Summary Psychology in the workplace Chapter 12

Chapter 12 -Leadership

MODULE 12.1 The Concept of Leadership

Some Conceptual Distinctions

 Leader Emergence versus Leadership Effectiveness

-What is the difference between leader emergence and 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

Leadership effectivenessStudy of which behaviors 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

It is tempting to confuse the concepts by assuming that all who emerge as leaders will be effective.
While that is sometimes the case, it is not always true

both leader emergence and leader effectiveness were predicted by high levels of intelligence,
dominance, self‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.efficacy, and self‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.monitoring.


 Leader Emergence

leader emergence and the Big Five personality factors
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

most consistent correlate of both leader emergence and
leadership effectiveness was extraversion

individuals with a self‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.monitoring personality (those who are concern ed with projecting a positive
social appearance) are much more likely to emerge as leaders, particularly in their examination of
how promotions are awarded in an organization (In keeping with the distinction we have made
above, there are no data to suggest that high self ‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.monitors are actually more effective as leaders)


The Problem of Defining Leadership Outcomes

decreased absence, increased commitment, more persistence, creativity, and so forth

The situation is not so clear with leadership. Leadership has been variously credited with achieving
technological breakthroughs, settling labor problems, bringing an organization back from
bankruptcy, increasing share value, increasing consumer confidence, or simply creating a fun place
to work -Which of these is the “right” outcome to examine?

It is assumed that leaders affect the structure and performance of an organization. But which
aspects of structure?

Leaders, particularly those at the top of an organization, are assumed to be visionary, not bound

, to the here‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.and‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.now. In what time frame should we measure or evaluate the outcomes of
visionary behaviour?
the effects of a leader’s behavior are not always immediately obvious or detectable You do this
by playing on different parts of the board simultaneously with a “connection plan” in mind that
your opponent will not see. Then, at a crucial time, you connect all of your pieces and win the
game. There is a lag time between action and result

It will be interesting to see if Japanese and Chinese leaders emerge as preeminent in the global
business environment because of their characteristically long-term time orientation


Negative Leadership Outcomes: The Destructive Leader

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‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.being, or job satisfaction of
his/her subordinates”

the manager who verbally abuses subordinates in private
with threats and shouts, who has a personal agenda of
self‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.promotion that is different from the stated goals of
the group or organization, who drives people out of the department or unit, or who seems
immune to any attempt to change his or her style have particularly toxic effects on workers with
little autonomy in their job

There are 3 types of destructive leaders:


 Tyrannical

may accept the goals of the organization but seeks to achieve those goals through actively
manipulating and humiliating subordinates

Upper management views the leader favorably, while subordinates see only a bully


 Derailed

Like the tyrannical leader, the derailed leader behaves abusively—but he or she also engages in
anti‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.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


 Supportive‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.Disloyal

the supportive‐efficacy, and self‐monitoring.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


 The Toxic Triangle of Destructive Leadership

, -What are the 3 elements of the toxic triangle?
destructive leader behavior is “enabled” by susceptible followers and a conducive environment.
They present what they call the “toxic triangle” of destructive leadership

The key to understanding the implications
of this figure is realizing that all three
elements (destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments)
must be present for destructive leader
behavior to emerge

an interesting indirect effect of
destructive leadership: Followers tend to
attribute all failures to achieve
organizational goals to the behavior of the
leader—even when the failure is more
objectively attributed to other
organizational or individual behaviors. The
leader’s behavior is all too attractive as an
explanation for group failure.




The Dark Triad: