neutral” (reverse coded), and “I am rarely able to hide a
strong emotion” (reverse coded). Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for social control, emotional
expressivity, and emotional control were .75 (5 items), .71 (6 items), and .74 (6 items),
respectively.
Charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership behavior was measured by Conger and
Kanungo’s (1994) 25-item charismatic leadership scale (C-K). On a Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (very uncharacteristic) to 7 (very characteristic), followers were asked to comment on
the extent to which their leader exhibits a series of leadership behaviors. The C-K scale is com-
posed of six subscales that measure behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership, includ-
ing the leader’s desire to change the status quo (Does Not Maintain Status Quo or DNMSQ),
heightened sensitivity to environmental opportunities and constraints (Environmental Sensi-
tivity) and followers’ needs (Sensitivity to Member Needs), formulation of a shared and ideal-
ized vision and inspirational articulation of the vision to organizational members (Vision and
Articulation), engaging in exemplary acts that involve great personal risk and sacrifice (Per-
sonal Risk), and using innovative and unconventional means for achieving the vision (Uncon-
ventional Behavior). The alpha for the overall modified scale was .82, and each of the
subscales also demonstrated acceptable reliability: vision and articulation (6 items, α = .91),
264 Journal of Management / April 2005
environmental sensitivity (7 items, α = .81), sensitivity to member needs (3 items, α = .81),
personal risk (4 items, α = .87), unconventional behavior (3 items, α = .76), and DNMSQ (2
items, α = .72).
Organizational-change magnitude. To assess the magnitude of change at the sample orga-
nizations, both leaders and their respective followers were asked to characterize the changes
that occurred at their respective organization during the past year on a scale ranging from 5
(extremely significant) to 1 (little or no changes). Interrater reliability analyses (r
wg; James,
Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) indicated sufficient leader-follower agreement with an alpha of .73.
Using the same 5-point scale, leaders and followers were asked to rate the magnitude of orga-
nizational change on a five-item scale composed of the following dimensions: structural (e.g.,
reorganization, changes in reporting relationships), cultural (e.g., changes in philosophy, val-
ues, expected behavior), technological (e.g., new equipment, computer systems), procedural
(e.g., new work processes, policies, practices), and personnel (e.g., new position, job func-
tion[s]). Leaders and their respective followers’ ratings across these dimensions of change
were summed and averaged to form a composite measure of organizational-change magnitude
that produced an alpha of .78. Thus, the organizational-change magnitude measure represents
both leader and followers’ overall perceptions of the organizational changes that occurred in
their respective work units during the past year.
Openness to organizational change. Follower openness to organizational change was
assessed by a seven-item, modified version of Miller, Johnson, and Grau’s (1994) Openness to
Change Scale. Because this scale was originally developed to assess employees’ willingness
to support the organizational change of implementing work teams, slight modifications were
made to make this scale appropriate for a range of organizational changes. Thus, all followers
in the present study were able to address their attitude toward change regardless of the specific
changes occurring at their organization. On a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 7 (strongly agree), followers were asked to rate the extent to which they were open to
the changes occurring at their workplace. The overall reliability of the scale was acceptable,
with an alpha of .87.
Leadership effectiveness. Leadership effectiveness was assessed using Agle and
Sonnenfeld’s (1994) six-item Leader Accomplishment Scale that addresses leader perfor-
mance in terms of the attainment of management goals and objectives. The selection of this
scale over alternative measures of leadership effectiveness was based on several factors. First,
brevity was an important criterion given the nature of the sample and the potentially large
number of total items on the follower questionnaire. Second, the scale was carefully devel-
oped according to the procedure outlined by DeVellis (1991), including a comprehensive
review by a sample of executives. Finally, the scale’s emphasis on management accomplish-
ments rather than follower outcomes was important because the follower sample was split to
control for common method bias. The questionnaires from half of each leader’s followers
were used to measure charismatic leadership, and the other half were used to measure follower
openness to change and leadership effectiveness. The use of an objective-based measure was
intended to reduce the likelihood that followers’ ratings of openness to change would affect
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 265
their ratings of leadership effectiveness. On a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 7 (strongly agree), followers were asked to rate the extent to which their leader
accomplished the goals and objectives of their work units. The reliability of the overall
leadership effectiveness scale was acceptable, with an alpha of .93.
Control variables. Leader tenure and gender, and nonprofit/for-profit organizational status
were used as control variables in the present study. Because a manager’s prior work experi-
ence is often strongly related to leadership effectiveness, number of years at the current posi-
tion was used as a control variable. Leader gender was also controlled because prior research
has shown that women tend to have greater social and emotional skills than men (Riggio,
1986). Given the range of organizations and industries from which the leaders were drawn,
leader industry was coded into five primary industries represented by the leaders’ respective
organizations. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test identified no significant
differences in any of the study’s variables across the leaders’ respective industries; therefore,
leader industry was not included as a control variable for hypothesis testing. However, given
the predominance of nonprofit organizations in the sample, nonprofit/for-profit organiza-
tional status was included as a control variable.
Analyses
Level of analysis. The leader was chosen as the unit of analysis for the present study such
that items measuring social control, emotional expressivity, emotional control, and organiza-
tional change were averaged to create scale scores for each leader participant, whereas fol-
lower ratings of charismatic leadership, openness to organizational change, and leadership
effectiveness were averaged and aggregated. To appropriately conceptualize and measure the
extent to which leaders demonstrate social and emotional skills, charismatic behaviors, and
also affect followers’ attitudes toward the changes occurring in their respective work units, the
present study adopted the close charismatic level of analysis described by Shamir (1995).
Because immediate followers have day-to-day interaction with their leader and are privy to
direct observation of their leader’s interpersonal behavior, they are much more likely to pro-
vide accurate ratings of charisma, attitudes toward change, and leadership effectiveness than
distant followers. Furthermore, concerns about followers’ romance of leadership and implicit
leadership theories are significantly lessened when immediate followers are providing ratings
of charismatic leadership and leadership effectiveness rather than distant followers. To justify
the aggregation of follower ratings to create group-level measures, within-group reliability
statistics (rwg; James et al., 1984) were calculated. The interrater reliability coefficients for char-
ismatic leadership, follower openness to change, and leadership effectiveness were .82, .75,
and .70, respectively. Overall, these results provide support for the aggregation of follower
ratings to create group measures of charismatic leadership, openness to organizational
change, and leadership effectiveness.
Control for common method variance. Lowe et al. (1996) and Dumdum et al.’s (2002)
meta-analyses of transformational and charismatic leadership studies concluded that follower
266 Journal of Management / April 2005
ratings of charismatic leadership and leadership effectiveness are strongly related to one
another, with mean corrected correlations of .81 and .85, respectively. However, as noted by
several authors (e.g., Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002), mono-method bias is particularly
problematic when assessing the relationship between follower ratings of charisma and leader-
ship effectiveness, and many of the studies in the Lowe and Dumdum meta-analyses used fol-
lower ratings of both charismatic leadership and leadership effectiveness. In short, using fol-
lower ratings of both charisma and leadership effectiveness may result in artificially inflated
correlations between the two variables.
In the present study, Rousseau’s (1985) split sample technique was used to control for the
common-method variance associated with follower ratings of charismatic leadership and
leadership effectiveness. To split the sample according to Rousseau’s technique, which has
been used in other charismatic leadership studies (Agle & Sonnenfeld, 1994; Shamir et al.,
1998) as a means to control for mono-method bias, half of the follower surveys for a given
leader were used to measure leader charisma (n = 163), whereas the other half were used to
measure leadership effectiveness and follower openness to change (n = 162). All follower sur-
veys for a given leader were shuffled and assigned a number (e.g., 1-4 for a leader with four
followers). For leaders with an even number of followers, odd-numbered follower surveys
were used to measure charisma, and even-numbered follower surveys were used to measure
leadership effectiveness and follower openness to change. For leaders with an odd number of
followers, the “extra” follower was assigned to the charisma sample or leadership effective-
ness/follower openness-to-change sample on an alternating basis. For example, five leaders in
the sample had five follower participants, which generated 25 follower surveys. Thirteen of
these surveys were used to measure charismatic leadership, and 12 were used to measure lead-
ership effectiveness and follower openness to change. Overall, 163 followers were used to
measure charisma, and 162 were used to measure leadership effectiveness and follower
openness to change.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Prior to testing the integrated model of charismatic leadership and the associated hypothe-
ses, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to demonstrate the construct validity of the
leader and follower variables. Specifically, two measurement models were tested using Amos
software (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) and the following conventional indicators of fit: chi-
square (χ2), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted GFI (AGFI), Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). The
first measurement model tested the leader survey variables, which included leader social con-
trol, emotional expressivity, emotional control, and organizational-change magnitude, postu-
lating that each item would load significantly onto their associated scales. On the basis of the
conventional standards, the model demonstrated an acceptable level of fit (χ2 = 137.89 [df =
157, p < .01], GFI = .91, AGFI = .86, RMSEA = .06, IFI = .91, CFI = .90).
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 267
The second measurement model tested the follower-report variables, including charismatic
leadership (six subscales), openness to change (eight items), and leadership effectiveness (six
items). The conventional fit indices showed that the model demonstrated an acceptable level
of fit (χ2 = 172.27 [df = 114, p < .01], GFI = .93, AGFI = .88, RMSEA = .05, IFI = .98, CFI =
.97), and all charismatic leadership paths were highly significant except for DNMSQ. Given
that the sample includes leaders at several organizational levels, it can be reasonably argued
that leaders at lower levels in the organization have much less leeway in voicing discontent
with the status quo than CEOs or presidents. Furthermore, after dropping this path from the
measurement model, the resulting fit indices were minimally improved (χ2 = 162.18 [df = 118,
p < .05], GFI = .94, AGFI = .89, RMSEA = .04, IFI = .98, CFI = .98), and the ∆χ2 (10.09, df = 4)
was not significant. Thus, the originally specified measurement model was retained for
hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis Testing
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the leader and follower
variables in this study. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Dumdum et al., 2002; Lowe
et al., 1996), leaders seen as charismatic by their followers were also rated higher on leader-
ship effectiveness (r = .41, p < .01). Although highly significant, this relationship is consider-
ably weaker than the results of the Lowe and Dumdum meta-analyses because the present
study’s ratings of charisma and leadership effectiveness were from different followers. Not
surprisingly, analysis of the charisma-leadership effectiveness relationship using the full fol-
lower sample demonstrated a much stronger correlation (r = .71, p < .001) that is consistent
with Lowe’s and Dumdum’s mean corrected correlations of .81 and .85, respectively. Charis-
matic leadership was also related to social control (r = .27, p < .01) and emotional expressivity
(r = .24, p < .05) but unrelated to emotional control (r = .11, n.s.). Furthermore, charismatic
leadership correlated with organizational-change magnitude (r = .26, p < .01) and follower
openness to change (r = .40, p < .01). Surprisingly, both social control and emotional
expressivity were related to organizational-change magnitude (r = .33, p < .01, and r = .25, p <
.01, respectively).
The overall fit of the integrated model of charismatic leadership was tested using Amos
software for structural equation modeling (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). Analysis of fit indices
revealed an adequate degree of absolute fit for the specified model: χ2 = 46.98 (df = 30, p <
.05), GFI = .96, AGFI = .90, RMSEA = .05, IFI = .93, CFI = .92. Subsequent analysis of the
structural model and path coefficients, which represent standardized regression weights,
yielded results that support the integrated model’s hypotheses. Figure 1 illustrates the fit esti-
mates and path coefficients for the integrated model.
Hypotheses 1-3. As predicted, social control (β = .20, p < .05) and emotional expressivity (β = .22, p < .05) were strongly related to charismatic leadership; however, emotional control did not reach significance (β = .15, p < .10). Not surprisingly, leader gender was strongly related to both social control (β = .20, p < .05) and emotional expressivity (β = .33, p < .01), as
268 Journal of Management / April 2005
269
T
ab
le
1
D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve
S
ta
ti
st
ic
s
an
d
C
or
re
la
ti
on
s
V
ar
ia
bl
e
M
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.
L
ea
de
r
te
nu
re
a
5.
59
5.
89
—
2.
L
ea
de
r
ge
nd
er
a,
e
1.
40
0.
49
.0
1
3.
N
on
pr
of
it
/f
or
-p
ro
fi
tf
1.
21
0.
41
.0
4
.1
5
4.
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
na
l-
ch
an
ge
m
ag
ni
tu
de
d
3.
18
0.
78
.1
0
.0
3
–.
09
5.
S
oc
ia
l
co
nt
ro
la
3.
80
0.
73
.1
9
*
.2
0
*
.0
9
.3
3*
*
6.
E
m
ot
io
na
l
ex
pr
es
si
vi
ty
a
3.
32
0.
64
.3
3*
*
.3
3*
*
.1
2
.2
5*
*
.2
1*
7.
E
m
ot
io
na
l
co
nt
ro
la
3.
96
0.
73
–.
13
–.
09
–.
01
–.
02
.1
1
–.
24
*
8.
C
ha
ri
sm
at
ic
l
ea
de
rs
hi
pb
4.
72
0.
54
.0
6
.1
6
.0
3
.2
6*
*
.2
7*
*
.2
4*
.1
1
9.
V
is
io
n
an
d
ar
ti
cu
la
ti
on
b
4.
79
0.
72
.1
5
.1
1
.0
9
.1
7
.2
3*
.2
4*
.1
6
.6
5*
*
10
. E
nv
ir
on
m
en
ta
l
se
ns
it
iv
it
yb
4.
91
0.
52
–.
01
.2
1*
–.
03
.2
2*
.2
1*
.1
3
.2
6*
.6
0*
*
.5
9*
*
11
. S
en
si
ti
vi
ty
t
o
m
em
be
r
ne
ed
sb
5.
11
0.
66
.1
4
.2
0*
.1
6
.1
6
.2
6*
–.
01
.0
1
.5
5*
*
.5
3*
*
.5
2*
*
12
. P
er
so
na
l
ri
sk
b
4.
10
0.
87
.0
8
.1
9
.0
8
.1
0
.2
1*
.1
5
–.
04
.5
9*
*
.4
0*
*
.4
1*
*
.3
8*
*
13
. U
nc
on
ve
nt
io
na
l
be
ha
vi
or
b
3.
27
0.
89
–.
04
–.
02
–.
01
.0
1
.0
2
.0
8
.0
3
.5
5*
*
.2
8*
*
.2
2*
.1
2
.3
4*
*
14
. D
N
M
S
Q
b
2.
77
0.
81
–.
16
.0
3
–.
24
*
.0
7
.0
9
.0
1
.0
4
.2
4*
.0
1
.1
2
.2
0
.0
4
.3
9*
*
15
. O
pe
nn
es
s
to
c
ha
ng
ec
5.
78
0.
74
.0
7
.0
1
.1
4
.1
2
.2
1*
.1
5
.1
2
.4
0*
*
.4
1*
*
.2
2*
.1
2
.2
1*
.2
6*
.1
1
16
. L
ea
de
rs
hi
p
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
sc
5.
52
0.
97
.0
6
.1
6
.1
7
.0
8
.1
2
.2
7*
*
.0
5
.4
1*
*
.3
8*
*
.3
2*
*
.2
2*
.3
1*
*
.2
0*
.0
1
.4
1*
*
N
o
te
:
D
N
M
S
Q
=
D
oe
s
N
ot
M
ai
nt
ai
n
S
ta
tu
s
Q
uo
.
a.
B
as
ed
o
n
le
ad
er
s
ur
ve
y
(n
=
1
08
).
b.
B
as
ed
o
n
sp
li
t
sa
m
pl
e
fo
ll
ow
er
s
ur
ve
y
(n
=
1
63
).
c.
B
as
ed
o
n
sp
li
t
sa
m
pl
e
fo
ll
ow
er
s
ur
ve
y
(n
=
1
62
).
d.
C
om
po
si
te
m
ea
su
re
b
as
ed
o
n
le
ad
er
a
nd
f
ol
lo
w
er
s
ur
ve
ys
(
n
=
1
08
).
e.
1
=
m
al
e;
2
=
f
em
al
e.
f.
1
=
n
on
pr
of
it
;
2
=
f
or
-p
ro
fi
t.
*p
<
.0
5
**
p
< .0
1
ever, leader gender was unrelated to emotional control. Thus, social control and emotional
expressivity explained unique variance in charismatic leadership beyond the effects of gender
and the other variables in the integrated model. Overall, there was strong support for Hypothe-
ses 1 and 2, but no support for Hypothesis 3.
Hypotheses 4 and 5. The hypothesized relationships among follower openness to change,
charismatic leadership, and leadership effectiveness were analyzed using the structural equa-
tion model presented in Figure 1 and Baron and Kenny’s (1986) suggested mediation analy-
ses. The model shows that charismatic leadership was positively related to follower openness
to change (β = .40, p < .01), providing strong support for Hypothesis 4. Furthermore, follower
openness to change strongly predicted leadership effectiveness (β = .42, p < .01), whereas
charismatic leadership demonstrated a weaker relationship with leadership effectiveness (β =
.22, p < .05). As anticipated in Hypothesis 5, follower openness to change significantly medi-
ated the relationship between charismatic leadership and leadership effectiveness. The pres-
ence of follower openness to change in the model considerably reduced the strength of the
relationship between charismatic leadership and leadership effectiveness. Barron and
Kenny’s suggested mediation analyses also showed that follower openness to change satisfied
all three conditions for mediation: (a) Charismatic leadership strongly predicted follower
openness to change (β = .36, p < .01), (b) charismatic leadership strongly predicted leadership
effectiveness (β = .39, p < .001), and (c) the relationship between charismatic leadership and
leadership effectiveness lessened significantly (β = .39, p < .001, to β = .20, p < .05) when fol-
lower openness to change was entered into the regression model. Sobel’s (1982) method,
which tests the significance and stability of such changes, found that the beta weight change
for charismatic leadership was statistically significant (z = 3.15, p < .01). Thus, there was
strong support for Hypothesis 5.
Hypothesis 6. The final hypothesis of the integrated model is the moderating effect of orga-
nizational-change magnitude on the relationship between charismatic leadership and leader-
ship effectiveness. This effect was not supported by the structural model, as the path coeffi-
cient for the interaction term was not significant (β = .16, p < .10). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was not
supported.
Comparing Plausible Alternative Models
Although the results presented above offer mostly strong support for the hypotheses of the
integrated model, they do not rule out the possibility that competing models provide a stronger
description of the data. To provide comparative support for the integrated model, several plau-
sible theoretical models of charismatic leadership were developed and tested using structural
equation modeling. The results of these tests are provided in Table 2. The first step in develop-
ing plausible alternatives was to create more parsimonious models of charismatic leadership.
To this end, the integrated model (Model 1) was compared with a direct-effects model (Model
2) in which social control, emotional expressivity, and emotional control skills, follower open-
ness to change, and leadership effectiveness were postulated to predict charismatic leadership.
270 Journal of Management / April 2005
This model is consistent with the view that follower perceptions of leadership effectiveness
may influence follower ratings of leadership behavior (Meindl & Ehlrich, 1987). By compari-
son of the fit indices, this model was rejected in favor of the integrated model. Another plausi-
ble theoretical model is a simpler alternative to the integrated model in which social control,
emotional expressivity, and emotional control skills predict charismatic leadership, which
alone is posited to predict leadership effectiveness (Model 3). This model excludes the fol-
lower openness-to-change and organizational-change magnitude variables and was also
rejected in favor of the integrated model given inadequate fit statistics.
The integrated model was also compared with alternative models of charismatic leadership
that postulate theoretically different relationships among the variables of interest. Specifi-
cally, Model 4 adopts the perspective that leader social control, emotional expressivity, and
emotional control skills predict charisma, whereas the relationship between charismatic lead-
ership and leadership effectiveness is mediated by organizational-change magnitude. By com-
parison with the integrated model, Model 4 excludes follower openness to change and postu-
lates that charismatic leaders must successfully initiate and implement organizational change
to be perceived as effective leaders. Although Model 4 provided greater fit than all other com-
peting alternatives (Models 2, 3, and 5), it was also rejected in favor of the integrated model
due to the significant chi-square change between the two models, ∆χ2 (∆df) = 33.39 (2), p <
.01. Finally, Model 5 tests leader social control, emotional expressivity, and emotional control
skills as predictors of charismatic leadership and follower openness to change as a contin-
gency factor that moderates the relationship between charismatic leadership and leadership
effectiveness. This model demonstrated particularly poor fit to the data and was rejected in
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 271
Table 2
Results of Competing Models Tested Against the Integrated Model of
Charismatic Leadership
Model χ2 df GFI AGFI RMSEA IFI CFI ∆χ2 (∆df)a
Model 1: Integrated model 46.98* 30 .96 .90 .05 .93 .92 —
Model 2: Total direct effects on
charismatic leadership 864.40*** 37 .71 .65 .16 .60 .65 817.42*** (7)
Model 3: Social/emotional
skills → Charismatic
leadership → Leadership
effectiveness 164.33*** 40 .89 .82 .12 .85 .83 117.35*** (10)
Model 4: Organizational-change
magnitude mediation 80.37** 32 .90 .83 .10 .75 .72 33.39** (2)
Model 5: Follower openness-to-
change moderation 120.75*** 34 .89 .84 .11 .74 .71 73.77** (4)
Note: GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
a. ∆χ2 is calculated by subtracting the chi-squared associated with the integrated model (Model 1) from the chi-
squared value associated with the competing model.
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001
favor of the integrated model. Overall, these results provide further support for the hypothe-
sized relationships of the integrated model.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to address several limitations of charismatic leadership the-
ory and research, including the exclusion of follower and contextual variables, limited empiri-
cal support for mediating processes, and mono-method bias, by testing an integrated model of
leader skills, follower attitudes, and contextual variables. Overall, the results of this study sug-
gest that charismatic leadership may be best explained by a theoretical model that postulates
leader social and emotional skills, followers’ attitude toward organizational change, and orga-
nizational-change magnitude. The finding that these factors may collectively determine the
emergence and efficacy of charismatic leadership in organizations is important for several rea-
sons. First, no other empirical study to date has linked these variables into an integrated model
and tested it against alternative models of charismatic leadership. Although leadership schol-
ars agree that leaders, followers, and contextual factors play critical roles in the charismatic
leadership process, the present study represents the first empirical effort to connect these
variables via an integrated model.
Second, the results provide much-needed insight regarding the role of followers in charis-
matic leadership, particularly the manner in which charismatic leaders influence followers’
attitude toward organizational change and subsequent outcomes. Although the Gardner and
Avolio (1998) and Shamir et al. (1993) models provide important theoretical contributions,
charismatic leadership theory lacks sufficient attention to how follower characteristics influ-
ence the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leaders. Of all the streams of charismatic
leadership research, issues surrounding the role of follower characteristics and how they affect
the charismatic relationship between leaders and followers have been largely ignored (Con-
ger, 1999). As predicted, followers who rated their leaders as charismatic also reported being
open and accepting of the changes occurring in their organization, a finding that is strength-
ened by the present study’s use of a split follower sample to control for mono-method bias.
Specifically, followers of charismatic leaders were much more open to their work role changes
and had a positive outlook on the benefits of the changes to their organization. Given the nature
of organizational change and the pervasiveness of employee resistance to change, this finding
suggests that charismatic leadership behaviors may engender follower attitudes and beliefs
that promote rather than resist organizational change.
Pawar and Eastman (1997) maintained that a necessary ingredient of successful organiza-
tional change is leadership behavior capable of overcoming resistance to change by causing
followers to experience a “felt need” for the proposed changes. Indeed, the results suggest that
charismatic leadership behaviors, including the ability to powerfully articulate an inspiring
vision and communicate to followers a sense of ownership of the vision, may affect followers’
openness to organizational change and perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Whereas the
preponderance of previous research has examined the direct effects of charismatic leadership
(Dumdum et al., 2002; Lowe et al., 1996), the current investigation advances charismatic lead-
ership theory by providing empirical support for a key mediating variable. Furthermore, the
272 Journal of Management / April 2005
results from comparing alternative models of charismatic leadership demonstrated far greater
support for follower openness to change as mediating the relationship between charisma and
leadership effectiveness than for moderating this relationship. This finding represents an
important link to the organizational-change literature and related research on employee resis-
tance to change (Dirks et al., 1996; Piderit, 2000), which documents the critical role of
employee attitudes during organizational change. Given the rate of change facing many of
today’s organizations, the finding that follower openness to change is a key mediating variable
suggests that leaders should consistently manage their followers’ perceptions of the change
process to ensure effective facilitation of organizational change.
Third, the results suggest that charismatic leaders use specific social and emotional skills to
enact behaviors that influence followers during periods of organizational change. Although
leadership theory has long emphasized the importance of leader interpersonal skills, very little
empirical research has established the relationship between possession of basic social and
emotional skills and leadership behavior, and no study to date has linked specific skill sets to
charismatic leadership. The present study found that leaders with greater social control skills,
including self-presentation and social role-playing abilities, were more likely to be perceived
as charismatic by their followers. This finding is consistent with previous research on self-
monitoring (Snyder, 1974) and behavioral flexibility (Zaccaro, 2002) that suggests effective
leaders must be adept in social situations and adjust their behavior to the changing dynamics
of their work group. Given charismatic leaders’ reliance on follower needs and values as cues
for constructing and articulating their vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1994), social control skills
appear to play a critical role in a leader’s ability to enact core charismatic behaviors. Further-
more, the need for social control skills may be exacerbated during periods of large-scale orga-
nizational change when leaders face the difficult task of convincing both allies and adversaries
of their vision’s merits. Unexpectedly, leader social control skills were associated with high
organizational-change magnitude, suggesting that a leader’s demonstration of behavioral
flexibility may provide key role modeling for followers and create fertile conditions for the
implementation of major organizational change. Interestingly, these results may be compared
to Riggio and Friedman’s (1983) finding that social control contributes to perceptions of trust-
worthiness and credibility. Certainly, perceptions of leader honesty and credibility are critical
during periods of significant organizational change because followers stand to gain or lose
much from a leader’s proposed changes, including status, power, control over resources, and
promotional opportunities.
The present study’s results also suggest that charismatic leaders use key emotional skills to
influence followers during periods of organizational change. Leader emotional expressivity
skills, including nonverbal expression through eye contact, animated facial expressions, and
body/posture gestures, were strongly related to charismatic leadership. This finding indicates
that the motivating effects of vision and articulation behaviors, which serve as the core behav-
ioral components of many prominent charismatic leadership theories (e.g., Gardner & Avolio,
1998; House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1993), may be dependent on charismatic leaders’ ability to
demonstrate genuine commitment to their vision through emotional displays. Contrary to
expectations, leader emotional control skills were not significantly related to charismatic lead-
ership, suggesting that perceptions of charismatic leadership may not require constant regula-
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 273
tion of emotional displays and communications. Rather, followers may regard leaders who are
capable of posing emotions on cue and constantly adjusting nonverbal behavior as chame-
leons devoid of authentic feelings and emotions. This finding is consistent with research sug-
gesting that follower attributions of leader integrity are partially determined by the consis-
tency and sincerity of leader behaviors and whether such behaviors are perceived to benefit
organizational goals rather than leader self-interests (Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999;
Yukl, 2002). Overall, these findings are consistent with previous studies (Awamleh &
Gardner, 1999; Holladay & Coombs, 1994; Howell & Frost, 1989) that concluded a strong
vision delivery style characterized by nonverbal communication is a critical determinant of
perceived charisma. However, the findings from these studies are somewhat limited in that
vision delivery was manipulated through the use of professional actors in a laboratory setting,
whereas the present study examined actual organizational leaders and used validated
measures of nonverbal communication skills.
Implications for Organizations
The findings from the present study suggest key implications for executive selection, pro-
motion, and development practices. Rather than relying exclusively on interviews for selec-
tion of executive-level employees, findings from the present investigation suggest that organi-
zations would benefit by augmenting their selection and promotion processes with social and
emotional skill assessments. Social control and emotional expressivity skill assessments may
also improve assessment center techniques as a means to promote the best managers to execu-
tive-level positions. Thus, organizations will capture a more accurate evaluation of a partici-
pant’s ability to perform the role of a change agent at the highest levels of the organization.
Moreover, many scholars and practitioners have identified social competence and interper-
sonal skill development as primary reasons for implementing executive development pro-
grams (Fulmer, 1997). Findings from the current study suggest that key social and emotional
skills contribute to a leader’s ability to enact the charismatic leadership behaviors that create
follower openness to change and affect leadership effectiveness during organizational change.
Consequently, businesses and consulting firms stand much to gain by tailoring their executive
development programs to the specific interpersonal skill needs of participants, such as creat-
ing communication skill profiles for their executive personnel and providing training and
development opportunities for individuals lacking certain skill sets.
Limitations and Future Research
The present study’s relatively small sample size limits the strength of the findings dis-
cussed above, although the diversity of participating organizations and their respective indus-
tries suggests that hypothesized relationships of the integrated model may be a robust phe-
nomenon. Certainly, further empirical research is needed to replicate these findings and test
the integrated model on different samples of organizational leaders. Another potential limita-
tion is follower response bias because leaders identified the direct reports that participated in
the study. Thus, leader participants may have selected only those direct reports most likely to
274 Journal of Management / April 2005
provide favorable ratings of leadership effectiveness and charismatic qualities. Future
research would benefit from research procedures that ensure each direct report has the oppor-
tunity to participate, although requiring participation from all direct reports may decrease the
leader response rate. Furthermore, some research suggests that people tend to hold overly
favorable views of their abilities and skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) and that skill self-
assessment data tend to be inflated. However, this concern was partially mitigated by the fact
that leaders in the present study were unaware that they were assessing their social and emo-
tional skills. Nevertheless, the use of alternative social and emotional skill assessments in
future studies would improve our understanding of charismatic leadership.
In addition, the cross-sectional nature of the study’s research design precludes causal con-
clusions regarding the relationships among the variables of interest. Several researchers have
questioned the causal relationship between leadership and key outcomes (Meindl & Ehrlich,
1987) such that leadership effectiveness may cause attributions of charisma to the leader.
However, Shamir’s (1995) analysis of close and distant charismatic leadership argues that the
attribution of charisma to a leader by immediate followers cannot be simply explained by fol-
lowers’ knowledge of performance cues. Compared with distant followers of charismatic
leaders, the followers in the present study were direct reports of their respective leaders and
had other sources of information (e.g., direct observation of leader behavior) on which to
judge their leader’s qualities and behaviors. Thus, concerns regarding follower romance of
leadership and implicit leadership theories are minimized when using direct reports as
followers in charismatic leadership studies.
Overall, future investigations of charismatic leadership would greatly benefit from
improved measurement of leadership effectiveness, contextual variables, and the charisma–
leadership effectiveness relationship. The use of objective measures of leadership effective-
ness offers much-needed balance to the field’s dependence on follower perceptual measures
of leadership effectiveness (Dumdum et al., 2002; Lowe et al., 1996). As the present study
demonstrated, mono-method bias significantly exaggerates the relationship between follower
perceptions of leader charisma and leadership effectiveness, suggesting that the Lowe and
Dumdum meta-analytic estimates of this relationship may be grossly inflated. Furthermore,
future empirical studies stand to gain much by developing more precise measures of the scope
and intensity of organizational change. Although results from the present study indicate that
charismatic leadership is associated with work groups undergoing large-scale changes, orga-
nizational-change magnitude did not significantly moderate the charisma–leadership effec-
tiveness relationship. One explanation for this unexpected result is that the valid measurement
of highly significant organizational transformations such as culture change may necessitate
rigorous qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews and focus group testing rather than
survey methodology. Also, results from comparing the integrated model with rival alternative
models demonstrated some evidence for organizational-change magnitude mediating the cha-
risma–leadership effectiveness relationship (Model 4). Although this model was rejected in
favor of the integrated model, leadership and organizational-change research may greatly ben-
efit from longitudinal studies in which ratings of leader charisma and leadership effectiveness
are obtained at successive stages of large-scale organizational change.
Clearly, the complex and robust nature of charismatic leadership necessitates further
empirical research to improve our understanding of this powerful phenomenon. As illustrated
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 275
in the present study, a worthwhile challenge for future researchers is to examine the leader
skills and behaviors, follower characteristics, and contextual conditions that collectively
explain the efficacy of charismatic leadership in organizations.
References
Agle, B. R., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1994. Charismatic chief executive officers: Are they more effective? An empirical test
of charismatic leadership theory. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 2-6.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. 1999. Amos 4.0. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. 1999. Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content,
delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 345-373.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-
1182.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. 1988. On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with valid-
ity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 663-678.
Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on devel-
oping streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 145-179.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1994. Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and
their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 439-452.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeVellis, R. F. 1991. Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. 1996. Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under
which individuals promote and resist change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 9: 1-23.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. 2002. A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership
correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. Transformational and Charismatic Leader-
ship, 2: 35-66.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and
performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735-744.
Fulmer, R. M. 1997. The evolving paradigm of leadership development. Organizational Dynamics, 73: 59-70.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. 1998. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 23: 32-58.
Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. 1994. Speaking of visions and visions being broken: An exploration of the effects of
content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8: 165-189.
House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cut-
ting edge: 189-207. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 43: 243-269.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence
lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 1121-1134.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. 1997. In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelli-
gence: Implications for educators: 3-31. New York: Basic Books.
Meindl, J. R., & Ehlrich, S. B. 1987. The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 30: 91-109.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. 1994. Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational
change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22: 59-80.
276 Journal of Management / April 2005
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. 1990. Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. Cali-
fornia Management Review, Winter: 77-96.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. 1997. The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leader-
ship: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22: 80-109.
Piderit, S. K. 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward
an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25: 783-794.
Riggio, R. E. 1986. Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51(3): 649-660.
Riggio, R. E. 1989. Social Skills Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Riggio, R. E. 1992. Social interaction skills and nonverbal behaviors. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Applications of nonver-
bal behavioral theories and research: 3-30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. 1983. Individual differences and cues to deception. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45: 899-915.
Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of levels in organizational research: Multi-levels and cross level perspectives. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Shamir, B. 1995. Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6:
19-47.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept
based theory. Organization Science, 4: 577-594.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. 1999. Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of
charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 257-283.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Sub-
ordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 41: 387-409.
Snyder, M. 1974. The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 526-
537.
Sobel, M. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart
(Ed.), Sociological methodology: 290-312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sosik, J. J., & Dworakivsky, A. C. 1998. Self-concept based aspects of the charismatic leader: More than meets the
eye. Leadership Quarterly, 9: 503-526.
Tucker, J. S., & Riggio, R. E. 1988. The role of social skills in encoding posed and spontaneous facial expressions.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12: 87-97.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes
and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44:
134-143.
Weber, M. 1947. Max Weber: The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. 1999. The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and per-
ceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 428-436.
Yukl, G. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Lead-
ership Quarterly, 10: 285-305.
Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J. 2002. Organizational leadership and social intelligence. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo
(Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership: 29-54. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Biographical Note
Kevin S. Groves is an assistant professor of management and faculty director of the PepsiCo/Frito-Lay Leadership
Center at California State University, Los Angeles. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Claremont
Graduate University. His current research interests include executive leadership development, leader social and emo-
tional intelligence, and charismatic leadership.
Groves / Charismatic Leadership 277
52 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
The Challenge of Leadership in Temporary
S
ettings
The competitive landscape of the 21st century requires corporations to swift-
ly adapt to changes in dynamic environments and to constantly develop and
implement innovations. One prevalent means for establishing organizational
flexibility is temporary forms of organizing, as are projects and programs.
Although temporary organizations were originally the domains of project-
based industries, such as construction, management consulting, filmmaking,
and software engineering, an increasing projectification can be observed in
almost any industry today (Sydow et al., 2004; Bakker, 2010). Projects are
prevalent means for establishing organizational flexibility, inducing organiza-
tional change, generating innovation, and strategy implementation
(Whittington et al., 1999). Today, temporary forms of organizing are not
solely used for handling extraordinary undertakings, but also represent an
increasingly larger share of organizations’ ordinary operations (Engwall,
2003).
Temporary forms of organizing are different from standard organizational
processes because they are unique in terms of tasks and have a limited dura-
tion and a short-term orientation. Owing to this, temporary organizations are
characterized by discontinuous personal constellations and work contents, a
lack of organizational routines, and a cross-disciplinary integration of inter-
nal and external experts. In many cases, projects are also carried out beyond
hierarchical lines of authority and cut across organizational boundaries
(Engwall, 2003; Hanisch & Wald, 2011).
The characteristics of temporary organizations pose specific challenges to
leadership (Chen et al., 2004), because long-established leadership styles and
approaches might not work in temporary settings (Cleland, 1967; Thamhain,
2004). Many theoretical approaches that build on the assumption of fairly
stable and continuous organizational environments partly neglect important
characteristics of temporary organizations. This is also true for leadership
research in general (Shamir, 2011) and especially for contemporary leader-
ship theories that conceptualize leadership as a process of complex interac-
tions between leader and followers, focusing on relationships, interaction,
and subjective perception (Yukl, 2012; Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008). The same
applies to the recent body of research dealing with the cognitive and social
construction of leadership, such as shared leadership approaches, which gen-
erally focus on the process of leadership emergence (Avolio et al., 2009).
Research on leadership in organizations integrates a variety of approaches,
ranging from successful leadership skills and character traits, situational lead-
ership behaviors, the analysis of leadership emergence between leaders and
followers, to the social construction of leadership. Still, most of this research
assumes at least fairly stable organizational settings; however, temporary
ABSTRACT ■
Projects and other temporary forms of orga-
nizing are different from standard organiza-
tional processes. As most leadership theories
are based on the assumption of stable orga-
nizational environments, the increase in tem-
porary forms of organizing poses specific
challenges to leadership theories. We evalu-
ate existing leadership theories in terms of
their applicability on temporary environ-
ments and identify theories, which are adapt-
able to temporary settings and therefore may
be the basis for empirical investigations in
this field. On this basis we derive a research
agenda by proposing individual leadership
theories and combinations of different lead-
ership approaches to be further assessed in
research.
KEYWORDS: leadership; leadership theo-
ry; project; team; temporary organization
Leadership in Temporary Organizations:
A Review of Leadership Theories and a
Research Agenda
Ana K. Tyssen, Bosch Security Systems, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Andreas Wald, European Business School Paris, Paris, France
Patrick Spieth, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, Strascheg Institute for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship (SIIE), Oestrich-Winkel, Germany
Project Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 6, 52–67
© 2013 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21380
P
A
P
E
R
S
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1002%2Fpmj.21380&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2013-12-01
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 53
organizations may require approaches
that differ from those used in permanent
organizations (Chen et al., 2004;
Packendorff, 1995). The importance of
leadership in temporary organizations is
also substantiated by practitioners. Pro-
ject managers and project leaders consider
leadership as the dominant deter minant
of project success (Zimmerer & Yasin,
1998).
This paper follows the general call
for a sounder theoretical foundation of
project management research (Hanisch
& Wald, 2011). In particular, we seek to
analyze the implications of temporary
organizations for leadership and pro-
vide a systematic review, which relates
the specificities of temporary organiza-
tions to different leadership theories. We
start by elaborating on the specific char-
acteristics of temporary organizations, in
contrast to permanent organizational set-
tings. Based on these characteristics, we
evaluate existing leadership theories and
theories on leadership in teams in terms
of their applicability to each character-
istic. We further discuss the possible
factors that influence the emergence of
leadership in the context of each char-
acteristic. As a result, we identify lead-
ership theories applicable to temporary
settings, which may serve as a basis for
future empirical studies. On this basis
we suggest a research agenda that
builds on individual leadership theo-
ries and on combinations of different
approaches.
What Is a Temporary
Organization?
Temporary organizations can be seen
as aggregates of individuals temporarily
collaborating for a shared cause
(Packendorff, 1995). These temporary
organizations take the forms of proj-
ects, programs, temporary teams, or
task forces. We focus our considerations
on the challenges people face when
working in temporary organizations
existing within one permanent organi-
zation, although cross-company, inter-
national projects exacerbate the chal-
lenges on leadership discussed in the
paper at hand. Within temporary orga-
nizations, individuals usually team up
for a predefined time to work on the
tasks set. As shown in Table 1, teams in
temporary organizations differ substan-
tially from those in permanent organi-
zational settings; however, they display
certain peculiar similarities. Teams in
temporary organizations can also be
described as a unit consisting of two or
more people who are accountable and
having the same purpose, mission,
goals, and expectations (Lussier &
Achua, 2009). What distinguishes tem-
porary teams from non-temporary
teams is that they carry out time-limited
undertakings and disperse upon com-
pletion (Chen et al., 2004). The team’s
limited duration is mostly defined from
the outset, thus paving the way for a joint
course of action with the goal of complet-
ing a non-routine task. This is often
accompanied by non-routine processes
and uncertain working conditions (Pich
et al., 2002), whereas complexity in terms
of roles and participant backgrounds is
often caused by a variety of different
experts working together (Chiocchio &
Essiembre, 2009; Hanisch & Wald, 2011,
2013) and differing (hierarchical) roles
outside the temporary organization
(Baccarini, 1996; Packendorff, 1995).
This setup denotes higher uncertainty
and risk in terms of tasks and processes.
The team working on the unique prod-
uct outcome is neither a routine nor a
well-rehearsed one (Brockhoff, 2006).
Most temporary organizations are
based on and set up by a permanent
organization (Ekstedt et al., 1999).
Although temporary organizations
typically denote projects, the use of the
term indicates a different underlying
concept. The traditional view on proj-
ect management highlights the techni-
cal challenges, such as the “planning”
or “structuring” of temporary undertak-
ings (Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2009). In
turn, the general trend toward organiz-
ing business processes by temporary
systems draws attention to the social
interactions taking place in these under-
takings and requiring further study
(Ekstedt et al., 1999). This conceptual
shift highlights the recognition that
these characteristics impact the people
working in project environments
(Hanisch & Wald, 2011). In this paper,
we use the terms “temporary organiza-
tion” and “project” interchangeably,
although the concept of temporary
organizations is broader than that of a
Characteristic Potential Consequences/Challenges
Temporariness
Hampers development of positive relations (i.e.,
trust) and shared values/norms
Missing/ambiguous hierarchies
Participants mainly obliged to line function, poten-
tial “authority gap” of project leader
Changing work teams
Inter-divisional and hierarchical collaboration ham-
pers teambuilding processes
Frequent changes allow for less time for beneficial
group processes
Difficulties in developing group cohesiveness and
commitment
Heterogeneity of members
Coordination and communication across disciplinary
boundaries may be difficult
Unique project-outcome
Individual knowledge not sufficient, limited
recourse on experiences and routines
Higher uncertainty and risk involved, creativity and
autonomous decision making required
Table 1: Characteristics and observed effects of temporary organizations.
A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda
P
A
P
E
R
S
54 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
project as it includes programs, tempo-
rary teams, and other forms of temporary
collaboration.
Effects of Temporary
Organizations’ Characteristics
on Leadership
Five main characteristics of temporary
organizations lead to several challenges
uncommon in permanent organizations
(Table 1). A central question raised in
this context is how leadership takes
place in these settings.
Temporariness
Time and its effects on organizational
undertakings have received very little
attention in organizational research
(Ancona et al., 2001; Jones &
Lichtenstein, 2008) and in leadership
research (Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008;
Shamir, 2011), whereas temporary set-
tings have received almost no attention
in this regard (Bakker & Janowicz-
Panjaitan, 2009). Taking their cue from
permanent teams in organizations,
Hoegl et al. (2004) have identified three
phases in the development of project
teams. The initial ‘‘conception phase”
sees the project manager and his or her
team focusing on the setting of project
goals, course of action to fulfill these
goals, and resource planning. In the
subsequent ‘‘organizing phase,” the
manager and his or her team members
establish rules and boundaries, defining
relationships, designing the team’s
tasks, and securing resources. Shared
norms and values are also established.
The final ‘‘accomplishment phase”
incorporates activities that seek to
enable team members to effectively
work together to successfully complete
the project. Research has shown that
leadership influences team perfor-
mance throughout these phases
(Thamhain & Gemmill, 1974; Zwikael &
Unger-Aviram, 2009). In contrast to the
acknowledgment of different phases in a
project, Gersick (1988) found evidence
that the accomplishment of project
work is less tied to temporal sequences
but to externally imposed deadlines.
This effects team members’ time-
horizon: a short-term orientation with a
focus on immediate deliverables pre-
vails. As a consequence, decisions and
actions that require a longer time-
horizon, such as investments in knowledge
management systems or management
control systems, are hindered (Love et al.,
2005; Lindner & Wald, 2011).
Unique Outcome
As the outcome of a temporary under-
taking is unique, the path to realizing
such an outcome is often marked by
uncertainty (Atkinson et al., 2006).
Regarding the processes in temporary
organizations, project management
methods and standards partly compen-
sate for a lack of permanent processes
(Hodgson, 2004). However, the newness
and complexity of the tasks often require
novel approaches. As individual knowl-
edge is not sufficient, a variety of experts
with vastly different backgrounds col-
laborate (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009).
Even though the degree of novelty of
projects varies and cannot generally be
specified in character or extent
(Brockhoff, 2006), it often imposes the
need for distinct and novel practices to
effectively pursue the project’s final aims.
In order to display such behavior, project
team members must be able to display
creativity. This implies that leading—
as merely giving instructions to be
followed—is insufficient (Goodman &
Goodman, 1976). The impossibility of
reverting to routine processes and know-
how requires a leader who inspires by
providing a vision (Christenson & Walker,
2004) while allowing for learning (Pich
et al., 2002) and autonomous decision
making (Heinz et al., 2006).
Missing/Ambiguous Hierarchies
A temporary undertaking is to some
extent autonomous from its host organi-
zation’s (line) structures (Sundstrom &
DeMeuse, 1990). In addition to a poten-
tial conflict of roles of project partici-
pants (Jones & Deckro, 1993), this might
also lead to a semi-autonomous culture
due to the collaboration of people from
diverse educational backgrounds and
different organizational units (Bell &
Kozlowski, 2002). Most people working
in permanent organizations rely on
their functional supervisor, because this
person is responsible for promotion,
training, and so forth. The leader of a
temporary organization, therefore, has
little de facto authority and might not be
able to display the full range of (hierar-
chical) power available in a permanent
organization toward his or her subordi-
nates. This leads to different mecha-
nisms and different effective practices
in the personnel management and team
development of temporary organiza-
tions (Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2009).
Heterogeneity of Team Members/
Changing Work Teams
Temporary teams often consist of indi-
viduals with complementary skills and
originating from different departments
(Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2009). Due to
non-routine tasks or lack of availability,
several experts might participate in the
overall process once, thus implying fre-
quent changes of group composition
and a lack of time for beneficial group
processes (e.g., cohesiveness or com-
mitment) to take place (Parker &
Skitmore, 2005). In contrast to perma-
nent teams, project team members may
also be involved in several projects at
the same time. This heightens the chal-
lenge to develop the team, since mem-
bers spend only part of their time on the
project in question (Kavadias et al.,
2004; Kerzner, 2009; Zwikael & Unger-
Aviram, 2009).
Leadership Theories and Their
Suitability for Temporary
Settings
As Yukl (2012) has pointed out, numer-
ous definitions of leadership exist.
Although these definitions differ in sev-
eral aspects, many of them comprise a
few common elements, which are
reflected in a definition put forward by
House et al. (1999, p. 184). They describe
leadership as “the ability of an individual
to influence, motivate, and enable others
to contribute toward the effectiveness
and success of the organization . . .” At
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 55
the core of this definition are the rela-
tionship between a leader and the
follower(s) and a process of influence.
Existing leadership theories differ in
their assumptions on who exerts influ-
ence and on how the influence is exert-
ed. As a consequence, research on lead-
ership has developed a range of
approaches that differ significantly
from each other in explaining the emer-
gence and effectiveness of leadership.
Therefore, several researchers have
undertaken the effort to classify and
categorize this body of research. This
has either been done according to
roughly the time these approaches
emerged (e.g., Jago, 1982; House &
Aditya, 1997) or according to the focus,
conditions, and contexts these approa-
ches consider (e.g., Burke et al., 2006;
Avolio et al., 2009). As we seek to sys-
tematically analyze leadership theory
with regard to its suitability in explain-
ing leadership in temporary organiza-
tions, we chose the former categoriza-
tion. We segment leadership theory
into three broader categories, namely
person-oriented approaches, situation-
oriented leadership, and interaction-
oriented leadership theories. As cross-
functional teams display several of the
characteristics of temporary organiza-
tions, leadership research dealing with
team settings is also taken into account
(Oakley, 1999; Grant et al., 2001; Lussier
& Achua, 2009).
We analyzed the applicability of the
different leadership theories to the
characteristics of temporary organiza-
tions by considering each characteristic
separately. For every characteristic we
asked the sequence of questions shown
in Figure 1. First, we analyzed if the
respective characteristic of temporary
organizations is explicitly considered
by the leadership theory. If this is not
the case, we asked if in principle the
leadership theory could be adapted to
the characteristic (a) or not (na). If the
respective characteristic is considered
by the leadership theory, we looked for
existing empirical research applying
the leadership theory to the context of
temporary organizations (r). Where we
found no existing research (nr), the
possibilities end with the impact of the
characteristic on leadership being
deducible (d) or
non-deducible (nd)
on
a theoretical basis. Although the classi-
fication is the result of the individual
assessment of the three authors, we
sought to enhance validity by separately
classifying the theories in a first step. In
a second step, we compared and cross-
checked our classifications and elimi-
nated potential inconsistencies. The
results of the classifications are shown
in the Tables 2 through 5 and serve as a
basis for the following discussion.
Person-Oriented Leadership
Many leadership theories focus on the
individual and his or her role in the
leadership process. As these approach-
es share an individual perspective of
the emergence of leadership, they can
be termed person-oriented approaches
(Weibler, 2012). These can further be
categorized into leader-oriented and
follower-oriented approaches. In gen-
eral, these theories do not consider
project-inherent characteristics such as
limited duration (as the focus is on indi-
vidual abilities and traits), ambiguous
hierarchies (as the focus is on leaders’
abilities, irrespective of their formal
position), and changing work teams
with heterogeneous backgrounds (as
the focus is on dyadic relations, not
group phenomena). Still, these
approaches are dominant in the litera-
ture on leadership in projects, as proj-
ect managers’ traits and leadership
styles are considered (Gehring, 2007;
Pettersen, 1991; Pinto & Slevin, 1991;
Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). The majority
of work on projects focuses on the
search for factors that define successful
project leaders (Zimmerer & Yasin,
1998), sometimes distinguished bet-
ween project types (Müller & Turner,
2007).
Table 2 outlines the most prevalent
person-oriented theories (in rows) and
temporary organizations’ main charac-
teristics (in columns). The entry in a
row’s cell intersecting a column con-
tains the tag of the theories’ applicabil-
ity to the specific characteristics of tem-
porary organizations resulting from the
procedure described above (see Figure
1). Tables 3 through 5 are structured
accordingly.
Following trait theory as a common
leader-oriented approach, specific
traits such as assertiveness, decisive-
ness, persistence, self-confidence, and
skills such as cleverness, persuasive-
ness, and eloquence have been found
to contribute to a leader’s personality
(Bass, 1990). Research in this direction
is still ongoing (Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1991). Several authors have applied this
approach to temporary settings (cf.
Table 2). Results indicate that several
traits are suitable for project leadership,
although these traits are not contrasted
to those desirable in permanent set-
tings. Zimmerer and Yasin (1998), for
example, asked 76 senior-level project
managers to rank the most important
leadership skills of effective project
managers; answers included being a
team builder, a good communicator,
and a motivator. This could be an indi-
cator for the relative importance of
skills that enable the temporary group
Figure 1: Procedure for classifying leadership theories.
Characteristic
of TO
considered
not considered
research exists (r)
no research (nr)
adaptable (a)
non-adaptable (na)
deducible (d)
non-deducible (nd)
A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda
P
A
P
E
R
S
56 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
to become a team. As time is limited and
individuals might not share common
ground, these skills could be of greater
importance than in permanent settings.
Pettersen (1991), conducting a litera-
ture research on studies that considered
leadership skills in project settings,
found that the literature contained great
conceptual and statistical weaknesses;
therefore, he recommended a focus on
external validity (generalizability of the
results) and called for more statistical
rigor.
Several other leadership approaches
in this line of research, as well as the
concept of emotional intelligence, have
been considered in the context of proj-
ects (Clarke & Howell, 2010; Côté et al.,
2010; Müller & Turner, 2010). Because
the ability of a leader to detect, use,
understand, and manage emotions
(Côté et al., 2010) is crucial for leading
in environments with prevailing author-
ity gaps (Hodgetts, 1968), the applicabil-
ity of emotional intelligence concepts to
temporary settings suggests itself.
Although these concepts do not explic-
itly investigate project-inherent charac-
teristics, they seek out intrinsic motiva-
tional aspects (Lussier & Achua, 2009).
For example, a project leader with emo-
tional intelligence may describe a task in
an emotionally appealing way. This can
result in a high degree of intrinsic moti-
vation of the followers, which may com-
pensate for a potential authority gap.
However, findings on research using
emotional intelligence concepts indi-
cate that some emotional intelligence
sub-dimensions (influence, motivation,
and conscientiousness) are important
across all projects, whereas other
aspects vary across project types and
characteristics (Müller & Turner, 2010).
Research by Clarke indicates a link
between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership, which we
will discuss later (Clarke, 2010).
Attribution theory forms a link
between leader-oriented and follower-
oriented approaches by addressing the
creation of individual opinions in leader-
follower relationships (Winkler, 2009).
This theory basically describes the
emergence of leadership as a four-step
process, in which—in the case of poten-
tial followers—the actions of a potential
leader and its effects are scrutinized.
This process can also be assumed for
regarding charismatic leadership theo-
ries (Weibler, 2012). Here, the notion of
time is implicitly acknowledged but not
explicitly accounted for, aggravating the
Characteristic of Temporary Organization
Category/Research
Stream/Theory Temporariness
Missing/
Ambiguous
Hierarchies
Changing
Work Teams
Heterogeneity
of Members Uniqueness
Adapted on
Context of
Temporary Systems
Leader-oriented
Great Man Theory a a a a a yes
Trait Theory a a a/r a/r a/r yes
Emotional Intelligence a a a a a yes
Charismatic Leadership a a a r r yes
Follower-oriented
Attribution Theory a na na a na no
Learning Theories a a a a a no
Note. Adaptable (a), non-adaptable (na), researched (r), not researched (nr), deducible (d), non-deducible (nd).
Table 2: Person-oriented leadership approaches in the context of temporary environments.
Characteristic of Temporary Organization
Category/Research
Stream/Theory Temporariness
Missing/
Ambiguous
Hierarchies
Changing
Work Teams
Heterogeneity
of Members Uniqueness
Adapted on
Context of
Temporary Systems
Contingency Theories r r a a r yes
Path-Goal Theory r na na na a yes
Normative Leadership
Theory
a a a a a no
Note. Adaptable (a), non-adaptable (na), researched (r), not researched (nr), deducible (d), non-deducible (nd).
Table 3: Situation-oriented approaches to leadership in temporary settings.
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 57
estimation of how long this four-step
process will take or whether it might
even be accelerated in temporary set-
tings (Kelley, 1973). Another aspect of
attribution approaches that is of impor-
tance for temporary settings is the dis-
covery of the “fundamental attribution
error” (Iles & Hayers, 1997, p. 108),
which describes the tendency to over-
emphasize one’s character and those of
others while underemphasizing the sit-
uational influences as reasons for spe-
cific behavior. The heterogeneity of
team members, the temporariness of
the undertaking, and the accompany-
ing weak relationship emergence in a
project are important situational influ-
ences that may either reinforce or
reduce the attribution error in the fol-
lower’s perception of a project leader.
Learning theory is another follower-
oriented approach, which should be
scrutinized in terms of its applicability
for temporary organizations. Several
learning approaches exist : functional
approaches, often based on stimulus-
response models, prevailed for a long
time as so-called classical or behavioral
theories. A more recent approach takes
on social learning theory, which, in con-
trast to older approaches, does not focus
on the leader and his or her role as rein-
forcer but on the role of social and
mental aspects in learning as well as
contextual influences, such as environ-
mental and behavioral factors (Sims &
Lorenzi, 1992; Winkler, 2009). Thus,
learning processes are based on obser-
vations of the environment, including the
behavior and the experience of others.
Thereby, the individual learning process
can be accelerated and bypassed through
participating and imitating others (Manz
& Sims, 1981). Although to our knowl-
edge this line of reasoning is not followed
in research on temporary organizations,
some indications exist : a person new to a
project might be able to successfully
anticipate the characteristics of tempo-
rary settings by imitating the project
leader and his or her behavior. This
underlines the importance of experi-
enced project managers, because only
lived-in behaviors will enable followers
to successfully learn from a leader.
Situation-Oriented Leadership
Several leadership approaches disagree
with the idea of universally successful
behaviors and styles in leader-follower
settings. This stream of thought focuses
on specific situations in which leaders
are more likely to succeed if their char-
acteristics correspond to the situation
at hand (Northouse, 2009). Based on
trait and behavioral approaches, these
contingency theories hold that a leader
is most effective if a situation matches
his or her leadership style (Lussier &
Achua, 2009).
Fiedler (1967) designed a question-
naire for his contingency leadership
model with which a leader should find
the appropriate leadership style in a
given situation. This three-step model
first addresses the leader-follower rela-
tionship, which can be good or poor.
Second, it addresses the nature of the
task at hand, which is repetitive or non-
repetitive. Third, the leader’s power is
ranked as strong or weak. Given the
nature of most temporary organiza-
tions, the first question (concerning the
leader-follower relationship) depends
on the undertaking’s duration and can
involve poor relationships with follow-
ers in short activities, but also good
relationships in longer-term projects.
Second, in most temporary organiza-
tions, the tasks at hand are generally
non-repetitive, since temporary organi-
zations generally seek to accomplish
novel tasks (Packendorff, 1995). Evi-
dently, several examples can be cited in
which task non-repetitiveness is less
distinct, given the nature of similar pro-
cesses in projects of certain industries
(Müller et al., 2012). Third, the leader’s
power is likely to be weak, at least weaker
than in comparable host organization
settings (Jones & Deckro, 1993). Again,
there may be differences, for example, in
strategic projects, where a project leader
might be granted extensive power by
senior management. According to Fiedler
(1967), these possibilities lead to either
relationship (in the case of good or poor
relations, non-repetitive tasks and
strong power in the case of weak rela-
tions, weak power in the case of strong
relations) or task-oriented (in the case
of good or poor relations, non-repetitive
tasks and strong power in the case of
good relations, and weak power in the
other case) leadership styles. With this,
Fiedler’s contingency theory can be
used in temporary settings. As result,
either a task or relation-oriented lead-
ership style could be the recommended
outcome for the respective setting.
One situation-oriented approach in
which temporariness plays a key role is
Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s (1973)
contingency model. Available time is
considered one factor that affects the
choice for one of seven leadership
styles, ranging from autocratic to par-
ticipative. The rationale is the simple
fact that participative decisions take
more time, which means that the short-
er an undertaking’s duration, the more
appropriate an autocratic leadership
style.
Path-goal theory, another situation-
al approach, strongly relates to follow-
er-oriented approaches because it
focuses on follower behaviors and pref-
erences (Winkler, 2009). It distinguishes
between subordinate factors (i.e., the
degree of authority sought by an
employee), the control of goal achieve-
ment, one’s own abilities, and environ-
mental factors. Environmental factors
encompass task structure, formal author-
ity (both corresponding to Fiedler’s
contingency model), and work group
environment. Taken together, these
factors influence the choice of the
appropriate leadership style (e.g.,
directive-oriented vs. achievement-
oriented). Relating the six factors to
temporary organizations, complex task
structures and low formal authority
could be assumed, as discussed in
Fiedler’s model. Since the individual’s
ability to largely influence a project’s
outcome seems to decrease by project
size and complexity, a follower’s locus
of control might correspondingly be
A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda
P
A
P
E
R
S
58 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
perceived as increasingly external. The
combination of the six factors deter-
mines the appropriate leadership style
among four alternatives. For temporary
organizations, all of the four leadership
styles are potentially feasible.
Although directive-oriented and
achievement-oriented leadership styles
seem appropriate in few settings, factors
leading to supportive and participative
leadership styles often prevail in tempo-
rary environments. Supportive leader-
ship is recommended in situations
where followers refuse an autocratic
leadership style, have high abilities and
an internal locus of control, whereas
environmental tasks are simple and for-
mal authority is weak. This is a prevalent
setting in temporary organizations (Jones
& Deckro, 1993). In turn, participative
leadership is considered in complex
environmental settings with high fol-
lower ability and weak authority, where-
as followers want to be involved and the
locus of control is internal. This seems
to be the case in many new product
development projects (Akgün et al.,
2007; Müller et al., 2012). Directive lead-
ership is probably less appropriate,
because the combination of strong
desire for leader authority and low fol-
lower ability with a complex environ-
mental task, strong formal authority,
and high group member job satisfaction
seems rare. The same holds true for an
achievement-oriented leadership style,
which fits settings with high autocratic
leadership and high follower ability,
external locus of control, simple envi-
ronmental tasks, and strong (formal)
leader authority. This constellation can
often be found in organizational change
projects and consulting projects. In gen-
eral, a project categorization framework,
as proposed by Dvir et al. (1998) is
recommended. The authors structure
projects according to their level of com-
plexity (management tasks) and novelty
(technological uncertainty), which could
serve as the underlying basis for the
choice of factors from Fiedler’s model.
Normative leadership theory and its
models take a specific decision as initial
point. Since one component of the deci-
sion tree is time (in contrast to the
development-driven model), this app-
roach seems to be a good fit for tempo-
rary settings. The corresponding models
basically address the question of when
leaders should take the lead and when
they should let the group decide. The
possible choice of leadership styles
reflects the traditional range between
autocratic and democratic (Lussier &
Achua, 2009). The constituting factors of
this approach are the significance of the
decision at hand; the importance of fol-
lower commitment ; leader expertise;
the likelihood of follower commitment ;
group support for objectives ; group
expertise; and, overall team compe-
tence. The relevance of the individual
components varies according to the
decisions at hand. Considering the three
characteristics of the time-driven
model—which comprises focus (effec-
tive decisions in minimum time), value
(time is money), and orientation (short-
term)—the decision situations in tem-
porary settings seem well reflected.
Similar to Fiedler’s contingency model,
seven questions require answering,
indicating the appropriate leadership
style to be chosen.
For example, group consultation is
recommended in settings with high deci-
sion significance, high importance of
commitment, high leader expertise, but
low likelihood of commitment and group
support. This setting might be the case in
projects where an experienced project
manager has to deal with role conflicts
among team members, which are caused
by their different line functions in the
permanent parent organization. A coun-
ter-example is a setting with high deci-
sion significance, high importance of
follower commitment, low leader exper-
tise (assuming that several experts are
working together with the project leader,
who is an expert only in his or her field),
high commitment likelihood, and high
group support and competence. In such a
setting, facilitation is recommended; this
involves participation and concurrence
by team members in the decision process.
This scenario might occur in highly inno-
vative development projects. Generally,
normative leadership models seem suit-
able for temporary settings, because they
incorporate time limitation as well as
group characteristics.
In project management research,
the situation-dependent suitability of
leadership behavior has been acknowl-
edged by several authors, who hold that
leadership styles also depend on project
settings. Hodgetts (1968) found that sev-
eral strategies can help overcome the
lack of formal (line) authority, depend-
ing on the project’s industry. More
recently, Müller and Turner (2010) indi-
cate that certain leadership behaviors
might be suitable for certain projects,
while being less effective in others. They
underline the argument of Pinto and
Slevin (1991), who called for an adapta-
tion of the project manager’s leadership
style to the individual situations
throughout a project.
Interaction-Oriented Leadership
For a considerable time, leadership
research was focused on the leader,
thereby neglecting the impact of follow-
ers in the leadership process (Lussier &
Achua, 2009). Dyadic approaches focus
on the reciprocal influencing process
between leader and follower. The
implicit time frame needed for interac-
tion is of crucial importance for the
applicability of these approaches to
temporary organizations.
One of the early interaction-oriented
approaches is the idiosyncrasy credit
theory (Hollander, 1958), which explains
how individual group members may
become leaders over time and how they
are acknowledged as such by their peers.
Time is a crucial variable in this context,
because the emergence of leadership is
constituted by the outstanding pursuit of
a group’s norms by one person. This per-
son’s willingness to strengthen the
group’s cohesion is hence acknowledged
by the group members. In turn, this
acknowledgment enables the potential
leader to deviate from group behavior in
order to achieve set goals. If this behavior
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 59
charismatic leadership to be an element
of transformational leadership, which
focuses on the mechanisms and interac-
tion processes by which leaders exert
their influence on follower’s motivation
(Avolio et al., 2009). This understanding
of charismatic leadership has found
broad support (Lussier & Achua, 2009).
Since temporary organizations are estab-
lished in order to accomplish change (the
extreme case being an organizational
restructuring project), charismatic lead-
ership is likely to play an important role
in temporary settings. Charisma is used
to describe a form of influence not based
on legal authority but on the awareness of
followers to the effect that a leader has
(Weber, 1920). Charismatic leaders are
perceived as bringing higher meaning to
the goals to be achieved, thus committing
their followers to these goals (Lussier &
Achua, 2009). Owing to this, the problem
of potential authority gaps and role con-
flicts caused by missing or ambiguous
hierarchies (Cleland, 1967) could be mas-
tered. Wang et al. (2005) investigated the
impact of charismatic leadership on team
cohesion during enterprise resource
planning projects. They found evidence
that team cohesion was positively affect-
ed by charismatic leadership, underlining
the potential importance of charismatic
leadership to temporary teams with unfa-
miliar and changing team members
working outside of their usual authority
structures.
upon role responsibilities, including
trust, respect, and reciprocal influence
(Winkler, 2009).
Research on LMX indicates that
some level of quality of the relation-
ships forms rather swiftly (i.e., within a
few weeks) (van Breukelen et al., 2006).
This finding indicates the applicability
of this approach to projects. Attention
must be drawn to the fact that certain
studies highlight the importance of the
first encounter of a leader and an indi-
vidual member, which is a determinant
of the quality of the subsequent rela-
tionship. Authors researching teams
argue that leaders generally lack the
time to establish high-quality relation-
ships with all team members (Boies &
Howell, 2006). Adapting this to the other
characteristics of temporary organiza-
tions, it seems crucial for leaders in
temporary settings to tend to new team
members in order to enable high-quality
relationships. Nevertheless, relatively
few empirical studies have dealt with
the emergence of such high-quality rela-
tionships (van Breukelen et al., 2006).
Several authors hold that charismatic
leadership is successful in situations of
change or even crisis (Bass 1990). Because
its success not only depends on the lead-
er’s abilities and the situation, but also on
the follower’s perception of crisis (Conger
& Kanungo, 1987), we considered charis-
matic leadership under the aspect of
interaction. In addition, we understand
is successful, the other group members
will give credit, enabling the person to
further display such behavior. Although
these assumed coherences underline
the importance of time, it is difficult to
predetermine a clear time frame. It
seems understandable that collabora-
tion’s limited duration will not allow the
assumed exchange processes to take
place. Likewise, no project-related
research on the temporal component of
these approaches was found (cf. Table 4).
Similarly, general dyadic approaches—
as antecedents of Leader-Member
Exchange Theory (LMX)—deal with the
development of leadership over time
(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In contrast to
idiosyncrasy credit theory, dyadic
approaches ask how (leader-follower)
relationships emerge in organizations,
how these relationships stabilize, and
which qualities and consequences can
be distinguished (Lussier & Achua,
2009). LMX investigates the quality of
the exchange relationship between a
leader and an individual member in a
work unit. The starting point is the
assumption that two kinds of relation-
ships may exist between a leader and
an individual member. While the low-
quality leader-member relationship is
based on the formal association as con-
tained in the official job description
and employment contract, the high-
quality leader-member relationship is
based on adjusted and mutually agreed
Characteristic of a Temporary Organization
Category/Research
Stream/Theory Temporariness
Missing/
Ambiguous
Hierarchies
Changing
Work Teams
Heterogeneity
of Members Uniqueness
Adapted on
Context of
Temporary Systems
Leader-Member Exchange
Theory
d/r a a a na no
Idiosyncrasy-Credit Theory na a na na a no
Transactional Leadership d na d/r d/r d/r yes
Transformational
Leadership r r a r r yes
Note. Adaptable (a), non-adaptable (na), researched (r), not researched (nr), deducible (d), non-deducible (nd).
Table 4: Interaction-oriented approaches to leadership in temporary settings.
A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda
P
A
P
E
R
S
60 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Several approaches investigate the
impact of neocharismatic leadership on
various organizational settings. Here,
“neo” basically indicates that this
research has moved on from Weber’s
notion of charisma (Winkler, 2009).
Studies investigating charismatic lead-
ership clearly indicate the positive effect
on motivation, commitment, and over-
all performance of followers, especially
in times of crisis and uncertainty (House
& Aditya, 1997).
Charismatic leadership is also the
central element of transformational
leadership, which focuses on the lead-
er’s ability to transform follower needs
and behaviors (Bass et al., 2003) and the
ability to articulate an attractive vision
of a probable future (Keegan & Den
Hartog, 2004). While transformational
leadership focuses on people and their
motivations, beliefs, and behaviors,
transactional leadership focuses on
tasks and highlights the maintenance of
stability, rather than change. The trans-
actional leader exchanges benefits that
satisfy follower needs and desires for
follower-accomplished objectives or
duties (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Because
temporary organizations contain a
broad range of complexity regarding
tasks and people, the consideration of
transactional and transformational
leadership as a more complex approach
reflecting task and people orientation
seems apt. Owing to this, we follow Bass
and Steidlmeier (1999) in arguing that
transformational leadership can be seen
as actions that affect where instrumen-
tal effects of transactional leadership do
not work.
Several researchers have considered
transformational leadership in projects
(cf. Table 4). Barber and Warn (2005)
conceptually link transactional and
transformational leadership, highlight-
ing the need for project managers to use
transformational leadership so as to pro-
actively guide project team members.
Yang et al. (2011) found that transaction-
al and transformational leadership has a
positive effect on project performance,
although they do not differentiate
between potential partial effects of both
leadership behaviors. Keller (2006) uses
a longitudinal approach and reports a
positive influence of transformational
leadership on project team outcomes.
The findings of Keegan and Den Hartog
(2004) indicate that the effect of trans-
formational leadership tends to be
weaker for employees reporting to proj-
ect managers than for those reporting to
line managers. Another study reported a
negative effect of passive or absent lead-
ership on stakeholder satisfaction in
contrast to transformational leadership
(Strang, 2005). Tyssen et al. (2013)
develop a research model on the effects
of transactional and transformational
leadership in projects. They formulate
propositions on the effectiveness of
these leadership behaviors, depending
on the characteristics of the project.
They hypothesize that transactional
leadership is particularly effective in
projects with strong goal clarity, short
duration, clearly defined responsibilities
and rather low degrees of task novelty. In
contrast, transformational leadership is
supposed to be more effective in proj-
ects with a long duration, a high degree
of task novelty, and ambiguous hierar-
chies. Kissi et al. (2013) provided evi-
dence for the effectiveness of transfor-
mational leadership in more long-term
oriented and more stable project envi-
ronments. They found transformational
leadership of portfolio managers to have
a positive impact on project success.
Overall, empirical investigations have
focused on individual projects or indus-
tries, thus receiving mixed results.
Another research stream highlights
the importance of inspiring and vision-
ary project leadership (Christenson &
Walker, 2004). In this context, several
authors have combined different leader-
ship research streams regarding people-
oriented dimensions, in contrast to more
task-oriented leadership behaviors.
Recently, elements of transformational
leadership have been combined with
emotional competences. Results indi-
cate the importance of people-oriented
behaviors and find evidence for the pos-
itive influence of different aspects of
person-oriented behavior on team and
task characteristics (Ayoko & Callan,
2010; Clarke, 2010; Müller & Turner,
2010).
Team Approaches to Leadership
Research covering leadership in teams
generally addresses the effectiveness of
team work using a team perspective
(Morgeson et al., 2010; cf. Table 5).
Legare (2001) identifies three types of
teams to be covered by team-related lead-
ership literature, of which cross-functional
teams best reflect the characteristics of
temporary organizations: cross-functional
teams mostly consist of members from
different functional areas in an organiza-
tion and seek to perform “unique,
uncertain tasks to create new and non-
routine products or services” (Legare,
2001), which overlaps with the definition
of project teams. Team members are
most likely belonging to a functional,
product, or service department, thus
potentially leading to role conflict
Characteristic of Temporary Organization
Category/Research
Stream/Theory Temporariness
Missing/
Ambiguous
Hierarchies
Changing
Work Teams
Heterogeneity
of Members Uniqueness
Adapted on
Context of
Temporary Systems
Research on Teams a r r r r yes
Note. Adaptable (a), researched (r).
Table 5: Team approaches to leadership and its applicability to temporary organizations.
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 61
(Lovelace et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2001),
which is a common problem in tempo-
rary organizations (Baccarini, 1996;
Packendorff, 1995). The self-managed
team as another team type has recently
found consideration with regard to tem-
porary organization characteristics
(Lindgren et al., 2007; Muethel & Hoegl,
2008). Here, the existence of a shared
or revolving leadership enables the
team to work on tasks without being
limited by the formal authority of one
person. Project-related research has
also considered the phenomenon of
distributed leadership and has called
for further research in this area
(Lindgren & Packendorff, 2009).
However, most forms of temporary
organizations involve one formal leader
who is ultimately responsible for the
outcome (Lussier & Achua 2009); there-
fore, we have omitted research
in this regard.
Overall, team approaches to leader-
ship stress the importance of leadership
supporting the advantages of accom-
plishing organizational tasks in team set-
tings, thus taking a functional approach
of leadership (Morgeson et al., 2010).
Research indicates that aspects of
coworker heterogeneity positively influ-
ence creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2007) and
problem-solving quality in groups (Earley
& Mosakowski, 2000). On the other hand,
homogeneity in groups promotes higher
trust and better communication than in
heterogeneous environments (Iles &
Hayers, 1997). Here, a leader’s task is to
maximize the positive influence of team
member heterogeneity and minimize
possible negative effects. In this respect,
team literature serves as a valuable
source regarding effective leadership in
temporary organizations. In general,
research on teams highlights the impor-
tance of leaders’ knowledge of team pro-
cesses and of the requirements for the
effective functioning of a team (Burke et
al., 2006). Cross-functional team leaders
inherit a crucial role as they can influence
team cohesion and trust as well as mini-
mize potential conflict (Lussier & Achua,
2009). In some respect, the leader’s role
can also incorporate being a coach or
facilitator (Morgeson et al., 2010), thereby
empowering team members and seeking
outside help if necessary, rather than dis-
playing traditional leadership styles
(Williams, 2001).
As projects are widely seen as one
kind of team (Devine et al., 1999;
Sundstrom, 1999), research on teams
has frequently sought to discuss time,
although only a few researchers involve
time in their studies of social influence
in teams (Marks et al., 2001). Instead,
several researchers address phenome-
na such as group cohesiveness (Beal
et al., 2003), social ties (Balkundi &
Harrison, 2006), and innovativeness
(Heinz et al., 2006) in project teams, but
none addresses the emergence of lead-
ership. Taggar et al. (1999) assume that
working within a time constraint,
appropriate team leader role behavior
would primarily seek to organize work,
work relationships, and goals, rather
than developing trust between and
regard for other team members.
Generally, the four team forming stages
of form, storm, norm, and perform are
acknowledged, even though some
doubt exists as to whether these model
stages adequately capture the contin-
gencies of team development (Rickards
et al., 2001). These stages seem largely
congruent with the noted development
phases of temporary teams, as identi-
fied by Hoegl et al. (2004). Comparing
the two variants of team formation, the
dilemma of normative goal-setting and
struggle for shared norms, which even-
tually results in a generally accepted set
of rules and norms, is evident.
Lussier and Achua (2009) hold that
a participative approach is most suit-
able for leading cross-functional teams
as it best fits the inherent requirements.
They further highlight the leader’s role
as advisor or consultant (rather that a
commander or manager), which indi-
cates the choice of person-oriented
leadership styles. These considerations
also seem valid for temporary teams,
which have similar characteristics (e.g.,
heterogeneity and task novelty). On the
other hand, this general recommenda-
tion may not be sufficient if coordinative
tasks with complex interaction and
reciprocal adjustment are required (Iles
& Hayers, 1997).
Research Agenda
As temporary organizing increases,
leadership research must pay attention
to projects, programs, and temporary
teams. Specific characteristics may lead
to behaviors that differ significantly
from permanent settings. The leader-
ship theories discussed in this article
cover a long history of research and take
on various perspectives. We identified
several approaches and factors for fur-
ther assessment regarding their contri-
bution to understanding leadership in
temporary settings.
In the following section, we inte-
grate these approaches in a schematic
depiction of temporary organizational
characteristics (cf. Figure 1). The charac-
teristics are grouped into four important
elements that constitute a temporary
organization, as identified by Lundin
and Söderholm (1995): time, team,
task, and transition (Figure 2). The
characteristics of team heterogeneity
and team constellation change are con-
tained in the team element, whereas
the task element includes the project
outcome uniqueness as well as the
non-routine work content. Transition is
reflected by the three phases of concep-
tion, organization, and accomplish-
ment, which were introduced earlier in
this paper (Hoegl et al., 2004). Limited
duration (time) as the unifying element
(Bakker & Janowicz-Panjaitan, 2009) is
placed in the middle of the diagram.
Combining this schematic diagram
with the described leadership app-
roaches, several suggestions can be
derived for future research on the indi-
vidual leadership theories. Along with
these, we identify three main research
fields that combine findings from the
different leadership theories. They
could help to advance the research on
leadership in temporary organizations.
We will address both potential areas for
A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda
P
A
P
E
R
S
62 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
research—approaches using single
leadership theories (and advancing
chronologically in the course of this
paper) and combined leadership theo-
ries (named research fields).
In the literature focusing on leaders
and followers, we found several
approaches that have already been
applied to temporary settings. A num-
ber of leadership character traits and
styles were identified. They may have a
positive impact on leader effectiveness
in temporary settings. Examples of such
traits include team-building, communi-
cation, and motivation skills, indicating
an emphasis on relationship-oriented
qualities. Also, task-oriented skills were
found to be important in terms of role
and task clarification. In turn, the attri-
bution error described by attribution
theory highlights how important it is for
project leaders to consider which situa-
tional factors cause what behavior in
order to avoid reluctant follower
responses. The potential benefit of hav-
ing experienced coworkers has been
highlighted by considering learning the-
ories. Here, project workers can benefit
from such experience by adopting effec-
tive skills and behaviors.
Research Field 1: Leadership Aiming at
Establishing Relationships in Regard to
the Task
We suggest research on transactional
and transformational leadership as
interaction-oriented approaches to be
considered jointly in order to test the
effectiveness of these leadership con-
cepts with respect to a project’s nature
and tasks. Interaction-oriented approach-
es draw attention to high-quality relation-
ships between leaders and followers,
which could be established swiftly. This
finding is considered very valuable to
temporary settings and highlights the
importance of the first encounter
between leaders and project members.
Furthermore, we consider transforma-
tional leadership approaches to be very
promising, which is indicated by the
growing body of research into transfor-
mational leadership in single project
types.
In turn, contingency models as situa-
tion-oriented approaches account for the
project context (i.e., the provision of spe-
cific leadership styles, depending on spe-
cific project characteristics). This seems
particularly beneficial when considering
projects with a high degree of complexi-
ty, novelty, and authority, among others.
It also strengthens the view that effective
leadership strongly depends on individu-
al project characteristics.
Of particular interest for future re-
search is the combination of findings
from leader-oriented and follower-
oriented leadership approaches (especially
Figure 2: Schematic diagram of identified research clusters.
Task
– Unique outcome
– Non-routine
Time
– Temporariness
Team
– Heterogeneity
– Changing members
– Missing hierarchies
Transition
– Conceive phase
– Organizing phase
– Accomplishment phase
Research field 2:
Leadership influencing/accelerating team effectiveness:
– Person-oriented (Attribution T.)
– Interaction-oriented (Transformational L.)
– Team research
Re
se
ar
ch
fi
el
d
3:
Le
ad
er
sh
ip
re
ga
rd
in
g
na
tu
re
o
f
ta
sk
a
nd
te
am
c
om
po
si
tio
n:
– S
itu
at
io
n-
or
ie
nt
ed
(C
on
tin
ge
nc
y;
N
or
m
at
iv
e
T.
)
– T
ea
m
re
se
ar
ch
Research field 1:
Leadership aim
ing at establishing
relationships in regard to the task:
– Person-oriented approaches (Learning T.)
– Interaction-oriented approaches
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 63
learning theories) and interaction-
oriented approaches to temporary
organizations. Such research might
yield new insights on how the different
project phases could be influenced as
well as which behaviors might play cru-
cial roles at what stages. Findings from
learning approaches could be especial-
ly valuable, because they may help in
the understanding of how the three
phases of conceive, organizing, and
accomplishment could be designed in
order to increase team work efficiency.
The impact of supporting behavior
from an experienced leader might also
vary according to the nature of project
tasks at hand. It is therefore proposed
that findings from interaction-oriented
approaches be incorporated when
searching for suitable and generaliz-
able leadership behaviors in temporary
organizations.
Research Field 2: Leadership
Influencing/Accelerating Team
Effectiveness
Team-oriented approaches are gener-
ally valuable in broadening knowledge
on the effect of team composition in
temporary settings. Research on teams
and the impact of team heterogeneity
on task’s accomplishment should focus
on the type of task at hand and the type
of team heterogeneity. In addition,
research should draw upon insights on
effective team composition and how a
leader can address less-than-ideal team
compositions. Here, further research is
needed into leadership effectiveness
and its correlations with project team
heterogeneity, project characteristics,
and environmental factors.
Combining interaction-oriented
approaches with team research findings
might further the understanding of
leadership processes in temporary set-
tings. We expect deeper insights into
the underlying coherences of team
characteristics as well as progress
through various team phases with
regard to effective leadership. In partic-
ular, the question as to how temporary
team characteristics (e.g., heterogene-
ity, change, and missing hierarchies)
can be addressed by which leadership
behaviors should receive attention. This
will shed light on how to establish high-
quality relationships in projects.
Furthermore, attribution theory—as a
person-oriented approach—could fos-
ter a deeper understanding of leader-
ship effectiveness throughout different
team phases. Here, leadership effective-
ness in different phases could be scruti-
nized considering potential attribution
errors caused by project complexity,
which might be caused by the heteroge-
neity of project members.
Research Field 3: Leadership Regarding
Nature of Task and Team Composition
Insights on leadership effectiveness
regarding the nature of tasks under a
given team could be refined by insights
from team research regarding team
composition. In particular, insights
stemming from different team types
(e.g., R&D teams) could bear insights
for leadership in temporary organiza-
tions with respect to the tasks to be
accomplished. On the other hand, find-
ings from contingency research could
deepen our understanding of the inter-
action between leadership, teams, and
tasks as well as their characteristics
over time.
We suggest further combining find-
ings from team research with insights
from contingency and normative lead-
ership research. This will result in
knowledge on effective leadership
behaviors in terms of specific project
tasks and team compositions. For exam-
ple, normative leadership theories pro-
vide concrete suggestions on which
leadership behavior is suitable in regard
to specific task and team characteristics.
Conclusion
Leadership in temporary settings is
confronted with characteristics that are
only partially addressed by established
leadership theories. Although research
has started investigating the character-
istics of temporary organizations and
their implications for leadership, the
findings often remain limited to single
and specific project settings.
We provided an overview of the
existing research on leadership and on
teams in project environments and
identified several avenues for further
research. Aspects requiring further
attention in terms of their applicability
in temporary settings have been found
in all mainstreams of leadership
research and team research, including
the need to combine these streams.
Findings from follower-oriented re-
search regarding attribution process
aspects might lead to valuable sugges-
tions for project settings (i.e., in terms
of how leaders could swiftly establish
efficient leader–follower relationships).
In turn, the application of normative
leadership theory to temporary organi-
zations could help guide project lead-
ers. In addition, further research on
contingency approaches might help
identify leadership behaviors that are
generally appropriate to projects. We
have found that LMX approaches might
contribute to effective leadership, since
research indicates that high-quality
leader–member relationships develop
swiftly. Transformational leadership
has recently received increased atten-
tion in the context of temporary set-
tings, although with inconsistent find-
ings. Lately, several researchers have
thus combined transformational behav-
ior characteristics with emotional lead-
ership approaches, underlining the
shift from merely task-oriented leader-
ship to the complex sphere of social
interaction. What has to be further
studied is the combination of these
approaches in order to broaden and
deepen the knowledge on leadership in
temporary settings.
As most research on leadership in
temporary organizations has looked for
character traits and behavior styles that
would benefit project leaders, the appli-
cability of other leadership approaches
on projects remains largely unexplored.
Our proposition of a research agenda
A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda
P
A
P
E
R
S
64 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
includes several approaches, which we
identified as suited for studying leader-
ship in temporary settings and which we
would like to see better explored by
empirical research. Transformational
leadership approaches seem to be of
particular interest because they high-
light the importance of personal orien-
tations that take place under the condi-
tions of temporary settings. At the same
time, transformational leadership is
also strongly and positively affecting fol-
lowers in permanent organizations. In
conclusion, we propose to build on the
encouraging results of existing work on
leadership in temporary settings and to
further incorporate and combine the
various streams research. ■
References
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., &
Keskin, H. (2007). Team stressors, man-
agement support, and project and pro-
cess outcomes in new product develop-
ment projects. Technovation, 27(10), 628–
639.
Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S.,
Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L.
(2001). Time: A new research lens.
Academy of Management Review, 26(4),
645–663.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S.
(2006). Fundamental uncertainties in
projects and the scope of project man-
agement. International Journal of Project
Management, 24(8), 687–698.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber,
T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421–449.
Avolio, B. J., Weichun, Z., Koh, W., &
Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational lead-
ership and organizational commitment:
Mediating role of psychological empow-
erment and moderating role of structural
distance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.
Ayoko, O. B., & Callan, V. J. (2010).
Teams’ reactions to conflict and teams’
task and social outcomes: The moderat-
ing role of transformational and emotion-
al leadership. European Management
Journal, 28(3), 220–235.
Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of
project complexity: A review.
International Journal of Project
Management, 14(4), 201–204.
Bakker, R. (2010). Taking stock of tempo-
rary organizational forms: A systematic
review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management
Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.
Bakker, R., & Janowicz-Panjaitan, M.
(2009). Time matters: The impact of
“temporariness” on the functioning and
performance of organizations. In P. Kenis,
P., M. Janowicz-Panjaitan, & B. Cambré
(Eds.), Temporary organizations:
Prevalence, logic and effectiveness (pp.
121–131). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. (2006). Ties,
leaders and time in teams: Strong infer-
ence about network structure’s effects on
team viability and performance. Academy
of Management, 49(1), 49–68.
Barber, E., & Warn, J. (2005). Leadership
in project management: From firefighter
to firelighter. Management Decision,
43(7/8), 1032–1039.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s
handbook of leadership-theory, research
and managerial applications. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., &
Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit perfor-
mance by assessing transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999).
Ethics, character and the authentic trans-
formational leadership behavior.
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., &
McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and
performance in groups: A meta-analytic
clarification of construct relations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A
typology of virtual teams: Implications for
effective leadership. Group Organization
Management, 27(1), 14–49.
Bluedorn, A. C., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008).
Leaders, followers, and time. Leadership
Quarterly, 19(6), 654–668.
Boies, K., & Howell, J. (2006). Leader-
member exchange in teams: An examina-
tion of the interaction between relation-
ship differentiation and mean LMX in
explaining team-level outcomes.
Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 246–257.
Brockhoff, K. (2006). On the novelty
dimension in project management.
Project Management Journal, 37(3), 26–36.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C.,
Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M.
(2006). What type of leadership behav-
iors are functional in teams? A meta-
analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3),
288–307.
Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski,
R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to
work in organizational teams. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 3(1),
27–40.
Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009).
Cohesion and performance: A meta-
analytic review of disparities between
project teams, production teams, and
service teams. Small Group Research,
40(4), 382–420.
Christenson, D., & Walker, D. H. (2004).
Understanding the role of “vision” in
project success. Project Management
Journal, 35(3), 39–52.
Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence
and its relationship to transformational
leadership and key project manager com-
petences. Project Management Journal,
41(2), 5–20.
Clarke, N., & Howell, R. (2010).
Emotional intelligence and projects.
Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Cleland, D. I. (1967). Understanding
project authority: Concept changes man-
ager’s traditional role. Business Horizons,
10(1), 63–70.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987).
Toward a behavioral theory of charismat-
ic leadership in organizational settings.
Academy of Management Review, 12(4),
637–647.
Côté, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., &
Miners, C. T. (2010). Emotional intelli-
gence and leadership emergence in small
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 65
Iles, P., & Hayers, P. K. (1997). Managing
diversity in transnational project teams:
A tentative model and case study.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(2),
95–117.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership:
Perspectives in theory and research.
Management Science, 28(3), 315–336.
Jones, R. E., & Lichtenstein, B. B.
(2008). Temporary interorganizational
projects: How temporal and social
embeddedness enhance coordination and
manage uncertainty. In S. Cropper, M.
Ebers, P. S. Ring, & C. Huxham (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of inter-organizational
relations (pp. 231–255). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Jones, R. E., & Deckro, R. F. (1993). The
social psychology of project manage-
ment conflict. European Journal of
Operational Research, 64(2), 216–228.
Kavadias, S., Loch, C. H., & Loch, C.
(2004). Project selection under uncertain-
ty: Dynamically allocating resources to
maximize value. Boston, MA: Springer.
Keegan, A. E., & Den Hartog, D. N.
(2004). Transformational leadership in a
project-based environment: A compara-
tive study of the leadership styles of proj-
ect managers and line managers.
International Journal of Project
Management, 22(8), 609–617.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational
leadership, initiating structure, and sub-
stitutes for leadership: A longitudinal
study of research and development proj-
ect team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 202–210.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of
causal attribution. American
Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128.
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management:
A systems approach to planning, schedul-
ing, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991).
Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of
Management Executive, 5(2), 48–60.
Kissi, J., Dainty, A., & Tuuli, M. (2013).
Examining the role of transformational
leadership of portfolio managers in project
project team involvement: Implications
for project leadership. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies,
7(4), 32–42.
Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2011). A project
management research framework inte-
grating multiple theoretical perspectives
and influencing factors. Project
Management Journal, 42(3), 4–22.
Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2013). Effects of
complexity on the success of temporary
organizations: Relationship quality and
transparency as substitutes for formal
coordination mechanisms. Scandinavian
Journal of Management. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman
.2013.08.005
Heinz, U., Baga, T., Gebert, D., &
Kearney, E. (2006). Leadership and
cooperation as success factors in innova-
tive R&D projects on electronic plat-
forms. Team Performance Management,
12(3/4), 66–76.
Hodgetts, R. M. (1968). Leadership tech-
niques in the project organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 11(2),
211–219.
Hodgson, D. E. (2004). Project work:
The legacy of bureaucratic control in the
post-bureaucratic organization.
Organization, 11(1), 81–100.
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden,
H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination,
project commitment, and teamwork in
multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal
study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.
Hollander, E. (1958). Conformity, status,
and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological
Review, 65(2), 117–127.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The
social scientific study of leadership: Quo
vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3),
409–465.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-
Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W.,
Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Gupta, V.
(1999). Cultural influences on leadership
and organizations: Project GLOBE. In
W.H. Mobley (Ed.), Advances in global
leadership, vol. 1 (pp. 171–233).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
groups. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3),
496–508.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L.,
Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999).
Teams in organizations: Prevalence,
characteristics, and effectiveness. Small
Group Research, 30(6), 678–711.
Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A., &
Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project
classification: A non-universal approach
to project success factors. Research
Policy, 27(9), 915–935.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000).
Creating hybrid team cultures: An
empirical test of transnational team
functioning. Academy of Management
Journal, 43(1), 26–49.
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R. A., Söderholm, A.,
& Wirdenius, H. (1999). Neo-industrial
organizing: Renewal by action and
knowledge formation in a project-
intensive economy. London, England:
Routledge.
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an
island: Linking projects to history and
context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). Theory of leadership
effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.
Gehring, D. (2007). Applying traits theo-
ry of leadership to project management.
Project Management Journal, 38(1),
44–54.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transi-
tion in work teams: Toward a new model
of group development. Academy of
Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.
Goodman, R. A., & Goodman, L. P.
(1976). Some management issues in
temporary systems: A study of profes-
sional development and manpower—
The theater case. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21(3), 494–501.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995).
Relationship-based approach to leader-
ship: Development of leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership
over 25 years: Applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective. Leadership
Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Grant, K. P., Graham, T. S., & Heberling,
M. E (2001). The project manager and
A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda
P
A
P
E
R
S
66 December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
performance. International Journal of
Project Management, 31(4), 485–497.
Legare, T. L. (2001). How Hewlett-
Packard used virtual cross-functional
teams to deliver healthcare industry solu-
tions. Journal of Organizational
Excellence, 20(4), 29–38.
Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2009).
Project leadership revisited: Towards dis-
tributed leadership perspectives in proj-
ect research. International Journal of
Project Organisation and Management,
1(3), 285–308.
Lindgren, M., Packendorff, J., & Crevani, L.
(2007). Shared leadership: A postheroic
perspective on leadership as a collective
construction. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 3(1), 40–67.
Lindner, F., & Wald, A. (2011). Success
factors of knowledge management in
temporary organizations. International
Journal of Project Management, 29(7),
877–888.
Love, P. E. D., Fong, P. S., & Iraní, Z.
(2005). Management of knowledge in
project environments. Oxford, England:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart,
L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional
new product teams’ innovativeness and
constraint adherence: A conflict commu-
nications perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(4), 779–793.
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995).
A theory of the temporary organization.
Scandinavian Journal of Management,
11, 437–455.
Lussier, R. N., Achua, C. F. (2009).
Leadership: Theory, application, and skill
development. Mason, OH: South-
Western.
Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr. H. P. (1981).
Vicarious learning: The influence of
modeling on organizational behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 6(1),
105–113.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro,
S. J. (2001). A temporally based frame-
work and taxonomy of team processes.
Academy of Management Review, 26(3),
356–376.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam,
E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A func-
tional approach to understanding leader-
ship structures and processes. Journal of
Management, 36(1), 5–39.
Müller, A., Wald, A., & Görner, A. (2012).
Comparing project management practic-
es in new product development: A study
in the automotive, aerospace and rail
transport industry. International Journal
of Project Organisation and Management,
4(3), 203–217.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007). Matching
the project manager’s leadership style to
project type. International Journal of
Project Management, 25(1), 21–32.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010).
Leadership competency profiles of suc-
cessful project managers. International
Journal of Project Management, 28(5),
437–448.
Muethel, M., & Hoegl, M. (2008). Shared
leadership in dispersed project teams.
Proceedings of the 2008 Western Academy
of Management Conference, Oakland, CA
(pp. 1–37).
Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership:
Theory and practice. London, England:
Sage.
Oakley, J. G. (1999). Leadership process-
es in virtual teams and organizations.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 5(3), 3–17.
Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into the
temporary organization: New directions
for project management research.
Scandinavian Journal of Management,
11(49), 319–333.
Parker, S. K., & Skitmore, M. (2005).
Project management turnover: Causes
and effects on project performance.
International Journal of Project
Management, 23(3), 205–214.
Pettersen, N. (1991). What do we know
about the effective project manager?
International Journal of Project
Management, 9(2), 99–104.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A.
(2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and
complexity in project management.
Management Science, 48(8), 1008–1023.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). Project
leadership: Understanding and con-
sciously choosing your style. Project
Management Journal, 22(1), 39–45.
Rickards, T., Chen, M.-H., & Moger, S.
(2001). Development of a self-report
instrument for exploring team factor,
leadership and performance relation-
ships. British Journal of Management,
12(3), 243–250.
Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time:
Some implications of (not) taking time
seriously in leadership research.
Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 307–315.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is
educational specialization heterogeneity
related to creativity in research and
development teams? Transformational
leadership as a moderator. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721.
Sims, H. P., & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new
leadership paradigm: Social learning and
cognition in organizations. London,
England: Sage.
Smith, D. C., Park, C. W., & Sethi, R.
(2001). Cross-functional product devel-
opment teams, creativity, and the inno-
vativeness of new consumer products.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1),
73–85.
Strang, K. D. (2005). Examining effective
and ineffective transformational project
leadership. Team Performance
Management, 11(3/4), 68–103.
Sundstrom, E. (1999). Supporting work
team effectiveness: Best management
practices for fostering high performance.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sundstrom, E., & DeMeuse, K. (1990).
Work teams: Applications and effective-
ness. American Psychologist, 45(2),
120–133.
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., & DeFillippi, R.
(2004). Project-based organizations,
embeddedness and repositories of
knowledge: Editorial. Organization
Studies, 25(9), 1475–1489.
Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999).
Leadership emergence in autonomous
work teams: Antecedents and outcomes.
Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 899–926.
December 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 67
managers. Project Management Journal,
29(1), 31–38.
Zwikael, O., & Unger-Aviram, E. (2009).
HRM in project groups: The effect of
project duration on team development
effectiveness. International Journal of
Project Management, 28(5), 413–421.
Ana K. Tyssen holds a PhD from the EBS
Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht,
Wiesbaden, Germany. She works as an
international project manager for Bosch
Sicherheitssysteme GmbH Frankfurt,
Germany, and her research focus is on
leadership and project management.
Andreas Wald is Dean of Research and
Professor of Management and Strategy at
the European Business School Paris, France
and a Visiting Professor at the Strascheg
Institute for Innovation and Entrepre-
neurship of the EBS Universität für
Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany.
His research focuses on temporary organi-
zations, leadership, and innovation.
Patrick Spieth is an Assistant Professor for
Innovation Management at the Strascheg
Institute for Innovation and Entrepre-
neurship of the EBS Universität für
Wirtschaft und Recht, Wiesbaden, Germany.
His areas of interest are innovation, innova-
tion capability in the aviation industry, inno-
vation, and corporate governance.
Weber, M. (1920). The theory of social
and economic organization. New York,
NY: Martino.
Weibler, J. (2012). Personalführung.
München, Germany: Vahlen.
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S.,
Fenton, E., & Conyon, M. (1999).
Change and complementarities in the
new competitive landscape: A European
panel study, 1992–1996. Organization
Science, 10(5), 583–600.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust:
Group membership as an affective con-
text for trust development. Academy of
Management Review, 26(3), 377–396.
Winkler, I. (2009). Contemporary leader-
ship theories: Enhancing the understand-
ing of the complexity, subjectivity and
dynamic of leadership. Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer.
Yang, L.-R., Huang, C.-F., & Wu, K.-S.
(2001). The association among project
manager’s leadership style, teamwork
and project success. International Journal
of Project Management, 29(3), 258–267.
Yukl, G. A. (2012). Leadership in organi-
zations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zimmerer, T. W., & Yasin, M. M. (1998).
A leadership profile of American project
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H.
(1973). How to choose a leadership pat-
tern. Harvard Business Review, 51(May/
June), 162–170.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Linkages of
project environment to performance:
Lessons for team leadership.
International Journal of Project
Management, 22(7), 533–544.
Thamhain, H. J., & Gemmill, G. R.
(1974). Influence styles of project man-
agers: Some project performance corre-
lates. Academy of Management Journal,
17(2), 216–224.
Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Spieth, P.
(2013). The challenge of transactional
and transformational leadership in proj-
ects. International Journal of Project
Management. Retrieved from http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2013.05.010
van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., & Le
Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member
exchange theory and research:
Accomplishments and future challenges.
Leadership, 2(3), 295–316.
Wang, E., Chou, H.-W., & Jiang, J.
(2005). The impacts of charismatic lead-
ership style on team cohesiveness and
overall performance during ERP imple-
mentation. International Journal of
Project Management, 23(3), 173–180.
Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
18(4) 469 –479
© Baker College 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051811404891
http://jlos.sagepub.com
The first and last task of a leader is to keep hope alive.
—Gardner (1968)
A leader not only speaks to immediate wants but elevates
people by vesting in them a sense of possibility, a belief that
changes can be made and that they can make them. Opportunity
beckons where none had appeared before, and once seized
upon opens another opportunity and another.
—Burns (2003, p. 239)
Research scholars in the behavioral sciences have been
requesting that more research attention be given to the role
of genes in human behavior (Wilson, 1975). Answering this
call, researchers have begun using behavioral genetic meth-
ods to investigate the biological basis of various personality
characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors within organiza-
tional settings (e.g., Arvey, McCall, Bouchard, Taubman,
Cavanaugh, 1994; Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, &
McGue, 2006; Ilies, Arvey, & Bouchard, 2006). For example,
research shows a genetic component to many personality
variables (e.g., Heath, Cloninger, & Martin, 1994; Loehlin,
1992): emotions (e.g., Bouchard & McGue, 2003), job sat-
isfaction (e.g., Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989),
work values (e.g., Keller, Bouchard, Arvey, Segal, & Dawes,
1992), and entrepreneurship behaviors (e.g., Zhang et al.,
2009). Recently, research efforts have been particularly
devoted to estimating genetic influences on leadership
constructs (Arvey et al., 2006; Arvey, Zhang, Avolio, &
Krueger, 2007; Johnson et al., 1998; Senior & Lee, 2009).
