This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
By Stephanie L. Brooke, PhD Volume 4 - Issue 1 Feb 13, 2007 - 4:16:55 PM Email this article Printer friendly page
INTRODUCTION Job satisfaction is an extensively researched topic (Allen, Drevs, & Ruhe, 1999; Kleinman, 2004; Robbins, 1998; Spector, 1997; Yukl, 1998). Of particular interest is the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. For the individual, job dissatisfaction can result in feelings of helplessness, burnout, resentment, anger, and fatigue (Knoop, 1987; Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). Further, these emotions can lead to the following behaviors: aggression, regression, complaining, fighting, psychological withdrawal, and leaving the agency (Knoop, 1987; Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). With these emotions and behaviors, poor physical and mental health may ensue. From a management perspective, these emotions can lead to decreased employee performance, tardiness, absenteeism, turnover, early retirements, and strikes (Ribelin, 2003; Robbins, 1998). While understanding the reasons for changing employment are critical for organizations, discerning the relationship of leadership style on job satisfaction is of paramount concern. Working with a leader who does not provide support, show consideration, or engages in hostile behaviors can be stressful for employees (Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). Negative leader-employee interactions can result in decreased pleasure with work, questioning one’s skill on the job, reacting harshly to the leader, and leaving the agency (Chen & Spector, 1991). The quality of the leaderemployee relationship has an impact on the employee’s self-esteem (Brockner, 1988; DeCremer, 2003) and job satisfaction (Chen & Spector, 1991). The costs to the agency can be quite high in terms of worker stress, reduced productivity, increased
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH Latest Headlines
Changes, Collaborative Partnership, and Principal Leadership
Students in Japanese Schools
CONSISTENCY OF OCCUPATIONA
absenteeism, and turnover (Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994; Ribelin, 2003). Considerate leaders, also known as expressive leaders because they show concern for people, have been found to facilitate a group with higher productivity and higher performance (Singh, 1998). In addition, leadership consideration (expressive leadership) is more conducive to job satisfaction (Singh & Pestonjee, 1974; Spector, 1985). On the other side of the coin, task structured leaders, also known as instrumental leaders, show less concern for employees and are high on initiating structure. “Leader behavior characterized as high on initiating structure led to greater rates of grievances, absenteeism, and turnover and lower levels of job satisfaction for workers performing routine tasks” (Robbins, 1998, p. 350). Despite the fact that leadership has been a widely researched topic (Bass, 1990; Fiedler & Chemers, 1982; Field, 2002; Robbins, 1998; Ruvolo, Petersen, & LeBoeuf, 2004; Yukl, 1998; Zaleznick, 1992), very little attention has been directed toward the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction in nonprofit agencies. To date, research has focused on for-profit industries and the military (Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 1987). The problem that this pilot study addresses is leadership style, a consideration (expressive) orientation, and structured (instrumental) orientation, in relation to employee job satisfaction in the nonprofit arena. With respect to child care organizations, the turnover rate, a reflection of job dissatisfaction, ranges from 3050% per year (Ramsburg & Montanelli, 1999). This rate is alarmingly high, especially when compared to the annual turnover rate of 7% among elementary school teachers (Whitebook & Bellm, 1999). The consequences of dissatisfied child care workers is that they develop an intent to leave the job. The consequences are high in terms of the impact on the organization as well as the children and families
L CHOICE BETWEEN COUNSELLED AND UNCOUNSELL ED SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN NORTHERN CROSS RIVER STATE GLOBALISATIO N, GOOD GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY: THE INTERFACE
In 1994, Dr. Bell introduced The Bell Leadership Job Satisfaction Survey. This tool gives you an accurate understanding of what is happening in your organization. Through confidential processing and comprehensive results, organizations are immediately able to focus on the areas needing improvement to become more effective and reach a worldclass level. The Job Satisfaction Survey allows your organization to evaluate such things as: Overall job satisfaction Communication Empowering participation Morale, teamwork and effectiveness Work design, ethics and equality of opportunity Training and career opportunities Dr. Bell’s work has been used by an astounding 500,000 leaders in more than 4,700 organizations and from over 85 countries. Organizations such as the Young Presidents Organization and the Chief Executives Organization call on him again and again for his practical, thought-provoking delivery. Over the years, thousands have enrolled in Dr. Bell’s open enrollment programs held in Chapel Hill or have sought his services for company programs, master classes and executive retreats
Leadership and Teamwork: The Effects of Leadership and Job Satisfaction on Team Citizenship
Seokhwa Yun1 Seoul National University
Jonathan Cox Houston, TX Henry P. Sims, Jr. Sabrina Salam University of Maryland This study examined how leadership related to citizenship behavior within teams. Leadership was hypothesized to influence team organizational citizenship behavior (TOCB) either directly or indirectly through job satisfaction. Longitudinal data were collected in three waves. Leader behaviors were measured at time 1, follower job satisfaction at time 2, and TOCB at time 3. Results indicate that both empowering and transformational leadership related positively to TOCB through job satisfaction. Aversive leadership was related negatively to TOCB. Also, leadership was mediated by job satisfaction in negatively relating to team anticitizenship behavior. The implications and directions for future research are discussed. In what many call the postindustrial age, more and more organizations face high velocity environments which are characterized as dramatically changing, uncertain, and high-risk (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; RiolliSaltzman & Luthans, 2001). In such a dynamic environment, many organizations find the use of teams efficient and productive (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). For example, a recent survey found that most Fortune 1,000 firms use teams with at least some employees and that teams are one of the fastest growing forms of employee 1 This study was supported by the Institute of Management Research of Seoul National University, Korea and by Grants from the R. H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland. We dedicate this paper to our late colleague Sabrina Salam. Yun et al./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 172 International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, 2007, pp. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 involvement (Lawler, Mohrman, & Benson, 2001). One type of behavior that may contribute to the effectiveness of teams is team members’ citizenship behavior. Organ (1988) conceptualized organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and defined it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in
the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). OCB includes behaviors like helping coworkers who have high workloads, helping newcomers adjust to the organization, and so forth. Since by definition, OCB is not formally rewarded; it is generally considered extrarole behavior. Indeed, in many respects, team citizenship is the essence of teamwork. Team members’ OCB can indirectly improve team performance through promoting the effective functioning of the team (Organ, 1988). They can cumulatively lubricate the work process (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2005; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). The purpose of this study is to investigate how to build team organizational citizenship behavior (TOCB). This study examined how TOCB relates to leadership and job satisfaction. More specifically, we investigated whether leader behavior influenced TOCB directly and/or indirectly through job satisfaction. Even though many studies on OCB have been conducted at the individual level (e.g., Lee & Allen, 2002; LePine et al., 2002; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), there has been less research of citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis (some exceptions include Pearce & Giacalone, 2003; Pearce & Herbik, 2004; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Raver & Gelfand, 2005). Nonetheless, the examination of OCB at the individual level of analysis implicitly assumes the aggregation of individuals’ citizenship behavior to some higher-level group (Organ, 1988; Pearce & Giacalone). Thus, we have taken the natural next step and have examined citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis. The paper is structured as follows. First, the following section offers a theoretical background for our study. We begin by presenting a review of relevant literature on leadership and citizenship behavior. We then propose team citizenship to be a consequence of leadership, possibly mediated by job satisfaction. We describe the research method: a longitudinal field study over three periods of data collection in which team leadership was measured at time 1, job satisfaction of team members at time 2, and TOCB at time 3. Next, we present the results of the study. To conclude, we discuss the implications of our findings. Leadership This study conceptualized leadership along five archetypes on the basis of literature review. Our theoretical view of leadership was inspired by Manz and Sims and colleagues (e.g., Cox & Sims, 1996; Manz & Sims, 1991, 2001; Pearce et al., 2003; Scully, Sims, Olian, Schnell, & Smith, 1994).
Howell & Costley. directive leaders make decisions. we developed extended versions of their archetypes including aversive. & Kerr. give instructions and commands. Aversive leadership mainly focuses on their followers’ poor work and wrong or unacceptable behaviors. and intimidation. 1985. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. traditional view of leadership. They clarify followers’ roles and tasks and provide instructions (Howell & Costley. reprimand. directive. Aversive leadership has long been an important topic of leadership (e. Transactional leaders engage in instrumental exchange relationships with subordinates by negotiating and strategically supplying rewards in return for achievement of goals. In this paper. and expect followers to carry out the decisions.). 1976). This archetype represents a highly directive leadership style (e. 1985.g. Vol. Ball. 2007. transactional. The . 1980. 2001). 2001). Directive Leadership The next archetype is directive leadership which might be considered an older. Bass. Burns. Schriesheim et al. 3. directive leaders command subordinates and expect their compliance. to empowering leadership. more recently.. Directive leadership represents a prototypical boss who engages in a highly directive style (e.g. We selected this typology because it is firmly grounded in the current transactional/transformational leadership paradigm (e. 2 Iss. Relying on a formal position in the organization. 1994).g. and empowering leadership archetypes. Transactional leadership is based on a rational exchange relationship between leader and subordinate (Bass. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 Aversive Leadership The first type of leader influence is through the use of aversive methods such as punishment. & Sims. 1978) yet extends historically to aversive and directive leadership and. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 173 International Journal of Leadership Studies. pp.. Arvey & Ivancevich. Schriesheim. Trevino. transformational. The leader articulates what behaviors are required and what will be rewarded and provides feedback to the subordinate about his or her behavior..g..Their typology originally included four archetypes. House. Based on their own judgment. Transactional Leadership Transactional leadership emphasizes the constructing and clarifying of the reward contingencies for subordinates.
Bandura. to use Manz and Sims’ (1990. Pearce & Sims.g. 1977. 1978. Pearce et al. Mahoney & Arnkoff. Bass. 1997). House.. 2005) have recognized empowering leadership as distinct from transformational leadership. 2006. Moorman. in turn. 2000. Ensley. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 Empowering Leadership Empowering leadership represents a significant paradigm shift and emphasizes follower self-influence rather than external.. Yun. 1990). Self-leadership. involves developing actions and thought patterns that we use to influence our own behavior. top-down influence (e. Cox. in press. & Chen. pp. Yoo. 1978). Transformational leaders develop a vision and motivate their followers to strive for this vision. Manz & Sims. 1987. complies with these behavior requirements if rewards are desired. . Conger. MacKenzie. 1987.subordinate. in turn. Shamir. 1991). Hmieleski. 2002. Lowe.. & Bebb. self-management. & Menon. & Rapp. Burns. 2004./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 174 International Journal of Leadership Studies. 2003. 1985. & Sims.. and cognitive behavior modification (e. 1977). 2005. Faraj. social learning theory (e. 1989. 1990. Avolio. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Yun. Bass. & Pearce. or. & Sims. 1991) term.g. Leaders who use empowering behaviors believe that followers are an influential source of wisdom and direction. Vol. Matthieu. & Alavi. Transformational Leadership The transformational leader leads by inspiring and stimulating followers and by creating highly absorbing and motivating visions (e. & Sivasubramaniam. they encourage followers to challenge the status quo to be able to pursue that vision. Waldman. Podsakoff. 2 Iss. 1996. selfcontrol. & Fetter. Kanungo. Yun et al.g.g. Pearce. Several recent studies (Ahearne.g. Meichenbaum. Conger. self-leadership. Manz & Sims. Kark. Historical perspectives that were instrumental for the development of empowering leadership variables are behavioral selfmanagement (e. Kroeck. Empowering leadership creates followers who are effective self-leaders.. 2007. 3. Transformational leaders utilize behaviors such as charisma and intellectual stimulation to induce performance of subordinates beyond expectations. These leaders emphasize self-influence. Also.
