PROBLEM 1+2
What are the different leadership styles and how do they differ?
Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions – Avolio and Walumbwa
• Authentic leadership à a type of transparent and ethical leader behavior that allows
followers to openly share information and accepts their inputs
• Transformational leadership à when the behavior of the leader inspires and transforms
followers to perform beyond their expectations and surpasses their self-interest benefitting
the good of the organization
• Positive organizational behavior à behavior focusing on positive constructs in an
organization like trust, hope, resilience, efficacy, optimism and well being
• Broaden-and-build theory à those with more positive emotions can expand cognition and
behavioral tendencies and encourage new, varied, and exploratory thoughts + actions
o Through this positive psychology they can broaden themselves and build additional
personal resources to perform
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
• 4 factors that cover the components of authentic leadership – (predictors of OCB,
organizational commitment, and satisfaction with supervisor + performance):
o Balanced processing à before coming to a decision, one should objectively look at
the relevant data
o Internalized moral perspective à self-regulating your behavior through your internal
moral standards
o Relational transparency à being open about your feelings (in the appropriate
situation) and openly sharing information to appear as your most authentic self
o Self-awareness à understanding your own strengths, weaknesses and how you make
sense of the world
• Transformational leadership falls under this
• Downsides:
o Need to see the effect of authentic leadership in different situations and cultures
o Need to understand how ready a person is to change
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
• Is there evidence that we can develop leaders using one or more specific theories of
leadership? - are leaders born or made? Are leadership interventions effective?
o Born vs. made – 30% of the variation in leadership style = heritability (the rest is
environmental factors)
§ The life context that one grows up in is more important than heritability for
predicting leadership emergence in a career
o Do leadership interventions work? – positive impact on work outcomes, regardless of
which leadership theory was being investigated even if it was only for a day
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND LEADERSHIP
• Cognitive science leadership à research how leaders and followers think + process
information
• Lord and Brown – model on how leaders can influence how followers behave through the
motivations they use to regulate actions and behaviors
o Leader should make their values known to the follower to motivate them into action
o The leader should activate an identity that the follower can relate to à forms a
collective identity that the follower will conform to – influences their self-concept
§ This identity can vary for the leader = working self-concept
o Values + self-concept mediate the relationship between the leader’s actions and the
behavior of the follower
• Wofford et al – transactional and transformational leadership uses different schemas to
interpret events (solves the working self-concept problem) = different behaviors and actions
used according to the event
, NEW-GENRE LEADERSHIP
• New-genre leadership à it puts focus on charismatic leader behavior that is visionary,
inspiring, ideological and their moral values but also transformational leadership values such
as individualized attention and intellectual stimulation
• New-genre vs. traditional leadership
o Traditional à leader behavior = leader-follower exchange relationships, setting
goals, providing directions and support + reinforcement behaviors
o New-genre theories (transformational and charismatic) à more focus on raising their
followers’ aspirations and activating their highest values (altruism)
§ Follower identifies with their leader’s mission + feel better about their work
and perform over set standards
• Downsides:
o What really determines charismatic/transformational leadership? – why do some
engage in this and others don’t?
COMPLEXITY LEADERSHIP
• Older theories were hierarchical but may not be applicable to today’s economy
• Complexity leadership theory (CLT) à leadership is an interactive system where there is a
dynamic interaction creating complex feedback networks. These produce adaptive outcomes
like knowledge dissemination, learning, innovation, and more adaptation to change.
o Emphasis on the importance of social interactions within the organization
o Takes into consideration the whole system instead of just a part of it – the organization
isn’t a simple, rational structure
SHARED, COLLECTIVE, OR DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP
• Shared leadershipà something that develops throughout the team’s lifespan. Defined as a
team-level outcome. It can be different depending on the inputs, processes and outcomes
produced by the team. Creates reciprocal influence which can reinforce their future
relationships between team members
o Overlaps with CLT but is different from hierarchical (traditional) leadership
o Since the leadership is a shared property of the whole system, when it is effective it is
considered a product of these connections and relationships
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE
• Leader member exchange (LMX) à focuses on the two way relationship between leader and
follower. Leadership is defined in the quality of the exchange relationship between leader
and their followers.
o High quality exchanges (with trust and mutual respect) will lead to better outcomes
o Good leadership is when the leader and follower can develop an effective
relationship that leads to mutual and incremental influence
• Goal congruence – the more similar the goals of follower and leader are = the higher the
quality of LMX relationship
FOLLOWSHIP AND LEADERSHIP
• Usual leadership theories look at follower attributes as outcomes and the leadership process
as inputs à what role of followers play in the leadership process?
• Romance of leadership – the relationship between leadership and followership
o Followers understand their leader according to their interpretation of his/her
personality, behavior, and effectiveness
SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP
• Substitutes for leadership theory à looks at situational factors that enhance, neutralize, or
completely substitute leadership
o E.g. some technologies that allow for group brainstorming get rid of the need for a
leader
• Initially made to address the romance effects - Lack of support for theory
SERVANT LEADERSHIP
, • Characteristics representing a servant leader: listening, empathy, healing, awareness,
persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment and building community
• Servant leadership can be divided into 2 categories: functional and accompany attributes
o Functional attributes = having a vision, being honest, trustworthy, service oriented, a
role model etc.
o Accompany attributes = good communicators + listeners, credible and competent…
• Result on followers: positively elated to follower satisfaction, intrinsic work satisfaction,
organization commitment
CROSS-CULTURAL LEADERSHIP
• Cross-cultural leadership à the study of leadership in different cultural contexts – most
leadership research has been conducted in Western countries
• Project GLOBE (global leadership and organizational behavioral effectiveness)
o Goals: what beliefs do different cultures have about their leaders?
• Global leadership – leaders that can lead across a variety of cultures
o Approach 1 – leader must have a lot of international experience and must have lived
in different cultures to be able to lead in one
o Approach 2 – the leader must have certain competencies to lead effectively across
cultures – have a lot of experience rather than 1 or 2 specific cultures
• Comparative leadership – compares leadership in 2+ cultures to see whether a practice in
once culture can be applied to another
E-LEADERSHIP
• E-leadership à leading people from different departments, organizations and countries
virtually
o More likely to come across challenges as there might be communication and human
infrastructure problems e.g. software platforms are different
o Better support on wireless networks, built-in video and automatic translation would
make it mor effective
• Field of leadership is taking a more holistic view of leadership à looks at more angles of
leadership, studies the follower and leader, the context, and interactions
• More focus put on the process of leadership – how the leader and follower processes
information + how they affect each other, the group, and the organization
• More use of mixed-method designs to examine leadership (before it used quantitative
strategies, now starting to use more qualitative)
What kind of followers do they have? What are their outcomes?
Can be divided into burnout and wellbeing outcomes for followers
How Bad are the Effects of Bad Leaders? Meta-analysis of Destructive Leadership and its
Outcomes – Schyns
• Meta-analysis à looks at relationship between destructive leadership and outcome variables
o Discusses the boundaries of destructive leadership + the different constructs
Distinguishing destructive leader behavior and destructive leadership
• Destructive leadership is argued to be an oxymoron as leadership can only be positive
• Destructive leader behavior is defined as voluntary acts committed by the person in a
leadership position
What is destructive leadership – conceptualization and definition (for the current paper)
• Things to consider when evaluating destructive leadership:
o Intent à is the destructive behavior intentional or unintentional? – they can both be
destructive
o Physical verbal and nonverbal behavior à depends on the research
, o Perception vs actual behavior à destructive behavior is usually assessed under the
follower’s POW. The leader behavior can only have an effect when its perceived by
the follower
• Destructive leadership à a process in which over a large period of time the activities and
experiences of people within a group are repeatedly influenced by their supervisor in a way
that is perceived as hostile or obstructive
• What isn’t destructive leadership?
o Is lasses-faire destructive? - argued that even passive forms of leadership should be
considered destructive
o Distinction needs to be made between destructive and negative leadership
i. Negative leadership à overarching term to include disliked behaviors like
ineffective (lasses-faire) and anti-organizational behavior (supportive-disloyal
leadership)
• Meta-analysis focused on leadership behavior directed towards followers
Destructive leadership and outcomes: a theoretical framework + Hypothesis
• Outcomes of destructive leadership are assessed from the follower’s POW
• Leader related concepts à e.g. follower resistance towards destructive leader
o Hypothesis 1: Destructive leadership will have negative relationships with positive
leader-related concepts (e.g. trust) and positive relationship with negative leader-
related concepts (e.g. resistance)
• Job related concepts à e.g. destructive
leadership is negatively related to job
satisfaction, job dedication and work
motivation
o Hypothesis 2: destructive leadership
will have a negative relationship with
positive job-related concepts and
positive relationship with negative job-
related concepts
• Organization related concepts à e.g.
organizational commitment and turnover. Followers may also show ‘displaced’ deviance
towards the organization
o Hypothesis 3: destructive leadership will have negative relationship with positive
organization-related concepts and positive relationship with negative organization-
related concepts
• Individual follower related concepts à e.g. stress, well-being and performance.
o Hypothesis 4: destructive leadership will have negative relationships with positive
individual follower-related concepts and positive relationships with negative
individual-follower related concepts
• Strength of relationship à the relationships won’t have all the same strength
o Hypothesis 5: the effect sizes found for the relationships between destructive
leadership and leader-related attitudes and behaviors will be higher than those for
job-or-organization-related attitudes and behaviors
• Destructive and constructive leadership à destructive leadership has stronger effects than
positive leadership
o Hypothesis 6: the effect sizes found for the relationship between destructive
leadership and follower attitudes and behaviors will be higher than those for
constructive leadership and follower attitudes
RESULTS
• H1 supported, H2 partially supported, H3 supported, H4 supported
• H5 – effects found:
o Strongest effects à attitude towards the leader = destructive leader behavior is
directly related to how followers feel about their leader