Employing behavior genetics methodologies but with
different approaches to conceptualize leadership, research-
ers have consistently found that a significant proportion of
variation in leadership behaviors is explained by genetic
influences with the remaining variance influenced by vari-
ous environmental factors. The proportion of phenotypic
variation attributable to genetic variance in an observed
variable is defined as heritability. Recent studies have shown
significant heritability in leadership constructs using self-
reported measures of transactional and transformational
leadership (e.g., Johnson et al., 1998) and leadership roles
attained at work (Arvey et al., 2006; Arvey et al., 2007) as
measures of leadership.
In the leadership literature, although evidence suggests
that genetic factors influence leadership, in terms of the
mediating processes, which genes influence such leadership
404891 JLO18410.1177/1548051811404891Chaturv
edi et al.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
© Baker College 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1Imperial College London, London, UK
2National University of Singapore, Singapore
3Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sankalp Chaturvedi, Imperial College Business School, Imperial College
London, South Kensington Campus, 289 Tanaka Building, London,
SW7 2AZ, UK
Email: sankalp@imperial.ac.uk
Genetic Underpinnings of
Transformational Leadership: The
Mediating Role of Dispositional
Hope
Sankalp Chaturvedi1, Richard D. Arvey2, Zhen Zhang3,
and Paraskevi T. Christoforou2
Abstract
In this study, the authors investigate the extent to which dispositional hope mediates genetic influences on transformational
leadership. Based on a sample of female twins (214 identical and 178 fraternal) from the Minnesota Twin Registry, results
indicated that 53% of the variance in hope and 49% of the variance in transformational leadership were accounted for by
genetic factors. After controlling for positive emotionality and negative emotionality, it was found that the genetic influence
on transformational leadership was mediated by dispositional hope with the overlapping genetic factors explaining 20.8%
of the total variance in transformational leadership.
Keywords
transformational leadership, dispositional hope, behavioral genetics
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1548051811404891&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2011-04-28
470 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(4)
variables is still unclear. Researchers have argued that the
relationships between genetic factors and leadership behav-
iors can be mediated by psychological and physiological
variables (e.g., Arvey & Bouchard, 1994; Ilies, Gerhardt, &
Le, 2004; Senior & Lee, 2009); however, attempts to inves-
tigate such mediating processes by which genetic factors
influence leadership have been limited. Arvey et al. (2006)
examined the mediating role of personality variables (social
potency, achievement, and social closeness) in an attempt
to explain the observed genetic influence on leadership but
found little support for their mediating role because of low
statistical power and small sample sizes.
To fill this research gap, the present study explores
the mediating role of a theoretically relevant personality
variable—dispositional hope—in the relationship between
genes and transformational leadership. Although many
researchers have argued for the critical role that hope plays
in transformational leadership (as shown in the two opening
quotes), limited attention has been paid to investigating the
role of hope in the leadership processes (Helland & Winston,
2005; Shorey & Snyder, 2004), and no one has examined
hope in explaining genetic influences on leadership. Therefore,
the purpose of this study is twofold. First, we investigate
whether hope is genetically influenced and second, we
examine whether hope mediates the relationship between
genetic factors and transformational leadership behaviors.
Genetic Foundations of Hope
Within the positive organizational behavior literature,
researchers argue that positive traits, states, and feelings
positively affect overall psychological well-being, and hence
employee performance (e.g., Luthans & Youssef, 2007;
Peterson & Seligman, 2004). One of the most important
positive traits is hope (Snyder, Harris, et al., 1991), which
has been defined in various ways. Some earlier research
emphasized the importance of goals and postulated that
hope is an “overall perception that goals can be met” (see
Stotland, 1969, for a detailed description).
In more recent research, hope has been defined as the
perceived cognitive capacity and motivation to find and use
routes to achieve desired goals. We adopt this definition for
the current study and treat hope as “an enduring disposition
that is subjectively defined” (Snyder, Harris, et al., 1991,
p. 571). Dispositional hope is conceptualized as encom-
passing two dimensions (Snyder, 1994; Snyder, Irving, &
Anderson, 1991): the first, labeled pathways (waypower),
entails the formulation of a plausible strategy for reaching a
goal whereas the second, agency or willpower, involves the
capacity to use that strategy to reach the goal. Snyder and
colleagues argue that both components (agency and path-
ways) reciprocally interact but represent different parts of
goal-directed thinking. These authors provide evidence that
distinguishes hope from other related constructs in positive
psychology—goal setting, self-efficacy, optimism, and pos-
itive affectivity (Snyder, 1994, Snyder, Irving, et al., 1991).
Since then, researchers typically measure hope as a disposi-
tional variable and assume that it is relatively stable across
situations and time (e.g., Elliott, Witty, Herrick, & Hoffman,
1991). Notably, Snyder et al. (1996) have also shown (in
four studies) that hope can also be a “state,” and a measure
of state hope can explain variance above and beyond dispo-
sitional hope. In the current study, we focus on dispositional
hope and examine its genetic foundations. Although evi-
dence suggests that dispositional hope can be stable over time,
no prior studies have examined its genetic underpinnings.
Behavioral genetics literature shows that most personal-
ity variables are genetically influenced, leading to the pos-
sibility that dispositional hope may also be genetic. The
genetic basis of personality is well-documented in the litera-
ture (e.g., Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998; Loehlin &
Nichols, 1976; Tellegen et al., 1988). For example, Loehlin
and Nichols (1976) found support for genetic foundations
for various personality variables using a sample of twins
and their parents after controlling for a similar sample of
“non-twin” students. Similarly, Tellegen et al. (1988) ana-
lyzed twin data of 11 personality traits and found significant
genetic influences with heritabilities ranging from .39 to .58.
Personality characteristics derived from the most widely
used framework of personality variables—the “Big Five”
(extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroti-
cism, and openness”)—have been shown to be heritable.
Loehlin and colleagues (Loehlin, 1992; Loehlin et al., 1998;
Loehlin & Nichols, 1976; Loehlin & Rowe, 1992) have
reported the heritability estimates of the Big Five personal-
ity dimensions ranging from .39 to .49, using multiple sam-
ples and studies.
Dispositional variables such as self-esteem, optimism,
and well-being have been consistently shown to be posi-
tively correlated with hope (e.g., Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Davies,
2007; Gibb, 1990; Snyder, 1994; Snyder, Irving, et al., 1991)
and influenced by genetic factors. Specifically, self-esteem
has been shown to be affected by genetic factors with a heri-
tability estimate of .52, based on the Virginia Twin Registry
(Roy, Neale, & Kendler, 1995). Furthermore, individual
differences in well-being are reported to be highly heritable,
particularly with regard to positive and negative affect
(Lykken & Tellegen, 1996; Tellegen et al., 1988). Similarly,
studies have shown a substantial genetic effect on optimism
(Mosing, Zietsch, Shekar, Wright, & Martin, 2009; Plomin
et al., 1992; Schulman, Keith, & Seligman, 1993). Therefore,
we propose that genes influence a significant proportion of
variance in dispositional hope.
Hypothesis 1: Genetics significantly influences dis-
positional hope.
Chaturvedi et al. 471
Genetic Foundations of
Transformational Leadership
The “nature” versus “nurture” debate in the leadership lit-
erature has raged since researchers developed theories in
leadership, with some suggesting that leaders are born
(Galton, 1869) and others arguing that environmental and
developmental factors are mainly responsible for leader-
ship emergence and effectiveness (e.g., Hersey & Blanchard,
1969). But only until recently have researchers begun to
explicitly examine the possibility of genetic influences on
leadership in a scientific manner.
Johnson et al. (1998) made one of the first attempts to
investigate genetic influences on leadership; they used 183
identical and 64 fraternal same-gender male and female
twin pairs. Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1990) and other leadership mea-
sures (i.e., adjective checklist items), they derived two fac-
tors resembling transactional and transformational leadership
dimensions. Transformational leadership refers to a leader-
ship style that has four behavioral attributes that are interde-
pendent and mutually reinforcing (Bass, 1985), including
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Transactional
leadership refers to a leadership style based on a “quid pro
quo” relationship between leader and followers, in which
rewards and/or punishments given by a leader are contin-
gent on the performance of subordinates (Burns, 1978).
Johnson et al.’s (1998) results indicated that 48% and
59% of the variance in the transactional and transformational
leadership dimensions, respectively, are genetically influ-
enced. Another study was conducted by Arvey et al. (2006),
wherein a sample of male twins from the Minnesota Twin
Registry with 238 identical twin pairs and 188 fraternal twin
pairs were used as subjects. In their study, a biographical
approach was taken when measuring leadership where lead-
ership was defined and measured in terms of the various for-
mal and informal work role attainments of individuals in
work settings (termed leadership role occupancy). Results
showed that the proportion of variance due to genetic influ-
ences on the leadership role occupancy scale is 30%. Finally,
the most recent research effort by Arvey et al. (2007) used a
similar measurement scheme and a female twin sample from
the Minnesota Twin Registry involving 89 fraternal and 107
identical female twin pairs. This study replicated the finding
of genetic influences (32%) on leadership role occupancy.
In the current study, we use the same female twin sam-
ple from Minnesota Twin Registry to replicate the finding
of Johnson et al. (1998) that transformational leadership is
heritable.
Hypothesis 2: Genetics significantly influence trans-
formational leadership.
Dispositional Hope as a Mediator of Genetic
Influence on Transformational Leadership
Research on antecedents of leader emergence and leadership
effectiveness has been of prime importance for researchers
in the field of organizational behavior. In 1994, Arvey and
Bouchard (1994) presented a conceptual model of genetic
influences on work-related variables, suggesting that the
effects of genetics on work behaviors such as leadership are
mediated by personality and other variables. Since then,
researchers have included genetic factors in models predict-
ing leadership variables (e.g., Arvey et al., 2006; Ilies et al.,
2004). Using behavior genetics’ methodologies, Johnson,
Vernon, Harris, and Jang (2004) found that genetic factors
influence all 20 traits from the Personality Research Forum
(PRF), and that genetic factors are associated with both
personality and transformational and transactional leader-
ship behaviors, highlighting the mediating role of personality
variables on the genetic influence on leadership. Similarly,
Ilies et al. (2004) used a mediated model to test genetic
influences on leadership emergence with intelligence with
the Big Five personality variables as the mediators. Their
results suggested that whether an individual emerges as a
leader will depend extensively on individual personality
traits that, in turn, are genetically influenced.
Specifically, we expected a positive relationship between
dispositional hope and transformational leadership, which in
turn points to the possible mediating role of hope in the
genetic influence on transformational leadership. Research on
hope suggests that individuals with a high level of hope tend
to be more certain of their goals, readily adapt to changes, and
are less anxious in stressful situations (Snyder, 2000; Snyder
et al., 1997). Thus, those high in dispositional hope have a
better chance of motivating themselves by establishing attrac-
tive goals (i.e., the vision) and enhancing charisma. Shorey
and Snyder (2004) conceptualize hope with both components—
agency and pathways—as a common process in leadership.
Possessing hopefulness is considered to be an implicit and
integral part of transformational leadership (Burns, 2003) by
helping leaders expend requisite energy to pursue and attain
goals. Hopefulness also acts as a catalyst for transformational
leaders to support goal-directed thinking to achieve goals
within their organization. Being hopeful also helps leaders
remain inspired and motivated in pursuing goals.
To summarize, although there can be multiple mediating
processes (e.g., intelligence, extraversion, openness to expe-
rience, etc.) by which genes can influence transformational
leadership, we hypothesize that one of those mechanisms is
dispositional hope.
Hypothesis 3: The genetic influence on transforma-
tional leadership is partially mediated by disposi-
tional hope.
472 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(4)
Method
Sample
The sample for this study was drawn from the Minnesota
Twin Registry, which located twin pairs born in the state
from 1936 to 1951 (Lykken, Bouchard, McGue, & Tellegen,
1990). Surveys were sent to a random sample of 500 twin
pairs out of the 1,317 female twin pairs in the registry; a
total of 596 surveys were returned for a response rate of
60%. Of the returned surveys, 392 included both members
of the twin pair, yielding a pair-level response rate of 39%.
Of the 196 twin pairs, 107 were identical or monozygotic
(MZ) twins, and 89 were fraternal or dizygotic (DZ). The
zygosity (MZ or DZ) of the twins in the Minnesota Twin
Registry was established by Lykken et al. (1990). The twins
included in this study were reared together during their
childhood. In this sample set, 98% were White and 77%
were married.
Table 1 presents sample characteristics of the female
database of the Minnesota Twin Registry. Most of the twins
in the registry were educated and went to high school and on
to further education. The chi-square difference test showed
no significant difference between MZ and DZ twins on all
educational and occupational items; however, the t test showed
that DZ twins were older than the MZ twins (t = 3.35, p < .05,
d = −.34). As age might act as a confound, it was controlled
when genetic influences were estimated. Table 2 provides
the means, standard deviations, reliability, and correlations of
the variables used in this study and shows that hope is posi-
tively correlated with the transformational leadership (r = .56,
p < .001, two-tailed test). Transformational leadership is
significantly correlated with age (r = −.11, p < .05), positive
emotionality (r = .48, p < .001), and negative emotionality
(r = −.18, p < .0015), which hints that these variables should
be controlled for in the structural equation modeling (SEM)
models.
Table 1. Sample Characteristics of the Female Twins (Replicated From Arvey et al., 2007)
Identical Twin
(n = 214)
Fraternal Twin
(n = 178) Total (N = 392)
Age in years; mean (SD) 57.1 (5.8) 59.1 (6.0) 58.0 (6.0)
Occupation (%)
Managerial and administrative 11 8 10
Professional, paraprofessional, and technical 27 21 24
Sales and related 6 6 6
Clerical and administrative support 20 16 18
Service 8 13 10
Agricultural, forestry, fisheries, and related occupations 0 1 1
Production, construction, operations, maintenance, and material handling 3 3 3
Education (%)
Less than high school 4 4 4
High school 43 49 46
Two-year college/vocational school 24 23 23
BA/BS 21 19 20
MA/MBA 7 5 6
PhD/JD/MD 1 0 1
Note. Sample characteristics are based on individual twin rather than twin pair.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Correlations
Variable Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5
1. Age 58.00 5.99 390 —
2. Positive emotionalitya 140.55 10.63 387 −.03 (.90)
3. Negative emotionalitya 118.14 10.63 387 .01 −.22*** (.89)
4. Dispositional hope 6.03 0.99 384 −.02 .53*** −.28*** (.83)
5. Transformational leadership 3.68 .67 395 −.11* .48*** −.18*** .57*** (.92)
Note. N is sample size. Internal consistency reliability is reported diagonally in parentheses.
a. Based on the composite scales.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).
Chaturvedi et al. 473
Measures
Transformational leadership. We used the self-report MLQ
developed by Bass and Avolio (1990), which is currently
the most widely used measure of this construct. This instru-
ment includes 20 items and captures four dimensions of
transformational leadership: intellectual stimulation, indi-
vidualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and ide-
alized influence (attributed and behavioral). Each participant
responded to his/her behavior on 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, but not always).
Given our focus on transformational leadership, we com-
bined responses to all transformational leadership items to
form a measure of the construct. The reliability estimate for
this measure was .92. Furthermore, as it was a self-report
measure, we transformed the final score of transformational
leadership variable to normalize distribution.
Hope. The measure for hope was composed of eight items
taken from the Dispositional Hope Scale developed by
Snyder, Harris, et al. (1991). The agency and pathways sub-
scale each comprised four items. Items were anchored on a
7-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 7 (definitely
true). Sample items for the agency and pathways subscales
included “I energetically pursue my goals” and “There are a
lot of ways around any problem.” Cronbach’s alpha reli-
abilities were .80 and .72 for the agency and pathway sub-
scales, respectively. The overall reliability coefficient was
.83. The correlation coefficient between agency and path-
ways’ subscales was .59. In this study, in accordance with
the past studies on dispositional hope, we used the disposi-
tional hope score as the sum of these two subscales.
Control variables. We controlled for age, positive emotion-
ality, and negative emotionality while testing the hypothe-
sized model. The positive and negative emotionality scales
were derived from the self-report Multidimensional Person-
ality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982), which is com-
posed of 11 trait scales. Tellegen and colleagues (Tellegen,
1982; Tellegen et al., 1988; Tellegen & Waller, 2001) named
the first and second higher order factors of MPQ as positive
and negative emotionality, respectively. Positive emotional-
ity is the higher order composite of well-being, social potency,
achievement, and social closeness. There were 72 items in
total, and the Cronbach alpha of the scale was .90. The nega-
tive emotionality factor is the higher order composite of
stress reaction, alienation, and aggression scales, which had
18 items each (i.e., 54 total). The reliability score of negative
emotionality factor was .89.
Analytical Approach
We used contemporary behavior genetics’ research meth-
odology to test our hypotheses. The first step was to esti-
mate the proportion of variance in the construct because of
genetic and environmental components. A multigroup con-
firmatory SEM approach was used, which represents the
standard behavioral genetics’ method of examining the
degree of similarity or covariances of the individual twins
on particular measures of interest (see Plomin, DeFries,
McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001). This methodology assumes
a greater similarity between twins in a MZ pair than the
twins in a DZ pair. Mathematically, this method uses the
differences in genetic relatedness between MZ and DZ
twins to estimate genetic and environmental components of
a specific observed variable. We used Mplus Version 4.21
to conduct these analyses with a maximum likelihood esti-
mation to test several models.
The basic univariate model in this methodology uses a
SEM to examine genetic influences by decomposing vari-
ance into “genetic” (A), “common-shared environment”
(C), and “nonshared environment” (E) components. Whereas
factor A accounts for variance due to genetics, factors C and
E together account for environmental components of the
observed variable or phenotype. Of the two environmental
factors, the C factor refers to influences shared by members
of the same environment (e.g., parents’ income, parental
affection, same high school friends, etc.; those environmen-
tal features shared by each twin). The E factor accounts for
an unshared environment. As shown in Equation 1, variance
in the observed variable or phenotype (in this case hope or
leadership) is expressed as the sum of variance attributable
to each of the three factors, A, C, and E, each weighted by a
path coefficient (a, c, and e) that determines their relative
influence:
Varvariable = a
2 + c2 + e2. (1)
Heritability is defined as the proportion of total variance
associated with genetic factors: H = a2/Varvariable.
Figure 1 presents the confirmatory structural equation
model used to describe the relationships among the vari-
ables for two individuals who are either identical or fraternal
twins. This is the established SEM model used for behav-
ioral genetics’ research (e.g., Heath, Neale, Hewitt, Eaves,
& Fulker, 1989).
Based on the assumption that identical twins share their
entire genetic component, the correlation coefficient is 1.0
between the genetic component (A) of Twin 1 and Twin 2
of the identical twin pair. On average, fraternal twins share
one half of their genes so that the corresponding correlation
is .5 for them. The correlation between common environ-
ments between pair members of both twin types is set at 1.0,
reflecting the assumption of equal common environmental
influence, whereas the path between the nonshared environ-
mental factors for the twins is, by definition, specified as 0.
Following the practice of behavioral genetic research using
this model, we also tested differences in model specification
474 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(4)
where a full model (with A, C, and E factors present) is
tested against alternative nested models—(only A, E factors),
(only C, E factors), (only E)—to determine the significance
of the corresponding path coefficients. If, for example, the
path coefficient c is insignificant, the AE model will show
little chi-square change and would probably have better fit
indices than the full ACE model.
To test the mediation model, we ran multivariate genetic
models to test the potential mediation effects of dispositional
hope. In the multivariate genetic model, the hope and lead-
ership variables were examined for their respective A, C, E
factors. Figure 2 presents a simplified SEM model (with
only one twin) of the multivariate models we analyzed in
this study.
We concluded that there is a mediation effect if the
genetic component of hope overlaps the genetic component
of the transformational leadership variable. In Figure 2, a11
represents the genetic component of the hope variable and
a22 represents the genetic component of the transforma-
tional leadership. In particular, the path a12 represents the
genetic influences that the dispositional hope and leader-
ship variables share, and their significance decides whether
the effects of hope mediate those of genetics on transforma-
tional leadership.
Results
Hypothesis 1 states that genetics significantly influences
dispositional hope. Results of a univariate model indicate
that the genetic component of hope is significant. Table 3
presents different models that were fitted to compare the
best-fitting model. We compared models using chi-square
(χ2) test, Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit
index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI).
The full ACE model (Table 3, Model 1) shows a good fit
with significant genetic component (A) and nonshared envi-
ronmental factors, χ2(df) = 7.57(6); CFI = .95; TLI = 98;
RMSEA = .05. In the AE model (Table 3, Model 2), although
chi-square does not change significantly, we see improve-
ments in RMSEA, CFI, and TLI, which implies that the AE
model, χ2(df) = 7.57(7); CFI = .98; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .03,
is a better representation of the data. Also, we see that the
CE model has a significant change in chi-square (Δχ2 = 6.33,
p < .05) with more poor fit indices, χ2(df) = 13.90(7); CFI = .79;
TLI = 94; RMSEA = .10, indicating that CE is not a supe-
rior fit of the genetic model compared with the ACE model.
Hence, Model 2 is the best-fitting model. Based on Model 2,
the percentage of the variance in dispositional hope that can
be attributed to genetic factors (i.e., the heritability estimate,
h2) is 53%. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported.
In Hypothesis 2, we postulated that transformational
leadership is influenced by genetic factors. As Table 4
shows, the full ACE model (Model 1: χ2(df) = 3.65(6);
CFI = .99; TLI = 99; RMSEA = .00) and AE model (Model 2:
χ2(df) = 3.65(7); CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00)
both fit the data well. In the ACE and AE models, although
the chi-square changes significantly, we see improvements
in RMSEA, CFI, and TLI, which indicates that the AE
model is a better representation of the data. Also, we see that
the CE model has a significant change in chi-square with
Hope
Twin1
A1 C1 E1
Hope
Twin2
A2 C2 E2
1.0 or 0.5 1.0
a c a ce e
Figure 1. Univariate genetic model to estimate genetic and
environmental influences on variables (hope/transformational
leadership)
Note. The latent factors A, C, and E are standardized latent variables
representing additive genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared
environmental influences, respectively. The a, c, and e are the path
coefficients to be estimated and they are constrained to be equal
between the monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) groups.
Hope
Ahope
Transformational
Leadership
Alead
a11 a12 a22
Chope Ehope Clead Elead
c11 e11
c12
c22 e22
e12
Figure 2. Multivariate model for testing the mediating effects of
hope on genetic influences on transformational leadership
Note. This is a simplified model for one twin and for ACE factors.
A refers to additive genetic effects. The latent factors A, C, and E are
standardized latent variables representing additive genetic, shared
environmental, and nonshared environmental influences, respectively.
Chaturvedi et al. 475
lower fit indices (Model 3: χ2(df) = 9.52(7); CFI = .92;
TLI = 97; RMSEA = .06), indicating that CE is not a supe-
rior fit of the genetic model compared with the ACE model.
Therefore, we used the structural equation model to conclude
that the AE model (Table 4, Model 2) is a better fit for the
twin data. Based on these models, the heritability of transfor-
mational leadership in this data is 0.49. Hence, Hypothesis 2
is supported.
Finally, in Hypothesis 3, we hypothesized that disposi-
tional hope mediates the effects of genetics on transforma-
tional leadership. Results of our multivariate genetic models
(with Cholesky decomposition) predicting transformational
leadership are presented in Table 5. The full ACE model
(Model 1: χ2(df) = 25.73(17); CFI = .90; TLI = 93;
RMSEA = .08) has good fit indices and shows that hope
mediates the effect of genetics on leadership. Similarly, the
AE model (Table 5, Model 2) has good fit indices, χ2(df) =
25.73(20); CFI = .94; TLI = 96; RMSEA = .06, with no
difference in chi-square but better fit indices than the ACE
model. The AE model (Model 3: χ2(df) = 34.75(20); CFI = .83;
TLI = 90; RMSEA = .09) fits the data reasonably well but
the fit indices are statistically lower than the ACE and AE
Table 3. Results of Univariate Model Fitting for Dispositional Hope
Factors
Model Fit Indices
a c e
χ2 (df) Δχ2 Δdf RMSEA (90% CI) AIC CFI TLI
Model 1: ACE model .73*** .00 .69*** 7.57 (6) n/a n/a .05 (.00, .15) 1060.25 .95 .98
Model 2: AE Modela .73*** — .69*** 7.57 (7) 0 1 .03 (.00, .13) 1058.25 .98 .99
Model 3: CE Model — .61*** .79*** 13.90 (7) 6.33* 1 .10 (.00, .18) 1064.57 .79 .94
Note. Sample size (identical/fraternal pairs) are 107/89 pairs. A, C, and E represent additive genetic factor, shared environmental factor, and nonshared
environmental factor, respectively. AIC = Akaike’s information criterion; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index;
CFI = comparative fit index; CI = confidence interval.
a. Indicates the best-fitting model.
*p < .05.**p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 4. Results of Univariate Model Fitting for Transformational Leadership
Factors Model Fit Indices
a c e χ2 (df) Δχ2 Δdf RMSEA (90% CI) AIC CFI TLI
Model 1: ACE model .71*** .00 .72*** 3.65 (6) n/a n/a .00 (.00, .09) 1073.32 .99 .99
Model 2: AE modela .71*** — .72*** 3.65 (7) 0 1 .00 (.00, .08) 1071.32 1.00 1.00
Model 3: CE model — .61*** .80*** 9.52 (7) 5.87* 1 .06 (.00, .14) 1077.19 .92 .97
Note. Sample size (identical/fraternal pairs) are 107/89 pairs. A, C, and E represent additive genetic factor, shared environmental factor, and nonshared
environmental factor, respectively. AIC = Akaike’s information criterion; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis
index; CFI = comparative fit index; CI = confidence interval.
a. Indicates the best-fitting model.
*p < .05.**p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 5. Model Testing the Mediating Role of Hope on the Genetic Influences on Transformational Leadership
Model Fit Indices
χ2 (df) Δχ2 Δdf RMSEA (90% CI) AIC CFI TLI
Model 1: ACE model 25.73 (17) — — .08 (.00, .13) 1578.74 .90 .93
Model 2: AE modela 25.73 (20) 0.00 3 .06 (.00, .11) 1572.75 .94 .96
Model 3: CE model 34.75 (20) 9.02* 3 .09 (.03, .14) 1581.77 .83 .90
Note. Sample size (identical/fraternal pairs) are 99/81 pairs. A, C, and E represent additive genetic factor, shared environmental factor; and nonshared
environmental factor, respectively. AIC = Akaike’s information criterion; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis
index; CFI = comparative fit index; CI = confidence interval.
a. Indicates the best-fitting model after controlling for age, positive emotionality, and negative emotionality.
*p < .05.
476 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(4)
models. Based on the fit indices, we chose the AE model to
be the best-fitting for the data. Therefore, we used the coef-
ficients of the AE model to calculate genetic mediation
coefficient. We present the path coefficients of the best-fitting
AE model in Figure 3, which shows that the path overlap-
ping the genetic components of hope and transformational
leadership, a12 (b =. 13, p < .05) is significant, along with
paths a11 (b = .52, p < .05) and a22 (b =. 14, p < .05). The
significant path, a12, in Figure 3 confirms that hope medi-
ates the effects of genetics on transformational leadership.
The overlapping genetic variance based on the ratio of
squared path coefficient a12
2 by the sum of the squared path
coefficients of all the genetic factors (a12
2 + a22
2) influencing
transformational leadership is 46.3% (i.e., .132/[.132 + .142]).
The total variance, a12
2/(a12
2 + a22
2 + e12
2 + e22
2) explained
in the mediating relationship is 20.8% (= .132/[.132 + .142 +
.072 + .202]). Hence, we find a significant overlap between
the genetic components of hope and transformational lead-
ership, which supports Hypothesis 3.1
Discussion
The overall purpose of this study was to investigate the
extent to which hope and transformational leadership are
determined by genetic factors and to examine whether
genetic influences on transformational leadership are medi-
ated by dispositional hope. Results suggest that hope and
transformational leadership are influenced strongly by
genetic factors. In addition, we found that dispositional hope
mediates the relationship between genetics and transforma-
tional leadership.
Consistent with earlier research on genetic influences on
personality constructs, we found that the hope variable has a
heritability estimate of .53, which suggests that the remain-
der of the variance, 47%, is accounted for by the nonshared
environment. This result is similar to the heritability of other
personality variables, such as the Big Five (Loehlin, 1992):
41% for emotional stability, 49% for extraversion, 45% for
openness to experience, 35% for agreeableness, 38% for
conscientiousness, 52% for self-esteem (Roy et al., 1995),
and 36% for optimism (Mosing et al., 2009).
Similarly, a univariate genetic analysis of transforma-
tional leadership also confirms expectations from the litera-
ture that a proportion of variance in leadership is genetic
(e.g., Arvey et al., 2006; Arvey et al., 2007; Johnson et al.,
1998). In this study, we found the heritability estimate of
transformational leadership to be 49%, which is similar to
the score reported by Johnson et al. (1998), who, based on a
different twins’ sample but the same leadership measure
(MLQ), reported a heritability of transformational leader-
ship of 59%. Overall, the research points to a fairly moder-
ate to high genetic influence in general on this particular
leadership variable and is consistent with trait theories of
leadership. We also found that hope and leadership variables
are related, strengthening the explanation of “trait” leader-
ship theories.
As predicted by Arvey and Bouchard (1994), who spec-
ulated that the heritability of leadership constructs should
be explained by personality factors, we found that hope is a
significant mediator in a relationship of genetics with trans-
formational leadership. We also found that the strength of
overlapping genetic influence of hope on transformational
leadership is 46.3%. The similarity in overlapping heritabil-
ity estimates of hope and the leadership construct suggests
the importance of hope as an important mediating mecha-
nism in the genetics-leadership linkage.
Finally, our results on the positive relationship between
hope and transformational leadership responds to the call
for research on positive organizational behavior by focus-
ing attention on positive rather than negative constructs
(Luthans, 2002a, 2002b; Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Although
prior research on hope suggested a positive relationship
of hope with performance and positive work attitudes
(Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005; Snyder, 2000;
Youssef & Luthans, 2007), limited attention has been given
to the role of hope in leadership emergence (Peterson &
Luthans, 2003). In organizations, leaders are the source of
hope and have the challenging task of keeping hope alive
during turbulent times, such as during recession. Our study
findings highlight the importance of hope in understanding
leadership issues.
Hope
Ahope
Transformational
Leadership
Alead
.20***
.13** .14**
Ehope Elead
.48***
.52***
.07*
Figure 3. The best-fitting genetic model (AE model) depicting
mediating effects of hope on transformational leadership
Note. This is a simplified model for one twin and for AE factors only.
A refers to additive genetic effects. Results reported after controlling for
age, positive emotionality, and negative emotionality.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Chaturvedi et al. 477
Limitations and Future Research
Notwithstanding its contributions, this study has some
limitations. First, our analysis used only a female sample
from the Minnesota Twin Registry, as corresponding data
with a male sample was unavailable. Perhaps, future
research with a male sample could replicate our results and
establish generalizability of the model. We strongly believe
that hope will be a significant mediator in the genetics-
leadership relationship in the male sample.
In this study, common method variance is also possible.
At the same time, it is important to mention that the twin
data in this registry were collected at different times (total
span was 6 years) and sometimes with a different mode of
survey (paper/pencil, telephonic, etc.), which minimizes the
possibility of a common method variance.
In addition, the self-report nature of our data, especially
with measures of hope and transformational leadership, could
be problematic in that the twin subjects were consistently
lenient while responding to the survey items (i.e., data might
be negatively skewed). However, we tried to minimize this
possibility by transforming the dependent variable (i.e.,
transformational leadership). In addition, we found similar
results with the leadership role occupancy measure as well,
which minimizes the possibility of an incorrect conclusion.
Finally, we acknowledge the possibility of upward bias in
the heritability estimate because of this gene–environment
correlation. We believe that hope, much like optimism, can be
learned and transferred from one person to another by expo-
sure to other hopeful individuals (Seligman, 1998). For exam-
ple, in the case of a doctor treating a cancer patient, research
has shown that hopeful thinking can be transferred and has
shown to positively affect patient’s health (e.g., Scheier &
Carver, 2001; Stanton, Danoff-Burg, Huggins, 2002; Taylor,
2000). Similarly, we might see the transfer of hopefulness in a
familial relationship. Family ambience could affect children.
In a family-owned business, we might observe “like father,
like son” in terms of attitude toward a hopeful future. The goal-
directed behavior of parents could affect goal-directedness of
their children. During their upbringing, children could learn the
willpower of meeting desired goals and the “way power” to
attain them from their parents. Given the possibility of gene-
environment correlation, we believe there is a unique genetic
influence on hope and transformational leadership.
Conclusion
Transformational leadership has been one of the most
effective leadership styles in affecting employee attitudes,
behaviors, and performance (Judge, Ilies, & Colbert, 2004).
Our current study sheds important light on the nature ver-
sus nurture debate on leadership. We found that genetic
factors account for 49% of the variance in transformational
leadership and that dispositional hope mediates this genetic
influence (explaining 46.3% of the genetic influences on
transformational leadership, which equates to 20.8% of total
variance). These findings highlight the pivotal role of dis-
positional hope in transformational leadership and points
out the practical importance of training for developing trans-
formational leaders. After all, 51% of the variance in trans-
formational leadership is not related to genes, and therefore
subject to other developmental experiences.
Acknowledgement
We thank the Minnesota Twin Registry program for helping with
our data collection.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. We also tested the mediation model with the leadership role
occupancy measure (as in Arvey et al., 2006; Arvey et al., 2007)
with similar results.
References
Arvey, R. D., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1994). Genetics, twins, and
organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior,
16, 47-82.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M.
(1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic compo-
nents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192.
Arvey, R. D., McCall, B. P., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Taubman, P., &
Cavanaugh, M. A. (1994). Genetic influences on job satisfac-
tion and work values. Personality and Individual Differences,
17, 21-33.
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M.
(2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic
and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-20
Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2007).
Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role
occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology,92,
693-706.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta-
tions. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Manual: The Multifactor Lead-
ership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental
influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neu-
robiology, 54, 4-45.
478 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(4)
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York, NY:
Atlantic Monthly Press.
Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C. L., & Davies, F. (2007). The impact
of hope, self-esteem, and attributional style on adolescents’
school grades and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1161-1178.
Elliott, T. R., Witty, T. E., Herrick, S., & Hoffman, J. T. (1991).
Negotiating reality afterphysical loss: Hope, depression, and
disability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
608-613.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and
consequences. London, England: Macmillan.
Gardner, J. W. (1968). No easy victories. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Gibb, J. (1990). The Hope Scale revisited: Further validation of a mea-
sure of individual differences in the hope motive. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Heath, A. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Martin, N. G. (1994). Testing a
model for the genetic structure of personality: A comparison
of the personality systems of Cloninger and Eysenck. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 762-775.
Heath, A. C., Neale, M. C., Hewitt, J. K., Eaves, L. J. & Fulker, D. W.
(1989). Testing structural equation models for twin data using
LISREL. Behavior Genetics, 19, 9-35.
Helland, M., & Winston, B. (2005). Towards a deeper understand-
ing of hope and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organi-
zational Studies, 12, 42-53.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leader-
ship. Training & Development Journal, 23, 26-34.
Ilies, R., Arvey, R. D., &, Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2006). Behavioral
genetics and organizational behavior: A review and agenda
for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
121-141.
Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual differences
in leadership emergence: Integrating Meta-analytic findings
and behavioral genetics estimates. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 12, 207-219.
Johnson, A. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2004).
A behavioral investigation of the relationship between leader-
ship and personality. Twin Research, 7, 27-32.
Johnson, A. M., Vernon, P. A., McCarthy, J. M., Molson, M.,
Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. J. (1998). Nature vs nurture: Are leaders
born or made? A behavior genetic investigation of leadership
style. Twin Research, 1, 216-223.
Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Colbert, A. E. (2004). Intelligence
and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theo-
retical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
542-552.
Keller, L. M., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Arvey, R. D., Segal, N. L., &
Dawes, R. V. (1992). Work values: Genetic and environmental
influences. Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 79-80.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality devel-
opment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & John, O. P. (1998).
Heritabilities of common and measure-specific components of
the big five personality factors. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 32, 431-453.
Loehlin, J. C., & Nichols, J. (1976). Heredity, environment and
personality. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Loehlin, J. C., & Rowe, D. C. (1992). Genes, environment, and
personality. In G. Caparara & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Modern
personality psychology: Critical reviews and new directions,
(pp. 352-370). New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for meaning of positive organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695-706.
Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing
and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 16, 57-72.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). The
psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the rela-
tionship with performance. Management and Organizational
Review, 1, 247-269.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organi-
zational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321-349.
Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., McGue, M., & Tellegen, A.
(1990). The Minnesota Twin Family Registry: Some initial find-
ings. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemmellologiae, 39, 35-70.
Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic
phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 180-189.
Mosing, M. A., Zietsch, B. P., Shekar, S. N., Wright, M. J., &
Martin, N. G. (2009). Genetic and environmental influences on
optimism and its relationship to mental and self-rated health:
A study of aging twins. Behavior Genetics, 39, 597-604.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and
virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Peterson, S. J., & Luthans, F. (2003). The positive impact and
development of hopeful leaders. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 24, 26-31.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P.
(2001). Behavioral genetics (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
Plomin, R., Scheier, M. F., Bergeman, C. S., Pedersen, N. L.,
Nesselroade, J. R., & McClearn, G. E. (1992). Optimism, pes-
simism and mental health: A twin/adoption analysis. Personality
and Individual Differences, 13, 921-930.
Roy, M. A., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (1995). The genetic
epidemiology of self-esteem. British Journal of Psychiatry,
166, 813-820.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2001). Adapting to cancer: The
importance of hope and purpose. In A. Baum & B. L. Andersen
(Eds.), Psychosocial interventions for cancer (pp. 15-36).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schulman, P., Keith, D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Is optimism
heritable? A study of twins. Behavior Research and Therapy,
31, 569-574.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York, NY:
Pocket Books.
Chaturvedi et al. 479
Senior, C., & Lee, N. (2009, April 1-3). Dopamine, empathy and
the neurobiology of leadership. Paper presented at the British
Psychological Society Annual Conference, Brighton.
Shorey, H. S., & Snyder, C. R. (2004, June 10-12). Hope as a
common process in effective leadership. Paper presented at
the UNL Gallup Leadership Institute Summit, University of
Nebraska–Lincoln.
Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there
from here. New York, NY: Free Press.
Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of hope. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A.,
Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., . . . Harney, P. (1991). The will
and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-
differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 570-585.
Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L.,
Danovsky, M., . . . Stahl, K. J. (1997). The development and
validation of the children’s hope scale. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 22, 399-421.
Snyder, C. R., Irving, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1991). Hope and
health. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social
and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 285-305).
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F.,
Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and
validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 321-335.
Stanton, A. L, Danoff-Burg, S., & Huggins, M. E. (2002). The first
year after breast cancer diagnosis: Hope and coping strategies
as predictors of adjustment. Psycho-Oncology, 11, 93-102.
Stotland, E. (1969). The psychology of hope. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, J. D. (2000). Confronting breast cancer: Hopes for health.
In C. K. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures,
and applications (pp. 355-371). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the differential personality
questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Wilcox, K. J.,
Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality similarities of
twins reared apart and reared together. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 1031-1039.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2001). Exploring personality
through test construction: Development of the multidimen-
sional personality questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek
(Eds.), Personality measures: Development and evaluation
(Vol. 1, pp. 133-161). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational
behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and
resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774-800.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M., Narayanan, J., Arvey, R. D., Chaturvedi, S.,
Avolio, B. J., . . . Larsson, G. (2009). The genetic basis of
entrepreneurship: Effects of gender and personality. Orga-
nization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110,
93-107.
Bios
Sankalp Chaturvedi, PhD, is an assistant professor in the
Organization and Management Group at the Imperial College
London, UK. His research focuses on organizational citizenship
behavior, leadership and biological basis of organizational behav-
ior and multilevel modelling.
Richard D. Arvey is a Professor and Head of the Department of
Management and Organization at the National University of
Singapore. He conducts research in the areas of organizational
behavior including leadership, motivation, and job satisfaction.
Zhen Zhang, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of
Management at Arizona State University, USA. His research focuses
on leadership process and leadership development, the interfaces
between organizational behavior and entrepreneurship, the biologi-
cal basis of organizational behavior, and research methods.
Paraskevi T. Christoforou, is a PhD candidate in the Department
of Management and Organization at the National University of
Singapore. Her research focuses on discrete emotions, emotion regu-
lation, emotional labor, emotional deviance, workplace aggression,
and emergence of group and organizational level phenomena.
Strategic Organization
10(1) 31 –54
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/147612701143479
7
soq.sagepub.com
CEO relational leadership and
strategic decision quality in top
management teams: The role of
team trust and learning from failure
Abraham Carmeli and Asher Tishler
Tel Aviv University, Israel
Amy C. Edmondson
Harvard University, USA
Abstract
In this study, we examine a complex pathway through which CEOs, who exhibit relational leadership, may
improve the quality of strategic decisions of their top management teams (TMTs) by creating psychological
conditions of trust and facilitating learning from failures in their teams. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
analyses of survey data collected from 77 TMTs indicate that (1) the relationship between CEO relational
leadership and team learning from failures was mediated by trust between TMT members; (2) team learning
from failures mediated the relationship between team trust and strategic decision quality. Supplemented
by qualitative data from two TMTs, these findings suggest that CEOs can improve the quality of strategic
decisions their TMTs make by shaping a relational context of trust and facilitating learning from failures.
Keyword
s
CEO relational leadership, learning from failures, strategic decisions, top management teams, trust
Introduction
Upper echelon research has amply illustrated the power of chief executive officer (CEO) leader-
ship in driving organizational performance (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick and Finkelstein, 1987;
Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Yet a better understanding of the mechanisms and conditions that
account for these leadership effects is needed (e.g., Peterson et al., 2003; Waldman et al., 2001).
Upper echelon scholars have also called for an integrative approach to unravel processes at differ-
ent levels (CEO, team, and organization), but this kind of research has been slow to accumulate
(Boone and Van Witteloostijn, 2007; Boone et al., 1996; Carmeli et al., 2010; Hambrick, 2007).
Research on CEO leadership, top management team (TMT) processes, and outcomes has been
limited by the challenges of acquiring access to such teams and their processes. Much of the exist-
ing research has thus focused on CEO characteristics (e.g., age, tenure) and TMT (homogeneous
and heterogeneous) composition – attributes that can be found in public data sources – and only a
434797 SOQ10110.1177/1476127011434797Carmeli et al.Strategic Organization
2011
Article
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1476127011434797&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2012-02-06
32 Strategic Organization 10(1)
handful of attempts have examined CEO leadership behaviors and TMT processes and outcomes
(e.g., Carmeli et al., 2010, 2011; Ling et al., 2008). Understanding these processes is crucial,
because CEOs hold a unique position of influence on the processes within the TMT and its out-
comes (Edmondson et al., 2003a; Hambrick, 1994). We offer a socio-learning approach that
emphasizes relational qualities of CEO leadership and the learning potential provided by experi-
ences of failure, which, unlike research on non-executive teams (Hirak et al., in press), can inform
the phenomenon of TMT decision-making processes.
This study contributes to this line of research by examining how CEO relational leadership
facilitates learning from failures and improves strategic decisions in the TMT. Making strategic
decisions is a complex and challenging task (Elbanna and Child, 2007b). It involves integrating the
diverse perceptions, judgments, and orientations of TMT members to develop a set of specific
strategic actions (Hambrick, 2007). When members of TMTs work together, they bring diverse
experience to solve such difficult and unstructured problems as strategy making, while building
involvement and commitment of key senior executives (Ancona and Nadler, 1989; Bauman et al.,
1997). At the same time, research suggests that TMTs often fail to achieve synergy (Hackman,
1990; Hambrick, 1994; Katzenbach, 1998), find it difficult to resolve conflicts (Amason, 1996;
Edmondson and Smith, 2006), build commitment (Wooldridge and Floyd, 1990), or reach closure
in a timely fashion (Eisenhardt, 1989; Hickson et al., 1986).
Evidence suggests that senior executives and their management teams fail frequently and often
remarkably when making strategic choices (Nutt, 2002, 2004), in part because executive teams
face decisions that are both ill-structured and complex (Edmondson et al., 2003a; Eisenhardt,
1999). Since TMTs are likely to make numerous strategic choices during their tenure, whether
and why some TMTs learn from their direct experience to improve their decisions and others do
not is an important question for team research which increasingly seeks understanding of teams
in varied contexts, from the operating room to the board room (Edmondson et al., 2007; Wageman
et al., 2008). In this article, we address a specific type of learning from experience – learning from
failures – thereby responding to calls for further research on learning from failures in the
workplace (e.g., Baumard and Starbuck, 2005; Cannon and Edmondson, 2005; Carmeli and
Schaubroeck, 2008; Haunschild and Sullivan, 2002; Sitkin, 1992; Tucker and Edmondson, 2003).
The complexity of the strategic work that TMTs must handle makes failures virtually inevitable.
While research on group learning has increased since the 1990s, evidence of contextual factors
that facilitate or inhibit these processes is limited. Exploring this issue is essential because the
extant literature suggests that contextual factors such as a team’s learning climate and leader
behavior are key in facilitating or inhibiting team learning processes, and thereby influence work
outcomes (Edmondson, 1999, 2004; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006).
Our study extends the literatures on team learning and upper echelons by examining whether
TMT learning from failures improves strategic decisions, and by investigating the role of CEO
relational leadership in both facilitating learning from failures and reaching quality strategic deci-
sions. We contribute to theory and research by addressing a recent call to examine ‘other important
dimensions of (CEO) leadership’, as it has the potential to increase our understanding of the ways
CEOs influence TMT processes and outcomes (Carmeli et al., 2011: 408). We propose a potentially
important pathway by which CEOs can improve TMT strategic decisions by building trust, which
in turn facilitates team learning from failures. We focus on CEO relational leadership, drawing on
an emergent area of research dealing with relationship building (Fletcher, 2004). We examine CEO
relational leadership as a factor in shaping such contextual conditions as trust between TMT mem-
bers, which may facilitate learning processes (Edmondson, 2004; Nembhard and Edmondson,
2006). Thus we provide one of the first studies that attempts to link CEO relational leadership and
Carmeli et al. 33
strategic decisions, and respond to research calls to go beyond TMT demographic variables and
organizational outcomes and examine intervening process constructs (Lawrence, 1997). We seek to
broaden this line of research and deepen our understanding of the contextual factors that affect
strategic decision-making practices in TMTs (Hambrick, 1994; Pettigrew, 1992; Smith et al., 1994).
Theory and hypotheses
Learning from failures and strategic decisions
Team learning refers to a process of action and reflection (Edmondson, 1999), through which
knowledge is acquired, shared, and combined (Argote, 1999; Argote et al., 2001). The process by
which team members reflect on their mission, tasks, and processes also has been referred to as
reflexivity (Carter and West, 1998), and been shown to promote motivation to process information
systematically through open group discussion, thereby enabling the selection of a correct decision
alternative (Scholten et al., 2007). Through learning, a group improves its effectiveness by increas-
ing the processing, not the amount, of information (De Dreu, 2007).
Effective team learning takes discipline and skill (Edmondson, 2002), and can lead to a rela-
tively permanent alteration in the collective level of knowledge and skill produced by the shared
experience of the team members (Ellis et al., 2003). Teams learn when members engage in trial
and error and joint problem solving (Edmondson, 1999, 2002). Learning involves a willingness
to detect resemblances between past and current situations and their underlying causes and effects
(Argyris and Schön, 1978; Tjosvold et al., 2004; Turner and Toft, 2006) or through a performance
feedback gap (Argote and Greve, 2007). Furthermore, it involves critical thinking (Dewey, 1986
[1933]), encountering problems (Cyert and March, 1963), engaging failures, investigating prob-
lems, and using error management programs (Carmeli and Gittell, 2009; Carroll et al., 2006;
Keith and Frese, 2005; Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001).
Our focus is on team learning from failures, defined here as the extent to which a TMT reflects
upon the problems and errors it experiences, interprets and makes sense of why they occurred,
and discusses what actions are needed to produce improved outcomes. Theory and research point
to the importance of learning from failures as a process through which better outcomes can be
attained (Baumard and Starbuck, 2005; Edmondson, 1996; Madsen and Desai, 2010; Reagans
et al., 2005; Sitkin, 1992; Tucker and Edmondson, 2003). Specifically, learning from experiences
of failure is useful for cultivating mindful attention to work processes (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001;
Weick et al., 1999), thereby decreasing subsequent accident and incident rates (Haunschild and
Sullivan, 2002), reducing the risk of future accidents and failure (Baum and Ingram, 1998),
improving system reliability (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001) and crisis-preparedness (Carmeli and
Schaubroeck, 2008; Nystrom and Starbuck, 1984), and enhancing outcomes such as service
quality, safety, adaptability, innovativeness, and productivity (Argote and Darr, 2000; Argote
et al., 1990; Cannon and Edmondson, 2005; Carmeli and Sheaffer, 2008; Sitkin, 1992).
We suggest that TMTs that engage in the process of learning from failures (that is, the teams
actively learn from direct experiences of failure) are likely to make higher quality strategic deci-
sions than TMTs that do not learn from their failures. Strategic decisions address complex and
ambiguous issues such as penetrating an occupied market or entering a new market, responding to
a competitive attack, and developing core capabilities, technologies, and products that involve
large amounts (i.e., commitment) of organizational resources (Amason, 1996; Mason and Mitroff,
1981). Following Amason (1996), the quality of TMT strategic decisions is defined as the extent to
which the effects of these choices on the company have been poor or good.
34 Strategic Organization 10(1)
Senior executives often encounter contextual pressures that lead them to persist with their
prior strategic choices and orientation. They thus tend to disregard signals that their choices and
orientations are no longer appropriate (Milliken and Lant, 1991). When a TMT reflects upon
past experiences and attempts to thoroughly understand what went wrong its members are more
mindful and comprehensive. That is, TMT members open themselves up to new opportunities and
options, and may be capable of overcoming potential biases such as sunk costs and escalation of
commitment. In addition, they are able to fully comprehend the experience in context, thus allow-
ing them to more fully realize the implications for choices to be made and the best ways to pursue
them (Dillon and Tinsley, 2008).
Research suggests that managerial cognition (executives’ mental models) underpins the
choices and decisions that executives make (Day and Lord, 1992; Walsh, 1995). A team mental
model is conceptualized as the shared knowledge representation and organized understanding of
the team’s task environment (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Klimoski and Mohammed, 1994).
Mental models enable team members ‘to organize and acquire information necessary to anticipate
and execute actions’ (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006: 83), thus cultivating a shared understanding
about the equipment used by the team, the tasks and problems the team has to cope with, as
well as recognizing individual team members’ knowledge and perceptions, and team members’
beliefs about effective processes (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Research suggests that decision-
makers use mental models to imagine their competitors’ strategic orientations (Reger and Huff,
1993), as a process by which they define the competition and interpret the competitive conditions
in the task environment (Porac and Thomas, 1990). This is in line with upper echelon theory,
which maintains that cognitive models held by the senior management teams influence their stra-
tegic choices and orientations (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick and Mason, 1984).
Learning from experience produces tacit knowledge, which helps explain why teams at
different sites learn at significantly different rates. When teams learn from experience the tacit
knowledge acquired requires proactive coordination for its transfer and use (Edmondson et al.,
2003b). In addition, learning from failures may involve team members figuring out who knows
what (i.e., transactive memory system; Wegner, 1995) and what role each member played in the
failure experience. Team members benefit from knowledge gained by others, which enables them
to diagnose a problem, or determine how to divide and coordinate activities and make better deci-
sions (Reagans et al., 2005).
Theory and research also point to the advantages of a double-loop learning process where errors
are not only detected and corrected, but the underlying causes are also explored or challenged
(Argyris and Schön, 1978), especially when much is at stake. Learning from failures in TMTs
requires a willingness to seek root causes and understand the sequences of events that produced
them. This can help executives become willing to abandon prior commitments to a course of action
that no longer makes sense (Ross and Staw, 1993). Unlike success, experiencing failures can inhibit
an inclination toward inertia and increase openness to exploring new opportunities or alternative
courses of action (Amason and Mooney, 2008; Cyert and March, 1963).
Consistent with this notion, we suggest that when teams actively learn from experiences of
failure they may benefit from having accountability diffused among members rather than being
borne by an individual member. This learning process thus allows team members to share infor-
mation and expertise to put the issue in context and to challenge their own assumptions and
practices to improve their decision-making. When teams learn from failures they engage in a type
of critical yet constructive discussion that is aimed not to place blame on team members but rather
to understand the root issue and what needs to be revised and refined. The experience itself can
influence subsequent decisions and behaviors (Simon and Lieberman, 2010) and thus a reflection
Carmeli et al. 35
process, particularly on experiences of failures, can improve decision quality and drive outcomes
such as high reliability (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001).
Taken together, we predict that TMTs that reflect on failure experiences, interpret and make
sense of them, will make higher quality strategic decisions.
hypothesis 1: TMT learning from failures will be positively related to quality strategic
decisions.
TMT trust, learning from failures, and strategic decisions
Despite the potential benefits, research indicates that teams vary significantly in the extent to which
they actively learn from experience (Dutton and Thomas, 1984; Reagans et al., 2005). Furthermore,
due to structural inertia and other persistent forces, organizational systems may inhibit making
changes based on learning from failure such that the learning is not translated into necessary adap-
tations in strategic orientations (Lant et al., 1992). To facilitate learning from failed experiences,
we need to better understand ‘barriers to learning from failure and identifying strategies to over-
come them’ (Wilkinson and Mellahi, 2005: 233). One barrier is lack of trust among team members.
Conversely, when there is trust within the TMT, its members are more fully engaged in learning
from failures and can make better strategic decisions.
Trust is a core relational construct, commonly conceptualized as a psychological state in which
individuals make themselves vulnerable in a relationship based upon expectations, assumptions, or
beliefs that another’s future behaviors will be positive, beneficial, or favorable (Deutsch, 1958;
Robinson, 1996; Rousseau et al., 1998). Thus, trust denotes ‘the willingness of a party to be vulner-
able to the actions of another party’ (Mayer et al., 1995: 712) and is an expression of confidence by
a party that his or her vulnerability will not be exploited and that he or she will not be harmed by
the behaviors or actions of the other party (Jones and George, 1998).
Trust within TMTs is a key psychological state that enables members to engage in learning from
failures. Trust is likely to increase members’ sense of confidence that speaking up is accepted and
expected, and allows them to admit and take responsibility for errors and problems and discuss
them openly (Edmondson, 1999, 2004). Tjosvold et al.’s (2004) findings indicate that a coopera-
tive orientation is positively related to team learning from mistakes. Further, when teams discuss
and reflect on problem and error relationships, destructive conflicts may emerge between their
members. While task and process conflicts are important for improving processes and outcomes,
research suggests that cognitive and constructive conflicts may reach a level where they become
destructive (Jehn and Bendersky, 2003). This is particularly applicable to situations where team
members reflect on failed experiences, which can be stressful. Research has indicated that task and
relational conflicts are tightly related (Jehn and Bendersky, 2003) and that trust within teams may
be a fruitful mechanism as it moderates this linkage by helping TMT members to tolerate task
conflicts in a way that does not slide into destructive relationship conflicts (Simons and Peterson,
2000). Thus, trust enables TMT members to handle conflicts that can emerge while discussing
problems and errors associated with work tasks and processes.
We also reason that trust within TMTs is indirectly, through learning from failures, associated
with quality strategic decisions. Studies have reported inconsistent findings about the direct effect
of trust on behaviors and outcomes (see Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). We reason that this is because
trust, as a psychological state, is essential for facilitating work processes that may give rise to work
behaviors and outcomes. As a psychological state, trust is likely to have an indirect effect on the
quality of strategic decisions of a TMT because it underpins learning from failed experiences. Trust
enables learning in the form of reflection on what has happened (Edmondson et al., 2003a). This
36 Strategic Organization 10(1)
process alleviates a tendency to oversimplify events (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001), enables compre-
hensiveness (Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984), and builds decision-makers’ confidence in that they
have left ‘no stone unturned in the decision making’ (Eisenhardt, 1989: 572). This constellation of
cognitive, conflict, and emotional processes is essential for quality choices and closure (Eisenhardt,
1989). Thus,
hypothesis 2: TMT trust (trust among members of a TMT) will be positively related to TMT
learning from failures.
hypothesis 3: The relationship between TMT trust (trust among members of a TMT) and qual-
ity strategic decisions will be mediated by TMT learning from failures.
CEO relational leadership, TMT trust, and learning from failures
Recent research has pointed to relational aspects of leadership that are essential for developing
psychological states that facilitate learning processes (Edmondson, 2004; Nembhard and
Edmondson, 2006). We suggest that CEO relational leadership, which refers to a leader who
models relational behaviors by encouraging collaboration and open communication and promot-
ing sincere behaviors (Carmeli et al., 2009), is a key for augmenting trust within the TMT, thereby
facilitating learning from failures.
Leadership has long been seen as a relational construct, which implies that good leaders are able
‘to work in and through relationships and to foster relational health in their organizations’ (Fletcher,
2007: 348) as emphasized in theories such as Hollander’s relational theory (Hollander, 1978), the
leader–member exchange (LMX) perspective (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), and the social identity
theory of leadership (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), as well as in more general perspectives such
as social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), relational cognition theory (Berscheid, 1994; Fiske, 1992),
social capital (Coleman, 1988), network theory (Burt, 1992), and more recently in the writings of
organizational scholars on positive work relationships (Dutton, 2003; Dutton and Heaphy, 2003;
Dutton and Ragins, 2007).
We posit that CEO relational leadership nurtures trust among TMT members. This is because
CEOs who display relational leadership play a major role in building positive relationships
between members (Fletcher, 2007). Through collaborations people get to know each other in a
more intimate way; when members experience positive collaboration with each other they are
more willing to expose themselves as they develop positive expectations of others’ intentions and
behaviors. In addition, when relational leaders encourage open communication TMT members
feel psychologically safe to speak up and express their views freely (Edmondson, 1999, 2004).
Thus, when members sense genuine openness in their interactions with each other they are more
likely to accept vulnerability (Fletcher, 2004). Dutton (2003) noted that by being relationally
attentive, leaders know how to cultivate connections, and that their willingness to convey open-
ness and emotional accessibility builds a foundation for high-quality relationships. Similarly,
Carmeli et al. (2009) showed that relational leaders play a key role in building and nurturing
bonding social capital. Finally, relational leaders who promote sincere behaviors cultivate
members’ beliefs that others are reliable, thus engendering willingness to be vulnerable (Mishra,
1996) and a sense that they can rely on each other (Doney et al., 1998).
In addition, relational leaders sense changes in the relational dynamics between team mem-
bers; these leaders notice factors affecting the connective tissue that relates team members
(Dutton, 2003; Fletcher, 1999). When leaders signal sensitivity to the relational dynamics within
the team, they create conditions for mutuality and trust (Dutton, 2003). This motivates TMT
members to reciprocate and accept vulnerability, which is vital for facilitating a process of
Carmeli et al. 37
reflecting and making sense of failed experiences. Further, CEOs who exhibit relational leader-
ship provide support for expressing and tolerating conflicting opinions and feelings held by
members, both of which are essential for learning from failures. The CEO thus has a key role in
shaping norms that conflicting thoughts and feelings are legitimate and often essential for ena-
bling the team to learn and move forward (Berg and Smith, 1995). Thus,
hypothesis 4: CEO relational leadership will be positively associated with TMT trust (trust
among members of a TMT).
hypothesis 5: TMT trust (trust among members of a TMT) will mediate the relationship
between relational leadership and TMT learning from failures.
Method
Sample and data collection
We sent a request to 500 alumni of executive MBA programs in Israel to help us access their firms’
CEOs and TMT members to complete a structured questionnaire. In our letter, we explained that
the questionnaire data were part of a larger research project on the role of leadership, team pro-
cesses, and firm outcomes operating in diverse industries. To encourage participation, we promised
that each participating firm would receive the findings of the research.
We followed previous research (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) to identify the ‘direct reports’, i.e.,
senior executives with whom the CEO shares the strategic decision-making process. Thus, the
CEOs in our sample were asked to identify the TMT members they considered to be ‘direct reports’
and assist in recruiting them to participate in the study. We received responses from 81 firms’
TMTs. However, following previous studies (e.g., Lubatkin et al., 2006), we excluded two firms
for which fewer than 50% of the TMT members responded to our questionnaire, as well as two
firms whose TMTs provided incomplete information. Thus, usable questionnaires were obtained
only from 237 members – 77 CEOs and 160 senior executives who are members of their TMT.
Overall, we received complete data from 15.4% of the targeted research population of TMTs.
The firms in the sample operated in diverse industries, including food and beverages, medical
equipment and pharmaceuticals, computers (e.g., semiconductor and software), infrastructure
and construction, and finance. There were no significant differences between the participating
and non-participating firms in terms of size as measured by the number of employees (p > .10).
Following Armstrong and Overton (1977), we also assessed potential response bias by comparing
early with late respondents in terms of all key variables and did not find significant differences
(p > .10).
Measures
As described below, most items in the questionnaires were originally developed by other research-
ers in English. Following conventional practice (Brislin, 1986), we translated the items into Hebrew
and then back-translated them into English to ensure that the content was accurately represented in
the Hebrew items. Prior to administering the questionnaire we asked 25 senior executives to review
the items and indicate to us whether the questions were clear and reflected the constructs they were
intended to measure. Following this procedure we made minor revisions to improve the clarity of
certain items. To reduce potential common source bias, we collected data as follows: TMT mem-
bers (excluding the CEO) provided data on CEO relational leadership; the CEO and the other TMT
members provided data on TMT trust, TMT learning from failures, and strategic decision quality.
In addition, the CEO provided data on past firm performance and TMT size.
38 Strategic Organization 10(1)
CEO relational leadership. We adapted the three-item scale developed and validated by Carmeli
et al. (2009) for assessing the extent to which a firm’s CEO exhibits relational leadership behavior.
We asked TMT members (i.e., direct reports) to assess on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from
1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘to a large extent’) the extent to which the firm’s CEO: (1) encourages collabo-
ration among TMT members; (2) cultivates a credible work environment in the TMT; and (3)
encourages open communication among TMT members. The Cronbach alpha for this scale was
.75, similar to the reliability reported in Carmeli et al.’s (2009) study.
TMT trust. To assess trust among team members, we adapted four items from Robinson’s (1996)
scale. Respondents (CEO and TMT members) were asked to report on the extent to which TMT
members experience trust in their relationships with each other. The items were: (1) TMT members
relate to each other with high sincerity; (2) members know that their colleagues on the TMT will
treat them in a consistent and predictable fashion; (3) TMT members are not always honest and
truthful with each other (reverse-scored item); and (4) TMT members are always open and up-front
with each other. Responses were made on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘not at
all’ to 5 = ‘to a large extent’. The Cronbach alpha for this measure was .86, similar to the reliability
reported in Robinson’s (1996) study.
TMT learning from failures. To assess team learning from experiences of failures, we adapted three
items from the scale used by Carmeli (2007) based on work by Tucker and Edmondson (2003).
Respondents (CEO and TMT members) were asked to report on the extent to which the TMT
engages in learning from failures. The items were: (1) when TMT members encounter a problem
such as lacking sufficient resources to complete the task, they resolve it immediately and inform
other TMT members about the problem; (2) when TMT members make a mistake, they inform the
relevant TMT members so they can learn from it; and (3) when a TMT member makes an error,
her/his TMT members will talk to her/him about it, not to blame but to learn and draw lessons from
the event. Responses were made on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘not at all’ to
5 = ‘to a large extent’. The Cronbach alpha for this measure was .73, slightly lower that the reliabil-
ity reported in Carmeli’s (2007) study.
Strategic decision quality. We used the three-item scale developed and validated by Amason (1996)
to assess the quality of the strategic decisions made by the TMT. In line with previous research,
data were collected from TMT members who are involved in the strategic decision-making pro-
cess. The outcomes of strategic decisions are a function of the people who are actually involved in
making them (Amason, 1996; Amason and Mooney, 2008). Thus, we asked the CEO and his/her
TMT members to consider strategic choices (such as penetrating occupied or new markets, launch-
ing a competitive attack or responding to a rival’s competitive attack, and choosing core capability,
technology, and products to pursue) that they had most recently made and assess on a five-point
Likert scale (ranging from 1 = ‘very poor’ to 5 = ‘very good’) the quality of the TMT strategic
decisions in terms of their impact on the company. The items were: (1) the effect of the strategic
decisions on the company have been . . . ; (2) relative to our expectations, the results of the stra-
tegic decisions have been . . . ; and (3) overall, the strategic decisions have been . . . . As in previous
studies (Amason, 1996; Olson et al., 2007), we used perceptions for assessing strategic decision
quality, which provide reliable measurements when objective data are not accessible (Dess and
Robinson, 1984). The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .85.
Control variables. We controlled for TMT size and past firm performance. TMT size was measured
by the number of TMT members (including the CEO and his/her direct reports). Research suggests
Carmeli et al. 39
that TMT size may have an effect on TMT processes (Simsek et al., 2005) such as strategic
decision-making. In addition, following previous studies (Elbanna and Child, 2007a), we con-
trolled for the firms’ past performance (for an average of two years prior to our survey period)
because high-performance firms are likely to be associated with more quality strategic choices.
We used the average of two-year gross, operational, and net income for assessing past firm perfor-
mance, as reported by the firm’s CEO.
Level of analysis. Relying on multiple respondents has been shown to be more reliable and less
subject to superficiality than a single respondent in strategy research (Bowman and Ambrosini,
1997), though it requires the assessment of the consistency of responses within a team. Following
previous research (e.g., James, 1982; Smith et al., 1994), we employed an analysis of variance to
assess this consistency. The results showed greater variability in the ratings between teams than
within teams (p < .01). We also calculated the intra-class correlations (ICCs) to assess group mem-
ber agreement. ICC(1) indicated the extent of agreement among ratings from members of the same
group. ICC(2) indicated whether groups could be differentiated based on the variables of interest.
The values of ICC(1) and ICC(2) for the four measures for which we used multiple respondents
were respectively as follows: .42 and .70 for CEO relational leadership; .48 and .85 for TMT trust;
.29 and .71 for TMT learning from failures; and .48 and .85 for strategic decision quality. These
values are consistent with the conventional standards for aggregating individual questionnaire
responses into a team-level response (see Bliese, 2000).
Data analyses. Structural equation modeling (SEM) AMOS 18 was used to estimate the model.
Because we had one CEO in one TMT in one organization/firm, rather than a nested design with
multiple units within each organization, we used SEM analysis and not hierarchical linear mod-
eling (HLM). In addition, the independent variable (IV) was at a lower level than the dependent
variable (DV), such that HLM analysis was not feasible. We employed Anderson and Gerbing’s
(1988) two-step approach to SEM in which the first step is to assess the measurement model
using confirmatory factor analysis, followed by a sequence of nested structural models. We
calculated several goodness-of-fit indices to assess the fit of the research model. These indices
included the chi-square statistic divided by the degrees of freedom (χ2/d.f.), the comparative fit
index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis coefficient (TLI), and the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA). Following Joreskog and Sorbom (1993) and Kline (1998), the following criteria
of goodness-of-fit indices were used to assess the model fit: the χ2/d.f. ratio is recommended to
be less than 3; the values of CFI and TLI are recommended to be greater than .90; RMSEA is
recommended to be less than .05, and to be ‘acceptable’ if it is smaller than .08.