(2003) developed a leadership typology based on literature review and analysis of three samples. Podsakoff. and uncompensated contribution. Vol. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. 2007. assistance between coworkers. spontaneous acts of selfless sensitivity. indirect benefits of OCB for “lubricat[ing] the social machinery of the organization” (p. 654). Citizenship Behavior OCB Organ (1988) defined OCB as “behavior [by the employee] that is discretionary. 3. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 175 International Journal of Leadership Studies. 5). cooperation. Katz (1964) considered such behavior essential for strong organizational social systems. and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. Fisher and Locke developed an inductive taxonomy of negative behavioral responses to job dissatisfaction. 1992). and Near (1983) stressed the cumulative. OCB can also benefit organizations directly and/or indirectly. Examples of directly beneficial OCB include volunteerism. 1990). Organ. However. unusual attendance or punctuality. This is a type of behavior that has been related to general job satisfaction (Fisher & Locke. pp. fixed path to formal rewards” (p. not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system. Hence. Noting that discretionary behaviors vary in the likelihood with which they will be rewarded. Based on preliminary research. 2 Iss. Smith. They linked OCB to spontaneous behavior that “goes beyond role prescriptions”" (p. 653). the incentive for employees to engage in OCB is not any kind of immediate extrinsic reward. and argued that empowering leadership is distinct from transformational leadership. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 Anticitizenship Puffer (1987) defined negative or noncompliant behaviors as “non-task behaviors that have negative organizational implications” (p. Organ (1988) acknowledged that OCB can have a beneficial cumulative effect for an individual and that the individual may consider these long-term benefits. Subsequent research built on this initial item pool categorized the items into dimensions and developed ratings of the relative . The organization gains a measure of systemic resiliency from these small. 615). Organ (1988) viewed OCBs as “non-required contributions that are regarded by the person as relatively less likely to lead along any clear. and active participation in organizational affairs (Farh. & Organ. 4).
OCB is typically an act of one person toward another or others. this study examined the effects of leadership on team OCB. for example. Citizenship as a Team Attribute While OCB has been extremely important in the traditional organization.“badness” of the items. Citizenship is interactive or social in nature. Ball. 2003). It is possible that OCB and ACB. 1). Trevino. Recognizing this. Thus. Accordingly. .60) correlation between OCB and ACB. reduced OCB need not necessitate a corresponding increase in ACB. Hypotheses This study addresses the question: how do we generate TOCB? There are certainly many ways in which TOCB appears in employees and teams. the movement toward team-based organizations raises the question of whether OCB can be viewed as an internal team attribute. while negatively correlated. Pearce & Giacalone. This finding offers preliminary support for the separate dimensionalities of OCB and ACB. Dimensions from the Fisher and Locke taxonomy were later conceptualized as examples of anticitizenship behavior (ACB). The absence of OCB. might only signal passivity with respect to positive citizenship. Smith. we propose and empirically test that leadership can influence TOCB directly and/or indirectly through job satisfaction. 1994. however. 1988. Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. may be separate. Thus. involves active behaviors that have specific negative implications for the organization. Job satisfaction has long been a central construct in the study of behavior in organizations. ACB. the examination of OCB at the individual level of analysis implicitly assumes the aggregation of individuals’ behavior to some higherlevel group (Organ. In addition. but their factor analysis supported the conceptual distinctness of these two classes of behavior. coexisting dimensions that range from zero to some positive quantity. and so on)” (p. Among several possible antecedents. TOCB is conceptualized as team members’ citizenship behavior toward other team members as a whole. 1300). and Sims (1994) found a substantial negative (-. deserved. Cranny. we take the natural next step and examine citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis. and Stone (1992) stated that “there seems to be general agreement that job satisfaction is an affective (that is. It is conceptualized as a team level construct in this study. emotional) reaction to a job that results from the incumbent’s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired (expected. in this research. most OCB can be conceptually extended toward the team level.
2003). 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Currall. 2002. Citizenship behavior has these characteristics. & Judge. He (1988) also argued that in most research studies. On similar grounds. They studied the relationship between job-related behavior/disposition. Some researchers have studied job satisfaction at the group or organizational level and have demonstrated that organizational level job satisfaction is positively related to organizational level performance (e. provided theoretical justification of collective job satisfaction based on multilevel theory (Morgeson & Hoffmann. OCB has been ignored though constituting an important part of performance. Further. Behavior measures. Harter & Schmidt. The study involved the appraisal of jobs and pay by employees. Rosenfeld. they argued. 1999). In a study by Bateman and Organ (1983). Another study that has found a relationship between job satisfaction and OCB was conducted by Gibbs. both developed responses to job satisfaction that are cognitive in nature and affect rather than need based.. Towler. They attributed this result to the attempt to predict specific behaviors from job satisfaction. Organ and Konovsky (1989) conducted a study in which they tried to predict OCB from both affective and cognitive components of job satisfaction. its effect on satisfaction with different aspects of the job. Currall et al. Smith. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 Fisher and Locke (1992) pointed out that research has failed to establish a relationship between job satisfaction and specific behavioral criteria such as turnover or absenteeism. Results showed that pay cognitions were a significant predictor of altruism and OCB as well as compliance behavior. a relationship between OCB and job satisfaction was found. Hanges. 2 Iss. Morgeson and Hoffmann (1999) suggested that individual action and attitude does not exist in a vacuum and . should match the generality of the attitude measure./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 176 International Journal of Leadership Studies. Organ (1988) commented on the difficulties in finding a relationship between job satisfaction and performance and hinted that this is because performance has been too narrowly defined and proposed the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. and Javidi (1994).g. and further job satisfaction’s effects on citizenship behavior. Vol. Schneider. & Salvaggio. Also. 2007. 3. 2005. pp.Yun et al. trait communication apprehension. 216). They stated that a relationship was “found between workers’ job satisfaction and their self-reported demonstration of organizational citizenship behaviors” (p.
are . In turn. 2000). the first employee responds back. Mackenzie. research has amply demonstrated that job satisfaction is one determinant of OCB (Podsakoff. we also suggest that job satisfaction is more likely to increase TOCB and decrease TACB. 666). The key to inducing OCB in employees is trust in the leader caused by leaders’ fair behavior. As a result. Konovsky and Pugh (1994) tested the relationship between OCB and social exchange and concluded that “the role of trust in a supervisor as a mediator of the relationship between INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 177 International Journal of Leadership Studies. why not induce such feelings from a source other than the leader? Perhaps. pp. Organ (1988) has argued that leader fairness induces OCB because a social exchange relationship develops between employees and their supervisors. In summary. What happens if we move to the team level? Leader fairness will still be important. Vol. One reason that research has been successful in establishing this relationship is because OCB has been defined as an aggregate of behavior. Following this argument. Paine. Therefore. collective attitudes can be developed. leadership that elicits feelings of trust and is associated with perceptions of procedural justice will elicit OCB in their employees. a general type of behavior which is congruent with the general attitude of job satisfaction. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 procedural justice and OCB. In this manuscript. Previous research linking supervisor behavior to OCB has been at the individual level. But. H1: Job satisfaction is positively related to TOCB and negatively related to TACB. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. In this study. 2 Iss.collective structures can occur through a process termed double interact where one employee makes a statement to which another employee responds. if trust and fairness are the keys to OCB. suggests that citizenship behaviors occur in a context in which social exchange characterizes the quality of superior-subordinate relationships” (p. & Bachrach. Leaders’ fair behavior is reciprocated by employees’ OCB. we examine job satisfaction as a collective construct and suggest that job satisfaction at the team level is positively related to TOCB. where one person’s actions are effected by and affect another person’s actions. we suggest leadership as an antecedent of TOCB. 3. 2007. members of a team who engage in highly interactive tasks.
We also hypothesize that transformational leadership is positively related to job satisfaction. not just a paycheck (Sims & Manz. not only for their current jobs. 1985. The vision they provide can facilitate teamwork among team members. transformational leadership develops and provides vision that team members pursue together. 1997). unrestrictedly. this leadership style may indirectly influence OCB through job satisfaction. H3 b: Transformational leadership is indirectly. Sosik. and harmoniously with coworkers. 1989.g. Howell & Frost. & Terborg. negatively related to TACB. positively related to TOCB and indirectly. (1990) proposed that transformational leadership will have a positive effect on citizenship behavior. Therefore.. They increasingly view their jobs as a means of personal fulfillment. we hypothesize a positive relationship between transformational leadership and TOCB and a negative relationship between transformational leadership and TACB. Transformational leaders motivate their followers to work for the team’s future. The defining characteristic of the transformational leader is to inspire. First. they are more likely to induce OCB through effective interaction with each other. empowering leadership is likely to increase satisfaction because empowering leaders encourage followers to work independently. leadership that promotes teamwork. This leadership is more likely to fit with the changing expectation of today’s employees. Podsakoff et al. and gives power to the team will be efficient in fostering TOCB. Bass. If so. In other words. and this enthusiasm can sometimes be translated into a commitment to the group. 1988. 1995. Alternatively. This vision can motivate team members to work together. Also. Empowering leadership was hypothesized to be positively related with both job satisfaction and TOCB and negatively related to TACB. promotes lateral accountability among team members. . Therefore. Koh. Hater & Bass. H2: Transformational leadership is positively related to job satisfaction. H3 a: Transformational leadership is positively related to TOCB and negatively relatedto TACB.more likely to trust each other and perceive fairness as a necessary norm for productive and efficient interaction on a team. as previous studies have found (e. Ross & Offermann. 1997. Steers. team members under transformational leaders are more likely to engage in extra-role behaviors to achieve their shared goals or visions provided by leaders.
he or she recognizes the potential of the followers to be self-leaders as well as the importance of the team process. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 If the leader is a real empowering leader. H4: Empowering leadership is positively related to job satisfaction. 2007. are less likely to develop a sense of team commitment and positive affective response from followers. H5 b: Empowering leadership is indirectly. positively related to TOCB and indirectly. leaders who behave in an arbitrary and capricious way. Also. They increasingly expect more control and influence over their own jobs and decision making. we hypothesize that this leadership . or interaction among team members as well as individual self-initiative in doing their work. Vol. For instance. Empowering leadership is more likely to meet this expectation since it emphasizes follower self-initiative. Yun et al. interaction. Further. collaboration. generates behaviors such as complaining and withdrawal. 3. This recognition makes the empowering leader emphasize teamwork. Therefore. and collaboration among the members in the teambased context. collaboration. we propose that aversive leader’s behaviors such as threat and intimidation may generate negative affective response which. like aversive leaders.1996). Some types of leadership may not be able to promote employee satisfaction and OCB. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. in turn. Thus. 2 Iss. negatively related to TACB. H5 a: Empowering leadership is positively related to TOCB and negatively related to TACB. pp. empowering leaders can increase team citizenship behaviors directly or indirectly through job satisfaction./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 178 International Journal of Leadership Studies. empowering leaders influence followers to recognize the importance of teamwork. That is. aversive leaders may indeed generate active resistance that breeds TACB. interaction. or extra-role behaviors which can make teamwork more harmoniously in the team-based context.
H9 a: Directive leadership is negatively related to TOCB and positively related to INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 179 International Journal of Leadership Studies. Vol. . job satisfaction may mediate the effect of aversive leadership on TACB. negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB through job satisfaction. is contradictory to this changing expectation. Directive leaders are those who dictate or direct their followers regarding tasks. negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB through job satisfaction. Directive leadership. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 TACB. since directive leaders mainly assign goals regarding tasks and instruct and command their followers. They increasingly expect more control and influence over their own jobs and decision making. followers are less likely to engage in extra-role behaviors. they make subordinates focus. directive leadership was assumed to be negatively related to job satisfaction and OCB. 2007. as well as aversive leadership. pp. H8: Directive leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction. 2 Iss. Also. not just a paycheck (Sims & Manz. Alternatively. 1996). 3. directive leadership indirectly influences OCB through job satisfaction. Alternatively. H6: Aversive leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction. Similarly. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Therefore. This leadership style is less likely to fit the changing expectation of today’s employees who increasingly view their jobs as a means of personal fulfillment. H7 a: Aversive leadership is negatively related to TOCB and positively related to TACB. and their subordinates are passively expected to follow the leaders.style is negatively related to job satisfaction and TOCB. directive leadership has a negative relationship with job satisfaction. They seize the situation. H7 b: Aversive leadership is indirectly. Therefore. H9 b: Directive leadership is indirectly.
perhaps even deleterious when it comes to TOCB. Followers clearly understand what they are expected to do and what they will get as a result of their performance. This type of leadership emphasizes contingent reward which may create perceptions of a fair exchange which. may produce a positive citizenship response. Under these conditions. contingent reward patterns of leadership may create perceptions of a fair exchange and good will which.8) and had worked in the host organization for an average of 14 years (SD = 9. compliance may not extend into good citizenship or extra-role behaviors. we hypothesized a positive relationship between job satisfaction and transactional leadership. The sampling unit consisted of (a) the leader (midlevel managers or supervisors) and (b) the main focal unit. the team (direct report subordinates of the leader). At the individual level. reward policies can sometimes generate only calculating compliance such that individuals do only what they are paid to do. in turn. However. After attrition and aggregation to the team level.51). we did not develop specific hypotheses regarding transactional leadership and TOCB. H10: Transactional leadership is positively related to job satisfaction. In other words. a final sample of 45 teams resulted with full data across all three time periods. Team members averaged 40 years in age (SD = 10. However. in turn. Therefore. may produce job satisfaction. 4 of which were spent with their present . The original sample consisted of 526 subordinates and 73 leaders. we hypothesized a positive relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction. transactional leaders eliminate uncertainty that their followers may encounter in their job. Therefore.The relationship between transactional leadership and TOCB seems unclear. Method Participants and Setting Data gathered in this study were part of field research conducted at a large defense firm located in the mid-Atlantic United States. Transactional behavior may be neutral at best.
is deeply rooted in a long line of leader behavior measures (Cox & Sims. The leadership variables were aversive. 2007. ./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 180 International Journal of Leadership Studies. Perceptions of leader behavior were collected using the short version of the Leadership Strategies Questionnaire II (LSQII) at time 1. This approach was recommended in order to cope with multicollinearity issue (Basilevsky. Factor loadings were used as item weights to create factor scores. (1994). 2 Iss. 4 (true). (1994) and Ball et al. 1994). All items were measured using a five-point response Yun et al. 3. however. factor scores were estimated through the regression approach rather than averaging the items. 2 (not true).supervisor (leader). As Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) suggested. These five factor scores were used as variables for further analysis. responding team members were predominantly male and generally well educated. The instrument. Vol. 5 (definitely true)]. 3 (neither true nor untrue). having completed a bachelors degree with some additional postcollege training. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 format [1 (definitely not true). Measures Leader behaviors. An exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood rotation provided a five-factor solution which supported our theoretical typology of five leadership types (see Table 1). The LSQII was an extended version of the Leadership Strategies Questionnaire (LSQ) used most recently by Scully et al. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. 1996). In addition. This solution is similar to that found by Pearce et al. Quantitative data were collected in three waves. pp. (2003). There were 10 weeks between the first and second waves and 20 weeks between the second and third waves.
” Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency and was found to be in the acceptable range (. and Wolf (1984) coefficient (rWG(J)) to assess team member consensus within a team and confirm the within-unit aggregatability of the data. Ball et al. TOCB and TACB. For each leadership variable. . The James et al. All rWG(J) were larger than . The factor analysis produced a two-factor solution. Table 1 also shows the internal reliabilities and rWG(J). . The Results of the Factor Analysis of Leadership Factor names/ Factor loadings .70 which is considered evidence of within-group consensus (George. The job satisfaction measure was measured with 6 items which were adapted from Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey. (1984) coefficients which were larger than .. and empowering. 1990).” and “The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job. transformational. Demaree. 5 (very satisfied)].’s questionnaire was based on an earlier OCB measure by Podsakoff et al. 4 (slightly satisfied). Citizenship behavior. 3 (neutral). (1990) that was validated in a large-scale field study. . . Job satisfaction. Ball et al.70. (1994) that the authors successfully used to demonstrate relationships between supervisor punishment incidents and subordinate citizenship. transactional.directive. The TCQ was a variation of a citizenship behavior questionnaire by Ball et al. Examples items include “My job as a whole. Participants responded to each item using a five-point scale [1 (very dissatisfied). 1994). we utilized the James. . 2 (slightly dissatisfied).94). (1984) coefficient was . Table 1. a short form of the Team Citizenship Questionnaire (TCQ.70. Team member perceptions of TOCB and TACB were measured with 13 items. Table 2 shows the factor analysis results along with alpha coefficients and James et al.
08 .32 .70 .24 -.15 -.25 . 13 .16 .55 .22 .01 -. . .05 .56 He/she isn't afraid to “buck the system” if he/she thinks it is necessary. I have a clear vision of our organization.10 -.57 .26 -.63 .18 . .81 .01 . 56 Because of him/her.14 .72 He/she strives towards higher purposes or ideals.23 . .06 .50 He/she provides a clear vision of where we are going.16 .21 . .57 He/she advises me to solve problems when they pop up without always getting his/her stamp of approval.20 . . .64 .80 .82 .06 .22 .17 .Item content I II III IV V Communalities Transformational leadership He/she is not afraid to “break the mold” to find different ways of doing things.22 .16 .05 .59 He/she has a strong personal dedication to higher purposes or ideals.13 . .05 .02 .15 . .03 .33 .70 .13 .79 .48 .19 . .74 He/she advises me to work together with other managers/supervisors who report to hem/her as a team.63 .09 .71 .53 He/she advises me to make improvements in how I do my work on my own initiative without being told to do so.15 .53 He/she isn't bound by tradition when it comes to getting things done. 70 Empowering leadership He/she urges me to work as a team with other mangers/supervisors who report to him/her.22 .18 -.16 .10 .23 -. . 17 .13 -.21 .22 -.59 .17 . . .23 .55 He/she is driven by higher purposes or ideals.15 . 08 .03 .55 He/she provides a clear vision of who and what we are.62 He/she provides his/her vision of our organization to me.70 .26 .04 .05 -.26 -.04 .03 .16 .14 .54 He/she has a strong conviction in his/her own beliefs and ideals. 25 .21 .07 .56 He/she urges me to search for solutions to my problems on the job without his/her supervision.15 -.10 .09 -.21 . .74 He/she challenges established ways of doing things.74 He/she encourages me to work together with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her.18 -. .20 -.17 -.07 .03 .17 .04 -. . .23 .19 . .65 .14 . . .82 .43 He/she advises me to coordinate my efforts with other managers/supervisors who report to him/her.67 .68 He/she is a non-traditional type who "shakes up the system" when necessary.82 .06 .
14 -.62 He/she commends me when I do a better-than-average job.48 When I do a job well.31 .57 -. .68 -.10 .11 .08 .47 He/she is often critical of my work.13 .54 I feel intimidated by his/her behavior.21 .30 -.10 .70 -. The Results of the Factor Analysis of Leadership Factor names/ Factor loadings Item content I II III IV V Communalities Aversive leadership He/she reprimands me when my performance is not up to par.55 .71 .60 He/she lets me know about it when I perform poorly.67 -.40 He/she gives me special recognition when my work performance is especially good.69 -. . 12 .36 .68 He/she will recommend that I am compensated more if I perform well. -.72 . -.03 .06 .72 He/she behaves in a threatening manner. -.24 .07 . .35 . 67 .04 -.04 . .20 .68 He/she can be quite intimidating. .10 -. even when I perform well.78 -.18 .17 . . .24 .20 .80 -.61 He/she urges me to assume responsibilities on my own.44 He/she reprimands me if my work is below standard. -.07 .06 .67 .06 .19 .17 .15 .09 -.36 .30 . he/she points it out to me.32 -.09 .05 -..30 -.07 .27 -.23 .06 -. . 13 .29 .08 -.15 . -. .09 .67 Transactional leadership If I perform well.55 He/she will recommend that I am compensated well if I perform well.12 .61 . he/she will recommend more compensation.09 .08 .27 .34 . .58 I frequently am reprimanded by him/her without knowing why.02 .09 .06 .69 .24 .64 -.70 .43 He/she tries to influence me through threat and intimidation.08 .39 .10 .11 -.20 . he/she tells me about it.31 -.64 His/her recommendations regarding my compensation depend on my performance.33 .57 .22 .61 He/she gives me positive feedback when I perform well.67 .04 . .19 .03 -.10 -.84 . .06 . 09 . 14 .58 .15 . -.02 .50 When my work is not up to par.76 -.66 Table 1. .21 .30 -.22 .30 .35 .07 .35 -.05 .70 He/she encourages me to find solutions to my problems at work without seeking his/her direct input.14 .61 .10 . .06 -.55 .
04 -.55 He/she establishes the goals for my work.51 He/she provides commands in regard to my job.02 . .27 .73 -20 .80 .02 . .12 .10 .56 My colleagues help orient new people even though it is not required. -. .75 .73 -.68 -.38 -.73 My colleagues work together.05 .30 .82 .71 -. -. vending machines.24 . .34 . 46 .80 -.22 . .71 My colleagues try to avoid creating problems for coworkers. (1984) coefficients .65 .10 . .19 .03 .29 .57 My colleagues are mindful of how their behavior affects other people’s jobs.18 .” -.56 My colleagues willingly help others who have work-related problems. .74 .10 . -.52 TACB My colleagues take frequent or extra long breaks to avoid doing work.45 . -.02 .78 .67 .07 .14 .08 .38 .55 He/she gives me orders about my work.19 -. or restroom to avoid work.39 When it comes to my work.05 .09 .78 .09 -.22 2. .30 .12 Reliability .28 .77 . .51 . . .70 .79 -.69 .93 3.12 . 70 My colleagues work together as a team. -.82 -.10 -.77 .He/she often displeased with my work for no apparent reason.52 He/she established my goals for me.36 He/she gives me instructions about how to do my job.18 .08 -.25 .08 . he/she gives me instructions on how to carry it out.29 5.15 . The Results of the Factor Analysis of Team Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Factor names/ Factor loadings Item content I II Communalities TOCB My colleagues consider the impact of their actions on coworkers.02 .37 .70 .66 My colleagues tend to “make mountains out of molehills.06 .35 Eigenvalue 14.74 James et al.01 .23 . . .30 .64 He/she sets the goals for my performance.11 .32 .74 . 82 .64 2.73 My colleagues make frequent and/or long trips to the water fountain.13 .39 .69 Table 2.56 .77 .66 Directive leadership He/she establishes my performance goals.
First. 58 My colleagues consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.23 .12 -.09 .15 .05 (3) Transactional leadershipa . TOCB and TACB were separately regressed against the set of leadership styles and job satisfaction.02 .05 (4) Transformational leadershipa .19 .19 .03 . We utilized path analysis as our main approach to test our hypotheses. 2007.36 James et al. pp.17 . -.57 -.14 . rather than the positive side.46** -.65 .01 -.05 -.54 Eigenvalue 6.61 -.10 (5) Empowering leadershipa .90 .31* (8) TACB 2.36** -.57 .70 .18 -.29* -.15 .50 -. Table 3.71 . Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 Results Table 3 contains means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelation matrix of all variables. (1984) coefficients .05 -.25* (7) TOCB 3.04 .24* .14 -.01 .58 .03 .12 . job satisfaction was regressed against leadership.06 -. 3. Second.31 .53 -. 2 Iss. Vol. -.07 (6) Job satisfaction 3.03 .30* -.57 My colleagues avoid their jobs by coming in late or leaving early.35** . Three sets of ordinary least squares regressions were conducted (see Table 4 and Figure 1).84 Yun et al.My colleagues focus on what’s wrong./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 184 International Journal of Leadership Studies.59 -.73 .10 -.22 -.34 1.77 Intraclass correlation .74 . Correlations among Variables M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) Aversive leadershipa -.05 . 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship.61 (2) Directive leadershipa . -.
171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. In summary. The Table 4 results also indicate that aversive leadership is directly. negative effect of aversive leadership on TOCB (-.22. pp.01.38. negative influence on TACB (-.07 = .a These variables (factor scores) are estimated through the regression analysis at the individual level and aggregated to the group level. . Thus. -. Thus. * p < . job satisfaction has an indirect. 2 Iss. Furthermore.05).35.17 * 38).23 * . one-tailed. Thus. α < . hypothesis 1 was supported. hypothesis 6). That is. α < .21 * -.05). hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported.08 = .35.38. ** p < . Results provide no support for the direct. α < . positive relationship between aversive leadership and TACB (hypothesis 7b). The results showed that job satisfaction was positively related to TOCB (ß = . hypothesis 7a was supported.35.23.08 = .05.06 = -.23 * . 10). respectively). the indirect effect of aversive leadership on TOCB and TACB (. and job satisfaction is negatively related to TACB (ß = -. α < . α < . However. Vol. negatively related to job satisfaction (ß = -. positive effect on TOCB (. aversive leadership was directly. respectively) also through job satisfaction (hypotheses 3b and 5b). negatively related to TOCB (ß = -. Hypothesis 1 concerned the effects of job satisfaction on TOCB and TACB.09 = . Regent University .21.38..21 * . 2007. There was also an indirect. ß = . α < .06 = INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 185 International Journal of Leadership Studies. 05). The multiple regression analyses showed no direct effects of transformational leadership (hypotheses 3a and 3b) or empowering leadership on TOCB and TACB (hypotheses 5a and 5b).05. 3. Both transformational leadership and empowering leadership had a positive influence on job satisfaction (ß = .10.17. the results in Table 4 show that transformational and empowering leadership have an indirect.
52* 2.09)* -.01. Also. Note that while aversive leadership works directly on TOCB. On the basis of these results. and TACB.14)** Aversive leadership -. TOCB.ISSN 1554-3145 . **p < . Hypotheses 8.13) .12) Directive leadership .18 (.16)* -.12) R2 .04* 3.12) Transactional leadership .17) -. was supported.12 (. The results demonstrate that there is no significant effect of directive leadership on job satisfaction. Discussion The purpose of our study was to examine how leadership relates uniquely to TOCB. Results of Regression Analysis Dependent variables Job satisfaction TOCB TACB Job satisfaction . and 9b were not supported.16) Transformational leadership .24 (. who investigated prosocial behavior (a broader class of behavior that includes a form of OCB at the .12) Empowering leadership .35).23 (. Job satisfaction was tested as a possible mediator. positive effect on TACB through job satisfaction.25 F 2. we can conclude that aversive leadership has both direct and indirect negative effects on TOCB and an indirect. one-tailed. Unstandardized coefficients with standard errors are in parentheses.17 (.11)* -.05.10 (.35 (. George and Bettenhausen (1990).15 (.21 (.13)* -.18 (.10)* -.14) -. 9a.16 (.38 (. the overall results are summarized by the path diagram in Figure 1.17 * -. *p < .00 (.12) .11) -. transactional leadership did not affect job satisfaction (hypotheses 8 and 10).23 . both transformational leadership and empowering leadership influence both TOCB and TACB indirectly through job satisfaction. Table 4. Finally.53** Note.16 .22 (.14) -.12 (.08 (.02 (.
Yun et al. In general. 59). both transformational leadership and empowering leadership have indirect effects to TOCB and TACB through job satisfaction. our study supports the idea that leader behaviors affect TOCB both directly as well as indirectly through job satisfaction. In this study. Path diagram. Also. with very few exceptions” (p.group level of analysis). It is easy to explain the negative effects of aversive type behavior on TOCB. we tested whether various forms within a leadership typology also related to TOCB. the aversive leader will not produce unhappy employees and cause employees to do only as much as they have to do . stated that “research in this area [prosocial and citizenship research] has been focused on prosocial behavior at the individual level of analysis. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 Figure 1. As McCroskey and Richmond (1979) explained it. 2 Iss. The results indicate that only aversive leadership has both direct as well as indirect relationships to TOCB as expected. and different types of leader behaviors were formed to influence both TOCB and TACB. 699). and participation as evoking OCB at the individual level. “if people are forced to do something they don’t like./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 186 International Journal of Leadership Studies. Finally. They concluded that it is meaningful to study phenomena like citizenship behavior and other types of prosocial behavior at the group level of analysis. the influence of leadership on job satisfaction and citizenship. 1988). 3. it follows they will be less satisfied than will other people” (p. 2007. Previous research has linked leader behaviors such as fairness. pp. We also tested the mediating role of job satisfaction (Organ. consideration. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Vol.
38* -. Bass. & Terborg. Sosik.g. hence.21* . Steers. As the power is in the hands of the aversive leader. & Kahai. They influence TOCB through increasing the team member’s job satisfaction. Transactional leadership has no effect on job satisfaction. leaders might be encouraged to use both transformational leadership and empowering leadership in order to make the group effective. The results for the transformational leader and empowering leader are very straightforward. Leaders have to provide vision which their followers can agree on and pursue together to enhance job satisfaction Aversive leadership Directive leadership Transactional leadership Transformational leadership Empowering leadership Job satisfaction TOCB TACB -.and nothing extra.17* .22* -. 1997. only the absolute minimum will be worked for a person who behaves arbitrarily and capriciously. Koh. Waldman. employees do the work for him or her. Overall. 1995. 1997. but transformational leadership did have a positive effect which is consistent with previous studies that found an augmenting capacity of transformational leadership (e. Avolio.35** . 1990).. & Yammarino. we conclude that job satisfaction does have an influence on TOCB apart from leadership.23* INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 187 . Sosik. Practical Implications Based on these results.
International Journal of Leadership Studies. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. organizations using team-based structures should encourage leaders to engage in transformational and empowering leadership and avoid aversive leadership. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 and TOCB. In other words. First. 2007. In summary. In other words. pp. This might simply be due to the observation by the leader that the team is capable of carrying that responsibility. not extra-role behaviors. (1994) addressed reciprocal causality in their paper “Tough times make tough bosses. they need to empower their followers. it is likely to reduce followers’ job satisfaction and TOCB. it indirectly influences TACB. Aversive leadership style hurts team process in two ways. To do so. If leaders engage in aversive leadership. they are engaged in micromanagement. Therefore.” They . By empowering their followers. Vol. it directly suppresses TOCB because followers mainly focus on their own tasks. aversive leadership increases team members’ negative behavior which is not related to a task but to group process. 2 Iss. they need to develop training programs which emphasize these forms of leadership. transformational and empowering leadership capability should be considered a factor in promotion to positions that entail leadership responsibilities. Also. leaders should not display aversive leadership. 3. It might be that a team who behaves in a very cooperative manner and exhibits TOCB causes satisfaction in the team members and causes the leader to engage in behavior that gives even more power to the team. Scully et al. Also. leaders can make followers more satisfied with their jobs and enhance their TOCB. Limitations One limitation that is cited in many research studies that try to identify causal relationships is the issue of reverse causality. Also.
If performance is low. different time lags might cause different results. However. However. Our results demonstrate that there is a . the direct effect of aversive leadership on TOCB shows that this limitation may not have a high effect on our results. specifically the performance of a leader’s unit. Very little research on this behavioral construct has been done at the group level of analysis (George. if performance is high. aggregation reduces the effect of same source bias. affects the way a leader will behave. George & Bettenhausen.argued that the leader’s environment. possibly leading to same source bias. Leadership style was measured 30 weeks before measuring TOCB. The research reported here has the advantage of a timelagged arrangement of variables which enhances the capability to infer causality. Therefore. authoritarian behavior will be exhibited. our study had a longitudinal design which somewhat reduces this bias by measuring different variables in different waves. 1990). future study has to deal with this issue. There were 20 weeks between measuring job satisfaction and TOCB. Nevertheless. Conclusion This study sets itself apart from traditional research on OCB because we focused on TOCB. In addition. future study using different data sources are required. However. the difference of time lag may enhance the effect of job satisfaction but reduce the effect of leadership on TOCB when they are considered simultaneously. However. We found that job satisfaction mainly mediates the effects of leadership on TOCB. This might also be the case when a leader is guiding a team. 1990. Another limitation is that our study measured all the variables from team members. more participative type of behaviors will be used.
Vol.D. the research significantly supports the notion that both transformational and empowering leadership can enhance teamwork through the influence of job satisfaction.kr Dr. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Seokhwa Yun is an assistant professor at the College of Business Administration at Seoul National University. About the Authors Dr. and knowledge management. His work has been featured in journals such as Academy of Management Journal. expatriation issues.ac. Our results suggest that transformational and empowering leadership are the most effective types for the guidance of teams. Areas of research interest include leadership. employees’ extra-role behaviors. pp. Jonathan F. 2 Iss. He received his Ph. Journal of Applied Psychology. Smith School of Business. top management teams. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 need for further research at the group level of analysis because different processes might exist due to the different kinds of interdependencies that exist in teams. Inc. in industrial/organizational psychology from the . 2007. This becomes even more relevant since more and more organizations are moving toward a team-based structure. in management from the Robert H.. serving clients in the energy and energy services industries. E-mail: syun@snu. 3. All other leadership styles either had no effects (as in directive and transactional leadership) or a negative effect (as in aversive leadership) on TOCB.D. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Cox is a consultant with MRE Consulting. College Park. University of Maryland. impression management. Indeed.Yun et al. and International Journal of Human Resource Management. He earned his Ph./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 188 International Journal of Leadership Studies.
and other publications. 5. Mathieu. Michigan State University.. He earned his Ph. R. A. (2005). Her colleagues mourn her passing. Henry P. Group and Organization Management.. Academy of Management Review. & Ivancevich. Sabrina Salam received her Ph. Smith School of Business. project management. College Park.University of Maryland. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. pp.D. Vol. propositions. Smith School of Business.edu Dr. G. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. H. 123-132. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 References Ahearne. University of Maryland. Jr. Salam lost her life in a tragic automobile accident. Sims. and organizational change management. Arvey. D. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 189 International Journal of Leadership Studies. (1994).D. from the College of Business. J. Cox’s areas of expertise include leadership.. K. E-mail: jcox@mre-consulting. Ball. L. and Administrative Science Quarterly. Punishment in organizations: A review. from the Robert H. Advances in the Interdisciplinary Study of Work Teams (JAI Press). teamwork.umd. Trevino. 2 Iss.. M. (1980). 945-955. and research suggestions. Dr. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. Dr. J.com Dr. Unfortunately. His area of research is leadership and teams. 3. & Rapp. College Park. His work has been featured in Journal of Applied Psychology. & Sims. 2007. He has published 7 books and over 130 articles in such journals as Journal of Applied Psychology. Just and unjust punishment: Influences on . Academy of Management Journal. 90. is professor of management and organization at the Robert H. P. E-mail: hsims@rhsmith. A. University of Maryland..
34. Bourgeois. Jr. A. New York: Lexington Books. B. 587595. Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. & Sims. & Menon. Greenwich. (1978). Johnson (Eds. . In M. 16(2). New York: W.). New York: Free Press.subordinate performance and citizenship. Bateman. D. Psychometrika.. New York: Wiley.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger. (1988). B. M. (1996). L. H. Cronbach. J.. (1951). N. & Bebb. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship..” Academy of Management Journal. Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Kanungo. J. & Organ. New York: Harper & Row. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. A. Burns. The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership.. A. A. 299-322. T. P. S. J. T.. B. M. Beyerlein & D. Waldman. J. C. F. C. M. J. (1985). E. 1-14). Smith. (1994).. J. 816835. & Stone. Bass. (1997). Conger. Basilevsky. Group and Organization Studies. & Eisenhardt. Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Cranny. Journal of Organizational Behavior. L. (2000). P. 37.. 73-78. M. J. Bandura. Avolio. D. J. M. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. F. (1989). Leadership. H. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Statistical factor analysis and related methods. B. Academy of Management Journal. 297-334. W. Cox. (1987). A. Advanced in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. CT: JAI Press. 12. 26. Management Science. Freeman. A. (1992). 21.. Charismatic leadership and follower effects. (1983).. K. S.. 747-767. Leadership and team citizenship behavior: A model and measures. Bass.
In C. A new look in job satisfaction research and theory. M. MA: Addison-Wesley. 16(4). and behavior in groups. & Locke. P. C.. J. M. New York: Lexington Books.. P. 2007. & Judge. Journal of Applied Psychology. 3.. Hmielski. Gibbs. 2 Iss. & Pearce. 613-640.). Towler. (2005). and organizational citizenship behavior. job satisfaction. 698-709. D. Work design. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 George. (1992). 705-721.Currall. V. J. (in press). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Personality. (1990). J. & E. Podsakoff. (1990). K. M../INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 190 International Journal of Leadership Studies... Yun et al. R. Vol. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75. M. M. G. Understanding prosocial behavior. A. C. C. C.. 58. affect. L. (1990). Leadership Quarterly. K. & Bettenhausen. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship... J. L. D. W. A. Smith. Fisher. Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Journal of Management. Business unit level relationship between employee . L. B. Ensley. & Javidi. sales performance. & Organ. Harter. 11(2). D. 209-220. L. (2002). pp.. Communication Research Reports. Reading. Stone (Eds. On-the-job relationships among selfreported oral communication apprehension. & Schmidt. (1994).. 107-116. Farh. 75(6). K. (1980). F. Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes. A. and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. J. R. J. J. F. Cranny. Rosenfeld. & Oldham. Hackman. Personnel Psychology. M. The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. S. George. E. T.
E. P. J. Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. The effects of transformational leadership on . L. P. Larson (Eds. Steers. (2001). 268-279. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. R. 246255. P. 43. employee engagement. E. & Wolf. Kark. 85-98. R. In C. Howell. Hunt & L. In J. 131133. & Chen. M. (1992). 695702. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. F. Upper Saddle River. 9. Journal of Applied Psychology. D. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. R... L. 69(1). Smith. and development. Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. G. How job satisfaction and job performance are and are not linked. Leadership: The cutting edge.). M. & E. L.. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. NJ: Prentice Hall. motivation. A. L. J. 87. R. (1984). Journal of Applied Psychology. (1999). James. & Frost. D. C.. (1964). Demaree. R. Howell. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Terborg. M... & Pulakos. D. (2003). J. Thompson. and business outcomes: A metaanalysis. (1988). Cranny. Shamir. J. & Bass.satisfaction. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. & Guzzo. Ilgen. J. Katz. B. Katzell. D. (1989). J. 73(4). (1995). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (1st edition). House. J. D.. The motivational basis of organizational behavior.. R. A.). B. Behavioral Science. Journal of Applied Psychology. The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing. R. G. R. & Costley. (1977). Stone (Eds. 88. 243-269.. Hater. W. New York: Lexington Books. Koh... G. J. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias..
37(3). G. Vol. A. Mahoney. and knowledge management in the Fortune 1000: The CEO report. Cognitive and self-control therapies. L. K. B. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLG literature.. J. E. & Arnkoff. S. A.. 87. M. 656-669. In S. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. J. 319-333. G. Journal of Applied Psychology.).teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore.. & Sims. Garfield & A. & Sivasubramaniam. J. (2002). N. 2 Iss. LePine. (1978)... H. Handbook of psychotherapy and therapy change (pp. TQM. C. Academy of Management Journal. E. E. 87. Erez. K. & Pugh. 52-65. E. Journal of Applied Psychology. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 191 International Journal of Leadership Studies. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. 2007. reengineering. & Benson. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Lowe. Chicago: Rand McNally.. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 Locke. K. Mohrman. In M. & Allen. Leadership Quarterly. Kroeck. D. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. (1976). B.. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. D. (2002). 3. 7. Lee.. 131-142.. Jr. M. Lawler. Dunnette (Ed. A. D. D. New York: Wiley. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. S.). 385-425.. Organizing for high performance: Employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Konovsky. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external . Manz. 16. Borgin (Eds. 689-722). A.. & Johnson. C. A. 1297-1349). P. (1987). pp. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. (1994). (2001). (1996). E. N.
(2003). antecedents. 465-478. Jr. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development.. and consequences. P. Communication Quarterly. Manz. C. (1977). Organizational Dynamics. 20(2). W. 33. P. C. Organ.. 106-129... Meichenbaum. L. 32. H. & MacKenzie. & Hoffmann. 24.. M. (1999). (1988). F. Morgeson. & Richmond. McCroskey. A. (2005). C. Organ. 27. & Konovsky. W.. H. & Sims. P. Manz. Teams behaving badly: Factors associated with anticitizenship behavior in teams. Organ. (1979). C. V.. (1991). Organ. D. SuperLeadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. & Giacalone. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature. D. Academy of Management Review. 55-61. 19. MA: Lexington Books. A. P. CA: Sage.. M. P. D. H. Podsakoff. C. 157-164. Lexington. Thousand Oaks. S. & Sims. Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. D. D. & Sims. The new superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. New York: Plenum Press..leadership of self-managing work teams. W. Manz. Jr. Pearce. Journal of Management. R. Jr. (1990). SuperLeadership: Leading others to lead themselves. Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. C. 74(1). (2001). The impact of communication apprehension on individuals in organizations. 58-75.. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. . D. Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. B. 249-265. Journal of Applied Psychology. P. Administrative Science Quarterly.. C. New York: Berkeley Books.. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. 18-35. (1994). W. (1989). J. C.
(2003) Transactors.. 7(2). L. Pearce. E. 144. L. Jr. transactional. Leadership Quarterly. Journal of Management Development. 262-270. Y.. C. Cox./INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 192 International Journal of Leadership Studies. P. 172197. Ahearne... Schnell. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 293-310. P. J. & Sims.. & Fetter. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. S. MacKenzie. Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 & S. shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive. team commitment. 82. F. A. H. B. G..Pearce. Podsakoff. E. H. L. Vol. R. social work and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical vs. (1997). Riggio Yun et al. satisfaction. P. transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership. In R. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. Sims. Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. Vertical vs. 273307. 1. and team size. (2004). 180-203). 3. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on trust. P.... A.. Leadership. (2004). R. B.. & MacKenzie. 22(4).. K. M. Pearce. Pearce. (2002).. Group Dynamics. & Alavi. C. & Herbik. Yoo.. and organizational citizenship behaviors.. Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership. L. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. pp. M. 107-142. 2 Iss. S. transformational and empowering behaviors. Trevino. L. 2007. M. P. C.. Smith-Orr (Eds. Jr. . M. Podsakoff. Smith. Ball. H. perceived team support. C. directive. Moorman. Journal of Social Psychology.). (1990). Journal of Applied Psychology.
Hanges. P. Raver.. B. D. The relative importance of task. H. After the bubble burst: How small high-tech firms can keep in front of the wave. Riolli-Saltzman. J. & Offermann. Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance.. Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. & Kerr. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.. C. 15. Prosocial behavior.. J. M. Smith. 66-80. Olian. M.. 15. Paine. Academy of Management Journal. Schneider. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. M. J. 87. Academy of Management Executive. J. Sims.. and work performance among commission sales people. 1078-1086. (2002). 48. M.Podsakoff. team processes. (2000). J. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2005). R. N. L. 88. Scully. A. A. 197-321. (1976). Schriesheim. & Luthans. A. and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. M. 387-400. B. and team performance. 615-621. .. (2001). K. 114124.. Puffer. B. Rotundo. S. MacKenzie. & Sackett. (1987).. 513-563. Leadership Quarterly. L. & Salvaggio. R. House. A. noncompliant behavior.. S. S. Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment. Journal of Management. P. J. 23(10). P. Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology. & Smith... & Bachrach. R. Ross. P.. citizenship. S. 72. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.. 26. & Gelfand. (1997). (1994). Jr. R. J. Tough times make tough bosses: A meso analysis of CEO leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. D. L.. D.. B. F. G.. Schnell. E.. 2003. 836-851.
Regent University ISSN 1554-3145 .394.. P. & Fidell. G. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1990). Organ. A. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 193 International Journal of Leadership Studies. C (1996). J.. B. Sosik.. & Kahai. A. Sims. 89-103. Vol.. New York: Wiley & Sons. J. Jr. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. 653-663.. & Manz. C. Avolio. Company of heroes: Unleashing the power of selfleadership. J. C. H. J. & Near. Journal of Applied Psychology. 3. (1997). 460487. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. J. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment.. 59-83. 381. L. 82. Tabachnick. 2007. & Yammarino.). 2 Iss..5(1). P. pp. Group and Organization Management. M. S. Sosik. S. Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. 15. D. Group & Organization Studies. B.. W. 22. (1983). B. 171-193 ©2007 School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. (1997). Smith. F. Effect of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Waldman. 68(4). J. S. (2000). J. D. Bass.
.The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the Workplace Sean P. Neuroticism and agreeableness are negatively correlated with leadership capabilities. Neubert Rochester Institute of Technology This paper investigates the correlation and validity of the five-factor model with job performance and other job-related activities. Individuals who score high on conscientiousness tend to perform well at work. absences. Conscientiousness and agreeableness appear to be positively correlated with productivity in a team environment among peers and are more likely to aid in being selected for a job. whereas individuals lacking conscientiousness and having neuroticism tend to perform poorly at work. Motivation. deviation. and job satisfaction are related to the five factors.
and therefore are more likely dissatisfied with the level of stimulation that they experience while at work. & Mount. 2002). Motivation in the Workplace Studies of sales representatives have defined two aspects of motivation--status striving and accomplishment striving--and they are correlated with extraversion and conscientiousness. although the data imply that status striving leads to performance and accomplishment striving leads to performance only indirectly via a relation between accomplishment striving and status striving (Barrick. with extraversion being positively correlated with job satisfaction and neuroticism being negatively correlated. whereas hostile and rude behavior toward coworkers are categorized as interpersonal deviance. where there is less stimulation. To say that extraverted sales representatives perform better is a bit redundant.This is a review of the relation between the five-factor model of personality and performance in the workplace. Because extraversion is such an integral aspect of being a salesperson. Stewart. Examples include stealing. Stealing and withholding effort are categorized as organizational deviance. Deviation in the Workplace Workplace deviance occurs when an employee voluntarily pursues a course of action that threatens the well-being of the individual or the organization. who are likely required to be extraverted in order to succeed at their job. Initial research indicated that neuroticism is negatively correlated with job satisfaction. whereas conscientiousness. hostile behavior towards coworkers. . respectively. whereas at their home there is less stimulation. then extraverted employees are more likely to be at a low level of arousal while at work. This finding may be due to the low level of arousability for extraverted individuals (Hebb's theory). This study is questionable in that it studied sales representatives. Research in this field has yielded correlations between the five-factor model and aspects of job performance such as motivation. Additional research. deviation. Openness to experience has a negligible impact on job satisfaction. Job Satisfaction The five-factor model is correlated with overall level of job satisfaction experienced by employees. on the other hand. and teamwork. In general. and withholding effort. & Piotrowski. Heller. shy sales people do not go far. This could be due to the social nature of the workplace (Judge. and agreeableness are positively correlated with job satisfaction. has only been able to replicate correlations among the factors of neuroticism and extraversion. this study does not lend much support for a general model or theory correlating the five-factor model with job performance. satisfied employees are more likely to remain in a position and to avoid absences than are dissatisfied employees. however. If the workplace is a social environment. are more likely at their optimal level of arousal outside of the workplace. extraversion. job satisfaction. 2002). These two subsets of motivation lead to sales performance. Introverts.
This implies that individuals who are emotionally stable and conscientious are less likely to withhold effort or steal. they go to work anyway. Introverted. the single factor of conscientiousness is the most predictive of job performance (Hurtz & Donovan. The results of the latter research suggests that extraverted individuals are more satisfied in the workplace. This behavior might imply either that introverts are more conscientious or simply that introverts have no compelling reason not to go to work (whereas extraverts may have friends who urge them to skip work and go see a movie). whereas introverted individuals are less satisfied in the workplace due to too much stimulation. Research indicates that personality acts as a moderating factor: workplace deviance was more likely to be endorsed with respect to an individual when both the perception of the workplace was negative and emotional stability. whereas those who are agreeable are less likely to be hostile to their coworkers. because work gives them an opportunity to experience an optimal level of arousal. 2004). because introverts might be tempted to skip work to avoid the extra stimulation and might perhaps stay home and read a book (a book on psychology. although introverts may be less satisfied in the workplace. & Thoresen. Martocchio. Employees who had a positive perception of their workplace were less likely to pursue deviant behavior. Judge and his colleagues will likely continue their research and perhaps provide answers in the future. Another entirely different factor to consider is perception of the workplace. no doubt). 2000). and agreeableness are all related to cooperative behavior but that they are not related to task . The Judge et al. Teamwork Oftentimes in the workplace the ability to be a team player is valued and is critical to job performance. or agreeableness was low (Colbert. 1997). Perhaps another factor in absenteeism is that. conscientious employees are much less likely to be absent from work. Interpersonal deviance is negatively correlated with high levels of agreeableness. Absences Job absence is very much a part of job performance: employees are not performing effectively if they do not even come to work. Witt. as opposed to extraverted employees who are low on conscientiousness. (1997) study is interesting considering the Judge et al. conscientiousness. however. This conclusion is debateable. extraversion. & Barrick. Harter. Organizational deviance is negatively correlated with high levels of conscientiousness and positively correlated with high levels of neuroticism. Interestingly enough.Workplace deviance is related to the five-factor model of personality. Recent research has suggested that conscientiousness. Combining the results of these two studies suggests that conscientiousness is the deciding factor regarding job absence. Performance in the Workplace Of the five factors. neuroticism is not highly correlated with absence (Judge. Mount. (2002) research on job satisfaction and the fivefactor model.
It appears that the relation between job performance and the five factors is more a consequence of the social aspects of the workplace than of ability. Leadership abilities are often essential in the workplace. Contrary to what the researchers hypothesized. Studies of Asian military units have found that neuroticism is negatively correlated with leadership abilities. 2001). it lays siege to the role of personality by implying that actual job performance (task performance) is related to cognitive ability and not to personality (LePine & Dyne. 1993). Personnel Selection Research into the relation between the five-factors model and personnel hiring provides additional evidence that conscientiousness is the most valid predictor of job performance (Schmidt & Ryan. Research indicates that cognitive ability is more strongly correlated with task performance than any of the five factors are correlated with task performance. although conscientiousness is more positively correlated (extraversion is negatively correlated with job performance in that it appears to inspire more absence. Although this fortifies the case that job performance is related to the fivefactor model via increased cooperativeness among coworkers. Being absent from work or working as a team are correlates of personality that directly affect whether one will succeed in the workplace. and they are strongly correlated with the Big Five and not with cognitive ability. especially for individuals who aspire to move up into the ranks of management. which are key components of long-term job success. it is easy to believe that employers will seek out that factor or the traits that coincide with it. Summary Job performance and personality (as measured in the five-factor model) are related. Although agreeableness is positively correlated with working with a team. The five factors are strongly correlated with cooperating with others and enjoying the overall workplace experience. Given that conscientious individuals have a tendency to perform better as employees. like Steven King) would yield different results. Openness to experience is unrelated to leadership abilities. Is it possible that these studies are skewed? Perhaps researching individuals in jobs that require very little human interaction (such as authors of fiction. but only when combined with low levels of . Conscientiousness and extraversion are the two aspects of the five-factor model that are always correlated with positive job performance. it is negatively correlated with being a leader. but extraversion is positively correlated with leadership abilities (Lim & Ployhart. This evidence is consistent with the long-standing idea that in teams there are leaders and there are followers. Those followers who do not always agree and are willing to voice their own opinions end up moving up the ranks. 2004). the leaders make decisions and the followers abide by them.performance. whereas those who blindly agree are left as followers. It is worth noting that the majority of research has been on sales or other occupations in which interacting with people is required. agreeableness is negatively correlated with leadership abilities as well.
Neubert clearly showed a large correlation between elements of the five-factor model and job performance. and in some cases the line between employee and employer is very small. and more importantly which types show little or no correlation. With a wider variety of research. provided they have a job that does not involve teamwork or customer interaction. and outside of jobs that are based on social interaction. Cognitive ability is the major factor in job performance. is unrelated. Granted this social aspect can almost never be removed--and is a must for many people due to personal needs for interaction--the model will have its affect in a large number of cases. Neuroticism is negatively correlated with job performance. The author rightly stated that the five-factor model's relation to job performance is most likely due to the social aspects of the workplace rather than an individual's ability.conscientiousness). Cognitive ability seems to be a concrete factor in all cases. With a larger company usually comes an impersonal relation between employee and employer. This means that as long as employees have all the required cognitive abilities. In a smaller company. . The five-factor model is a valid predictor of workplace performance. in general. the relation between employee and employer is usually much more personal. Personality is an indispensable consideration for employers looking for quality employees. but the effects of personality on job performance seem to vary greatly depending on the importance or prevalence of social situations in the workplace. in that certain traits that seem to have negative effects on a certain aspect of job performance could be positive in lower amounts. The social aspects of most jobs are unnecessary to the actual work one is required to do. they will perform just as well as those who have a favorable personality. an equally wide array of results might occur. Cognitive ability may allow an employee to complete a specific task. In a large company. Howell Rochester Institute of Technology "The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the Workplace" by Sean P. In this case a non-favorable personality could have a very large effect on a person's job performance. I believe that the five-factor model has much less impact. Agreeableness is negatively correlated with job performance within a leadership role. As stated by the author. most if not all studies on this topic were preformed on sales jobs or other jobs highly dependent on interaction with others. Much of the research also seems to look at traits as either on or off. Openness to experience. But what is not entirely clear is what types of jobs show increased performance. the model's effect is merely a product of background environment in the workplace. Peer Commentary The Five-Factor Model and Job Performance Timothy M. but the ability to work with others and to stay motivated are aspects of personality. by contrast.
The transformational leader does not . The five-factor model may be a good indicator of job performance. then they feel that they are needed. Leaders with proper skills in motivation. would one willing follow his or her requests. Team members need to feel that they are actually contributing to the collective goal of the team. Transformational leaders act toward other employees like coaches and mentors. such as high levels of agreeableness impeding one's will to put forth one's own ideas. This is most obvious in the statement that agreeableness is negatively correlated with job performance in leadership positions. are referred to as transformational leaders. who stimulate and challenge subordinates. If a team member feels as though he or she is doing trivial work while others are doing more meaningful work. intellectual stimulation. If workers are a part of properly functioning teams. This is a situation in which the team leader needs to step in and properly distribute tasks so that each team member is challenged by his or her assignments. These are leaders whose teams always outperform everybody else." would have a negative effect on leadership performance. then team unity will deteriorate. I thought that certain aspects of the model could be further explored to reveal varying level of certain factors being more or less influential on job performance. Transformational leadership consists of four constructs: charisma or idealized influence. such that one would allow oneself to be "used as a door mat. If one's boss were completely disagreeable. and individualized consideration (Lim & Ployhart 2004). without any traits being so pronounced as to reduce performance. The author cited many interesting points. or would one do everything in one's power to slow or impede the completion of one's assigned work? A good leader needs to be well-rounded in all the "positive" social aspects of the five-factor model. I agree that an unusually large level of agreeableness. and many times are seen more as the person with all the answers then as a a higher-ranking employee. Milinichik Rochester Institute of Technology Good teamwork is essential to job satisfaction. along with the sense of belonging is a sense of accomplishment. but I am not convinced that it is as big of a factor as the author portrayed. and I agree with most of his conclusions. Furthermore.The research cited on the five-factor model seemed to consider someone as either having a factor or completely lacking it. they are more likely to be satisfied with their job. Peer Commentary How Good Teamwork Leads to Job Satisfaction Andrew Z. When team members feel as though they are needed by the team. These types of leaders are the ones whom everyone wants to be like or to have on their team. but the trait is definitely necessary to succeed as a leader. inspirational motivation. They make the worker feel needed. How do transformational leaders relate to job satisfaction? Transformational leaders take time to answer the questions of an individual worker. I would like to see more research on a boarder range of professions to truly see how large a role the five-factor model plays in one's job performance.
Personality influence would perhaps become less palpable if an individual's place of work is not a highly social arena or the job is non-traditional. Another important quality of transformational leaders is modesty. If one's job does not require constant or high levels of social interaction. The transformational leader knows that teams are often together for only a single project.have to be the appointed leader either. Other types of jobs that do not require . the notion that salespeople who exhibit high levels of extraversion will have better overall job performance is pretty evident. and an introverted salesperson would obviously be less effective than an extravert. the transformational leader gives him or her a sense of accomplishment when the goal is reached. for being a salesperson requires a lot of social interaction. This lets the workers know that they are valued. transformational leaders not only seek to improve the functioning of the team by using only the brightest individuals but also work with all staff members to improve their skills. Neubert. Thus. which also contributes to their sense of accomplishment. Peer Commentary How Much Does Personality Influence Job Performance? Kory Sinha Rochester Institute of Technology A person's personality may not necessarily have a very high impact on a person's job or productivity per se. another point brought up is about conscientiousness in addition to extraversion and its positive correlation with job performance in terms of the social atmosphere present in most workplaces: a conscientious person is obviously more likely to be a more productive worker and an extraverted person will experience an optimal level of arousal in a social workplace. then one's cognitive ability can become a much greater factor. a job such as a writer may not necessarily require high levels of extraversion. acting to mitigate the diminishing effect that a non-transformational leader has on the team. Depending on the type of job one holds. one's personality may have very little impact on the quality of work being done or other job performance indicators. not only does the leader take the time to help the worker on a one-to-one level but also pushes the worker to achieve the most with the solution. As mentioned by Neubert. The transformational leader can be a normal team member with all the traits of a transformational leader. the transformational leader instills confidence in his or her employees. Overall. Transformational leaders also contribute to workers' sense of accomplishment. As discussed by Sean P. a transformational leader oftens directs the credit to his or her workers. More importantly. depending on the type of work being done. Given that point. When an employee goes to a transformational leader with a problem. This translates into not only better job satisfaction for employees but also better productivity for the company. When commended on a job well done. by helping the individual feel needed.
or even perhaps because there really is no direct relation between openness to experience and overall job performance. Openness may not relate to job performance due to limitations in the methodology of past research.direct social interaction are probably similar in terms of cognitive abilities or other factors affecting overall job performance. Peer Commentary The Five-Factor Model is Not Enough to Explain Successful Job Performance Noah J. a new way of doing things may improve operation of an entire company. People's personalities obviously have an impact on many. because if one is unwilling to perform the task and lacks conscientiousness. it does. From this fact. has been shown to be more positively correlated to actual task performance. there may be a direct but unobvious connection to job performance in terms of creating and trying new things that may improve personal productivity or otherwise maybe even affect general productivity on a greater scale--for example. a person who is more open to experience would be willing to try out new and different ideas presented by coworkers. Does personality have a great impact on overall productivity in a social workplace? Yes. many things that they do. a worker who is able efficiently to finish tasks is much more valuable to a company than a worker who is everyone's friend. Stupak Rochester Institute of Technology Although job performance may be related to the personality factors of conscientiousness. Therefore. Social aspects of many traditional work environments may overshadow some other unseen factors that affect overall workplace productivity. How profound the effect of personality is on job performance depends of course on the unique facets of an individual's personality. these measure only whether a person will show up to work and get along with his or her co-workers. Openness to experience has not been shown to correlate significantly with job performance. and extraversion. however. One's openness to experience should be indicative of creativity and originality. Cognitive ability. if not everything. the goal of any worthwhile workplace study is successful performance. lack of a high enough correlation to reach statistical significance. ." In the eyes of management and human resources professionals. then the job will not get done. regardless of potential ability. one can argue that personality comes into play again. agreeableness. the more important concept of task performance is only briefly mentioned in the paper "The Five-Factor Model of Personality in the Workplace. This may seem counterintuitive. More research needs to be conducted on other types of work environments. and cognitive ability and intellect are presumably related. Openness would also then tie into working with other people--for example. because openness to experience is sometimes also referred to intellect. Although important in the workplace. consequently.
Emotional intelligence is positively correlated with happiness at work. cognitive ability is one of the few.Although only mentioned in a few sentences in the paper. in jobs that are mostly based on individual tasks. or soldier. Neubert Rochester Institute of Technology I would like to thank the authors of the peer commentaries for providing good points for discussion with regards to my paper. Depending on the job. It is obvious that more intelligent persons will be able to complete tasks assigned to them faster and better than less intelligent co-workers. This shows a strong relation between personality and workplace success. The creative worker is the one who will innovate and try to move the company forward or come up with new ideas for products. manpower. Among the commentaries there appeared to be a consensus that cognitive ability is a more crucial factor than personality in workplace . Cognitive ability plays a significant role in jobs that require decision-making and individual work. Finally. A person high in openness to experience would succeed easily in a job that places the person in a variety of situations. The second and equally important predictor of long-term career performance is emotional intelligence. A creative solution could potentially save a company vast resources. if not only. Employees who are the best in their field. They are resilient. are not just good at their jobs and friendly with their co-workers. advertisers. life success. law. or banking. it takes more than traditional cognitive intelligence to be successful at work--it also takes emotional intelligence. Creative workers will also come up with solutions that other people might not consider. and supplies. predictors of successful completion of tasks. Thus. the importance of extraversion would be negligible. the fields of work that the paper discussed are very narrow. the ability to restrain negative feelings such as anger and self-doubt. Because of their success at the tasks assigned to them. and confident. such as actor. a highly neurotic accountant who fusses over every detail would be an extremely beneficial addition to a company. Finally. the paper neglected to mention creativity as having a viable place in the workplace. and career salaries. medicine. Author Response The Combination of Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability Sean P. designers. People with more emotional intelligence are more successful at work. intelligent workers will be able quickly to rise up the corporate ladder to positions suitable to their skills. Extraversion would really only be positive in a job that requires a lot of interpersonal contact. engineering. each of the five factors could be the most important. like artists. For example. doctor. Creative people at work are often the most useful. and instead focus on positive ones such as confidence and optimism. In jobs that involve independence. and inventors. optimistic. whether it is psychology. creativity is intrinsically necessary to the profession. including money.
87. Sinha questioned why openness to experience has not been positively correlated with workplace performance. Conscientious employees are less likely to be absent from work and are less likely to steal from the organization. (2002). or another occupation that requires social interaction. With research on this topic spanning only the past 10 years. 43-51. current data conclusively indicate that conscientiousness and cognitive ability are two characteristics of an employee that strongly predict positive workplace performance. nor were they strong enough to be beyond chance.. Milinichik elaborated on the role of transformational leaders within a team environment. L. managers. Stupak suggested that emotional intelligence plays a key role in workplace performance. G. R. whereas the five-factor model is not important for measuring actual performance. conscientiousness relates strongly to how an employee applies that ability. research indicating positive correlations between workplace performance and conscientiousness have been more abundant. Although the question of whether different professions are affected differently by the personality of an employee is a question for future research. which may not require so much interaction. every study has found that conscientiousness is strongly correlated with workplace performance. and that research into different professions. M. Every research sample has included sales representatives. M. & Piotrowski. but the findings were not replicated universally. Future studies should address this issue by looking at occupations that allow telecommuting and professions that do not require working with other people directly. Despite over a decade of research regarding this topic. Although cognitive ability relates strongly to the ability of an employee. Howell reiterated that most of the research has been on persons who are in work environments that require interaction. Studies have found positive correlations between this trait and performance. convenience store clerks.performance. may lead to different results. Journal of Applied Psychology. .. there is not a prolific number of studies that have attempted to find differing degrees of influence of personality in separate professions. Although it is indeed true that cognitive ability has been more strongly correlated with completing a specific task. I would include this topic. Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Although emotional intelligence may be a part of workplace performance. References Barrick. If I were to revise my paper. This paper was an attempt to find correlations between personality and work performance. this is a relatively new field of research. Stewart.
(2004). G. Journal of Applied Psychology.. Transformational leadership: Relations to the fivefactor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. V. A. 82. 869-879. Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. J. (1997). Perceptions of organizational politics as a moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. 89. Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. & Dyne. R. (2004). W. 745-755. B. L.Colbert. A.. E. J. (2000). Heller. 472-478. 610-621. J. Last modified November 2004 Visited times since November 2004 Comments? Home to Personality Papers Home to Great Ideas in Personality . M.. & Ployhart. (2000). E. J. M.. Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. & Barrick. K.. Five-Factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. & Donovan. Lim. Hochwater. (2001). & Mount. Journal of Applied Psychology. LePine. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. Judge. 86. J. A. 87. Hurtz. Journal of Applied Psychology. 85.. Harter. Witt. (2002). M. Witt. K. & Thoresen.. Martocchio. L. J. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. T. 326-336. L. A... C. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Kacmar. 89. R. Judge. A. 530-541. Mount.. A. T. Journal of Applied Psychology. 85. K. J. 599-609. D. A... K.. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited.
lychron. leadership elicits voluntary action on the part of followers.za/Leader LyChron. Second.LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND STUDIES Ads by Google JC Smith Revealed .EffectiveManagement. Three points about the definition of leadership should be emphasized. Leadership cannot exist without a leader and one or more followers.www.com Leadership can be defined as a process by which one individual influences others toward the attainment of group or organizational goals.Learn tasks and tools for effective Leaders . Finally. LLC .com Succession Leadership Tool .co. Pharma www.Preclinical CRO with PET/CT Medical Device. leadership results in followers' behavior that is purposeful and goal-directed in some sort . The voluntary nature of compliance separates leadership from other types of influence based on formal authority.Register for our courses! .NASA admitting CLA has no connection to NASA. . First. Create Org Charts. JCSmithRevealed. Biotech. Free to evaluate.Download powerful HR software.successionwizard.com Business Leadership . leadership is a social influence process.
and controlling. the precise nature of leadership and its relationship to key criterion variables such as subordinate satisfaction. Table 1 provides a summary of the major theoretical approaches. although not all. and performance is still uncertain. A manager may or may not be an effective leader. organizing. studies of leadership focus on the nature of leadership in the workplace. Thousands of leadership studies have been published and thousands of pages on leadership have been written in academic books and journals. business-oriented publications. A manager has formal authority by virtue of his or her position or office. to the point where Fred Luthans. staffing. said that "it [leadership] does remain pretty much of a 'black box' or unexplainable concept." Leadership should be distinguished from management. by contrast. Management involves planning. Table 1 Leadership Perspectives Historical Leadership Theories Leadership Theory Time of Introduction Major Tenets Individual characteristics of leaders are different than those of nonleaders. primarily deals with influence. directing. Leadership. in his book Organizational Behavior (2005). A leader's ability to influence others may be based on a variety of factors other than his or her formal authority or position. The behaviors of effective leaders are different than Trait Theories 1930s Behavioral 1940s and . the development of leadership studies and theories over time is briefly traced. and general-interest publications.of organized setting. In the sections that follow. Many. Leadership is probably the most frequently studied topic in the organizational sciences. commitment. Despite this. and a manager is someone who performs these functions.
Physical traits such as height. mental. Factors unique to each situation determine whether Contingency 1960s and specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be Theories 1970s effective. these studies simply looked for significant associations between individual traits and measures of leadership effectiveness. In general. The initial conclusion from studies of leader traits was that there were no universal traits that consistently separated effective leaders from other individuals. Effective leaders inspire subordinates to commit Charismatic 1970s and themselves to goals by communicating a vision. 1940s. Ralph Stogdill concluded that the existing research had not demonstrated the utility of the trait approach. In an important review of the leadership literature published in 1948. Historical Leadership Theories Leadership Time of Major Tenets Theory Introduction Leaders from high-quality relationships with some Leadersubordinates but not others. task. Many leadership studies based on this theoretical framework were conducted in the 1930s. Two major classes of leader behavior are task-oriented behavior and relationship-oriented behavior. Characteristics of the organization. mental traits such as intelligence. thus the name sometimes applied to early versions of this idea. Leadership 1980s displaying charismatic behavior. The scientific study of leadership began with a focus on the traits of effective leaders. the "great man" theory.the behaviors of ineffective leaders. Leader trait research examined the physical. TRAIT APPROACH. the behavioral approach (1940s and 1950s). and social characteristics of individuals. and Substitutes foe 1970s subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects Leadership of leadership behaviors. The basic premise behind trait theory was that effective leaders are born. . and setting a powerful personal example. Theories 1950s HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Three main theoretical frameworks have dominated leadership research at different points in time. and the contingency or situational approach (1960s and 1970s). and social traits such as personality attributes were all subjects of empirical research. The quality of leaderMember 1970s subordinates relationship affects numerous Exchange workplace outcomes. These included the trait approach (1930s and 1940s). not made. and 1950s.
