Category Archives: Leadership
Lead, Follow, Or Get Out of the Way (IO Psychology)
What comes to mind for most of us when we think of leadership styles we admire can be summed up in two words, “transformational leadership.” Transformational leaders inspire others with a mission and vision for the future, and motivate their followers to achieve more than they ever dreamed possible.
Traditionally, the bulk of research in the area of transformational leadership has focused on transformational leaders’ personal qualities and how they drive change. Less has been known about the conditions under which a transformational leadership style is most successful and when it has the most impact on followers.
In their most recent study Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman and Xie (2013) examined follower characteristics and perceptions that influence the effectiveness of transformational leadership. They found that:
- The more prototypical of the group the leader is, the less necessary transformational leadership is to stimulate followers to take action.
- Transformational leadership is less effective when followers strongly identify with their teams. Team members of cohesive teams gain inspiration laterally from each other and are less reliant on inspiration from their leader.
- Traditionalist employees’ value of conventional hierarchal structures predisposes them to defer to their leaders, regardless of the leader’s leadership style, thereby reducing the impact of transformational leadership on their likelihood to perform citizenship behaviors.
- Followers with proactive personalities are naturally inclined to take charge and bring about positive change, with or without transformational leaders’ support.
- High learning goal oriented employees are less likely to need the motivation of transformational leaders to achieve their goals and are less subject to their leaders’ influences.
Bottom Line- It’s not all about the leader! Followers’ responsiveness to their leader’s transformation efforts is influenced by their perceptions of their leader and leadership as well as their individual characteristics.
Bad Behavior At Work: Are Managers Asking For It? (IO Psychology)
Topic: Counter-Productive Work Behavior, Leadership, Job Performance
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (January, 2013)
Article: Blaming the Organization for Abusive Supervision: The Roles of Perceived Organizational Support and Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment
Authors: M.K. Shoss, R. Eisenberger, S.L.D. Restubog, T.J. Zagenczyk
Reviewed By: Ben Sher, M.A.
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) occur when employees do things that go against organizational goals. For example, stealing, bullying, unnecessary absence, swivel chair racing, beer pong in the break room, and assaulting the copy machine with a baseball bat when it is out of toner are all classified as counterproductive work behaviors. I-O psychology research has typically tried to predict which type of person will engage in these devious behaviors. However, a recent study by Shoss, et al. (2013) has found that certain organizations may also be causing an increase in bad behavior.
What do organizations do that leads to these detrimental outcomes? The study found that abusive supervision by bosses is to blame. Abusive supervision occurs when managers belittle their employees or treat them badly. When this happens, employees have lower perception of organizational support, meaning employees do not feel that the organization cares about them or values their contributions. The feeling that the organization doesn’t care was exacerbated when employees think that the abusive supervisor embodies the entire organization’s attitudes about employees, and is not merely driven by independent personal motives.
So if abusive supervision makes employees believe the organization does not care about them, what happens then? Employees may choose to engage in behavior that is counterproductive to the organization as a means of revenge against the organization. The study also found that job performance may decrease. This includes lower performance for parts of the job that are formally included in job requirements (in-role performance) as well as parts of the job that are not included in job requirements (extra-role performance). Once again, when employees perceive that the abusive supervisor embodies the entire organization, these findings were all strengthened.
What can we learn from this? Organizations that want to reduce counterproductive work behavior and improve their employees’ performance should not view these outcomes as being entirely dependent on the employees. Organizations play a large role in fostering the kind of behavior that they seek. This study highlights the detriments of abusive supervision, especially when it appears that the supervisor who delivers the abuse is representing the organization as a whole. For best results, leaders should strive to emphasize that abuse is not valued by the organization and that abusive supervisors will not be tolerated.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Stressed_Man_Portrait_Isolated_On_White_Background_p76018.html
Take the Lead!
Topic: Business Strategy, Change Management, Leadership
Publication: Harvard Business Review (JAN/FEB 2013)
Article: Strategic Leadership: The Essential Skills
Authors: Paul J. H. Schoemaker, Steve Krupp, and Samantha Howland
Reviewed By: Susan Rosengarten
Whether you set your sites on becoming CEO or simply want to take your lemonade stand to the next level, there are a couple of essential skills you’ll need to have. According to Schoemaker, Krupp and Howland, mastery of these six skills will help you navigate the murky waters of the 21st century and become a strategic leader in your own right.
1) Anticipate- Don’t get stuck on the present; conduct a SWOT analysis of your surroundings and consider how economic and market changes may effect your business model. Anticipate and plan for potential opportunities and threats, and gain insight into what makes your competitors successful.
2) Challenge- Never be complacent! Challenge the status quo and think outside the box. Promote a collaborative culture within your organization that encourages diversity of thoughts and ideas. Argue your point from different angles and multiple perspectives and see where it takes you.
3) Interpret- Take a closer look at relevant feedback and how it relates to the current state of your organization. Are there any readily emergent trends? Put your critical thinking skills to use by analyzing the situation and forming patterns and connections. What is your information telling you?
4) Decide- Come to educated conclusions based on a thorough consideration of the issues and all of your options. Play devils advocate and argue the problem from all angles. Once you’ve come to your conclusions, muster the strength and courage to begin executing on your plans.
5) Align – Make sure all your stakeholders are on the same page. Communicate the plan and bring everyone onboard. Consider whether your suggestions run counter to some of your stakeholders’ agendas or interests, and how you might go about dealing with resistance to change.