Results
Preliminary analyses
We first examined construct validity evidence for the measures. Using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), we tested the hypothesized four-factor measurement model (see Figure 1) to assess whether
each of the measurement items would load significantly onto the scales with which they were asso-
ciated. The results of the overall CFA showed acceptable fit with the data. With a χ2/d.f. = 1.98
(chi-square value of 128.65 with 65 degrees of freedom), the parsimony-adjusted goodness-of-fit
statistics indicate an acceptable fit (CFI = .92; IFI = .92; TLI = .90; RMSEA = .07). Standardized
coefficients from items to factors ranged from .50 to .93. In addition, the results for the CFA
40 Strategic Organization 10(1)
indicated that all relationships between indicator variables and their corresponding latent variables
were significant (p < .01).
Next, we tested three-factor models. First, we specified a three-factor model where the observed
items of CEO relational leadership and TMT trust were loaded onto one latent factor and the
observed items for both TMT learning from failures and strategic decision quality were each loaded
onto two different latent factors. The results of this three-factor model generated fit indices indicat-
ing a poorer fit to the data: χ2/d.f. = 3.40 (chi-square of 224.5 with 66 degrees of freedom); CFI =
.70; IFI = .71; TLI = .59; RMSEA = .172.
We also tested a two-factor model where the observed items of CEO relational leadership, TMT
trust, and TMT learning from failures were loaded onto one latent factor and the observed items of
strategic decision quality were loaded onto a different latent factor. The results of this two-factor
model also generated indices indicating a poorer fit than the four-factor model: χ2/d.f. = 3.79 (chi-
square of 254.1 with 67 degrees of freedom); CFI = .64; IFI = .66; TLI = .51; RMSEA = .188.
Finally, a one-factor model was tested. In this model, all observed items were loaded onto the same
latent variable. This model was expected to assess the extent of common method variance overall.
The results of the one-factor model yielded the following relatively poor fit indices: χ2/d.f. = 5.51
(chi-square of 374.9 with 68 degrees of freedom); CFI = .48; IFI = .50; TLI = .34; RMSEA = .21.
In sum, the three-factor, two-factor, and one-factor models exhibited a relatively poor fit com-
pared to the hypothesized four-factor model.
The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among the research variables are
presented in Table 1. The bivariate correlations indicated that CEO relational leadership was posi-
tively related to TMT trust (r = .37, p < .01). TMT trust was positively associated with both TMT
learning from failures (r = .41, p < .01), and strategic decision quality (r = .32, p < .01). We also
found a positive relationship between TMT learning from failures and strategic decision quality
(r = .51, p < .01). Finally, past firm performance was significantly related to strategic decision
quality (r = .36, p < .01).
Model comparisons and hypothesis tests
Cheung and Lau (2008: 297–8) suggest that SEM has several advantages over the hierarchical
regression approach in estimating models similar to ours. First, SEM is a better statistical tool to
investigate latent variables with multiple indicators (Holmbeck, 1997). Second, measurement
errors in the model can be controlled for when relationships among variables are examined, thus
avoiding complications from measurement errors and the underestimation of mediation effects
(Baron and Kenny, 1986; Hoyle and Smith, 1994). Third, the SEM can be used for the estimation
and analysis of models with more than one mediator and one dependent variable (Hoyle and
Smith, 1994). Furthermore, SEM provides a simple measure for comparing the goodness-of-fit of
each model with that of alternative specifications (Cheung and Lau, 2008). In what follows, we
present the results of the hypothesized mediating relationships through a series of nested models
(see Table 2).
The results in Table 2 show that the baseline model fit the data reasonably well (χ2 = 106.9,
d.f. = 86; CFI = .94; TLI = .92; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .055). All paths, except for those from the
control variables to firm performance, were significant. We also tested three related models
(Models 1, 2, and 3). Model 1 was identical to the baseline model, except that a direct path from
CEO relational leadership to decision quality was added. The results in Table 2 show that Model 1
fit the data reasonably well (χ2 = 105.5, d.f. = 85; CFI = .94; TLI = .92; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .058;
Δχ2 = 1.4, p > .05). However, whereas all specified paths outlined in the baseline model were
Carmeli et al. 41
statistically significant, the added path from CEO relational leadership to decision quality was not
significant. Model 2 was identical to the baseline model, except that direct paths from CEO rela-
tional leadership to decision quality and from TMT trust to decision quality were added. Model 2
fit the data reasonably well (χ2 = 104.5, d.f. = 84; CFI = .94; TLI = .92; IFI = .95; RMSEA = .057;
Δχ2 = 2.4, p > .05). However, neither of the paths was statistically significant. Model 3 was identi-
cal to the baseline model except that three direct paths were added: CEO relational leadership to
decision quality, from TMT trust to decision quality, and from CEO relational leadership to TMT
learning from failures. Model 3 fit the data reasonably well (χ2 = 99.4, d.f. = 83; CFI = .95; TLI = .93;
IFI = .96; RMSEA = .051; Δχ2 = 7.5, p > .05). However, the additional paths were not statistically
significant. Model 4 tested the direct paths from CEO relational leadership, TMT trust, and TMT
learning from failures to strategic decision quality. Model 4 did not fit the data well (χ2 = 142.3,
d.f. = 99; CFI = .87; TLI = .82; IFI = .88; RMSEA = .084).
The results of Models 1, 2, and 3 in Table 2 indicate that all of the estimated models fit the
data relatively well. That is, the basic premise that (a) CEO relational leadership is positively
related to TMT trust, (b) TMT trust is positively associated with TMT learning from failures,
and (c) TMT learning from failures is associated with strategic decision quality, seem to be
robust. Clearly, it is impossible to discriminate among these models on the basis of goodness-
of-fit measures. However, all the specified paths were only statistically significant (p > .05) in
the hypothesized model (baseline model). Thus, on the basis of the principle of model parsi-
mony, we suggest, with the necessary caution, that the baseline model was marginally better
than the other models for the data that we employed here. The baseline model is depicted in
Figure 1.
Qualitative data
We conducted an in-depth qualitative analysis of two TMTs to deepen and extend our knowledge
derived from the survey data. We were interested in gaining a better understanding of learning and
strategic decision-making processes. We had no prior knowledge of the actual processes within
these teams (i.e., how they approach to problems and failures, and learn from them). We learned
that in one company, Alpha, there were many problems and dissatisfaction on the part of the board
of directors with the situation and performance. In the other company, Beta, we learned that the
founders were struggling to sustain a competitive position and that the CEO needed to build and
cultivate relational connections that would enable a thorough examination of their problems and
ways to improve strategic decisions. We visited the two firms at their headquarters facilities. At
Table 1. Means, standard deviations (SD), and correlations.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
TMT size 5.12 1.03 −
Past firm performance 3.68 .68 −.06 −
Relational leadership 4.16 .64 −.14 .17 (.75)
TMT trust 3.97 .55 −.07 .09 .37** (.85)
TMT learning from failures 3.75 .60 −.08 .04 −.01 .41** (.73)
Strategic decision quality 3.94 .64 −.12 .36** .23* .32** .51** (.85)
Note: N = 77. Alpha reliabilities appear in parentheses.
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
42 Strategic Organization 10(1)
T
a
bl
e
2.
C
om
pa
ri
so
ns
a
nd
p
at
h
co
ef
fic
ie
nt
s
of
s
tr
uc
tu
ra
l e
qu
at
io
n
m
od
el
s.
a
M
od
el
Pa
th
c
oe
ffi
ci
en
t
/ f
it
in
di
ce
s
M
od
el
Pa
th
co
ef
fic
ie
nt
/ f
it
in
di
ce
s
M
od
el
Pa
th
c
oe
ffi
ci
en
t
/
fit
in
di
ce
s
M
od
el
Pa
th
co
ef
fic
ie
nt
/
fit
in
di
ce
s
M
od
el
Pa
th
c
oe
ffi
ci
en
t
/ f
it
in
di
ce
s
Ba
se
lin
e
m
od
el
:
M
od
el
1
M
od
el
2
M
od
el
3
M
od
el
4
C
EO
-R
L
T
T
R
.4
5
*
*
C
EO
–
R
L
T
T
R
.4
3*
*
C
EO
–
R
L
T
T
R
.4
3*
*
C
EO
–
R
L
T
T
R
.4
8*
*
C
EO
–
R
L
SD
Q
.2
2,
p
=
.0
7
T
T
R
T
LM
.5
7*
*
T
T
R
T
LM
.5
6*
*
T
T
R
T
LM
.5
8*
*
T
T
R
T
LM
.7
4*
*
T
T
R
S
D
Q
.0
1,
p
=
.9
0
T
LM
SD
Q
.6
1*
*
T
LM
SD
Q
.5
8*
*
T
LM
S
D
Q
.7
1*
*
T
LM
SD
Q
.5
7*
*
T
LM
SD
Q
.6
5*
*
C
EO
–
R
L
SD
Q
.1
5,
p
=
.2
4
C
EO
–
R
L
SD
Q
.2
3,
p
=
.1
0
T
T
R
SD
Q
.0
2,
p
=
.9
2
T
T
R
SD
Q
−
.1
9,
p
=
.2
8
C
EO
–
R
L
T
LM
−
.3
2,
p
=
.1
0
χ2
10
6.
9
χ2
10
5.
5
χ2
10
4.
5
χ2
99
.4
χ2
14
2.
3
d.
f.
86
d.
f.
85
d.
f.
84
d.
f.
83
d.
f.
99
Δχ
2
Δχ
2
1.
4
Δχ
2
2.
4
Δχ
2
7.
5
Δχ
2
R
M
SE
A
.0
55
R
M
SE
A
.0
58
R
M
SE
A
.0
57
R
M
SE
A
.0
51
R
M
SE
A
.0
8
4
C
FI
.9
4
C
FI
.9
4
C
FI
.9
4
C
FI
.9
5
C
FI
.8
7
T
LI
.9
2
T
LI
.9
2
T
LI
.9
2
T
LI
.9
3
T
LI
.8
2
IF
I
.9
5
IF
I
.9
5
IF
I
.9
5
IF
I
.9
6
IF
I
.8
8
a C
EO
-R
L
=
C
EO
r
el
at
io
na
l l
ea
de
rs
hi
p;
T
T
R
=
T
M
T
t
ru
st
; T
LM
=
T
M
T
le
ar
ni
ng
fr
om
fa
ilu
re
s;
SD
Q
=
S
tr
at
eg
ic
d
ec
is
io
n
qu
al
ity
; P
FP
=
P
as
t
fir
m
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
.
In
a
ll
m
od
el
s
th
e
co
nt
ro
l v
ar
ia
bl
e
(T
M
T
s
iz
e)
w
as
li
nk
ed
t
o
SD
Q
a
nd
T
LM
a
nd
P
FP
w
as
li
nk
ed
t
o
SD
Q
. O
nl
y
PF
P
w
as
s
ig
ni
fic
an
tly
r
el
at
ed
t
o
SD
Q
(
se
e
Fi
gu
re
1
).
* p
< .0
5,
**
p
<
.0
1.
Carmeli et al. 43
Alpha, a bio-agricultural firm, we interviewed the CEO and four TMT members (VPs for finance,
marketing, R&D, and HRM). At Beta, a software development company, we interviewed the CEO
and two TMT members (VP for R&D and chief scientist). We also observed one TMT session at
Beta. Each interview lasted between 45 and 90 minutes, with the exception of a more extensive
interview with the CEO of Beta, conducted over two meetings of about two hours each. We began
our interviews with general questions to learn about the structure and key milestones in the evolu-
tion of the firms. We then focused on exploring the dynamics in the TMTs and decision-making
processes. For instance, we asked each interviewee to tell us about key strategic choices and the
decision processes made by the TMT. We also asked questions about executive errors and the ways
the TMT addressed them. This gave us a deeper understanding of the leadership, processes, and
decisions at the TMT.
Alpha. Specializing in providing growers with sophisticated and advanced crop enhancement prod-
ucts, Alpha experienced a period of decline in both net income and profitability. The board lost
faith in the CEO, and appointed a new one. Early in his tenure, the new CEO decided to work to
create trust among the team members, and sought to promote open discussion and a collaborative
mode of operation in the team. He organized a two-day workshop with TMT members to discuss
the problems and challenges the company faced. During the workshop, it became clear that the
team’s relational and learning processes needed improvement. As the R&D director reported:
Prior to [the new CEO, whom we refer to by a pseudonym] Eli’s appointment, we didn’t have a clue about
what was really going to happen to the company . . . essential information was not shared with us . . .
people become suspicious and this dictated their behaviors. . . . We didn’t have meetings to discuss
(problematic) issues. During the workshop and afterwards, things changed quite dramatically; openness, a
sense of partnership, and trust were key elements in our work; when we had to make a decision about our
innovation strategy we all got together to understand the weaknesses and problems of the current strategy,
and developed a better understanding of the situation . . . eventually, after deliberating, we made a choice
to pursue the more conservative path first, which proved very effective.
Eli understood that TMT members would be reluctant to discuss failures. To alleviate the lack
of trust, he met with each member individually to discuss things in a more ‘private’ way, and also
asked an independent consultant to organize a workshop on failures in other companies. This
CEO relational
leadership
TMT learning
from failures
R2 = .34
TMT trust
R2 = .20
Decision quality
R2 = .49
TMT size
Past firm
performance
.45** .57** .61**
-.05
.33**
-.06
Figure 1. Results of the hypothesized research model.
Note. Ovals show variables. For clarity, the indicators (items) of all variables are not shown. Statistics are standardized
coefficients.
*p < .05, **p < .01
44 Strategic Organization 10(1)
process helped them engage in discussing their own failures, which became an ongoing practice,
that helps, according to Eli, ‘in expanding our knowledge and better utilizing it’.
Beta. The second company, referred to by the pseudonym Beta, develops advanced diagnostic
medical devices in the healthcare sector. Beta was founded by two scientists to develop medical
devices to help physicians improve early diagnostic capabilities in certain types of cancer. The
CEO, whom we call David (also a pseudonym), was appointed after a majority shareholder was
disappointed with the company’s progress and outcomes. During this time, the founders felt that
they were being pushed out of the loop. As David noted,
This was my first concern when I joined the company . . . I devoted a lot of time to having open discussions
and good communication between us, and this helped remove barriers by helping us learn to trust and
respect each other’s opinion and skills. . . . The first year was definitely a test for me as I had to show them
that I could connect with them and lead the company successfully.
David also encouraged a customer-focus orientation. This was done through close interactions
with clients to respond to their needs and resolve their problems. Following meetings with clients,
TMT members would gather together to discuss gaps and issues that needed to be addressed. As
the chief scientist recalled:
We found a critical bug in our system just a week before an important presentation and demonstration in
front of a major firm in the field; I could express my opinion freely and suggest, like everyone else, my
views and the path I recommended to pursue. . . . I can say that there was no blaming but instead a
collective effort to understand what went wrong and solve it.
In our interviews, all the TMT members mentioned a specific failure that put a major project
developed in the firm in jeopardy. When a letter from the authorities was received at Beta’s offices
informing the TMT that the system had not received approval, David immediately gathered all of
the senior managers together in an attempt to understand what exactly had not been done as
required by the authorities:
We could have put the blame on each other; instead, we reviewed the entire document thoroughly and
discussed each comment extensively. . . . Using brainstorming together with collective effort by everyone
we were able to respond to all the comments and resubmit the system for approval.
In a similar vein, the company had to make a critical choice regarding the development of a new
product (related to a different line) that would resolve a major problem in the software. The TMT
had several meetings in which the problems and failures were analyzed, and despite substantial
constraints (budget, experience), the team members decided to develop the new product to tackle
the existing problem in the software. Once the decision was made, science and R&D unit members
felt committed to the decision and through intensive work successfully developed the new product
and addressed the problem. This success allowed Beta to provide clients with a superior product
that proved lucrative.
Both cases illustrate how TMTs can use failure to improve the quality of their decisions, and
both highlight the role of relational leadership and a climate of trust in the team, to make discussing
failure feasible and valuable. These vignettes simply illustrate how the relationships tested by
quantitative survey data might play out in real TMTs. In both cases, the CEOs joined their compa-
nies in uncomfortable situations and were able to shape the psychosocial conditions in their teams
Carmeli et al. 45
to be conducive to learning from failures. These leadership efforts helped to improve the strategic
decision-making process and outcomes in both of the TMTs.
Discussion
In this article, we examined the role of two factors, CEO relational leadership and TMT trust, in
facilitating learning from failures and improved strategic decisions in TMTs. The results of struc-
tural equation modeling (SEM) support our research model. We found that (1) the relationship
between CEO relational leadership and team learning from failures was mediated by trust among
TMT members; (2) team learning from failures mediated the relationship between team trust and
strategic decision quality; and (3) past firm performance had a significant positive effect on stra-
tegic decision quality. In short, the results of the SEM analyses indicated a two-stage mediation
model in which CEO relational leadership was positively related to team trust, which, in turn,
increased team learning from failures. The latter was positively associated with strategic decision
quality. Consistent with other research (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson and McManus, 2007), we
used qualitative data to help build confidence in our constructs and arguments by illustrating the
interrelated phenomena specified in the research model and tested with quantitative survey data.
In what follows, we discuss the implications of these findings for theory and research.
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the growing body of work on new and diverse types of teams. Early
team research tended to treat teams as a homogeneous construct, without substantive differences
based on their task or context. More recent work has started to take context and type seriously
by developing more nuanced models of team learning and team performance (e.g., see
Edmondson et al., 2007 for a review). Our arguments and findings pertain to TMTs, rather than
to all teams, because of the nature of the work these teams do. The role of prior firm or team
failure is especially relevant. We argue that the theme of failure has a central place in the study
of senior executive teams, because of both the complexity of the work and the level of collective
and individual responsibility held by team members. Failures may be inevitable in TMTs, but
learning from them is not. Our data provide suggestive evidence that when senior leadership
teams invest attention in learning from failure, the quality of their strategic decision-making will
improve.
Second, this study contributes to upper echelon research by showing that TMTs that engage in
learning from experiences of failure can improve their strategic decisions. Thus a TMT can improve
its performance over time; its composition is not its destiny. TMTs can be seen as interpretation
systems (Daft and Weick, 1984) that collect and interpret information critical for making strategic
choices and moves (Hambrick et al., 1996). Our study sheds light on why some TMTs may be more
effective than others in strategic decision-making (Eisenhardt, 1989, 1999), especially if they
attend to learning from failures. This is an essential skill for TMTs, particularly considering the
findings of a recent qualitative and quantitative study suggesting that the majority of senior teams
across sectors and contexts are not effective (Wageman et al., 2008). We argue that learning from
failures is an important mechanism for enabling a TMT to make better strategic decisions in the
future. It allows a TMT to draw on its past experiences to make better decisions by alleviating the
tendency to persist with prior choices (Day and Lord, 1992; Lant et al., 1992; Milliken and Lant,
1991; Walsh, 1995). This is a sensemaking mechanism. Because our actions often outpace our
understanding of actions, we must actively make sense of both actions and events to make effective
46 Strategic Organization 10(1)
choices (Weick, 1988). This study suggests that TMTs reflect upon their experiences to gain a
fuller understanding of what, why and how things went wrong; through this process teams become
more vigilant and capable of noticing weak signals that often slipped under the system’s radar
(Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001). Reflexivity is a key enabler of information processing through which
a better understanding of emergent situations is facilitated. In this way, our research enriches
knowledge by casting learning from failures as a critical mechanism underpinning effective strate-
gic decision-making. It facilitates more effective team dynamics and behavioral processes
(Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Kozlowski and Bell, 2008), particularly when much is at stake
(Edmondson and Moingeon, 1998). Hence, dealing effectively with failure is essential in complex
and uncertain contexts (Edmondson, 2011).
Overall, our study contributes to a better understanding of the role of CEOs in shaping the
dynamics of their teams (Peterson et al., 2003). Our research sheds further light on the role of
leadership that is relationally sensitive, and emphasizes the need for leaders to work with other
team members to design and shape relational practices (Carmeli et al., 2009; Fletcher, 2007; Hirak
et al., in press). Such practices are essential to learning from failed experiences, as a way of
improving strategic choices. Trusting relationships among TMT members can facilitate learning
processes, and thereby build a stock of collective knowledge in a team.
Limitations and future research directions
Although this research constitutes one of the first attempts to investigate a key factor in helping
CEOs and TMTs improve the quality of strategic decisions – learning from failures – several
limitations must be noted. Caution is required when attempting to overgeneralize the findings of
this research to other contexts because our study involved Israeli organizations, many of them
privately held. Future cross-cultural studies on TMTs thus may prove useful in extending and
validating our theoretical model.
Our model results should also be interpreted with caution. Parsimony is not the only criterion
for determining a mediation model. In fact, goodness-of-fit indices are often used to assess which
model fits the data better. However, our qualitative data provide some idiosyncratic insights into
the proposed mediation model. Nonetheless, we encourage sensitivity to subtle interpretations of
our results and call for future research to examine such mediation models.
Caution must also be exercised with respect to conclusions drawn from survey data, particularly
in making causal inferences. It would be useful to conduct a longitudinal study that tracks the
dynamic nature of the interrelationships between leadership actions, team processes and decision
outcomes. As a crude test for the appropriateness of the proposed model in connecting the four
variables that we use here (i.e., CEO relational leadership, TMT trust, learning from failures, and
strategic decision quality), we estimated several alternative models with different causal structures.
We tested, for example, whether firms that performed well in the past showed a stronger connec-
tion between trust and relational leadership, and found that the interactive effect was not significant
(p > .10). While these tests do not prove that our model exhibits the ‘true’ causal relationships, their
results are consistent with our argument that the model reflects a more sensible fit than alternative
models.
Another limitation involves common method bias from our reliance on team member survey
reports of the core constructs in this study. We attempted to mitigate this bias by collecting data
from both CEO and TMT members, as well as by performing post hoc tests to evaluate the sever-
ity of the problem in this study. Some confidence derives from the fact that our data were col-
lected from multiple respondents and we separated the data to measure CEO relational leadership
and team constructs. In addition, when we used a random process for separating the responses
Carmeli et al. 47
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), the results provided further support for the hypothesized model. Second,
although a crude test, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on all items constituting the
research measures in the model. The results of this analysis provided no indication of a dominant
factor. Specifically, results of the CFA showed that our hypothesized four-factor model had a
better fit to the data than a one-factor, a two-factor, or a three-factor model structure. We then
took two additional steps to provide the most reliable possible measure of past firm performance;
specifically, we used the average of two-year gross, operational, and net income for assessing
past firm performance, as reported by the firm’s CEO (these data were compared and verified
vis-a-vis the CFO reports, though we eventually used CEO reports to alleviate common method
error concerns). We were able to collect objective data on the performance of a subsample of 24
firms. Specifically, we obtained data on return on assets (ROA) and return on sales (ROS). In this
subsample, CEO perceptions of growth in net sales were positively and significantly related to
ROS (r = .45, p < .05), and CEO perceptions of operational effectiveness were positively and
significantly correlated with ROA (r = .43, p < .05). These external data increased our confidence
in the performance data reported by the companies for this study. Clearly, future research is
needed to further develop this line of reasoning, such as by obtaining data on the quality of a
firm’s strategic decisions from experts who analyze them.
In sum, we do not yet know enough about how relational leadership emerges, or about the con-
ditions under which it is likely to have the most influence. CEO leadership style can vary widely,
and further research is needed to understand these effects, and how they can improve strategic
decision-making processes and outcomes. We focused on learning from direct prior (failed) experi-
ences, but it may be useful to examine the influence of additional learning processes (i.e., vicarious
and contextual learning) (Bresman, 2010) and both direct and indirect learning processes (Kim and
Miner, 2007) on the quality of strategic choices made by the TMT. Finally, we dealt with a global
measure of strategic decisions rather than examining specific choices. An in-depth analysis of
TMTs over a long period of time would no doubt provide insights into the CEO pathway effects on
TMT processes and strategic decisions.
Conclusion
This study highlights the importance of CEO relational leadership in facilitating learning from
failures in TMTs to improve strategic decisions. We predicted and found evidence to support a
model in which CEOs who display relational leadership help cultivate trust among TMT members
and facilitate learning from experiences of failure, thereby improving the quality of strategic deci-
sions. Our study sheds light on how CEO relational leadership shapes conditions (trust within the
TMT) and facilitates processes (TMT learning from failures) conducive to improved strategic
decisions. Following Corley and Gioia (2011), we hope that our work provides transformative
thinking about the ways CEOs can improve TMT strategic decisions by exhibiting relational
leadership and creating trust, a psychological condition conducive to learning from experiences
of failure.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the co-editor, Dev Jennings, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions. We also thank Barak Aharonson and participants of the Strategy Research Seminar at the Faculty
of Management, Tel Aviv University, IESE Business School, and the 3rd Israel Strategy Conference for their
constructive feedback on earlier versions of this article. We also appreciate Esther Singer’s helpful editorial
comments and Franka Gwirtzman’s assistance with data collection.
48 Strategic Organization 10(1)
Funding
We acknowledge the financial support of the Henry Crown Institute of Business Research in Israel at Tel Aviv
University.
References
Amason, A. C. (1996) ‘Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic
Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams’, Academy of Management Journal
39: 123–48
Amason, A. C. and Mooney, A. C. (2008) ‘The Icarus Paradox Revisited: How Strong Performance Sows the
Seeds of Dysfunction in Future Strategic Decision-Making’, Strategic Organization 6: 407–34.
Ancona, D. and Nadler, D. (1989) ‘Top Hats and Executive Tales’, Sloan Management Review 31: 19–28.
Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988) ‘Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recom-
mended Two-Step Approach’, Psychological Bulletin 103: 411–23.
Argote, L. (1999) Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge. Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic.
Argote, L. and Darr, E. (2000) ‘Repositories of Knowledge in Franchise Organizations: Individual, Structural
and Technological’, in G. Dosi, R. Nelson and S. Winter (eds) Nature and Dynamics of Organizational
Capabilities, pp. 68–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Argote, L. and Greve, H. R. (2007) ‘A Behavioral Theory of the Firm – 40 Years and Counting: Introduction
and Impact’, Organization Science 18: 337–49.
Argote, L., Beckman, S. L. and Epple, D. (1990) ‘The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial
Settings’, Management Science 36: 140–54.
Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D. and Naquin, C. (2001) ‘Group Learning in Organizations’, in M. E. Turner (ed.)
Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research, pp. 369–411. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Armstrong, J. S. and Overton, T. (1977) ‘Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys’, Journal of Marketing
Research 14: 396–402.
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) ‘The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychologi-
cal Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 51: 1173–82.
Baum, J. A. C. and Ingram, P. (1998) ‘Survival-Enhancing Learning in the Manhattan Hotel Industry,
1898–1980’, Management Science 44: 996–1016.
Bauman, R., Jackson, P. and Lawrence, J. (1997) From Promise to Performance: A Journey of Transformation
at SmithKline Beecham. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Baumard, P. and Starbuck, W. H. (2005) ‘Learning from Failures: Why it May Not Happen’, Long Range
Planning 38: 281–98.
Berg, D. N. and Smith, K. K. (1995) ‘Paradox and Groups’, in J. Gillette and M. McCollom (eds) Groups in
Context: A New Perspective on Group Dynamics, pp. 107–32. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Berscheid, E. (1994) ‘ Interpersonal Relationships ’, Annual Review of Psychology 45: 79–129.
Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bliese, P. D. (2000) ‘Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Implications for Data
Aggregation and Analyses’, in K. J. Klein, and S. W. J. Kozlowski (eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and
Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, pp. 349–81. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Carmeli et al. 49
Boone, C. and Van Witteloostijn, A. (2007) ‘Individual-Level Heterogeneity and Macro-Level Outcomes’,
Strategic Organization 5: 259–70.
Boone, C., De Brabander, B. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1996) ‘CEO Locus of Control and Small Firm Per-
formance: An Integrative Framework and Empirical Test’, Journal of Management Studies 33: 667–99.
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V. (1997) ‘Using Single Respondents in Strategy Research’, British Journal of
Management 8: 119–31.
Bresman, H. (2010) ‘External Learning Activities and Team Performance: A Multimethod Field Study’,
Organization Science 21: 81–96.
Brislin, R. W. (1986) ‘The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments’, in W. J. Lonner and
J. W. Berry (eds) Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, pp. 137–64. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burt, R. S. (1992) Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cannon, M. D. and Edmondson, A. C. (2005) ‘Failing to Learn and Learning to Fail (Intelligently): How
Great Organizations Put Failure to Work to Innovate and Improve’, Long Range Planning 38: 299–319.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. and Converse, S. A. (1993) ‘Shared Mental Models in Expert Team Decision
Making’, in N. J. Castellan Jr (eds) Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, pp. 221–246.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carmeli, A. (2007) ‘Social Capital, Psychological Safety and Learning Behaviours from Failure in Organisa-
tions’, Long Range Planning 40: 30–44.
Carmeli, A. and Gittell, J. H. (2009) ‘High Quality Relationships, Psychological Safety and Learning from
Failures in Work Organizations’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 30: 709–29.
Carmeli, A., and Schaubroeck, J. (2008) ‘Organisational Crisis-Preparedness: The Importance of Learning
from Failures’, Long Range Planning 41: 177–96.
Carmeli, A. and Sheaffer, Z. (2008) ‘How Learning Leadership and Organizational Learning from Failures
Enhance Perceived Organizational Capacity to Adapt to the Task Environment’, Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 44: 468–89.
Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador., B., Waldman, D. A. and Rupp, D. (2009) ‘How Leaders Cultivate Social Capital
and Nurture Employee Vigor: Implications for Job Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology 94:
1553–61.
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R. and Gefen, D. (2010) ‘The Importance of Innovation Leadership in Cultivating
Strategic Fit and Enhancing Firm Performance’, The Leadership Quarterly 21: 339–49.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J. and Tishler, A. (2011) ‘How CEO Empowering Leadership Shapes Top Man-
agement Team Processes: Implications for Firm Performance’, The Leadership Quarterly 22: 399–411.
Carroll, J. S., Hatakenaka, S. and Rudolph, J. W. (2006) ‘Naturalistic Decision Making and Organizational
Learning in Nuclear Power Plants: Negotiating Meaning between Managers and Problem Investigation
Teams’, Organization Studies 27: 1037–57.
Carter, S. and West, M. A. (1998) ‘Reflexivity, Effectiveness, and Mental Health in BBC-TV Production
Teams’, Small Group Research 29: 583–601.
Cheung, G. W. and Lau, R. S. (2008) ‘Testing Mediation and Suppression Effects of Latent Variables
Bootstrapping with Structural Equation Models’, Organizational Research Methods 11: 296–325.
Coleman, J. S. (1988) ‘ Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, American Journal of Sociology 94:
S95–S120.
Corley, K. G. and Gioia, D. A. (2011) ‘Building Theory about Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical
Contribution?’, Academy of Management Review 36: 12–32.
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E. (1984) ‘Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems’, Academy
of Management Review 9: 284–95.
50 Strategic Organization 10(1)
Day, D. V. and Lord, R. G. (1992) ‘Expertise and Problem Categorization: The Role of Expert Processing in
Organizational Sense-Making’, Journal of Management Studies 29: 35–47.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007) ‘Cooperative Outcome Interdependence, Task Reflexivity, and Team Effective-
ness: A Motivated Information Processing Perspective’, Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 628–38.
Dess, G. G. and Robinson, R. B. (1984) ‘Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective
Measures: The Case of the Privately-Held Firm and Conglomerate Business Unit’, Strategic Management
Journal 5: 265–73.
Deutsch, M. (1958) ‘Trust and Suspicion’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 2: 265–79.
Dewey, J. (1986 [1933/]) How We think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative
Process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Dillon, R. L. and Tinsley, C. H. (2008) ‘How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making under Risk: A Missed
Opportunity for Learning’, Management Science 54: 1425–40
Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2001) ‘The Role of Interpersonal Trust in Organizational Settings’, Organiza-
tion Science 12: 450–67.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P. and Mullen, M. R. (1998) ‘Understanding the Influence of National Culture on
the Development of Trust’, Academy of Management Review 23: 601–20.
Dutton, J. E. (2003) Energize Your Workplace: How to Create and Sustain High Quality Relationships at
Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dutton, J. E. and Heaphy, E. D. (2003) ‘The Power of High-Quality Connections at Work’, in K. S. Cameron,
J. E. Dutton and R. E. Quinn (eds) Positive Organizational Scholarship, pp. 263–78. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Dutton, J. E. and Ragins, B. R. (eds) (2007) Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical
and Research Foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dutton, J. M. and Thomas, A. (1984) ‘Treating Progress Functions as a Managerial Opportunity’, Academy
of Management Review 9: 235–47
Edmondson, A. C. (1996) ‘Learning from Mistakes is Easier Said than Done: Group and Organization
Influences on the Detection and Correction of Human Error’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
32: 5–28.
Edmondson, A. (1999) ‘Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams’, Administration Science
Quarterly 44: 350–83.
Edmondson, A. C. (2002) ‘The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations’, Organization
Science 13: 128–46.
Edmondson, A. C. (2004) ‘Psychological Safety, Trust, and Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Lens’,
in R. M. Kramer and K. S. Cook (eds) Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches,
pp. 239–72. New York: Russell Sage.
Edmondson, A. C. (2011) ‘Strategies for Learning from Failure’, Harvard Business Review 89: 48–55.
Edmondson, A. C. and McManus, S. (2007) ‘Methodological Fit in Management Field Research’, Academy
of Management Review 32: 1155–79.
Edmondson, A. C. and Moingeon, B. (1998) ‘From Organizational Learning to the Learning Organization’,
Management Learning 29: 5–20.
Edmondson, A. C. and Smith, D. M. (2006) ‘Too Hot to Handle? How to Manage Relationship Conflict’,
California Management Review 49: 6–31.
Edmondson, A. C., Roberto, M. A. and Watkins, M. D. (2003a) ‘A Dynamic Model of Top Management
Team Effectiveness: Managing Unstructured Task Streams’, The Leadership Quarterly 14: 297–325.
Edmondson, A., Winslow, A., Bohmer, R. and Pisano, G. (2003b) ‘Learning How and Learning What:
Effects of Tacit and Codified Knowledge on Performance Improvement Following Technology
Adoption’, Decision Sciences 34: 197–223.
