You are on page 1of 12

GİVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT OR

GİVE THEM WHAT THEY NEED?
IDEOLOGY IN THE STUDY OF
LEADERSHİP
MİCHAEL D. MUMFORD & YİTZHAK FRİED

Gülin Gücükoğlu I6108924
Huan Wang
I6116419

Follower needs vs. Concerns with Applications • Conclusion . Substantive Concerns A.three types of problems: 1.Table Of Content • Introduction and Definition • Discussion . Leadership @ Systems C. Conflating Leadership & Ethics B. Inappropriate Scientific Inferences 3. Desires D. Methodological Concerns 2.

only followers . servant. spiritual.Intorduction & Definition Article • Demonstrating modest predictive level of ideological leadership models on organizational performance • Understanding methodological problems. character-based. substantive concerns of the model • Showing not having a useful new approaches for leader development (application concerns) Ideological Models • Ideologies: authentic. ex. ethical. aesthetic leadership • Moral and ethical implications • Behaviors and performance of leaders is constant • Narrowing criteria • Assessment in terms of one group view.

recall or “leader?” categorization -Opportunity to observe -> accuracy/ veridicality of reports is quationable -Design of studies -> single-level study. predictors & criteria collected at a single point -Assumption that a unique contribution has been made -> lack of evidence of incremental validity . 2) build a latent variance -Liking for the leader -> validity of studies is quationable as they failed to control liking -Behavioral Operationalization -> followers are influenced by liking.Methodological Concerns -Common source/ method biases -> 2 remedies: 1) build a mesaure as a control.

Steve Jobs Transformational leaders in process of block change toward new policy .Substansive concern 1: Conflating Leadership & Ethics • Most effective leaders do not have ethical and moral issues • Boundary role condition (exerting leadership) • In order to create positive interaction with one group. there is need to sacrifice other Example.

Substansive concern 2: Leadership In Systems • Using power in self serving way to get geater good Example: inflating or deflating performance appraisal • Unethical behaviors in crisis situation Example: financial leaders • Having followers’ appraisal on multiple role of leaders in organization • The model is underspecified except motivation of .

Substansive concern 3: Give them what they want or need? .Followers recall information bearing on liking .Assumption: • more positive perceptions of the leader Moral/ Ethical interactions-> • more motivated followers .Followers seek positive appraisals .

emotinal regulation? .Substansive concern 4: Inappropriate Scientific Inferences Prescriptive model: Leadership described “as it should be”. • Framed only in terms of behavior .cognition? .only confirmatory evidence -> discounfirmatory evidence? .underpinnings of behavior? • Lack adequate specification of boundary conditions • Singular data type .

Concerns With Application • Leader Education Education for ideological model does not work well or little effect • Leader Development Teaching moral and ethical issues is not enough Problem of fundamental goals of leadership development programs Methodological concern for feedback Ex. Joseph Stilwell .

Concerns With Application (cont.) • Performance Appraisal Ideological model has certain implication(acting ethically)so performance appraisal only includes outcome of action • Leader Selection There is systematic selection for leader but ethics. morality and spiruality are not measured .

prosocial interactions 3. is not science. Two problematic key assumptions: . Give them what they want or give .Conclusion 1.positivie consequences of the positive. 4.one stakeholder group – followers . 2. 5. Poor method. Ideological models are not likely to work in real world. The assumption that leadership & leader performance must be based on ethics is misleading. however well motivated.

Thank you! & Questions? .