Summary required readings
1JK10 Leadership and self-management
in organizations
Copyright – SE Stalpers
,List of contents
L1 - Chapter 12: F.J. Landy & J.M. Conte (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to
industrial and organizational psychology ............................................................................................... 3
L1 - Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2007). Leading clever people. .................................................................... 9
L2 - Neck, C. P., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past
developments, present trends, and future possibilities. ...................................................................... 10
L2 - Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, C. P. (2012). The Relation Between Self-Leadership and
Transformational Leadership: Competing Models and the Moderating Role of Virtuality. ................. 12
L2 - Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2015). Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction,
work effort, and creativity: The role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment. ................ 14
L3 - Day, Fleenor et al. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years
of research and theory.......................................................................................................................... 16
L3 - Kennedy, Carroll, and Francoeur (2013). Mindset Not Skill Set: Evaluating in New Paradigms of
Leadership Development ...................................................................................................................... 19
L4 - Galinsky, A., Rus, D., & Lammers, J. (2010). Power: A central force governing psychological,
social, and organizational life. .............................................................................................................. 21
L4 - Van Kleef et al. (2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and
followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. .................................................... 24
L5 – Mayer et al. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. ........ 26
L5 - Treviño, L.K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L.P. (2009). A qualitative investigation of perceived
executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. .................... 28
L6 – Burke et al. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 29
L6 - Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared
leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of
startups. ................................................................................................................................................ 32
2
, L1 - Chapter 12: F.J. Landy & J.M. Conte (2010). Work in the 21st
century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology
Some conceptual distinctions
It is reasonable to assume that leadership research is relevant for virtually any employee in any
organization, regardless of the size or the complexity of the organization. A leader may put strategic
plans into action, but their effects may not be seen for months or even years. There are many
performance indicators to choose from in defining leadership effectiveness.
Leader emergence - Study of the characteristics of individuals who become leaders, examining the
basis on which they were elected, appointed, or simply accepted. Leader emergence was defined as
“whether (or to what degree) an individual is viewed as a leader by others”. Emotional stability,
extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness were all positively associated with
individuals who emerged as leaders. Surprisingly, agreeableness was unrelated to leader emergence.
Leadership effectiveness - Study of which behaviours on the part of a designated leader (regardless
of how that position was achieved) led to an outcome valued by the work group or organization.
But it is clear that some leaders are not interested in doing good work—or at least not doing work in
a good way. These leaders are called destructive leaders, and they are beginning to receive more
attention from researchers. Einarsen, Aasland, and Skogstad (2007) define destructive leadership
behavior as “the systematic and repeated behavior by a leader, supervisor, or manager that violates
legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organization’s goals,
tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being, or job satisfaction of his/her
subordinates”
The tyrannical leader may accept the goals of the organization but seeks to achieve those goals
through actively manipulating and humiliating subordinates. Upper management views the leader
favourably, while subordinates see only a bully.
Like the tyrannical leader, the derailed leader behaves abusively—but he or she also engages in anti-
organizational behaviors such as laziness, fraud, and theft. Derailed leaders are often characterized as
leaders who have hit a substantial pothole on their road to success.
Unlike the first two types of destructive leaders, the
supportive-disloyal leader actually shows consideration for
subordinates but violates the goals of the organization by
undermining goal accomplishment. This undermining may
result from stealing resources from the organization,
granting subordinates excessive benefits, or encouraging
loafing or misconduct by subordinates.
However, while Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) agree that
destructive leaders have unique characteristics, they suggest
that destructive leader behavior is “enabled” by susceptible
followers and a conducive environment. They present what
they call the “toxic triangle” of destructive leader behavior
(see Figure 12.1). The key to understanding the implications
of this figure is realizing that all elements must be present for
destructive leader behavior to emerge.
3