Carmeli et al. 51
Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J. R. and Roloff, K. S. (2007) ‘Three Perspectives on Team Learning: Outcome
Improvement, Task Mastery, and Group Process’, in J. Walsh and A. Brief (eds) The Academy of
Management Annals, Vol. I, pp. 269–314. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) ‘Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments’, Academy of
Management Journal 12: 543–76.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999) ‘Strategy as Strategic Decision Making’, Sloan Management Review 40: 65–72.
Elbanna, S. and Child, J. (2007a) ‘Influences on Strategic Decision Effectiveness: Development and Test of
an Integrative Model’, Strategic Management Journal 28: 431–53.
Elbanna, S. and Child, J. (2007b) ‘The Influence of Decision, Environmental and Firm Characteristics on the
Rationality of Strategic Decision-Making’, Journal of Management Studies 44: 561–91.
Ellis, A. P., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West, B. J. and Moon, H. (2003) ‘Team Learn-
ing: Collectively Connecting the Dots’, Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 821–35.
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D. C. (1996) Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and their Effects on Orga-
nizations. St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Fiske, A. P. (1992) ‘ The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social
Relations’, Psychological Review 99: 689–723.
Fletcher, J. K. (1999) Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Fletcher, J. K. (2004) ‘The Paradox of Postheroic Leadership: An Essay on Gender, Power, and Transforma-
tional Change’, The Leadership Quarterly 15: 647−61.
Fletcher, J. K. (2007) ‘Leadership, Power, and Positive Relationships’, in J. E. Dutton and B. R. Ragins (eds)
Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation, pp. 347–71.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frederickson, J. and Mitchell, T. (1984) ‘Strategic Decision Processes: Comprehensiveness and Performance
in an Industry with an Unstable Environment’, Academy of Management Journal 27: 399–423.
Graen, G. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) ‘Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader–
Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain
Perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly 6: 219−47.
Hackman, J. R. (1990) Groups that Work (and Those that Don’t). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hambrick, D. C. (1994) ‘Top Management Groups: A Conceptual Integration and Reconsideration of
the Team Label’, in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior,
pp. 171–214. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007) ‘Editor Forum: Upper Echelons Theory: An Update’, Academy of Management
Review 32: 334–43.
Hambrick, D. C. and Finkelstein, S. (1987) ‘Managerial Discretion: A Bridge between Polar Views of
Organizational Outcomes’, Research in Organizational Behavior 9: 369–406.
Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984) ‘Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of its Top
Management’, Academy of Management Review 9: 193–206.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S. and Chen, M. J. (1996) ‘The Influence of Top Management Team Heterogeneity
on Firms’ Competitive Moves’, Administration Science Quarterly 41: 659–84.
Haunschild, P. R. and Sullivan, B. N. (2002) ‘Learning from Complexity: Effects of Prior Accidents and
Incidents on Airlines’ Learning’, Administration Science Quarterly 47: 609–43.
Hickson, D. J., Wilson, D. C., Cray, D., Mallory, G. R. and Butler, R. J. (1986) Top Decision: Strategic
Decision Making in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A. and Schaubroeck, J. (in press) ‘Linking Leader Inclusiveness to Work
Unit Performance: The Importance of Psychological Safety and Learning from Failures’, The Leadership
Quarterly.
52 Strategic Organization 10(1)
Hollander, E. P. (1978) Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships. New York:
Free Press.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997) ‘Toward Terminological, Conceptual, and Statistical Clarity in the Study of
Mediators and Moderators: Examples from the Child-Clinical and Pediatric Psychology Literatures’,
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65: 599–610.
Hoyle, R. H. and Smith, G. T. (1994) ‘Formulating Clinical Research Hypotheses as Structural Equation
Models: A Conceptual Overview’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62: 429–40.
James, L. R. (1982) ‘Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement’, Journal of Applied Psychology
67: 219–29.
Jehn, K. A. and Bendersky, C. (2003) ‘Intragroup Conflict in Organizations: A Contingency Perspective on
the Conflict-Outcome Relationship’, Research in Organizational Behavior 25: 187–242.
Jones, G. R. and George, J. M. (1998) ‘The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation
and Teamwork’, Academy of Management Review 23: 531–46.
Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS
Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific International Software.
Katzenbach, J. R. (1998) Teams at the Top. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Keith, N. and Frese, M. (2005) ‘Self-Regulation in Error Management Training: Emotion Control and
Metacognition as Mediators of Performance Effects’, Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 677–91.
Kim, J.-Y. and Miner, A. S. (2007) ‘Vicarious Learning from the Failure and Near Failure of Others: Evidence
from the U.S. Commercial Banking Industry’, Academy of Management Journal 50: 687–714.
Klimoski, R. J. and Mohammed, S. (1994) ‘Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor?’, Journal of
Management 20: 403–37.
Kline, R. B. (1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Bell, B. S. (2008) ‘Team Learning, Development, and Adaptation’, in V. I. Sessa, and
M. London (eds) Work Group Learning, pp. 15–44. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Ilgen, D. R. (2006) ‘Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams’,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 7: 77–124
Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J. and Batra, B. (1992) ‘The Role of Managerial Learning and Interpretation in
Strategic Persistence and Reorientation: An Empirical Exploration’, Strategic Management Journal
13: 585–608.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997) ‘The Black Box of Organizational Demography’, Organization Science 8: 1–22.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H. and Veiga, J. F. (2008) ‘Transformational Leadership’s Role in
Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO–TMT Interface’, Academy of Management
Journal 51: 557–76.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J. F. (2006) ‘Ambidexterity and Performance in Small- to
Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of TMT Behavioral Integration’, Journal of Management 32:
646–72.
Madsen, P. M. and Desai, V. (2010) ‘Failing to Learn? The Effects of Failure and Success on Organizational
Learning in the Global Orbital Launch Vehicle Industry’, Academy of Management Journal 53: 451–76.
Mason, R. O. and Mitroff, I. I. (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Cases, and
Techniques. New York: Wiley.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. and Schoorman, F. D. (1995) ‘An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust’,
Academy of Management Review 20: 709–34.
Milliken, F. J. and Lant, T. K. (1991) ‘The Impact of an Organization’s Recent Performance History on
Strategic Persistence and Change: The Role of Managerial Interpretations’, in J. Dutton, A. Huff and
P. Shrivastava (eds) Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 7, pp. 129–56. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Carmeli et al. 53
Mishra, A. K. (1996) ‘Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust’, in R. M. Kramer and
T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 261–87. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Nembhard, I. M. and Edmondson, A. C. (2006) ‘Making it Safe: The Effects of Leader Inclusiveness and
Professional Status on Psychological Safety and Improvement Efforts in Health Care Teams’, Journal of
Organizational Behavior 27: 941–66.
Nutt, P. C. (2002) Why Decisions Fail. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Nutt, P. C. (2004) ‘Expanding the Search for Alternatives during Strategic Decision-Making’, Academy of
Management Executive 18: 13–28.
Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H. (1984) ‘To Avoid Organizational Crisis, Unlearn’, Organizational
Dynamics 12: 53–64.
Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S. and Bao, Y. J. (2007) ‘Strategic Decision Making: The Effects of Cognitive
Diversity, Conflict, and Trust on Decision Outcomes’, Journal of Management 33: 196–222.
Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V. and Owens, P. D. (2003) ‘The Impact of Chief Executive
Officer Personality on Top Management Team Dynamics: One Mechanism by Which Leadership Affects
Organizational Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 795–808.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1992) ‘On Studying Managerial Elites’, Strategic Management Journal 13: 163–82.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) ‘Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies’, Journal of
Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.
Porac, J. F. and Thomas, H. (1990) ‘Taxonomic Mental Models in Competitor Definition’, Academy of Man-
agement Review 15: 224–40.
Reagans, R., Argote, L. and Brooks, D. (2005) ‘Individual Experience and Experience Working Together:
Predicting Learning Rates from Knowing What to Do and Knowing Who Knows What’, Management
Science 51: 869–81.
Reger, R. K. and Huff, A. S. (1993) ‘Strategic Groups: A Cognitive Perspective’, Strategic Management
Journal 14: 103–24.
Robinson, S. L. (1996) ‘Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract’, Administrative Science Quarterly
41: 574–99.
Ross, J. and Staw, B. M. (1993) ‘Organizational Escalation and Exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear
Power Plant’, Academy of Management Journal 36: 701–32.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. and Camerer, C. (1998) ‘Not So Different After All: A Cross-
Discipline View of Trust’, Academy of Management Review 23: 393–404.
Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A. and De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007) ‘Motivated Information
Processing and Group Decision Making: Effects of Process Accountability on Information Processing and
Decision Quality’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33: 539–52.
Simon, D. H. and Lieberman, M. B. (2010) ‘Internal and External Influences on Adoption Decisions in
Multi-Unit Firms: The Moderating Effect of Experience’, Strategic Organization 8: 132–54.
Simons, T. L. and Peterson, R. S. (2000) ‘Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams:
The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust’, Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 102–11.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H. and Dino, R. N. (2005) ‘Modeling the Multilevel Determinants of
Top Management Team Behavioral Integration’, Academy of Management Journal 48: 69–84.
Sitkin, S. B. (1992) ‘Learning through Failure: The Strategy of Small Losses’, in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings
(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 231–66. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P. and Scully, J. A. (1994) ‘Top Manage-
ment Team Demography and Process: The Role of Social Integration and Communication’, Administrative
Science Quarterly 39: 412–38.
54 Strategic Organization 10(1)
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y. and Hui, C. (2004) ‘Team Learning from Mistakes: The Contribution of Cooperative
Goals and Problem Solving’, Journal of Management Studies 41: 1223–45.
Tucker A. L. and Edmondson, A. C. (2003) ‘Why Hospitals Don’t Learn from Failures: Organizational and
Psychological Dynamics that Inhibit System Change’, California Management Review 45: 55–72.
Turner, B. A. and Toft, B. (2006) ‘Organizational Learning from Disasters’, in D. Smith and D. Elliot (eds)
Key Readings in Crisis Management: Systems and Structures for Prevention and Recovery, pp. 191–204.
London: Routledge.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D. and Hogg, M. A. (2004) ‘Leadership, Self, and
Identity: A Review and Research Agenda’, The Leadership Quarterly 15: 825−56.
Wageman, R., Nunes, D. A., Burruss, J. A. and Hackman, J. R. (2008) Senior Leadership Teams: What it
Takes to Make Them Great. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J. and Puranam, P. (2001) ‘Does Leadership Matter? CEO
Leadership Attributes and Profitability under Conditions of Perceived Environmental Uncertainty’,
Academy of Management Journal 44: 134–43.
Walsh, J. P. (1995) ‘Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip down Memory Lane’,
Organization Science 6: 280–321.
Wegner, D. M. (1995) ‘A Computer Network Model of Human Transactive Memory’, Social Cognition
13: 319–39.
Weick, K. E. (1988) ‘Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations’, Journal of Management Studies 25: 305–17.
Weick, K. E. and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001) Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of
Complexity. University of Michigan Pressing Problem Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. (1999) ‘Organizing for High Reliability: Processes of
Collective Mindfulness’, Research in Organizational Behavior 21: 81–123.
Wilkinson, A. and Mellahi, K. (2005) ‘Organizational Failure: Introduction to the Special Issue’, Long Range
Planning 38: 233–38.
Wooldridge, B. and Floyd, S.W. (1990) ‘The Strategy Process, Middle Management Involvement, and
Organizational Performance’, Strategic Management Journal 11: 231–41.
Author biographies
Abraham Carmeli is a professor of strategy and management at Tel Aviv University, Faculty of Management.
He received his PhD from the University of Haifa. His current research interests include leadership and top
management teams, strategic decision-making processes, decline and failures in organizations, positive work
relationships, knowledge creation, and integration and creativity and innovative behaviors. Address: Faculty
of Management, Tel Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. [email: avic@post.tau.ac.il]
Asher Tishler received his BA in Economics and Statistics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and
his PhD in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. He has been affiliated with the Faculty of
Management at Tel Aviv University since 1976. Currently he is the Dean of the Faculty of Management at
Tel Aviv University and the Director of the Institute of Technology and Society and the Eli Hurvitz Institute
of Strategic Management. His main research interests are applied microeconomics, strategy, models of
research and development, multivariate statistics, energy economics, and defense-related issues. Address:
Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. [email: atishler@post.tau.ac.il]
Amy C. Edmondson is Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School.
She received her PhD in Organizational Behavior from Harvard University. Her research examines leader-
ship and interpersonal interactions that enable organizational learning in hospitals and other complex
operations. Address: Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163, USA. [email: aedmondson@hbs.edu]
Student Corner Development of aSituational Model for
Transformational Leadership
Roy G. Russell
Rhonda Mizrahi
Nova Southeastern University
About the Authors: Roy Russell is a doctoral candidate at Nova Southeastern University. He
received a bachelor’s degree from Cleveland State University and an MBA from New Hampshire .
College.
Rhonda Mizrahi is a doctoral candidate at Nova Southeastern University. She received a
bachelor’s degree from Palm Beach Atlantic College and an MBA from Nova Southeastern
University. 1.. 1. ~ , 1. i.. ~ , ,
Executive Summary
Bass’s theory (1985) of transformational leadership is based upon going beyond
exchanging rewards for desired performance. Einstein (1994) proposed several
steps to bring about the transformation of followers. Using a situational model,
we will introduce transactional and transformational leadership theories into
Einstein’s steps of transformation.
Transactional leadership is defined by leader-follower relationships which are
based on a series of exchanges or bargains between leaders and followers.
Degrees of transactional leadership are supported by the leader’s activity level
and the nature of the interaction with followers. With transformational
leadership, leader-follower relationships are built on three distinct leader
behaviors; charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
The situational model we intend to develop for transformational leadership will
show managers when and how to employ this theory. Transformational
leadership can be learned and leaders at all levels can benefit from an
understanding of how transformational and transactional leadership theory can
be combined into a dynamic model.
155
Introduction
,
.
Several organizational leadership theories called transformational have been
recently proposed. Bass’s theory (1985) is based on going beyond exchanging
inducements for desired performance. This is done by developing, intellectually
.
’
stimulating, and inspiring followers to transcend their own self-interests for a
.
’
. higher collective purpose, mission, or vision.
’~, -,~ ° ’
. Transformational theories transcend transactional leadership theories that are
…… ; ~ based on a series of exchanges or bargains between leaders and followers.
’
,
.
,
&dquo;1 Burns (1978) discussion of transformational leadership saw transformational and
,’~..~:~ …. , &dquo;transactional leadership as two ends of a continuum. In contrast, Bass saw° ’
. these leadership theories to be independent with each composed of several
,
,
’
’
.
empirically derived factors (Bass and Avolio, 1994).
..&dquo; ’,: .. r x :
,.. Y ~ 4.‘
,
. Bass and later Avolio, Waldman, and Yammarino (1991) theorized
’
..
&dquo;
’_ transformational leadership as comprising four distinct factors. These are
… &dquo;. ’ individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation inspirational motivation, and
,’, ,~,’ .&dquo; , idealized influence. Bass asserted that transformational leadership would result
: in followers performing beyond the expected of performance because of the
;
.
’
leader’s influence. The extra level of effort may be due to their commitment to
the leader, their level of development, or the sense of purpose that drives them
..,
. to act beyond the normal expectations.
… < :.,
~ , In this paper we will show how transformational and transactional leadership
4’ ,&dquo;’, , theories can be collectively organized into a situational model that explains to
’ .. managers how to employ these theories. Bass and Avolio (1990) have shown
. that transformational leadership can be learned and that it should be the subject
. ’ ;
.. of management training and research. Leaders at all levels can be trained to be
,; …
°
charismatic in both verbal and nonverbal performance.
&dquo; …. ,
: .. ’ °~ . ; … Einstein (1994) proposed that a transformational leader uses three steps to bring
’
°… – about the transformation of followers. These steps are diagnosing the
.
leadership situation, transacting the relationship, and transforming the followers.
~_
~
~
,
~
We intend to use this as the starting point for the model we will propose.
, ~ ¡ . f P . ~ ~ ¡!.
. ~ > ;~ ’/ Using a dynamic model, we will introduce transactional and transformational
.. ’ ’: &dquo;B leadership theories into the steps of Einstein’s transformation of followers model.
In this way it will be possible to visualize the full range of leadership theories in
. a concise way so that managers can easily understand how these theories
. , .. . interrelate to each other.
Transactional and Transformational Leadership
The transactional leader looks at a cost-benefit or economic exchange to meet
’
…. followers’ material and psychological needs in return for services provided by the
: …. ’ . ’ follower. Burns (1978) theorized that the transformational leader also saw these
..:. ’ . needs as important but also recognized that followers needed to have needs
156
. other than the basic ones satisfied. Transformational leaders attempt to
motivate followers from a lower to a higher level of need according to Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs (Bass, 1985).
According to Maslow, an individual must fulfill her/his basic physiologic, safety,
and security needs before she/he can be motivated by higher needs for love and
affiliation with family and friends. When these needs are satisfied, recognition
and esteem can be motivating needs. The highest need in the hierarchy, self
–
actualization can be fulfilled only when the lower needs are satisfied. Innovative
contributions are apt to be highest in an organization when the members feel
themselves to be self-actualizing (Maslow, 1970).
Maslow did not see the hierarchy of need satisfaction as independent steps,
which have to be completed before a higher level becomes active. The level of
needs are overlapping and interdependent. Higher-level needs emerge before
the lower-level needs become satisfied. Both transactional and transformational
leadership involve perceiving followers’ needs, however it is the transformational
leader who raises awareness about higher consideration through verbalization
and role modeling (Bass and Avolio, 1994).
Burns saw Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a fundamental part of the
transformational process. Bass suggests that although such an upward shift in
the level of need may be evidence of a transformation, it is not necessary.
Needs may be augmented at the same level or even shifted downward as the
situation demands (Bass, 1985).
However, Bass believes that in business situations an upgrading of needs is the
usual process. As a result of this upgrading of needs, followers become self-
directing and self reinforcing. Followers then take on greater responsibilities and
become themselves leaders. In a sense, transformational leaders work
themselves out of a job to the extent that they elevate their subordinates into
becoming self-actualizers, self-regulators, and self-controllers (Avolio, Waldman,
and Yammarino, 1991 ).
,
Transformation leaders do more with followers and associates than set up
exchanges or agreements. They behave in ways to achieve superior results by
employing one or more of the &dquo;Four I’s&dquo;. These are idealized influence,
.. inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
Through these paradigms transformational leaders motivate others to do more
than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible
(Bass and Avolio, 1994).
Using idealized influence the transformational leader behaves in ways that result
.
in her/his being a role model for their followers. The leader is admired,
respected, and trusted and the followers identify with the leader and try to
emulate her/him. Among the things the leader does to earn this credit is
consider the needs of others over her/his own personal needs. The leader ~ ..
shares risks with the followers and is consistent rather than arbitrary. She/he
157
demonstrates high standards of ethical and moral conduct. The leader avoids
using power for personal gain and only when needed (Avolio, Waldman, and
Yammarino, 1991).
Through inspirational motivation the transformational leader behaves in a way
that motivates and inspires those around her/him by providing meaning and
challenge to her/his followers’ tasks (Howell and Avolio, 1993). The team spirit
is aroused and excitement and confidence are displayed. The leader gets
followers involved in forming a shared vision of the future. The leader develops
clear expectations that followers want to meet and also demonstrates a
commitment to goals and the shared vision.
Intellectual stimulation by a transformational leader inspires her/his followers to
be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and
approacning old situations in new ways.
Individual followers mistakes are not
criticized openly and creativity is
encouraged. Followers are included in
the process of addressing problems
and finding solutions and new ideas
and solutions are sought from them
(Einstein, 1994).
Individualized consideration is the
process where transformational leaders
have special regard for each
individual’s needs for achievement and
growth by functioning as a coach or
mentor. Followers and colleagues are
developed to successively higher levels
of potential. New learning opportunities
are created along with a encouraging
environment. Individual differences in
terms of needs and desires are
identified and supported. These four I’s
make up the foundation for
transformational leadership. Bass
discovered (Waldman, Bass, and
Figure 1: From Bass & Avolio
(1994).
Einstein 1987) that transactional leadership had several components or types.
These are contingent reward, management-by-exception, and lassie-fair. In
figure 1 these leadership types are profiled (Bass and Avolio, 1994).
Contingent reward leadership has a positive impact on performance. This
relationship is based on the assumption that by explaining what the leader wants
and then rewarding the appropriate behaviors, the leader directs followers to the
performance level desired. Management by exception also impacts
performance positively, but less so than contingent reward. This link is more
complicated to explain than the link with contingent reward (Howell and Avolio,
1993).
158
I
Leaders who use active management by exception may enhance follower
i performance if their criticism is perceived as fair, clarifies performance
standards, or modifies poor performance in an acceptable way to avoid aversive
.
consequences. However, if leaders criticize followers after the fact or do not
. specify the behavior to be performed to avoid punishment, then such behavior
.
may have a negative impact on follower effort and performance. This type of
leadership represents the less active, or passive, form of management by
exception. Laissez-fair represents the absence of management (Bass and
Avolio, 1994).
–
These leadership styles represent the
full range of leadership types. A leader
may exhibit some or all of these types
of leadership given a particular
situation. Having several leadership
styles to choose from increases the
leader’s chances for success (Einstein,
1994). From this framework we intend
to develop a diagnostic model which will
link these leadership types together so
that managers can have a better
understanding of them.
The Situational Model . -.
&dquo;
A transformational leader’s objective is
to bring followers up to a level where
they can accomplish a task without
direct supervision. Einstein (1994)
proposed a transformational leader
Figure 2
uses three steps to bring about this transformation. These steps are diagnosing
the leadership situation, transacting the relationship between leader and
followers, and transforming followers into effective people. By developing
her/his people the leader is able to leverage the organization’s resources and
. accomplish much more than was expected.
We would like to use this as the starting point for the model we propose. We will
, j construct the model by having the three steps flow from one to another.
We will keep the first two steps diagnosis and transact. The diagnosis step will
have the components power, job demands, and follower capacity. The transact
– step will have the components direct, persuade, involve, and inspire. The third
step we will call shift instead of transform. While the third step will have the four
l’s of transformational leadership as components, the primary action/goal here
is to shift the followers up to a level where they can operate independently. This
is shown in figure 2.
, , . b &dquo;, ~ .. ,
159
Rather than a static model, we would like to make this a dynamic model. We will
do this by introducing a step called re-evaluation. After a full transformational
process, the leader in this model needs to re-evaluate the situation. If she/he
has been successful in implementing a transformational environment, then
her/his people have changed and the situation calls for a different diagnosis.
Now the leader can use more personal power and the follower capacity is
higher. The leader can then shift from a persuade leadership style to an
involving one. Continuing to implement a transformational environment further
changes the equilibrium continually allowing the leader to change her/his
leadership style through a feedback process until she/he becomes fully
transformational.
The first step in this model is diagnosing the leadership situation. The
transformational leader must analyze her/his situation in terms of three factors;
power, priorities, and people. The power factor relates to two dimensions,
position and personal. Position power comes from the organization and it is the
formal authority the leader has to demand compliance from her/his followers.
People do not like being told what to do and if position power is used frequently
it losses its effectiveness.
Personal power, however, is based within the individual and is independent of
the organization. It is derived from a amalgamation of expertise the leader has
in accomplishing the organizations goals. It can also come from the ability the
leader has to use followers’ values or beliefs in motivating them to accomplish
tasks. In diagnosing a leadership situation the transformational leader needs to
find ways of moving toward using his personal power.
The second factor in diagnosing a leadership situation is looking at the job
priorities or job demands. The transformational leader needs to balance
priorities between accomplishing tasks important to the organization and making
people responsive to job demands. In the final analysis, task realization is the
organization’s expectation of the leader, and the leader must take this into
account in the diagnosis.
The third factor in the diagnosis is the capacity of the followers to accomplish the
assigned tasks. Maturity in relation to the job consists of a capacity to perform
the job and the motivational state of the individual as well as the individual’s self-
confidence. Einstein (1994) believes there are two other critical dimensions in
the diagnosis of the followers. These are the degree of understanding and
commitment the followers display toward organizational goals and tasks.
It is important to diagnose the leadership situation in terms of power, priorities,
and people. Only by having a clear picture of the situation can the leader make
the effective initial leadership style choice. When the leader is confident that
she/he understands what the situation is can she/he go on to the next step
toward transformational leadership. This next step is to transact the basic
relationship between the leader and follower.
160
Transacting the leadership situation requires the effective leader to show the
proper amount of direction. The amount of direction depends on the diagnosis
made. If the leader decides that the job demands are ambiguous, the followers
capacity to perform is low, and the leader has sufficient position power, then a
direct telling style of leadership is required.
’
Using the directive style of leadership, the leader makes decisions alone without
asking followers for their ideas or suggestions. In this situation the leader takes
responsibility for the group. If on the other hand the diagnosis shows that the
job demands are relatively straight forward, the followers capacity to perform is
high, and the leader has sufficient personal power, then a more persuasive,
involving or even inspiring style is called for.
Using the persuasive style of leadership, the leader is providing guidance but is
also providing the opportunity for dialogue and clarification in order to help the
followers to accept what the leader wants. The involving leadership style seeks
to provide an opportunity for discussion of the problem or task. The leader
seeks to solve the problem through finding consensus from the followers.
Inspiring leadership delegates decisions to subordinates and seeks to provide
resources so that the group can succeed. Here, the leader becomes more
responsible to the group. , ,
Transacting the leadership situation means the leader is able to diagnose the
style of leadership best able to accomplish the tasks at hand and implementing
that style in an effective manner. The competent transformational leader plans
on shifting from the more directing forms of leadership to the more delegating
styles of leadership. The goal is to transform followers so that they can achieve
success without direct supervision.
This transformation occurs when leaders exhibit certain behaviors which have
been shown to enhance follower performance. These behaviors are called by
Bass &dquo;the four I’s&dquo;; individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation, and idealized influence. These transformational
behaviors should not be seen as a replacement for other styles of leadership,
instead they should add to the other styles of leadership and expand the leader’s
toolbox of skills.
Transformational leaders are concerned with the individual employee and
her/his needs rather than treating all followers alike and as having the same
needs. Such leaders listen to and share an individual’s concerns while helping
to build the individual’s confidence. This is best expressed in the mentoring role
where the mentor takes the time to learn the strengths and weakness of the
individual. Individualized consideration forms the foundation of the
transformational process because the growth and development of the followers
become the primary goals of the leader. However, the individualized
consideration can also be more symbolic in nature and take on the form of a
general manager or CEO who learns as many names as possible in the
organization. Also consider the upper level manager who practices
&dquo;management by walking about&dquo; looking for activities to praise.
161
To serve in a transformational leadership capacity, a leader should be
concerned with furnishing ways and reasons for individuals to change the way
they think about their different types of problems. An intellectually stimulating
leader helps individuals to think about old problems in new ways and to use
reasoning and evidence rather than unsupported opinion to solve problems.
The transformational leader can also attempt to shift attitudes and values that
may be at odds with the leader or organization.
Inspirational motivation is an energizing factor where transformational leaders
inspire people and get them excited about working together to achieve goals.
Previous personal accomplishments, the improvement of communication skills,
and role modeling of other inspirational leaders, create the ability to inspire
others. The leader’s inspirational motivation is reinforced if a vision or mission
ot where the organization is going is
shared by the followers.
Through showing value for others and
by building their confidence and trust in
the organizations goals and objectives,
transformational leaders are able to
develop authority and influence over
followers. When followers observe
their leader achieving desired results,
the followers are more likely to want to
imitate the leader, to be like the leader
in terms of the leader’s behaviors,
attitudes and values. Idealized
influence is the fruition of the other
three I’s coupled with a strong
emotional attachment to and
identification with the leader. Such
leaders are imitated by followers and
often called charismatic.
An important part of this model after
transformational behaviors have been
Figure 3
implemented by the leader is the re-evaluation process the leader goes through.
Transformational leadership allows followers to grow and develop achieving
competence in their tasks. It becomes necessary for the leader to re-diagnose
the leadership situation and if he finds that the power, job demands, and follower
capacity have sufficiently shifted.
If the leader had been using a direct or persuasive leadership style, then
changing to an involving or inspiring style may be appropriate. If, on the other
hand the leader was already at involving or inspiring, it may be appropriate to
remove himself from the leadership position for that group. This stage has much
in common with parenting.
162
A metamorphosis occurs both in parenting and leadership where a new
1B ’ .¡ > relationship of responsible &dquo;to&dquo; is created out of an responsible &dquo;for&dquo; relationship.
&dquo;
. This transformed relationship is one where both the leader and follower
exchange power and priorities. In a sense the job of a transformational leader
is to work themselves out of a job. This is diagramed in figure 3.
Here, the model is further developed to incorporate the transformational goal.
In doing so the re-evaluation step is changed. Earlier in the model re-evaluation
took into account whether the leader should shift his transactional leadership
style from a more directing to a more delegating style. Now the re-evaluating
step is a more quantum one. The shift from responsible &dquo;for&dquo; to responsible &dquo;to&dquo;
marks the transformation. Accompanied by ceremony, this transition becomes
permanent.
Conclusion
In this paper we have shown how transformational and transactional leadership
theories can be collectively organized into a situational model. By organizing
these theories in this way it is possible to understand them better as well as
implement them in practical applications. This is very important when
considering that practicing managers will be the target audience.
Transactional styles of leadership include contingent reward, management by
exception, and laissez-fair. While transactional styles of leadership have been
shown to work, follower performance rarely exceeds expectations. By using
transformational styles of leadership, however, the leader can motivate followers
to exceed expectations.
’
Transformational Leadership motivates followers through the esteem and self-
actualization needs as described by Maslow. The basic model of
transformational leadership are the 4 I’s described by Bass. Einstein proposed
that the three steps to becoming a transformational leader are diagnosis of the
situation, transacting the situation, and transforming the followers.
It is fundamental to a full range leadership training effort that every leader
display each style to some degree. In order to better visualize the full range of
. leadership styles and their relationship to each other we proposed constructing
a model based on Einstein’s model. In the model we proposed, key differences
are in shifting followers toward independent action and re-evaluation of
leadership styles as followers change.
This model calls for continuing to implement a transformational environmental
through a re-evaluation feedback process until the leader becomes fully
transformational. During this process the leader re-evaluates her/his diagnosis
of the situation and the style of leadership appropriate. When the leader
. becomes fully transformational the basic relationship between the leader and his
’
followers changes from a responsible &dquo;for&dquo; to a responsible &dquo;to&dquo; relationship.
163
We believe this model will help managers to visualize the different leadership
I . styles, how they interact and when to use them. In this way it should be possible
. to better evaluate the appropriate style necessary for a given situation.
References
Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., Yammarino,
F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990’s: The
four I’s of transformational leadership.
Journal of European Industrial Training.
15(4). 9-16.
Atwater, L. E., Yammarino, F. J. (1993).
Personal attributes as predictors of
superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of
military academy leadership. Human
Relations. 46(5). 645-668.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to
transformational leadership: Learning to
share the vision. Organizational
Dynamics. 18(3). 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and
performance beyond expectations. New
York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J. (1990).
Developing transformational leadership:
1992 and beyond. Journal of European
Industrial Training. 14(5). 21-27.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994).
Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadersbip.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New
York: Harper and Row.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. (1987).
Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings.
Academy of Management Review.12(4).
637-647.
Einstein, W. O. (1994). The challenge of
leadership. Unpublished manuscript.
Howell, J. M., Avolio, B. J. (1993).
Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for
innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-
business-unit performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 78(6). 891-902.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and
personality. 2nd ed. New York: Harper &
Row.
Seltzer, J., Bass, B. M. (1990).
Transformational leadership: Beyond
initiation and consideration. Journal of
Management. 16(4). 693-703.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W.
O. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of
performance appraisal processes. Journal
of Occupational Psychology. 60. 177-186.
Yammarino, F. J., Bass, B. M. (1990).
Transformational leadership and multiple
levels of analysis. Human Relations.
43(10). 975-995.
Special Reprint Leadership Theory: A
Historical Look at its
Evolution
Ronald G. Greenwood
About the Author: Ronald G. Greenwood, D.B.A., was the F. James McDonald Professor of
Industrial Management at the GMI Engineering and Management Institute. A former assistant
for Peter F. Drucker, he was the author of numerous articles and books. He was also a past
chairman of the Management History Division of the Academy of Management.
From time to time it is worthwhile to look at the historical evolution of theories.
The initial issue of The Journal on Leadership Studies presents an auspicious
time to examine briefly the evolution of leadership theory as it is preached in
most textbooks today.
Leadership theory traces its roots to trait theory, then moved to the human
relations school of thought and its search for the one best way to lead, a
movement beginning in the 1960s and continuing in various forms today with
contingency and/or situational model, until today there is a marriage of
convenience between situational and trait theory. Ralph Stogdill summarized
’ it best twenty years ago, in the preface of his monumental Handbook of
!. &dquo; Leadership, &dquo;Four decades (to be read six decades today) of research on
leadership have produced a bewildering mass of findings …. The endless
accumulation of empirical data has not produced an integrated understanding
. of leadership&dquo; [Stogdill, p. xvii].’ Stogdill should know. His 1948 article in the
Journal of Psychology was the pivotal force in redirecting leadership research
. away from trait theory towards situational analysis.’ Dan Wren, the great
. management historian, in his 1994 The Evolution of Management Thought
.
agrees with Stogdill’s assessment, &dquo;Despite the mountains of literature on
.
leadership, we still know very little…. Despite the efforts of behavioral scientists
to explain leadership, much remains unexplained, suggesting that leadership is
still much of an art&dquo; [1994].3
/ One needs to begin a discussion of leadership with a definition of the term. But
&dquo;
as Bass has noted, &dquo;There are almost as many different definitions of leadership
as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept&dquo; [Bass, 1981].
4
….. The Oxford English Dictionary [1933] traces the word &dquo;leader&dquo; in the English
.
’
language to about 1300, but the word &dquo;leadership&dquo; first appeared about 1800
. and was applied to political influence [noted in Stogdill, 1974].4 The various
. definitions of &dquo;leadership&dquo; have been reviewed by a number of authors including
. : Carroll Shartle [1951 ],5 Cecil Gibb [1954] ~ and Bernard Bass [1960~. The
.
commonality of the definitions is: a person, or persons, exercises influence on
, – . others towards a goal or common purpose. That goal or common purpose is
sometimes not consciously known. Hence one possible definition is that
readership is the process of influencing people to direct their efforts toward the
achievement of some particular goal or goals. But we need not decide on the
~
definition; the one in your mind is undoubtedly appropriate for this article.
’
This article will summarize the meandering of leadership theory. Summarizing
the thousands of pages that have been written on the subject could result in
your favorite theory or theorist being overlooked, under represented,
misinterpreted, or poorly presented here. But future issues of this Journal
hopefully will rectify the problem.
Scientific Management View
Let us go to the most famous management writers of the past and to their
comments on leadership. Frederick Taylor, whose self designed grave marker
calls him the &dquo;Father of Scientific Management,&dquo; says very little about leadership
directly; in fact, the term is not listed in the index of his 1911 Shop
Management. ’ Taylor does mention a trait and situational approach:
It is, of course, evident that the nature of the organizations required to
manage different types of business must vary to an enormous extent,
from the simple tonnage works … to the large machine works, doing a
miscellaneous business, with its intricate organization…. It is this great
difference in the type of the organization required that so frequently
renders managers who have been eminently successful in one line utter
failures of a different kind. This is particularly true of men successful in
tonnage work who are placed in charge of shops involving much greater
detail [Taylor, 1911, pp. 91-92].9
’
’, &dquo; Taylor, believing the work of a foreman or supervisor to be so demanding,
, ~. ’ developed his specialized or &dquo;functional foreman&dquo; concept. To be a good foreman
. ’ . one was required to be a well rounded person who possessed nine qualities:
.
’
.. brains, education, special or technical knowledge; manual dexterity or strength,
. ’ ° &dquo; ;
.
tact, energy, grit, honesty, judgment or common sense, and good health [Taylor,
’
..
1911, p. 96J.’° Since Taylor believed that to find a person with more than six of
,
,
.
. these traits was &dquo;almost impossible,&dquo; and since a good foreman should be imbued
;~ with all of these traits, Taylor suggested, dividing the foreman’s job into
specialized areas with one foreman overseeing each specialized area. Hence the
&dquo;functional foreman&dquo; concept (which was really a functional clerk) which required
one person for giving workers instructions, another as inspector, a time and cost
expert, a disciplinarian, etc. [Taylor, 1911
5
Early Trait Theory
For the first forty years of the 20th century trait theory was the most accepted
leadership approach. The qualities, both in personality and behavior, which
differentiate a leader from a follower were studied, or surmised as the case may
be, and the reported findings gave rise to what is called trait theory. For
instance, C. Bird developed a list of seventy-nine traits from a number of studies
[Bird, 1940]. 12 Ordway Tead and Henry Metcalf in their classic Personnel
Administration [1920]’3 suggest that &dquo;the efficient, successful executive has
certain characteristics which suggest a criterion for use in the selection and
training of industrial leaders&dquo; [quoted in the second edition Tead and Metcalf,
1926j14 They list: good physical constitution, character, creative imagination,
sound judgment, courage, sense of humor, ability to understand men, genuine
interest in people, receptive, cooperative, organizing ability, nervous energy, and
technical knowledge [Tead and Metcalf, 1926, pp. 154-156]. In 1929 Tead did
list the above traits and added that &dquo;the qualifications differ, also, with the levels
of intelligence and culture of the group to be led. Differences are likewise to be
noted, depending upon the character of the group, on the race, the generation,
and the place in which the leadership is exercised&dquo; [Tead, 1929, p. 153].
15
Chester I. Barnard’s Functions of the Executive [1938]’6 is frequently referred
to as the book which blends the classical with the behavioral views of
management. And so it is, but it has little to offer on the subject of leadership.
Barnard believed that leadership has two aspects: the first is individual
superiority – in physique, in skill, in technology, in perception, in knowledge, in
memory, in imagination&dquo; [Barnard, 1938, p. 260].&dquo; He called this the technical
aspect of leadership. The second aspect, which he did not name but said is
implied in the word &dquo;responsibility,&dquo; includes individual superiority in
.
determination, persistence, endurance, and courage [Barnard, 1938, p. 260].
In 1948, Ralph Stogdill dealt a crushing blow to a pure trait approach to
.~ v
< .
. leadership.’8 Although he was not the only researcher to attack this approach,
I …. his analysis was devastating to the theory. The inconsistent findings between
’ . ,.. –:: : the studies suggested that leadership is a dynamic process and varies with
leader, followers, and situations. Stogdill surveyed American and German
publications published before 1948 &dquo;to determine the traits and characteristics
of leaders&dquo; [Stogdill, 1974].19 It is unclear how many studies were investigated,
but 124 references were listed. Stogdill found:
The factors which have been found to be associated with leadership
, could probably all be classified under the general headings of capacity,
~ achievement, responsibility, participation, and status… The evidence
1~ ;
.
, , suggests that leadership is a relation that exists between persons in a
… social situation, and that persons who are leaders in one situation may
not necessarily be leaders in other situations…. The authors conclude
. that these findings provide ’devastating evidence’ against the concept of
the operation of measurable traits in determining social interaction
[Stogdill, 1974, pp. 63-64].20
6
Fayol and the Process Contribution
If Taylor is the &dquo;Father of Scientific Management,&dquo; then Henri Fayol is the father
&dquo;1l5&dquo;.&dquo;.<> of the principles or process management viewpoint. In 1916 his classic
. ~~’t~
.
&dquo; > Administration industrielle et g6n6rale [General and Industrial Administration]
&dquo;
’
was published in the Bulletin de la Société de 1’industrie min6rate; it laid the
foundation for the study and practice of the management of organizations
’
[Fayol, 1916] .21 Fayol spent little time on leadership, but in the short mention of
the qualities needed by a manager of a big concern, he used a traits approach.
Fayol summarized the qualities: health and fitness, intelligence and intellectual
vigor, moral qualities, good general education, administrative ability (planning,
organization, command, co-ordination, control), general knowledge of business
functions, and organizational knowledge [Fayol, 1916, p. 55].
James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley’s immensely popular, Onward Industryl,
first published in 1931 and reprinted with some editing under the title Principles
of Organization [1939 and without Reiley in 1947] had scant little to say about
leadership.22
Few writers were as popular and successful between the wars as Ralph C.
. Davis who spent most of his academic life at Ohio State University, but was
~
,
brought in by Alfred Sloan, Jr. to develop the General Motors Institute
..’ ’ management program in the late 1920s. One of his earliest writings, The
.
’
..> ’. i, Principles of Business Organization and Operation [1934]23 was written in
. the spring and summer of 1932 when Davis was on a six month leave, which he
’,’&dquo;
’
spent in the Library of Congress. The manuscript was made available to Ohio
State students as a mimeographed text, with new editions each year through
1937. The book was greatly expanded and published by Harper in 1940 under
the title Industrial Organization and Management.24 Davis writes, &dquo;It is
: . apparent …that no formula for such success (in leadership), insofar as it relates
~ to executives characteristics, can be written. They are necessarily a function of
’°&dquo; °
the characteristics and requirements of the leader and the particular situation,
as well as the innate capacities of the executive himself’ [Davis, 1937, p. 21 ].25
He continues by listing the traits of successful leaders, which include
intelligence, personality, courage, tenacity, etc. [Davis, 1937, p. 22] The
’
Fundamentals of Top Management [1951 ] 26 is his most famous book.
Although it was written after the war years it is still a process based book. In it
Davis does little to expand on leadership theory, although he deletes the listing
’ .&dquo; ;.. , : ’ of traits. 2
7
.. ,;:; , , :.j .
_.
’:.; ,;’
.
The popular process text by Leon Alford, Principles of Industrial
&dquo;., , .. ,
&dquo;
Management,28 also presents the then fashionable traits approach, in the 1940
.. edition. The subject of leadership is not even mentioned in Dexter Kimball’s
… ’ .
~
Principles of Industrial Organization 29 the first textbook on management was
..: . ’ published in 1913. Nor is the subject mentioned in the 1939 edition [Kimball,
.
. 1913 and Kimball and Kimball, 1939].30 . ’. ;.. .
7
Many consider the 1955 textbook, Principles of Management by Harold Koontz
and Cyril O’Donnell, to be the most important textbook in the tradition of the
… process approach.3’ The book went into the many editions with O’Donnell
’ ’
; dropped after the 8th edition of 1984, and Koontz after the 9th edition in 1988.
Each edition the book moved with the times and ultimately advocated a
contingency – situational and systems approach to leadership. Although the first
edition is thoroughly in the process camp, the book does not advocate a trait
approach. Rather, Koontz and O’Donnell cite the trait approach as having little
,~ ° ..: . : promise, but do list the characteristics of leaders: Above average intelligence,
,&dquo; . ,,::,’ ’. well-rounded interests or curiosity, ability to communicate, mentally and
. emotionally mature, powerful inner drive, understands the importance of
cooperation [Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955, pp. 73-74].32 The 1955 book is vague
’
:../ . in what actually it believes about leadership theory:
The current view is that the leader is equally effective in similar situations
but that different skills are employed in widely different ones. Thus, the
leadership characteristics of the head of a large-scale enterprise would
, . be readily transferable to other large-scale firms, but those of the gang
’ ’ boss and the university president might be ineffective in a merchandising
’
enterprise.
The reference to different leadership skills is most likely careless
.&dquo;
. terminology on the part of psychologists. From what is now known, there
appears to be no reason to suspect different skills at play. Rather, the
evidence of low degrees of transferability of this skill should be looked
upon as proof that the various characteristics are weighted differently in
.
different occupations. Leadership consists of the sum total of the
’ <: &dquo; ~ persuasive factors brought to bear upon prospective followers in order to ’&dquo;
…
’
&dquo;
motivate them. The skill of this accomplishment, given certain
.
… environmental factors that may be called advantageous or otherwise, is
.&dquo; &dquo; the measure of the quality of leadership. Thus leaders will emphasize
.. different motivating factors, depending upon their psychological insight
.. ’ ’ &dquo;: .. [Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955, pp. 74-75].33
’
Human Relations
. Morris Viteles in his 1934 book, The Science of Work, notes that lists of
…. ’ : , .,..: ~~
.
qualities of good leaders were developed by various authorities, &dquo;but practically
&dquo;
…. all of them, although probably correct in some respects, are in the nature of
.’
,
surmises…. There seems to be a widespread notion that executive [equates
.. : …. with leaders ?] technique is a matter of a ’sixth sense,’ an ’intuitive faculty’ which
’ …. &dquo; . defies explanation – a ’hunch’ that tells what is the right thing to do at the right
.. : …&dquo;&dquo; &dquo; time&dquo; [Viteles, 1934, p. 401 ].~ Viteles published a self analysis, which David
I…::.&dquo; . Craig and W. W. Charters had developed, to ascertain one’s leadership
.,-.~.~ , qualities, and which had been published in their own book, Personal
.’.
&dquo;
. Leadership in Industry in 1925. It asked questions on one’s forcefulness,
: ; ability to inspire confidence, ability to take a personal interest in the men, ability
to get the work done correctly, ability to get and use the ideas of the men, ability
8
to be one of the men, ability to lead rather than boss the men, ability to develop
teamwork, ability to show kindliness without being considered easy, ability to
reprimand properly, ability to keep from worrying, ability to delegate work
properly, ability to call forth the best effort of the men, ability to train men on the
job, ability to make a new man feel at home, and self-confidence [Viteles, 1934,
p. 403-405 and Craig and Charters, 1925, pp. 235-236].35 But by his 1954 book,
Viteles was writing about democratic and permissive leadership styles versus
autocratic and authoritarian leadership styles, and that puts him squarely in the
human relations area. 36
The Human Relations era, spanning the period between the World Wars,
emphasized the needs of individuals (followers), over the needs of the
organization (leader). Thus, leadership became more of a study of motivating
followers by addressing their needs and answering the question &dquo;What is the
nature of man?&dquo; Although we most associate that question with Douglas
McGregor and his Theories X and Y, this question is at the heart of the Human
Relations movement and predates McGregor by many years. It is a most
important concept because how one sees the nature of man determines how
one will attempt to lead men.
The concept that the nature of man is essentially good or bad is an old one and
central to many of the world’s religions. Original sin, man being bad verses
Luther’s and Wesley’s man being saved by faith is a battle not yet ended. The
philosophers Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Niebuhr and Peale come to mind when
we discuss this topic in Western thought. The concept of Theory X and Theory
Y does not have the ramifications or philosophical heritage of the concepts of
good and evil, but, similarly they are contrasting theories describing human
behavior in a particular circumstance: leading people.
The earliest evidence I traced to the use of the &dquo;X-Y&dquo; concept is a paper written
by Harvard’s Fritz Roethlisberger in 1932. He had been working on the
interviewing phase of the supervisory training methods program at the
Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company. In the discussions and in a
memo between Roethlisberger and the Supervisory Training Department at
Hawthorne, Roethlisberger frequently used the terms &dquo;ritualistic thinking&dquo; and
&dquo;experimental attitude.&dquo; To answer the Training Department’s questions about
the terms he submitted a paper whose initial paragraph is an eye opener:
I believe superiors should seek to develop an &dquo;experimental attitude&dquo;
toward problems of human relations. By &dquo;experimental attitude&dquo; I mean
an attitude distinguished from the &dquo;ritualistic attitude&dquo; I find so common,
especially in certain areas, among supervisors. The ritualist demands a
cure-all formula for dealing with people. He says, &dquo;To be fair you must
treat every one the same – smile – pat them on the back.&dquo; Or he may be
, &dquo; the opposite type who &dquo;keeps them in their place,&dquo; by opposite tactics, but
, still &dquo;treating them all the same.&dquo; In order to avoid a confusion of names …
I shall call the attitude which I believe needs to be communicated to or
, developed among superiors the &dquo;Y-attitude.&dquo; The opposite attitude I shall
call the &dquo;X-attitude.&dquo; In my opinion three things characterize the
&dquo;Y-attitude&dquo;: (1 ) A willingness to accept new ideas and a desire to verify
9
them by experience, (2) a logic of continuity, and (3) a logic of relations
[Roethlisberger, 1932, p. 1 ].37
Roethlisberger went on to point out that the &dquo;X-attitude&dquo; person:
allows his own experience to color his judgments. He fails to take into
account his own feelings toward all phases of the problems with which he
must deal and thereby unconsciously allows his own personal
background of experiences to sway his judgments. He does not realize
that he is himself a part of the human relations problems with which he
deals. &dquo;Y&dquo; on the other hand, realizes that the best judgments are those
.
which are made with the realization that his own personal feelings are
influencing him and he must, therefore, take these feelings into account
[Roethlisberger, 1932, p. 2].38
A quarter century before McGregor, Roethlisberger wrote:
…let me clear up a few things which I do not mean. I do not mean that
all people have either a complete &dquo;X-attitude&dquo; or a complete &dquo;Y-attitude.&dquo;
To maintain this proposition would be to commit an &dquo;X&dquo; error. Most of us
have a mixture of both attitudes. In certain areas we maintain a
&dquo;Y-attitude&dquo; while in other areas we continue to live at a &dquo;X&dquo; level. This is
as it should be. It is not wise to question everything at the same time.
However, there are some who believe that only in certain restricted areas
a &dquo;Y-attitude&dquo; can be maintained; for example, a good number of
superiors seem to take a &dquo;Y-attitude&dquo; toward machines and an
&dquo;X-attitude&dquo; toward operators [Roethlisberger, 1932, p. 3].39
It is quite interesting that in Roethlisberger’s autobiography, The Elusive
Phenomena [1974], published three years after his death, he made no mention
of his 1932 memo.4° In fact, he gives McGregor credit for the development of
the concept. He wrote, &dquo;One of the chief theories of change agentry, first stated
by Douglas McGregor [1960], usually appears in a double-headed form known
as Theory X and Theory Y. In this form neither is so much a theory as two
different orientations toward motivation&dquo; [Roethlisberger, 1977, p. 459].
Roethlisberger was G. Elton Mayo’s disciple and Mayo, more than anyone, is
associated with the Human Relations viewpoint. Yet, if one actually analyzed
the &dquo;movement&dquo; closely, one would find three foci: the Mayo view of the social
system; the Applied Anthropology view of field work and social observation (W.
White); and the &dquo;group dynamics&dquo; view of group processes (Lewin). None of
these views produced leadership theories, but each focused on the needs of
individuals and hence they would guide how leaders should look at the followers
and the appropriate style of leadership behavior could be determined.
10
The One Best Way
’B .. In response to the trait theory there emerged the search for the &dquo;One Best Way&dquo;
. ’
’! of leadership; the most respected theorists in the field have been Rensis Likert
.. and the team of Blake and Mouton. Likert’s work evolved over a long period of
::’
. time. His 1940 publication, with Willits, (4 Vols) and his earlier article, &dquo;A
:
.. Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes&dquo; (1932)41 from his dissertation laid
~ the foundation for the research presented in his classics New Patterns of
’
. Management (1961 ),42 The Human Organization (196713 and with his wife
>. ’,v Jane, New Ways of Managing Change (1976).~ Likert’s work built up steam
’,,~ . ~~~, after W1NI1 when he organized the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social
.
~. , ’:&dquo; Research. Ultimately he concluded that,
. The principles used by the highest-producing managers are essentially
the same from industry to industry or for different kinds of work, the
specific methods for applying them usually differ markedly from situation
to situation….
The basic principles used by the highest-producing managers have been
integrated into a general organizational system called System 4….
(which) is made up of interlocking work groups with a high degree of
’
group loyalty among members and favorable attitudes and trust among
peers, superiors, and subordinates. Consideration for others and
relatively high levels of skill in personal interacting, group problem
…… solving, and other group functions also are present….
, . ’~’ ~ ,
.::,; When an organization shifts to System 4 from a traditional organizational
’
theory, performance improves, costs are reduced, and improvement
occurs in the satisfaction and health of the members of the organization
. [Likert, 1976, pp. 16-17].45
’t’~ 4&dquo;’ ~’
Likert’s focus is conflict resolution which, he feels, can raise the level of human
productivity to exceptional levels. He quotes Mary Follett, who was a situational
. theorist writing in the teens and twenties, and her win/win or &dquo;law of the
situation&dquo; method of conflict resolution. Follett wrote:
-.r,:’;: ,.~ ~ ;..- r
;’, < ,»;, ~~, ,.i,&dquo; ’ . My solution is to depersonalize the giving of orders, to unite all concerned ’. &dquo;,
’/:&dquo; ’ , in a study of the situation, to discover the law of the situation and obey’
.. ’B’¡- that…. This is ideally, what should take place between foremen and rank
&dquo;
’
and file, between any head and his subordinates. One person should not
, &dquo; ’!.., . give orders to another person, but both should agree to take their orders
’ . ’ &dquo;
I
’
,
from the situation [Fox and Urwick, 1973].46
Likert believed that an even better system than 4 would develop. He wrote, ..
&dquo;social science research will help create, in the next decade or two, an even , .’ .
more effective, complex, and socially evolved management and social system.
’
Some experiments already are providing a glimmering of what System 5 many
’
be like. It appears that it will have the structure and interaction process of
’ °
System 4 but will lack the authority of hierarchy&dquo; [Likert and Likert, p. 33].’&dquo; , :’.. , , .
11
Greatly influenced by Likert was another well respected behaviorist, Robert
Blake who teamed with Jane S. Mouton. Blake and Mouton’s view of the one
best way to lead is now fundamental to all introductory management textbooks.
&dquo;
_
It is an extension of Likert’s work and was influenced, though negatively, by the
work of Fleishman. Blake contends that &dquo;the high point of intersection (high
structure-high consideration) constitutes a theory which in many respects is
’destructive’ of involvement, commitment, dedication, and particularly of creative
or innovative thinking about how problems might be solved in a better way.&dquo;48
As Blake and Mouton studied the problem of leadership in decision making they
. , realized &dquo;that the dimensions needed for an effective description of operational
’
’. ’ ’
~
conduct are attitudinal variables, not behavior variables&dquo; as in the Ohio State
&dquo;
… ’ ’ ; ,:.í’, model:49 Blake and Mouton christened their model &dquo;The Managerial Grid&dquo; and
.
I&dquo; used the attitudinal variables &dquo;Concern for People&dquo; and &dquo;Concern for
. &dquo; &dquo; ~ Production&dquo;, with a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being high. Blake writes, &dquo;the origin of
’
.. the Managerial Grid … fell into place sometime late in 1957 or in 1958.&dquo;~ The
,: classic book, The Managerial Grid51, was published in 1964, with new editions
.. ’
’
.
~
in 1978 and 1985. After Jane’s death in 1987, Leadership Dilemrnas–Grid
’. : . Solutions52, co-authored with Anne A. McCanse was published in 1991. One
of the criticisms of the Grid is its failure to handle the various different situations.
For instance how would one lead a 18 year old novice against a 50 year old
seasoned executive? Blake answered, &dquo;The differences … are tactical in nature
!’ and relate to the situation itself. They are not differences in the style of
., ,~
. exercising leadership –9, 9 remains the constant strategy…. Thus, the Grid is
&dquo;
&dquo;í . a strategic approach that fits all situation, but each of the applications are
situational unique.&dquo;53
Contingency and Situational Views
. ,J ’ , ,&dquo;’~ The search for the appropriate style of leadership was conducted by a number
’
&dquo;
’
,:&dquo; .. of people. The first of the post World War II studies to be reported was initiated
….: ’¡:&dquo; h(&dquo;, at The Ohio State University under the stewardship of Ralph Stogdill and Carroll
, ‘.~ ~ ~ < .:i Shartle and a number of other researchers who have attained some stature in - ‘. ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ; v the field: as Coons, Fleishman, Seeman and Hemphill. Beginning in 1945 they .&dquo; &dquo;&dquo; ’;’ ’;’, ~:~g~ v°~ attempted to identify the various dimensions of leader behavior by finding out
’
, ~ / ° how a leader carries out activities. Eventually the research staff narrowed down
…. , ,,:&dquo;’~ °~ the activities to a few, then to two which were separate and distinct, and showed
’
.
° ..t’
the most promise as descriptors: &dquo;Initiating Structure&dquo; and &dquo;Consideration.&dquo; Both
’
activities were found important to successful performance and therefore
,’. &dquo;~ ~ leadership effectiveness was strongly tied to a leader being demanding and
~ ~ simultaneously sensitive to the needs of the followers. Most importantly, they
~ found that no single style of leadership is universally effective.
&dquo;
–
H. Sanford as early as 1950, as reported in the first edition of Koontz and
. O’Donnell, &dquo;believes that leadership is a relation between leader and follower
.. that varies with the behavior of the leader, the predispositions and expectations
.&dquo;: of the follower, and the supra-individual characteristics of the social situation in
.
I&dquo;
which leadership occurs&dquo; [Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955, p. 69].~‘ Unfortunately,
’
…, I. this quote did not survive into the second edition. But Sanford derived his quote
12
from a reading of Kurt Lewin’s now famous equation that behavior is a function
.
of personality and environment [Lewin, 1935].55
H, ~r~ ~ Fred Fielder is most associated with bringing a contingency or situational
, :, approach to the forefront of leadership research. His classic book was the 1967,
,
A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness56, the culmination of years of research.
Fielder notes that &dquo;the contingency model was the first leadership theory which
operationally measured the interaction between leadership personality and the
leader’s situational control in the prediction of leadership performance.&dquo;5’
Although the model has been openly attacked by numerous critics, its fans have
produced an equal amount of supportive research. The theory proposes that
leaders have various personalities as do the numerous followers and, when
combined with the ever changing situations produce the need for leadership
styles based on the needs and abilities of the leader and followers and the
situation. But this is not a new thought, it is new to have it supported with strong
research underpinning. Mary Follett in her classic Creative Experience [1924]
wrote:
A very interesting approach to this doctrine [of Gestalt psychology] has
been made in the studies of personality. Much psychological study of
personality has been concerned with separate &dquo;traits,&dquo; and the fact has
been rather astonishingly ignored that personality can never be revealed
to us by a study of its constituent traits; moreover, that it is not disclosed
merely by adding together these separate traits. No single characteristic
. of a man has much meaning until it is understood in its relation to his
other characteristics. Or, more accurately, it is the total interactions and
the something being brought into existence by these which make the
whole personality. 58
Later in the same volume she wrote:
We should notice, too, what is sometimes forgotten, that in the social
situation two processes always go on together: the adjustment of man
and man, and the adjustment of man and the situation: in social
psychology objective reference is always two-fold…. The ignoring of the
total situation is the weakness of many discussions on adjustment
Fielder believes that his &dquo;research shows, for example, that a relatively
stress-free relationship with the immediate boss permits leaders to make
effective use of their intelligence, but not of their experience. In contrast, stress
with the boss causes leaders to use their experience but not their intellectual
. abilities. 1160
.
’ ’
_ ’ ~t Fiedler’s contingency approach has led to a training program which he labels
, &dquo;leader match.&dquo; He notes: …… a .
This training method differs most markedly from others by stating that
’ ’
effective leadership depends on the leader’s personality (measured by :::. .
13
LPC [Least Preferred Coworker Score] as well as the leadership situation
(i.e. situational control). It is based on the assumption that it is easier to
. change one’s leadership situation (relations with subordinates, task
!
.
,
, structure, and position power) than to change one’s personality. For this
……. reason, Leader-Match trains leaders to modify situational control to fit
their personality.61
As a parting thought, we might go back to Rensis Likert who wrote, &dquo;Since the
particular way of applying the principles of supportive relationships must fit the
1&dquo; . immediate situation, appropriate leadership behavior varies widely from one
’/. situation to another&dquo; [Likert and Likert, 1976, p. 109].62 But on the next page
,, :;&dquo;,’ .. Likert attacks Fred Fiedler and the contingency or situational model, for with it
&dquo;no attempt to change the leadership and membership interaction style to a
,
&dquo; more effective model is a static view of organizations. It minimizes the likelihood
,
. of improvement beyond that realized&dquo; [Likert and Likert, 1976, p. 110].63
Conclusion
Many of the theorists have implied that leadership is overcoming conflicts, but
leadership is also helping people attain higher levels of output. Peter Drucker
said it best, &dquo;Leadership is the lifting of a man’s vision to higher sights, the
raising of a man’s performance to a higher standard, the building of a man’s
personality beyond its normal limitations.&dquo;64 He also added, &dquo;There is no
substitute for leadership. But management cannot create leaders. It can only
.
create the conditions under which potential leadership qualities become
effective; or it can stifle potential leadership.&dquo;65
A whole cadre of leadership theorists are ignored in this rather short simple
’
~
overview. And I apologize for that. The concentration on the earlier writers was
done because the modern ones are so well covered in most textbooks. In no
– .. ~ way should the most modern theory be implied to be the best or most correct.
. &dquo; There is much food for thought in the works listed in the bibliography and a
’,,’ ., < turning to the classics in the original should not hurt one too much. It may be ° ’ °° . quite surprising to see how are far afield are the textbooks interpretation of these
_ . classics. I have included among the classics Bernard Bass’ and Ralph Stogdill’s
.
,
Handbook of Leadership 66(3rd edition, 1990). But as Fielder notes, &dquo;It takes
..~,,.,,
. a lot of shoveling and sifting, at least in the area of leadership, before you really
_
’
begin to hit pay dirt. ,61 One gets the feeling that all these theorists are not
talking about the same thing. Is there really anything new in this field that we did
’~
not know a quarter of a century ago, or even fifty years ago? The more I read
’ in this area (setting quantification aside) the more I question our progress and
.
, respects for those classics of management.
…~…. ’. .
14
References
1 Stogdill, Ralph M. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New
York: Free Press, 1974.1.
2 Stogdill, Ralph M. Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature.
Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.
3 Wren, Daniel A. The Evolution of Management Thought. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley,
1994.
4 Stogdill, Ralph M. Handbook of Leadership: Survey of Theory and Research. New York,
Free Press, 1974.
5 Carol L. Shartle. Leader Behavior in jobs. Occupations, 1951, 30, 1654-1666.
6 Gibb, C. A. Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridqe,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.
7 Bass, Bernard M. Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior. New York:
Harper, 1960.
8 Taylor, Frederick Winslow. Shop Management. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1911.
Originally printed in the 1903 in the ASME Proceedings.
9 Taylor, 1911.
10 Taylor, 1911.
11 Taylor, 1911. ,
12 C. Bird. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1940.
13 Ordway Tead and Henry C. Metcalf. Personnel Administration: Its Principles and
Practices. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1920.
14 Ordway Tead and Henry C. Metcalf. Personnel Administration: Its Principles and
Practice. New York: McGraw Hill, 1926.
15 Ordway Tead. Human Nature and Management: The Application of Psychology to
Executive Leadership. New York: McGraw Hill, 1929
16 Chester I. Barnard. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1938.
17 Bamard, 1938.
18 Ralph M. Stogdill. Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature.
Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.
19 Ralph M. Stogdill. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Theory and Research. New
York: Free Press, 1974.
20 Stogdill, 1974.
21 Henri Fayol. Industrial and General Administration [Translation by J. A. Coubrough].
Geneva: International Management Institute, (1929). This is the first English translation of the
article and published in book form. There are other translations, the most famous is the 1949
translation by Storrs and titled General and Industrial Management. The French edition is still
available.
15
22 James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley. Onward Industry ! New York: Harper & Brothers,
1931. A second edition was titled The Principles of Organization [1939] and a third
edition without Reiley was published in 1947. The second and third editions had very little
changes from the 1931 edition.
23 R. C. Davis. The Principles of Business Organization and Operation: Columbus, OH:
Hedrick, 1934.
24 R. C. Davis. Industrial Organization and Management. New York: Harper and Row, 1940.
25 Ralph C. Davis. The Principles of Business Organization and Operation 4th ed.
Columbus, Ohio: Hedrick, 1937. The same quote is found in Industrial Organization and
Management [Harper, 1940,
26 Ralph C. Davis. The Fundamentals of Top Management. New York: Harper & Row, 1951.
27 Davis, 1951.
28 L. P. Alford. Principles of Industrial Management. New York: Ronald Press, 1940.
29 Dexter S. Kimball. Principles of Industrial Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1913.
30 Dexter S. Kimball. Principles of Industrial Organization. New York: McGraw Hill, 1913 also
see 1939.
31 Harold Koontz and Cyril O’Donnell. Principles of Management: An Analysis of
Managerial Functions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955.
32 Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955.
33 Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955.
34 Morris S. Viteles. The Science of Work. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1934.
35 David R. Craig and W. W. Charters. Personal Leadership in Industry. New York: McGraw
Hill, 1925, pp. 235-236.
36 Morris S. Viteles. Motivation and Morale in Industry. New York: W. W. Norton Co., 1954.
37 Fritz Roethlisberger. “Some Comments Based on Mr. Roethlisberger’s Interviews with
Supervisors” in Data Concerning the Research Group in Supervisory Training Methods,
Section 4.1, 1932, Hawthorne Studiers Collection, Harvard University. (See Box 13, folder
4).
38 Roethlisberger.
39 Roethlisberger.
40 Fritz J. Roethlisberger. The Elusive Phenomena. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1977.
41 Rensis Likert. “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” Archives of Psychology,
1932, 140, 1-55.
42 Rensis Likert. New Patterns of Management. McGraw-Hill, 1961.
43 Rensis Likert. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.
44 Rensis Likert and Jane Likert. New Ways of Managing Change. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1976.
45 Likert and Likert.
16
46 Elliot M. Fox and L. Urwick. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary
Parker Follett. New York: Hippocrene, 1973.
47 Likert and Likert, p. 33.
48 Robert R. Blake. “The Fruits of Professional Interdependence for Enriching a Career” in
Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays, Vol. 1, Arthur
Bedeian ed. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press Inc., 1992, p. 130.
49 Blake, p. 130.
50 Blake, p. 131.
51 Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1964
(2nd edition 1978 and third edition 1985).
52 Robert R. Blake and Anne A. McCanse. Leadership Dilemmas–Grid Solutions. Houston:
Gulf Publishing, 1991.
53 Blake, “The Fruits …”, pp. 132-133.
54 Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955.
55 Kurt Lewin. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. Trans. D. K. Adams and K. E. Zenes. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1935, p. 29.
56 Fred E. Fiedler. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill 1967.
57 Fred E. Fiedler. “Life in a Pretzel-Shaped Universe” in Management Laureates: A
Collection of Autobiographical Essays, Vol. 1. Arthur Bedeian, ed., 1992, pp. 311-312.
58 M. P. Follett. Creative Experience. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1924, pp. 95-96.
59 M. P. Follett, pp. 122-123.
60 Fielder, “Life in…” p. 314.
61 Fielder, “Life in a …” p. 312.
62 Likert and Likert, 1976.
63 Likert and Likert, 1976.
64 Peter F. Drucker. Management: Task, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper and
Row, 1974, p. 463.
65 Drucker. Management, p. 463.
66 Bernard M. Bass and Ralph M. Stogdill. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership.
3rd Edition: New York, Free Press, 1990.
67 Fielder. “Life in a … ”
Editor’s Note: Shortly after the last issue of the Journal went to press, I received word that my
good friend Ron Greenwood had succumbed to the cancer he had been fighting for years. I first
came to know Dr. Greenwood when he taught a course in my doctoral program a lot of years ago.
Through the years, though, he and I have kept in touch and when I came to Flint, Michigan,
where he worked and lived–our relationship became even closer. I considered him a mentor and
friend …and he was one of the first to volunteer to help when this Journal was little more than
a dream in my mind and heart. He served as contributing editor from the first issue until his
recent death. Ron was, to my way of thinking, the consumate teacher and scholar. I learned a
lot from him–he will be missed.