AB9602 - Lsn05B1 - Behavioural & Integrative Approaches - LAMS

eLsn5b (1.
5 hr):
“Styles” & Behavioural approach
TRCs & DeRue et al. “Integrating Traits, Behaviors & Effectiveness”
Associate Professor Chan Kim Yin, PhD
Leadership, Management & Organisation
Nanyang Business School
© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 1

Last Lsn Jigsaw: Beyond Big Five & Leadership
• Trait approach =/= Born or made
▪ Scientific Qns =/= Layman questions…
• “Meta-analysis”; multiple methods

▪ Aggregation, accumulation & triangulation of findings
• “Criterion problem”
▪ What aspect of leadership are you explaining?
• “Traits” incl distal & proximal

▪ Personality, motivations, skills...
• Motivation to Lead
▪ One way to link traits to outcomes (thru LD)
• Leadership development
▪ Beyond skills: Identity, emotions, experience
Person(ality) is only ONE of the P’s of leadership…
Personality
(Big Five, Dark triad, etc)
Power Souba Model A
Politics
(motive vs situation) (as “skill” vs popularity)
Leadership
in 21st century Organizations
Passion Principle
(charisma) (ethics/values)
eLsn (04b) addressed 4 other P’s of leadership….

• Are these still relevant to the study of 21st century leadership in organizations? Why?
• Could any of these feature in your team project? How?
▪ E.g., was this firm confronted with a legal/ethical challenge?

Aim of this eLsn
• Explain “Styles” in leadership
literature
▪ “Styles” has very specific meaning
▪ Tied to behavioural/situational approach
▪ Do not misuse in future assignments!
▪ E.g., Souba’s models are NOT styles…
•Introduce “TRC” & DeRue et al’s Integrative Model

▪ Needed for Asmt#2 Task 2 “Leadership potential”
▪ Continue “Scientific Journey” since “born or made”
▪ Badura’s (2020) meta-analysis: MTL as mediator
Recall last lesson (4):
“Trait approach”…
TRAIT approach dominated

from 1900s-1940s…
fell out of favour after Stodgill’s (1948)
review was taken to imply traits can’t
predict leadership…

•Disappointed by trait theory,
Stogdill, Shartle & Hemphill at Ohio
State University sought to uncover
behavioral indicators of effective
leadership & identified 2 factors:
▪Consideration
▪or “Concern for People”
▪Initiating Structure
▪“Concern for Task”
These 2 dimensions dominated leadership thinking
until transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985;
Burns, 1978; House, 1977) emerged…
• Consideration (or “Concern for People”)
▪ degree a leader shows concern & respect for
followers, looks out for their welfare &
expresses appreciation & support
• Initiating Structure (“Concern for Task”)
▪ degree a leader defines & organizes his role &
the roles of followers, is oriented toward goal
attainment, and establishes well-defined
patterns and channels of communication
Initially, many assumed intuitively BOTH
“High Task” & High People” was best…
• EG, Blake & Mouton (1964)
Managerial Grid identified
5 leadership styles based
on 2 dimensions:
▪ concern for people
▪ concern for production/task
▪Advocated that the

best leadership style is
(9,9) or “Team Style”
Problem: Research did not
support “High-High” hypothesis:
• Many survey studies using behaviour description
questionnaires failed to support idea that effective
leaders have high scores on both dimensions.
• In 1982, Blake & Mouton proposed a more
refined version of the “high–high” theory
▪ Idea: Effective leaders integrate task & people concerns in a
way that is relevant for the situation, rather than merely using
task and relations behaviour to the maximum extent
▪ Problem: Never adequately tested
Disappointment with “High-High”
led to “contingency/style” theories
• Contingency means “it depends”
▪Idea: Leaders must know when to be
task and when to be people-oriented…
• “Task vs People” was incorporated into
many “contingency” theories in 60s & 70s:
▪Path-goal theory (House, 1971)
▪Situational theory (Hersey & Blanchard)
▪Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory
Before we go further…
What are Styles?
• What are some words that we use to describe the
styles of leading?
▪What are dominant/common styles?
•Can you name three different

leadership “Styles”?
More questions…
What are Styles?
• What are leadership “styles”?

▪“Styles” as opposed to what?
• Where do styles come from?
▪Are they learned? Are styles “traited” or “fixed”?
How “Styles” are used…
• Descriptively: How do we best describe the different
“styles” of leaders?
▪ So many terms -- What are the main “styles”?
Transactional Transformational
Authoritarian Democratic
Autocratic Selling Participative Visionary
Telling Exemplary
Directive Persuasive
Laissez-faire Delegative Consultative Charismatic
Notice any Big Five-

like (personality
• Prescriptively: Are some styles are more
traits) or Souba’s
MM’s here?
appropriate for certain situations than others?
Apply to Souba
model A only Textbook Definition
•“Leadership Style consists of the behaviour
pattern of a person who attempts to
influence others” (p. 93, Northouse, 2010)
▪ Example of Styles: Directive (Task)-oriented vs Supportive
(People)-oriented styles
• Style approach emphasises leader’s behaviour Advice:
▪ Unlike trait approach emphasis on leader’s personality DO NOT MISUSE
▪ Is descriptive of “how different leaders lead” the word “style”
in your
▪ Some try to be prescriptive of how leaders should lead… assignments!