Finally. measurement theory at the time was not highly sophisticated. As a result of the lack of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadership effectiveness. and providing for subordinates' welfare. being supportive. sometimes called task-oriented behavior. As a result. Initiating structure. . many of the trait studies relied on samples of teenagers or lower-level managers. The conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how leaders carry out their role.Several problems with early trait research might explain the perceived lack of significant findings. Answers to the questionnaire were factoranalyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. Those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. Partially as a result of the disenchantment with the trait approach to leadership that occurred by the beginning of the 1950s. and coordinating the work of subordinates. termed consideration and initiating structure. early trait research did not consider the impact of situational variables that might moderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness. consistently appeared. The two most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. manufacturing companies. mental. In addition. organizing. and student leaders. or emotional traits. offering no explanations for the proposed relationship between individual characteristics and leadership. The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). Little was known about the psychometric properties of the measures used to operationalize traits. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates. Two factors. the focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio State. different studies were likely to use different measures to assess the same construct. which made it very difficult to replicate findings. These studies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely cited. recognizing subordinates' accomplishments. college administrators. Under the general direction of Rensis Likert. LEADER BEHAVIOR APPROACH. empirical studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in the 1950s. administering it to samples of individuals in the military. Early trait research was largely atheoretical. the focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits to leader behaviors. First. involves planning. Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. The premise of this stream of research was that the behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations: an employee orientation and a production orientation.
The Managerial Grid became a major consulting tool and was the basis for a considerable amount of leadership training in the corporate world. he was terms a "country-club" manager. a person who emphasized a concern for production but paid little attention to the concerns of subordinates was a "task" manager. Conversely. which was the most participatory set of leader behaviors) as resulting in the most positive outcomes. Fiedler's contingency theory was the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. an individual who was able to simultaneously exhibit a high concern for production and a high concern for people was practicing "team management. and the situational leadership theory. developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. Like trait research. The grid combines "concern for production" with "concern for people" and presents five alternative behavioral styles of leadership. leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. The theory suggests that the "favorability" of the situation determines the effectiveness of task. he advocated System 4 (the participative-group system. If a person emphasized concern for people and placed little emphasis on production. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the paragraphs that follow. Introduced in 1967. A person who tried to balance concern for production and concern for people was termed a "middle-of-the-road" manager. One concept based largely on the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness was the Managerial (or Leadership) Grid. Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be effective. empirical research has not demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader behaviors and leader effectiveness. Likert eventually developed four "systems" of management based on these studies. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s.The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee orientation and general instead of close supervision yielded better results.and person-oriented leader behavior. path-goal theory. the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership. team management was the best leadership approach. An individual who emphasized neither production was practicing "impoverished management" according to the grid. Unfortunately." According to the prescriptions of the grid. CONTINGENCY (SITUATIONAL) APPROACH. Finally. Four of the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler's contingency theory. The assumption of the leader behavior approach was that there were certain behaviors that would be universally effective for leaders. .
empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of the theory. CI. supportive leadership. leader behavior should reduce barriers to subordinates' goal attainment. and G. Fiedler's contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. Empirical research has provided some support for the theory's propositions. Thus.Favorability is determined by (1) the respect and trust that followers have for the leader. There are five types of leader decision-making styles. primarily as they relate to directive and supportive leader behaviors. Path-goal theory proposes that subordinates' characteristics and characteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more effective. Path-goal theory has been criticized because it does not consider interactions among the contingency factors and also because of the complexity of its underlying theoretical model. work experience. According to the theory. and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness. and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier for subordinates. However. Key characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus of control. and (3) the control the leader has over subordinates' rewards. and achievement-oriented leadership. it emphasizes the decision-making style of the leader. The theory did not necessarily propose that leaders could adapt their leadership styles to different situations. Fiedler's research indicated that task-oriented leaders were more effective when the situation was either highly favorable or highly unfavorable. and the nature of the work group. expectancy theory. the formal authority system. which include directive leadership. the task is highly structured. Path-goal theory was first presented in a 1971 Administrative Science Quarterly article by Robert House. and the need for affiliation. These styles range from strongly autocratic (AI). . and the leader has control over rewards and punishments. Important environmental characteristics named by the theory are the nature of the task. AII. ability. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model was introduced by Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton in 1973 and revised by Vroom and Jago in 1988. but that leaders with different leadership styles would be more effective when placed in situations that matched their preferred style. to strongly democratic (G). which are labeled AI. participative leadership. The theory focuses primarily on the degree of subordinate participation that is appropriate in different situations. CII. Path-goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplish these tasks depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors. strengthen subordinates' expectancies that improved performance will lead to valued rewards. The theory includes four different leader behaviors. but that person-oriented leaders were more effective in the moderately favorable or unfavorable situations. (2) the extent to which subordinates' responsibilities can be structured and performance measured. The situation is most favorable when followers respect and trust the leader.
none of the approaches have provided a completely satisfactory explanation of leadership and leadership effectiveness. The theory's focus is determining the type of leader-subordinate relationships that promote effective outcomes and the factors that determine whether leaders and subordinates will be able to develop high-quality relationships. for its assumption that the decision makers' goals are consistent with organizational goals. Since the 1970s. the structure of the problem. The theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting leaders' choice of leadership style is the task-related maturity of the subordinates. whether subordinates have enough information to make a quality decision. one-on-one) relationships between leaders and individual subordinates. The theory was introduced by George Graen and various colleagues in the 1970s and has been revised and refined in the years since. the appropriate style is determined by answers to up to eight diagnostic questions. However. several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been advanced. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory was initially called the vertical dyad linkage theory. behavioral. and the philosophy of servant leadership. LMX theory emphasizes the dyadic (i.e.According to the theory. LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY. and the importance of subordinate commitment to the decision. The theory classifies leader behaviors into the two broad classes of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. and contingency approaches have each contributed to the understanding of leadership. and for ignoring the skills needed to arrive at group decisions to difficult problems. the substitutes for leadership approach. which relate to such contingency factors as the importance of decision quality. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Although trait.. Empirical research has supported some of the prescriptions of the theory. Among the more important of these are leader-member exchange theory. instead of the traits or behaviors of leaders or situational characteristics. The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by Hersey and Blanchard. Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept responsibility for their own task-related behavior. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model has been criticized for its complexity. transformational leadership theory. The major proposition of situational leadership theory is that the effectiveness of task and relationship-oriented leadership depends upon the maturity of a leader's subordinates. Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. . it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style.
. or achieving great military success against incredible odds. inspiration. Empirical research supports many of the proposed relationships (Steers et al. such as turning around a failing company. and Conger and Kanungo's charismatic leadership theory. These theories have much in common.According to LMX theory. Kerr and Jermier introduced the substitutes for leadership theory in 1978. Included within this class of theories are House's theory of charismatic leadership. those in the out-group are excluded from important activities and decisions. Conversely. Transactional leadership focuses on role and task requirements and utilizes rewards contingent on performance. The substitutes for leadership theory suggests that characteristics of the organization. leaders do not treat all subordinates in the same manner. 1996). They tend to be involved in important activities and decisions. A leader who exhibits these qualities will inspire subordinates to be high achievers and put the long-term interest of the organization ahead of their own short-term interest. LMX theory suggests that high-quality relationships between a leader-subordinate dyad will lead to positive outcomes such as better performance. They all focus on attempting to explain how leaders can accomplish extraordinary things against the odds. The theory's focus is concerned with providing an explanation for the lack of stronger empirical support for a relationship between leader traits or leader behaviors and subordinates' satisfaction and performance. Tranformational leadership theory differentiates between the transactional and the transformational leader. but establish close relationships with some (the in-group) while remaining aloof from others (the out-group). and unquestioned loyalty through articulating a clear and compelling vision. SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP THEORY. dedication. intellectual stimulation. Bass's transformational leadership theory. and organizational commitment. Empirical research has supported many of the theory's propositions. Bass's transformational leadership theory identifies four aspects of effective leadership. the task. By contrast. a number of leadership theories emerged that focused on the importance of a leader's charisma to leadership effectiveness. and subordinates may substitute for or negate . TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES. and consideration. and setting goals that go beyond the short-term needs of the work group. The theories also emphasize the importance of leaders' inspiring subordinates' admiration. transformational leadership focuses on developing mutual trust. lower turnover. which include charisma. Those in the in-group enjoy relationships with the leader that is marked by trust and mutual respect. fostering the leadership abilities of others. job satisfaction. founding a successful company. according to the theory. Beginning in the 1970s.
and commitment to the personal. Jung. Weitzel. Leadership Styles and Bases of Power . training. and spiritual growth of their subordinates. and the community ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. However. This approach to leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first." Personnel Psychology 43 (1990): 579–597. and job-related knowledge. "Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Substitutes for leadership make leader behaviors such as task-oriented or relationshiporiented unnecessary. Although much has been learned about leadership since the 1930s.. Bernard M. thus weakening observed relationships between leader behaviors and important organizational outcomes.the effects of leadership. Characteristics of subordinates that may substitute for leadership include ability. and Yair Berso. Green. many avenues of research still remain to be explored as we enter the twenty-first century. Servant leadership has not been subjected to extensive empirical testing but has generated considerable interest among both leadership scholars and practitioners. Dong I. Warren. SEE ALSO: Contingency Approach to Management . Avolio. inflexible rules. It suggests that leaders must place the needs of subordinates. Management Styles Tim Barnett FURTHER READING: Bass. The theory continues to generate empirical research. customers. Characteristics of servant leaders include empathy. and organizational rewards not under the control of the leader. . some of its theoretical propositions have not been adequately tested. Blank. The substitutes for leadership theory has generated a considerable amount of interest because it offers an intuitively appealing explanation for why leader behavior impacts subordinates in some situations but not in others. stewardship. Characteristics of the organization that may substitute for leadership include formalization. SERVANT LEADERSHIP. Bruce J. experience. group cohesiveness." Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (2003): 207–218. Leadership continues to be one of the most written about topics in the social sciences. Characteristics of the task that may substitute for leadership include routine and repetitive tasks or tasks that are satisfying. "A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory. John R. and Stephen G. professional.
Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. Kirkpatrick. New York. 2005. "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Yetton. NY: Wiley. Robert J. Daniel A. et al." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54 (1993): 1–44.Fiedler. Pittsburgh. NJ: Prentice-Hall. "Leadership: Do Traits Matter?" Academy of Management Executive 5 (1991): 48–60. Baron.. 1994. Bigley. NY: Free Press. Greenberg. Ralph M. and Robert Kreitner. House. NY: McGraw-Hill. Organizational Behavior. Vroom. and Robert A. MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Boston. "The Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical View. Kinicki. Jerald. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work." Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (1978): 206–212. Wren. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Podsakoff. 1994. Graen. Stogdill. Locke. House. Motivation and Leadership at Work. Lyman W. "Do Substitutes for Leadership Really Substitute for Leadership? An Empirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier's Situational Leadership Model.. Englewood Cliffs. Porter. New York: McGraw-Hill. New York. "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. George. Shelley A." Academy of Management Review 8 (1983): 285–291. Angelo. New York. 1974. Upper Saddle River. Richard M. 1973. and Bernard M. and Phillip W. 1996. Ralph M.. "The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?" Journal of Management 23 (1997): 409–473. 1967. Organizational Behavior. Luthans. "Leader-Member Agreement: A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach. Bass. Yukl. and William Schiemann... and Edwin A. Victor H. Stogdill. 2000. Fred E." Journal of Psychology 25 (1948): 335–71. Boston. 2006. Fred. . Leadership in Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (1971): 321–339. Philip M. The Evolution of Management Thought.. and Ram N. Steers. Claude L. Aditya. and Gregory A. Robert J. Leadership and Decision Making. PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Gary. Graeff. MA: McGrawHill Irwin.
workplace.Read more: Leadership Theories and Studies . system. style. company.referenceforbusiness. definition. model. business. system.organization. manager. Recent developments http://www.com/management/IntLoc/Leadership-Theories-and-Studies. type. Historical development.html#ixzz0xVOQubFD .