Example: quiz answers

Leadership and the Fate of Organizations - Timothy A. Judge

Leadership and the Fate of OrganizationsRobert B. KaiserKaplan DeVries HoganHogan Assessment SystemsS. Bartholomew CraigNorth Carolina State University and Kaplan DeVries article concerns the real-world importance of leader-ship for the success or failure of Organizations and socialinstitutions. The authors propose conceptualizing leader-ship and evaluating leaders in terms of the performance ofthe team or organization for which they are authors next offer a taxonomy of the dependent vari-ables used as criteria in Leadership studies. A review ofresearch using this taxonomy suggests that the vast empir-ical literature on Leadership may tell us more about thesuccess of individual managerial careers than the successof these people in leading groups, teams, and organiza-tions. The authors then summarize the evidence showingthat leaders do indeed affect the performance of organiza-tions for better or for worse and conclude by describingthe mechanisms through which they do : Leadership , Leadership effectiveness, organiza-tional psychologyThe psychological literature on Leadership is quiteextensive and contains some useful generalizationsabout the links between perso

Leadership and the Fate of Organizations Robert B. Kaiser Kaplan DeVries Inc. Robert Hogan Hogan Assessment Systems S. Bartholomew Craig North Carolina State University and Kaplan DeVries Inc.

Tags:

  Organization, Leadership, Hogan, Tafe, Leadership and the fate of organizations, Hogan hogan

Information

Domain:

Source:

Link to this page:

Please notify us if you found a problem with this document:

Other abuse

Transcription of Leadership and the Fate of Organizations - Timothy A. Judge

1 Leadership and the Fate of OrganizationsRobert B. KaiserKaplan DeVries HoganHogan Assessment SystemsS. Bartholomew CraigNorth Carolina State University and Kaplan DeVries article concerns the real-world importance of leader-ship for the success or failure of Organizations and socialinstitutions. The authors propose conceptualizing leader-ship and evaluating leaders in terms of the performance ofthe team or organization for which they are authors next offer a taxonomy of the dependent vari-ables used as criteria in Leadership studies. A review ofresearch using this taxonomy suggests that the vast empir-ical literature on Leadership may tell us more about thesuccess of individual managerial careers than the successof these people in leading groups, teams, and organiza-tions. The authors then summarize the evidence showingthat leaders do indeed affect the performance of organiza-tions for better or for worse and conclude by describingthe mechanisms through which they do : Leadership , Leadership effectiveness, organiza-tional psychologyThe psychological literature on Leadership is quiteextensive and contains some useful generalizationsabout the links between personality, cognitive abil-ity, Leadership style, and evaluations of Leadership potentialand performance (cf.)

2 Bono & Judge , 2004; Ilies, Gerhardt,& Le, 2004; Judge , Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge ,Ilies, & Colbert, 2004; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986).Psychologists also know that certain Leadership styles areassociated with certain effects considerate leaders en-hance the job satisfaction of subordinates, structured lead-ers have higher performing teams, and transformationalleaders inspire greater commitment ( Judge & Piccolo,2004; Judge , Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Lowe, Kroek, &Sivasubramaniam, 1996). And we know what styles areappropriate to what conditions (Peters, Hartke, & Pohlman,1985; Schriesheim, Tepper, & Tetrault, 1994; Strube &Garcia, 1981) for instance, a task-oriented approach isbetter when leaders have a high degree of control over thesituation, whereas a people-oriented approach is betterwhen control is , people outside the academic communityseem not to be overly impressed with what psychologistsknow about Leadership (R.

3 hogan , Curphy, & hogan ,1994). For example, in an article concerning the comingwar for talent,The Economistmagazine noted that even iforganizations are able to recruit talented people, they willnot know how to lead them because human resources as adiscipline has not achieved anything like the level of so-phistication of, say, finance ( Everybody s Doing It, 2006, p. 5). Evidently our message needs to be sharpenedand article concerns the real-world importance ofleadership for the success or failure of Organizations andsocial institutions. We begin by defining Leadership ; wethen offer a taxonomy of Leadership criteria based on thedistinction between perceptions of individuals in leadershiproles ( , managers) and the actual performance of theteams and Organizations they are supposed to lead.

4 Next,we review the literature using our taxonomy; this leads tothe conclusion that most Leadership research concerns howindividual managers are regarded and is less informativewith regard to how they affect group performance. Thisdistinction is important because the factors correlated witha successful career in management are not necessarily thesame as those associated with leading a successful then summarize the evidence showing that leaders doindeed affect the performance of Organizations , for betteror worse. We conclude with a review of the psychologicaland management literatures regarding the mechanisms bywhich leaders shape the fate of LeadershipEvery discussion of Leadership depends on certain assump-tions. We assume that Leadership is a solution to the prob-lem of collective effort the problem of bringing peopletogether and combining their efforts to promote successand survival (R.)