Search for “Styles” began with a classic Study
by Lewin, Lippitt & White (1938-1939)…
• Assigned 3 types of “leaders” (actors) to
groups of school children who had to produce
art & craft items in four different “Arts clubs”:
▪ Authoritarian: Leader remained aloof & give orders
without consulting the group
▪ Democratic - Leader offered guidance, encouraged &
participated in the group
▪ Laissez-faire - Leader gave children knowledge, but did
not become involved or participate in the activities
• Groups matched for IQ, popularity, “energy”
From “Discovering
Psychology: Power of
Situations” avail at
NTU library &
http://www.learner.org
• Democratic – Morale was high, relationships between group
members & with leader was friendly…
▪ When leader left, group continued to work independently; although they produced
rather less than 'authoritarian' group, they showed higher quality & some originality
• Authoritarian - Two types of behaviour observed
▪ Aggressive children: Rebellious, constantly demanding attention from leader, tend to
blame other members when anything went wrong
▪ Apathetic children: placed fewer demands & were less critical of leader him; when given
a non-authoritarian leader, tended to fool around
▪ Groups' productivity was higher than 'democratic', but quality not high
• Laissez-faire - Worst of all; did not produce many masks and those
produced were poor
▪ Group satisfaction lowest, co-operated little, demanded most from leader, showing little
ability to work independently.

Many different Theories of “Styles”
emerged from 1940s to 1970s…
• Single-dimension or “continuum” of styles
▪ Lewin & Lippitt (1938), Tannenbaum & Schmidt
(1973), US Army (1973)
• Two-dimensional framing of Styles:

▪ Ohio State Studies; Blake & Mouton (1963)
“Managerial Grid”; Bass & Avolio’s “Full Range”
• Contingency theory/approaches:
▪ Fiedler (1967), Hersey & Blanchard (1969)
Single dimension “Leadership Continuum”
• 1938, Lewin & Lippitt first suggested… “Bad” vs. “good” style
▪ Leaders can be classified according to attention they give to TASK

vs RELATIONSHIP needs
• 1973, Tannenbaum & Schmidt proposed continuum of
leadership behaviours ranging from boss-centred (task) to
subordinate-centred (relationship):
Autocratic (“boss- Leadership Democratic (“subordinate-
centred” Style continuum centred) Style
Leader makes all decisions
(uses authority; “task”) Leader gives subordinates
freedom to decide (relations)
A 2 dimensional Leadership “Style” Theory:
Hersey & Blanchard’s (1969) “Situational Leadership”
• Idea: Leaders should change their style to meet
the “maturity” or “developmental” level or
needs of subordinates… Four “Styles”:
▪ S1: “Directing”
▪ S2: “Coaching” (high-high) It depends on
the followers…
▪ S3: “Supporting”
▪ S4: “Delegating”
• Four “Situations”: Follower development or
“readiness”
▪ D1: Low competence, high commitment
▪ D2: Some competence, low commitment
▪ D3: Moderate comp, variable commment
▪ D4: High competence & commitment
Evaluation of Situational Leadership
Theory by Northouse (Textbook)
• Strengths
▪ “Intuitive”: Seems to make sense…
▪ “Practical”: Tells you “what do do” (prescriptive)
▪ Emphasises leader flexibility… “sounds good”…
▪ Emphasises subordinate’s needs… “sounds good too”…
• Weaknesses
▪ Lacks empirical support: Except for “S1 fits D1” (Vecchio)
▪ Unclear how competence & commitment combine to determine
subordinate’s “developmental needs”? Not all followers
▪ No evidence why from D1 “Hi” to D2 “Low” commitment? are similar!
▪ Should leader adjust style to group or to each individual?

House's (1971) Path-Goal Theory
• Leader effectiveness depends on
▪ Leadership Styles X Situation characteristics
• Four leadership styles:
▪ Directive
▪ Achievement-oriented
▪ Supportive
▪ Participative
• Two situational variables
▪ subordinates' personal characteristics
▪ environmental demands e.g., rules and procedures
House’s (1971) Path–Goal Theory Note: Very
leader-centric
• Main Idea: Leader's main purpose is to supply missing

elements in the subordinate's job environment (e.g.,
structure or support) to help them achieve personal goals…
Note: Adjust to BOTH
Situation Adjust Style situation AND for effect…
Subordinate factors •To maximise motivation of