5 hogan et al., 1994; R. hogan & Kaiser,2005). Three implications of this view should be , Leadership involves influencing individuals willinglyto contribute to the good of the group. Second, leadershiprequires coordinating and guiding the group to achieve itsgoals. Finally, goals vary by organization General Mo-tors serves a different purpose than Microsoft, Wal-Mart,and the New England Patriots but most Organizations arein competition with other Organizations for scarce re-Robert B. Kaiser, Kaplan DeVries Inc., Greensboro, North Carolina;Robert hogan , hogan Assessment Systems, Tulsa, Oklahoma; S. Bar-tholomew Craig, Department of Psychology, North Carolina State Uni-versity and Kaplan DeVries Inc., Greensboro, North portion of this article was presented at the 20th annual meeting ofthe Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, thank William C.

6 Howell for helpful suggestions, Stuart for assistance with the review and coding of the Leadership liter-ature, and Jennifer T. Lindberg for assistance in locating relevant concerning this article should be addressed to Rob-ert B. Kaiser, Kaplan DeVries Inc., 1903-G Ashwood Court, Greensboro,NC 27455. E-mail: March 2008 American PsychologistCopyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/08/$ 63, No. 2, 96 110 DOI: , and this is the appropriate context for understand-ing group emphasis on social influence and group goals isconsistent with what the field generally offers (cf. Bass,1990; House & Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 1989; Zaccaro &Klimoski, 2001). Although most scholars agree that groupscompete and that Leadership has implications for groupperformance, the context of competition is not alwaysmade explicit.

7 For instance, functional theories maintainthat Leadership is a resource for team performance andadaptation (Hackman & Walton, 1986; Lord, 1977; Zac-caro & Klimoski, 2001) and the fact that teams compete isimplicitly understood; we want to make it a focal of LeadershipThe psychological study of Leadership is about 100 yearsold, and the resulting literature is enormous. It is instructiveto consider the various ways Leadership has been tradition defines Leadership in terms ofemergence exercising influence in a group of strangers or attaininghigh status in a social system. Another tradition considersleadershipeffectiveness. Some studies define leadershipeffectiveness in terms of the evaluations of studies define Leadership effectiveness in terms ofhow managers affect employee satisfaction, motivation,and unit results.

8 There is also a variety of measurementmethods. Sometimes Leadership ratings are gathered fromsuperiors, sometimes from subordinates. In addition tothese subjective measures, there are also objective mea-sures such as productivity or rate of voluntary recent study used CEO personality to predict historio-metric ratings of executive team dynamics and financialmeasures of organizational performance ( , revenues andreturn on assets; Peterson, Smith, Martorana, & Owens,2003).The methodological diversity in this research suggestsa robust literature but may also reflect a lack of definitionalclarity. For example, the early work on personality andleadership appeared to produce inconsistent results,prompting reviewers to dismiss its importance (Mann,1959; Stogdill, 1948).

9 However, Lord et al. (1986) notedthat this early research confusedhow leaders are perceivedwithhow their teams perform. After sorting studies basedon this distinction, they found consistent relationships be-tween how leaders are perceived and such personalitycharacteristics as adjustment, dominance, and inquisitive-ness (Lord et al., 1986). Thus, distinguishing betweenpeople who seem leaderlike and the performance of theirteams brought considerable clarity to the literature. It alsodemonstrated the importance of distinguishing appropri-ately among different Leadership a TaxonomyWe reviewed 10 meta-analytic studies (described below) todetermine how Leadership has been measured in past meta-analyses included evaluations of over280,000 leaders from 1,124 samples and 1,695 statisticaltests of the relationship between predictor variables ( ,leader personality, leader behavior) and Leadership criteria( , emergence or effectiveness).

10 We content analyzed the criterion variables used in themeta-analyses and identified two categories of leadershipmeasures, each with two subcategories. The first categoryconcerns measures focusing on individual leaders; the sec-ond category includes measures focused on groups, teams,and Organizations . This categorization parallels Lord etal. s (1986) distinction between how a leader isperceivedand theeffectivenessof the group for which the leader of are twounique perspectives on the individual leader as the unit ofanalysis Leadership emergence and perceived effective-ness and this distinction has a long history in scholarlyresearch ( Judge , Bono, et al., 2002). Leadership emergencerefers to being perceived as leaderlike, usually in a group ofstrangers, as discussed in studies of small-group processes(Bales, 1950; Geier, 1967) and leaderless group discussions1 There are more Leadership meta-analyses than these 10.


Related search queries