•What do they need? Individual followers by Performance
(direction/structure or support) increasing
•What do they want?
(autonomy/participation/achievement)
•Value of outcomes
Task factors
•Instrumentality (my actions Satisfaction
will yield results)
•What is nature of task?
(Structured or ambiguous)
•Expectancy (confidence that Problem: Are outcomes
(boring/repetitive or interesting) I can get results) always correlated?
Assumes leaders are flexible & can
adapt style to situation…
• Achievement-oriented style
▪ Involves: Setting challenging goals, expecting followers to perform at their
highest level, and showing confidence in their ability to meet this
expectation; Appropriate when: followers suffer lack of job challenge
• Directive style
▪ Involve: Letting followers know what is expected of them and telling them
how to perform their tasks; Appropriate when: Followers have an
ambiguous job
• Participative style
▪ Involves: Consulting/asking for suggestions before making decision
▪ Appropriate when: Followers are using improper procedures or is making
poor decisions
• Supportive style
▪ Involves: Showing concern for followers' psychological well being
▪ Appropriate when: Followers lack confidence
Consider….
Can one
“programme”
leaders to
remember all
different “if-then” • Can you lead by
following such “rules”?
contingencies?
© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved.
25
In a study of political leaders, James MacGregor
Burns (1978) contrasted “Transforming” with
“Transactional” leadership…
• Transforming leaders
▪ offer a purpose that transcends short-term goals
& focuses on higher order intrinsic needs
▪ results in followers identifying with the needs of
the leader
• Transactional leaders
▪ focus on the proper exchange of resources
▪ give followers something they want in exchange
for something the leader wants
26
For Burns: Transforming is conceptually
opposite of transactional leadership
• The relations of most leaders and followers
are transactional—leaders approach followers
with an eye to exchanging one thing for
another…
• Transforming leadership, while more complex,
is more potent. The transforming leader
looks for potential motives in followers,
seeks to satisfy higher needs, and
engages the full person of the follower…
Full Range Leadership Model (FRLM)
•Empircally-based model
▪ by Bernard Bass & Bruce Avolio
•Describes range of influencing
styles from:
▪ ‘non-leadership’ to powerful transformational
leadership behaviours
•These styles vary on 2 dimensions:
▪ Passive to Active
▪ Less effective to Highly Effective
Full Range Leadership ModelTM Bass & Avolio
• Empircally-based, behavioural model Effective Idealised
• Describes a range of influencing styles from Influence
– ‘Non-leadership’ to
– Transactional (exchange-based) behaviours... to
Individualised
Transformational Intellectual
– Powerful transformational leadership behaviours
Leadership stimulation
consideration
• These styles vary on 2 dimensions:
– Passive to Active
Inspirational
– Less effective to Highly Effective
Contingent
motivation Active
Reward
Passive Active MBE
(Policeman)
Passive MBE
(Fireman)
Lassez-Faire Transactional
(uninvolved) Leadership
Non-Leadership Less Effective
“Not really a leader” Effective Idealised
•Tend to withdraw from leadership role Influence
•Offers little direction or support Transformational Intellectual
Individualised
•Avoids making decisions consideration Leadership stimulation
•Dis-organised
•Let others do as they please Inspirational
Contingent
motivation Active
Reward
Passive Active MBE
(Policeman)
Passive MBE
(Fireman)
Management by exception styles…
PASSIVE (Fireman-like) Effective Idealised
•Somewhat laissez-faire but takes action when problems occur or Influence
mistakes are made
•Avoids unnecessary change
•Only intervene when exceptional circumstances become apparent Individualised
ACTIVE (Policeman-like) consideration
•Pay very close attention to any problems
•Has extensive and accurate monitoring and control systems to provide
early warning of problems
Inspirational
•Style tends to produce only moderate performance
Contingent
motivation Active
Reward
Passive Active MBE
(Policeman)
Passive MBE
(Fireman)
Contingent reward Effective Idealised
•Most common transactional style Influence
•Leader sets clear goals
•Rewards accomplishment through a variety of ways Individualised
•Employees perform up to the expected levels Leadership stimulation
consideration
•but to get people to ‘go that extra mile’ – a more
transformational style is needed… Inspirational
Contingent
motivation Active
Reward
Passive Active MBE
(Policeman)
Passive MBE
(Fireman)
Effective Idealised
Which of the four Influence
“I’s” is Individualised
Leadership-by- consideration
Inspirational
example? motivation Active
Contingent
Reward
Passive Active MBE
(Policeman)
Passive MBE
(Fireman)
Watch this clip from movie Braveheart…
•Based on life
story of
William
Wallace…
the hero of
Scotland…
•Qn: How did William Wallace (in this movie)
influence the Scots to fight the English?
Watch this clip
from Braveheart…
Can you identify

the four I’s?
• IM
• II
• IS
• IC
Consider…
•Is transformational leadership
the same as charismatic Is Charisma a trait (born)
or a style (behavior; can
leadership? practice, learn)?
▪ Recall Lsn4: Conger & Kanungo?

•How many charismatic
people in this room?
• Does “No charisma” mean
“Not transformational?”
Interestingly, in 1980s, Bass originally proposed 3 factors for TFL:
Charisma, Individualised consideration, Intellectual stimulation
• In 1990s, researchers questioned if
charisma (which has trait overtones)
should be part of more behavioural
FRL model…
▪ Eventually, Bass replaced Charisma with II
& IM
“Like splitting hairs”… for our purpose,
▪ Today, FRL focusses on “4I’s”, no mention suggest focus on Idealised Influence
of “charisma” (seen as “trait” or “gift”) as…
• Even more recent, MLQ splits II into… •Setting a personal example
•Sacrificing for the benefit of the group
▪ Idealised attributes • Demonstrating high ethical standards
▪ Idealised behaviours & confidence
Idealized Influence Behaviors &
Attributes in most recent MLQ
• Idealized Influence Behaviors
▪ Talk About Your Most Important Values and Beliefs
▪ Talk About the Importance of Trusting Each Other
▪ Specify the Importance of Having a Strong Sense of Purpose
▪ Consider the Moral/Ethical Consequences of Your Decisions
▪ Emphasize the Importance of Teamwork
▪ Champion Exciting New Possibilities That Can Be Achieved
Through Teamwork
• Idealized Influence Attributes Can you learn
and practice
▪ Instill Pride in Others for Being Associated With You some of these
▪ Go Beyond Self-Interests for the Good of Others behaviors to
▪ Act in Ways That Build Others’ Respect be more
▪ Display a Sense of Power and Confidence inspiring /
charismatic?
▪ Reassure Others That Obstacles Will Be Overcome
FRLM “approach”: Main ideas…
•Effective leader needs a full repertoire
of leadership styles (behaviors) in place
▪both transformational & transactional
•Leaders should recognise situations
▪know what styles are most effective for the
desired outcomes (outcome contingencies)
•Leaders balance the exercise of the
range of behaviours over time
▪Flexible application
In FRLM, TFL & TSL are not opposites…
but TFL “adds” to TSL…
• Effective leaders need a full repertoire of
leadership styles in place
▪ both transformational & transactional behaviours
• Leaders balance the exercise of the range of
behaviours over time
• Transformational leadership augments
traditional, transactional leadership
behaviours
▪ “Adds” to a baseline of transactional leadership to produce
▪ Stronger extra effort, greater Satisfaction
▪ Efficiency & productivity outcomes
A meta-analysis of 626 correlations by Judge &
Piccolo & Remus (2004) on TFL, C/R & LF
• Correlations with leadership
criteria in general: • Augmentation
▪ R = .44 for transformational leadership hypothesis supported:
▪ Transformational → Satisfaction w/leader (r=.71)
▪ TFL “adds” to the
▪ Transformational → Leader effectiveness (r=.64) prediction of leadership
▪ Transformational → Follower satisfaction (r=.58) outcomes above C/Reward
▪ R = .39 for contingency reward • Interesting: C/Reward
▪ Contingent reward → Follower satisfaction (r=.64)
▪ Contingent reward → Follower motivation (r= .59)
predicts outcomes
▪ Contingent reward → Leader effectiveness &
better in business
satisfaction with leader (r=.55) (r=.51) than military
▪ R = -.37 for laissez faire (r=.32) settings
Example of how transformational &
transactional styles co-exist…
•Suppose you are tasked to lead a student
group to represent NTU in a competition…
•Which style would you adopt?
▪Transformational only?
▪Transactional only?
▪Both? Why?
Two ways for leaders to motivate
collective action…
• Transactional / exchange approach:
▪ Introduce group rewards instead of
individual rewards
▪ Set group goals & rules
• Transformational approach
▪ Build a “group social identity” & identification with the
group (esprit de corps)
▪ Build shared values (how) & vision (where)
▪ Change the self-concept from an individualistic to a
collective on: From “me” to “we”… “mine” to “ours”…
Some general lessons/principles
from Styles approach
•Situations are complex: Cannot be
simplified into a few dimensions
▪ Task includes difficulty, urgency, risk from failure, etc
▪ Followers incl competence, experience, motivation…
▪ Relationship: “power”, authority, etc
•Unit of time in each situation

▪ Life cycle of organization over years or months?
▪ Or different tasks in days & hours?
Some general principles
• What we DO KNOW about different Styles…
▪ Different styles have different effects or outcomes:
▪ “Task” or Initiating Structure ➔ Group performance
▪ “People” or Consideration ➔ Follower morale & satisfaction w/leader
▪ Transactional leadership ➔ Performance to standards
▪ Transformational ldrship ➔ Performance plus commitment
▪ “Telling”/directive style works best with “new” followers…
• What is the best way to think of Contingencies?

▪ Should we adjust or match Style to situation? Or…
▪ Should we adopt style for desired OUTCOME?
▪ Can we assume flexibility? Note: Flexibility requires:
▪ Situational awareness, sensitivity
▪ “Repertoire” of styles
So what do we now know & accept
about leadership behaviours?
◼Three broad classes of behaviours: TRC
◼Integrative Models (Traits → Behaviors → Outcomes)
◼Don’t forget: “Bad”/toxic leader behaviours…
Show me your (advanced) understanding of
leader behaviors/styles in this regard… not
application of 1940s-70s style theories…

Gary Yukl (1999) noted…
• A common approach for describing leadership is in terms
of a two-factor model. Most of the well-known theories
of leadership effectiveness were initially formulated using
a two-factor conception of leader behaviour or traits.
▪ Examples include task-oriented versus relations-oriented
leadership, autocratic versus participative leadership,
leadership versus management, transformational versus
transactional leadership, and charismatic versus
noncharismatic leadership.
• These dichotomies provide some insights, but they also
oversimplify a complex phenomenon and encourage
stereotyping of individual leaders.
Yukl’s TRC model
• Idea: THREE exclusive meta-categories of
leadership behaviours differ in the primary
objective of the behavior. Objective of:
• Task behaviors
▪ high efficiency in the use of resources and personnel
▪ high reliability of operations, products, and services
• Relations behaviours
▪ strong commitment to the unit and its mission
▪ high level of mutual trust and cooperation among
members
• Change behaviors
▪ major innovative improvements (in processes, products,
or services)
▪ adaptation to external changes
Application: Rate yourself then your
team in terms of TRC model
•See section C of
worksheet
•Note: Different
scales for “Self”
vs “Team”
ratings
Please fill-up TRC section of Worksheet

Purpose:
Show me
attention to
different
behaviors that
fall under T, R &
C’s of leadership

TRC based on Behavioural approach
• Focus: TRC looks at leadership
in terms of specific behaviors…
▪ Similar to “behavioral descriptors”
• TRC checklist
▪ Helps you reflect on your behavioral
strengths in terms of frequency
“more of certain behaviors” & “less of other behaviors”
▪ Purpose of task not to score or generalise your “style”
▪ No need to conclude if more Task or Relations or Change-oriented but
you can comment on which orientation you seem to be stronger or
weaker at, if you wish as a result of going through the TRC checklist…
TASK BEHAVIORS Notes for assignment reference…
• Short-Term Planning
▪ Planning means deciding what to do, how to do it, who will do it, and when it will
be done; Difficult to observe because planning is largely a cognitive activity that
seldom occurs as a single discrete episode
• Clarifying Responsibilities
▪ The communication of plans, policies, and role expectations; Purpose is to guide
and coordinate work activity and make sure people know what to do and how to
do it
▪ Includes setting specific task objectives
▪ A core component of initiating structure. It is also the primary component of
instrumental (directive) behavior in the path-goal theory of leadership (House &
Mitchell, 1974)
• Monitoring Operations & Performance
▪ Involves gathering information about the operations of the organizational unit
▪ including progress of work, performance of individual subordinates, quality of
products or services, and the success of projects or programs. Monitoring
▪ Can take many forms, including observation of work operations, reading written
reports, watching computer screen displays of performance data, inspecting the
quality of samples of the work, and holding progress review meetings with an
individual or group
RELATIONS BEHAVIORS
• Supporting
Notes for assignment
reference…
▪ Defined as showing consideration, acceptance, and concern for the needs and feelings of other people; Core
component of consideration and individualized consideration
▪ Helps to build and maintain effective interpersonal relationships
▪ Related to follower satisfaction; only weakly, inconsistently related with follower performance
• Developing
▪ Core component is coaching
▪ Includes showing someone a better way to do a task, asking questions that help someone learn how to perform a
task better, helping someone learn from a mistake, and explaining how to solve a complex problem rather than just
providing the solution
• Recognizing
▪ Involves giving praise and showing appreciation to others for effective performance, significant achievements, and
important contributions to the organization. Often given along with tangible rewards.
▪ effective leaders provide extensive praise and recognition to subordinates for their achievements and contributions
• Consulting
▪ Key aspect involves followers in making important decisions.
▪ Consultation with individuals or the group is one form of participative leadership.
• Empowering
▪ Includes delegating and providing more autonomy and discretion to subordinates
▪ likely to result in more commitment by a subordinate to implement decisions effectively
▪ can improve decision quality when subordinate has more expertise about task than manager
CHANGE BEHAVIORS Notes for
reference…
• External Monitoring
▪ Also called "environmental scanning." Sensitivity of leader to a wide range of information, including concerns of
customers and clients, availability of suppliers and vendors, actions of competitors, market trends, economic
conditions, government policies, and technological developments
• Envisioning Change
▪ Articulating an inspiring vision of a better future is a common element in most theories of transformational and
charismatic leadership.
▪ Vision is more effective in influencing follower commitment to a proposed strategy or change if it is relevant for
follower values and ideals, it is communicated with enthusiasm and confidence, and it is perceived as feasible
• Encouraging Innovative Thinking
▪ Different from proposing innovations yourself
▪ A leader can use various combinations of the two behaviors.
• Taking Personal Risks
▪ Undertaking major change is risky, especially when the need for change is not yet obvious to most people and there is
a lot of vested interest in maintaining status quo.
▪ Risks entailed by pushing for change when there is strong resistance include loss of job, diminished reputation,
derailed career, and personal rejection by colleagues.
▪ More attribution of charisma is likely for a leader who takes risks and makes personal sacrifices to pursue a vision or
innovative strategy (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993)
Look for overall pattern of your TRC’s…
Task behaviors Relations behaviors Change behaviors
• Short-Term Planning • Supporting • External Monitoring
• Clarifying • Developing • Envisioning Change
Responsibilities • Recognizing • Encouraging
• Monitoring Operations • Consulting Innovative Thinking
& Performance • Empowering • Taking Personal Risks
• Assignment#2: What does going thru TRC checklist make you realise about your leadership
“strengths & weaknesses”?
• Based on MTL theory, reflect on why you are strong in certain behaviours and weaker in others…. Does MTL theory
(linking traits, values, MTL factors, leadership opportunities, learning/training to skills & styles) explain how your
your TRCs relate to your leadership “potential”?
▪ Consider Derue’s integrative model linking “task traits” to “Task competencies”; “interpersonal traits” to
“interpersonal competencies” etc… also Badura et al. linking traits to emergence & effectiveness thru MTL
Asignment#2 Write up to also consider…
• What have you learned from going thru the TRC checklist?
▪ Which behaviors are you doing more or less of? Reflect & comment on why
you seem to practice more or less of certain behaviours (in the checklist)?
▪ Is it because you are unfamiliar with some behaviours?
▪ “never thought” this was important for leadership
▪ or “this behaviour” is most common/uncommon in my role models…
▪ What behaviours do you now want to learn & master to increase your
leadership potential?
• Note: TRC covers broad behavioural competencies…
▪ Excludes cognitive/“thinking” & vocational/technical competencies
▪ is independent of “Values” & traits e.g., Big Five
• Important: Link TRC with Big5 write-up via DeRue et al…
Asmt2 Task 2: My Leadership potential (max 3pg)
• Describe your “leadership potential” in terms of the concepts
of leadership emergence vs. effectiveness based on the self-
assessments of your personality & motivation to lead
▪ with reference to DeRue et al. 2011 & Badura et al.’s 2020 meta-analytic
relationships established between personality traits, behaviors & leadership
• Discuss also your self-assessment of leadership behavioural
skills and competencies based on Yukl’s TRC model.
▪ Summarise your test scores & findings for this Task in the template provided
in Appendix 2. Write a report on “What these test scores (individually and as
a whole or based on patterns of relationships among the scores) tell me
about my leadership potential, specifically in terms of my potential for
leadership “emergence” vs. “effectiveness”.
A meta-analysis Integrating Trait & Behavioral
Theories: Derue et al. (2011) concluded:
• Leader behaviors (TRCs) tend to explain more variance in leadership effectiveness than traits;
integrative model where behaviors mediate relationship btw traits & effectiveness warranted
Overall msg:
If leader
emergence
depends more
on traits (&
perceptions)…
Effectiveness
depends more
on behaviors!
Implication #1: Be aware of your traits Overall, leader behaviors have a greater impact
but Learn/develop your TRC behaviors! on leadership effectiveness outcome than traits
Conscientiousness was most consistent traits predict affective & relational outcomes
trait predictor of effectiveness more than performance-related outcomes
Task – Task
transformational
leadership behaviors
consistently predict all
outcomes
Try to apply findings in
Assignment#2 (how Big5
traits affect TRC
behaviors to affect
Effectiveness?)
Passive leadership
is strongly
negatively related
to criteria
Implication #2: Impressions &

For relatively “new” leadership relationships, impact of traits on outcomes is identification matter early on eg
most likely mediated by attributions & identification processes emergence… after that, behaviors matter
Badura et al (2020) refined DeRue’s Integrative
Distal-Proximal model to fit in MTL construct…
Traits (X) MTL mediates* trait-emergence (X → MTL → Y1); Emergence (Y1)

trait-effectiveness (X → MTL → Y2) relationships
Effectiveness (Y2)
Behaviors mediate MTL- effectiveness (but not MTL-emergence); which

validates Chan & Drasgow (2001” idea: MTL ➔ skills/behaviors ➔ effectiveness
Note: “mediates” means “statistically explains the relationship between 2 variables X & Y”
Scientific Journey from “born/made” Only EMPIRICAL “what does data say?”
• Lord et al. (1987) meta-analysis
• Traits (incl IQ) do predict leadership; but
leadership emergence =/= effectiveness
• Judge et al. (2002, 4) meta-analyses
Hypothesis: • Personality (B5) correlates w/leadership > IQ;
Another important set of leader behaviors
Leaders are but correlation =/= causation
concern CHANGE & transformation
born, not made • Arvey et al. (2006/7) Beh Genetic Study
• There is SOME genetic basis for leadership (&
ent); but ENVIRONMENT plays impt part
THEORIZING (& theory-testing) of Trait-

Traits differentiate Leadership outcome relations (how & why)
leaders from non-leaders • Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)
(empirical obs. studies) • consider HOW & WHY traits affect leadership
• Chan & Drasgow (2001)
Two main leader • Maybe traits relate to Ldr Emergence &
behaviors are People Effectiveness via MTL?
& Task dimensions • Lord & Hall (2006)
• Consider the MANY aspects (“what”) &
qualitative nature (when/how) of Ldr Dev
• DeRue et al (2011) meta-analysis
Broad Ldr behaviors framworks:
• Int Model of Ldr Traits, Beh & Eff
Leadership depends more (1) T-R-C (Yukl; DeRue)
Leadership effectiveness (2) FRLM (Bass & Avolio) • Badura et al (2020) meta-analysis
on Situation & behaviors
• Distal-Proximal model with MTL as mediator
(“made”) than traits depends on the Situation (3) Ldr Strataplex (Mumford, 2007)*
“Expanded Criterion Space of leadership” (Chan & Kennedy; 2018)?
“Born or made”
question ignores
PERFORMING many other aspects
as a leader (in of understanding
Leader-Follower CONTEXT)
Souba Model A
Action-Interaction leadership!
So many more
aspects to
understand about
leaders than
“emergence” or
Being & “effectiveness”…
Becoming &
Continuing to HOW a leader EXITS Maybe its time to
lead from leadership… understand…

Conclusion: Lsns 4&5 focused on “Leader”
• “Trait Approach” (individual differences)
▪ Personality (Big Five/Six); Values; “Motivation to Lead” ➔ seek L/D opp’s
▪ Debates: “Leaders Born or made?”; behaviors due to “Person or Situation?”
• “Styles & Behavioural Approach”
▪ Many “styles”; full range; contingencies; how to think about styles; flexibility
• Integrative models
▪ MTL theory linking traits to learning to lead (& building potential) thru MTL
▪ DeRue et al.’s Integrative Model of Ldr Traits, Behaviors & Effectiveness
▪ Badura et al.’s Distal-Proximal Model of Leadership (incl MTL)
• Please show this “advanced” understanding in Asmt#2!
FAQs for Assignment #2
• WHAT DO I WRITE UP FOR TASK 2?
▪ For the BigFive-MTL-potential section of Assignment 2, please see lesson 4/5 slide that says: "Try to reflect some sophistication & not just simple 'born or
made' assumptions in your understanding of personality & leadership... Many other traits & abilities affect leadership potential… Potential =/=
effectiveness… EXAMPLE: What if I am low on extraversion, conscientiousness & openness…. Does it mean I have NO POTENTIAL to lead? No. It means
others are more likely to emerge or to be effective as a leader – based on their personality… Your “potential” may come from your abilities incl cognitive
ability, values, skills, experience & range of leadership styles….
▪ For the TRC write, see the slide that says: "Assignment#2 Write up on TRC“: What have you learned from going thru the TRC checklist
of behaviours? Which behaviors are you doing more or less of? Reflect & comment on why you seem to practice more or less of certain behaviours (in the
TRC checklist)? Is it because you are unfamiliar with some behaviours?“never thought” this was important for leadership or “this behaviour” is most
common/uncommon in my role models…What behaviours do you now want to learn & master to increase your leadership potential? TRC covers
broad behavioural competencies…Excludes “conceptual thinking” (cognitive skills), & vocational/technical competencies independent of “Values” & traits,
▪ TRY YOUR BEST to link TRC with BigFive write up by referring to DeRue et al & Badura et al’s meta-analyses ….
• DOES ONE NEED TO ADD UP ONE'S SCORE FOR THE TRC "MEASURE"?
▪ Answer: No, TRC is a checklist, NOT a scale. There is no "adding up"; you only need to identify specific behavioral strengths or weaknesses... Please see
slide that says this: TRC looks at leadership in terms of specific behaviors… similar to behavioral descriptors. The TRC checklist helps you reflect on your
behavioral strengths in terms of frequency “more of certain behaviors” & “less of other behaviors”. Purpose of task not to score or generalise your “style”.
So no need to conclude if more Task or Relations or Change-oriented but you can comment on which orientation you seem to be stronger or weaker at, if
you wish as a result of going through the TRC checklist… Note also next slide adds this: Consider: What does going thru TRC checklist make
you realise about your leadership “strengths & weaknesses”? Based on MTL theory, reflect on why you are strong in certain behaviours and weaker in
others…. How do your TRCs relate to your “potential”?
• HOW DO I REPORT MY EPL SCORE IN RELATION TO THE MTL SCORES?
▪ Answer: The EPL score is to supplement your understanding of your MTL score.... From the EPL scale, you get to know your overall MTL score RELATIVE to
your E motivation & P motivation scores. Where the MTL scale score comes in is that it gives you more indepth appreciation of your affective vs non-
calculative vs social-normative MTL...
• Is it OK not use any tables in the Task1 write-up & say instead "Refer to the Tables in Appendix“?
▪ Answer: Yes!
Insight #3 from lessons 4 & 5 – consider:
• What is clearer to you about these basic questions regarding Souba
model A leadership?
▪ Are leaders born or made? [Leadership is “Born-like-that” or “learned”]
▪ Is Power a function of person (traits/motives) or situation (power)? [how are
personality, power/politics, passion/charisma & principle/ethics related?]
• How has science* helped us to understand leadership? How does
scientific knowledge relate to other sources of knowledge (e.g., from
practice) for leadership?
▪ Different methodologies (experimental, correlational); Asking questions; developing
new hypotheses; combining findings across studies & methods… etc…
• What do your realizations (above) from lessons 4 & 5 mean for you
& your team?
▪ Your potential and development? How you are likely-to or need to behave in your
team? What “data” is useful for team building?
A final note:
“Derailment” behaviours
“Dark side” of leadership…

“Derailment” – CCL researchers Leslie & Van Velsor (1996) studied
failed managers.
Found 4 themes:
• Poor interpersonal skills
▪ insensitive, arrogant, cold, aloof, overly ambitious
• Unable to get work done
▪ betraying trust, not following through, being overly
ambitious
• Unable to build a team
• Unable to make transition after a
promotion

Post-class online
activity:
Watch the first 12½
mins of talk by UCL
Prof Adrian Furnham
• Why does bad/destructive leadership happen in organizations?

▪ Note reference to Toxic Triangle…
• What are the reasons why managers derail?
▪ Leader Traits or Environment (or situation)?
Things to do before next lesson
• Complete & submit Assignment #2
▪ Task 1: 2 Insights (1 from Lsn 1, 2, 3; another from Lsn 4* & 5) * incl 4B eLsn!
▪ Task 2: Complete EPL, Big Five & MTL questionnaire & score them by following
instructions in the Envelope; refer to Chan et al (2001) & Judge et al (2004) meta-
analysis; write up “My leadership potential”
▪ Submit ONLINE in NTULearn before 1430hrs next week
▪ Return ENVELOPE (hardcopy) to Prof before start of next class after recess
• Participate in ONE online activity & reflection:

▪ Derailment & Bad leadership: Watch the first 12½ mins of talk by UCL Prof Adrian
Furnham: Why does bad/destructive leadership happen in organizations? Note
reference to Toxic Triangle… What are the reasons why managers derail? Leader Traits
or Environment (or situation)?
• Contribute to JIGSAW before Lsn7 by 1000hrs
▪ Read 1 paper and share with class” “how does this paper answer Qn ‘Do teams need leaders?’”

IMPT: Lesson after RECESS wk: 2nd Jigsaw:
Do Teams need leaders?

Important for other 50% of Team
project presentation!

References for Lsn 5 (going to 7) Original Lsn6 now split into
eLsn4B on “Power, Passion,
Principle, Politics” and Team
Project Consultation
**MUST/*GOOD-TO READ (esp for Assignment #2)
• Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half
century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9 (1), 15-33.
• DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioural theories of
leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.
OTHER REFERENCES (Good-to-know and browse)
• Badura, K., Grijalva, E., Galvin, B., Owens, B., & Joseph, D. (2020). Motivation to Lead: A Meta-Analysis and
Distal-Proximal Model of Motivation and Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(4), 331-354.
• Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. Ilies, R. (2004). The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating
Structure in Leadership Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51.
• Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their
relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.
• Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and
conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194.

Thank you!
https://coolerinsights.com/2014/08/12-qualities-of-a-true-leader/leadership-cartoon/
• Please contact Prof for clarification/consultation!


AB9602 - Lsn05B1 - Behavioural & Integrative Approaches - LAMS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AB9602 - Lsn05B1 - Behavioural & Integrative Approaches - LAMS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

eLsn5b (1.

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 1

• “Meta-analysis”; multiple methods

• “Traits” incl distal & proximal

eLsn (04b) addressed 4 other P’s of leadership….

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 3

•Introduce “TRC” & DeRue et al’s Integrative Model

TRAIT approach dominated

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 5

▪Advocated that the

•Can you name three different

• What are leadership “styles”?

Notice any Big Five-

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 14

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 17

• Two-dimensional framing of Styles:

▪ Leaders can be classified according to attention they give to TASK

▪ Should leader adjust style to group or to each individual?

• Main Idea: Leader's main purpose is to supply missing

Subordinate factors •To maximise motivation of

Can you identify

▪ Recall Lsn4: Conger & Kanungo?

•Unit of time in each situation

• What is the best way to think of Contingencies?

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 46

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 51

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 52

Implication #2: Impressions &

Traits (X) MTL mediates* trait-emergence (X → MTL → Y1); Emergence (Y1)

Behaviors mediate MTL- effectiveness (but not MTL-emergence); which

THEORIZING (& theory-testing) of Trait-

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 64

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 68

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 69

• Why does bad/destructive leadership happen in organizations?

• Participate in ONE online activity & reflection:

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 71

Do Teams need leaders?

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 72

© Chan Kim Yin. All rights reserved. 73

• Please contact Prof for clarification/consultation!

You might also like