6) Learn- Set the example for your team and show your coworkers that it’s okay to take risks and make mistakes. Learn from your failures and come out stronger for them. Promote a “culture of inquiry,” and take advantage of every opportunity to learn and grow.
Want to put the pedal to the metal and see which of these six areas you can work on to hone your strategic leadership abilities and reign supreme? Take this Strategic Aptitude Assessment and find out: Hbrsurvey.decisionstrat.com
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
source for picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Business_People_g201-Smiling_Manager_Pointing_Back_p91399.html
Get Ahead by Getting Emotional (IO Psychology)
Topic: Leadership, Emotions
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (NOV 2012)
Article: Looking Down: The Influence of Contempt and Compassion on Emergent
Leadership Categorizations
Authors: S. Melwani, J.S. Mueller, J.R. Overbeck
Reviewed By: Ben Sher, M.A.
Do you want people to think of you as a leader? Do you want to cultivate and mobilize hordes of dedicated minions in pursuit of world domination? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you are in the right place. New research by Melwani, Mueller, and Overbeck (2012) has provided new insight into why certain people are perceived as leaders. Unlike past research, which has focused mainly on personality traits, this study found that certain emotions can be influential as well.
In three separate studies, the researchers found that people who display two types of emotions are more likely to be perceived as leaders. These two emotions are contempt and compassion. Even though contempt seems like a bad emotion and compassion seems like a good one, these two emotions have something in common. Both involve making a downward social comparison. This means that someone who displays these emotions appears to be better off than the target of the emotions. For example, you might show contempt for someone who has failed in some way that you have not. Similarly, you might show compassion for someone when some element of their life is worse than yours.
But even if people who display contempt and compassion look better by comparison, why does this make people view them as leaders? The researchers found that displaying contempt and compassion make people look smarter by comparison. Why has the other person failed at something and you have not? Perhaps it is because you are smarter. Why has something bad happened to the other person and has not happened to you? Perhaps it is because you are smarter. This fits with past research that shows that people who seem to be smart are also identified as leaders.
So there you have it: If you want to gain influence over others, you need to display the right kind of emotions. It doesn’t matter if they are good emotions like compassion or bad emotions like contempt. As long as your emotions make you seem better than the target of your emotions, you have a chance to affect the way people think of you and increase your perceived leadership abilities. As devious as this sounds, this study gives us greater understanding about how leaders emerge. Armed with this knowledge, we are in a better position to select and train leaders who will be successful at earning the respect of followers.
Melwani, S., Mueller, J.S., & Overbeck, J.R. (2012). Looking down: The influence of contempt and compassion on emergent leadership categorizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1171-1185.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
I’ve Got Your Back: Reciprocity Among Corporate Leaders
Topic: Leadership
Publication: Administrative Science Quarterly (JUN 2012)
Article: Helping Other CEOs Avoid Bad Press: Social Exchange and Impression Management Support among CEOs in Communications with Journalists
Authors: James D. Westphal, Sun Hyun Park, Michael L. McDonald, and Mathew L. A. Hayward
Reviewed By: Susan Rosengarten
Have you ever watched those videos where person A opens the door for person B, which spurs person B to help person C? Well, that behavior is something called social exchange theory in a nutshell; one good deed begets another. When someone helps us out, we feel indebted to repay the favor in some way and “even the score,” so to speak.
This theory holds its weight even among the corporate elite. Impression management, or a leader’s effectiveness at controlling and influencing how he or she is perceived, is a critical component of corporate governance. CEOs often find their leadership strategies challenged in the press, especially amidst disclosures of their firm’s poor performance or low corporate earnings. The media might perceive a CEO’s defense of his actions or the ill-fated state of his organization as self-serving in nature. However, reporters understand the situation differently when CEOs of rival firms in the same industry defend their fellow constituents and explain that industry-wide challenges and external factors contributed to the organization’s state of demise.
Why would one CEO defend his fellow CEO to the press, you may ask? Well, Westphal et al. (2012) list a couple of reasons. For one, a CEO who has received support from another CEO feels indebted to defend his corporate colleague should the situation reverse. For another, a CEO who benefited from the support of a fellow CEO in the past will likely help out another of his colleagues being slammed by the press. Finally, a CEO will often feel compelled to support a fellow CEO who has provided similar support to other corporate leaders in the past. So start reading the newspaper with a more critical eye; you might be surprised at how differently the same story can be spun.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
A Breath of Fresh AER for Leadership Development! (IO Psychology)
Topic: Leadership, Coaching, Personality
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (SEP 2012)
Article: A Quasi-Experimental Study of After-Event Reviews and Leadership
Development
Authors: D.S. DeRue, J.D. Nahrgang, J.R. Hollenbeck, K. Workman
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
How can we train people to become better leaders? New research by DeRue, et al.
(2012) has identified the benefits of a strategy called after-event reviews, or AERs.
What are AERs, and when will they work best?
The authors explain that leadership is difficult because it involves high pressure and
high uncertainty. Even in hindsight, complex situations make it difficult to know if
leaders performed well or made good decisions. In order to improve leadership skills,
leaders must reflect on what happened, and analyze their decisions and the outcomes
that they led to. An AER is a technique that provides structure for this kind of analysis.
An AER has three steps. In the first step, leaders must explain what they did and
how this contributed to the outcome. This is called self-explanation. In the second
step, called data verification, leaders consider other possible explanations for how
their decisions led to the outcome. Finally, leaders provide themselves with a type of
feedback by considering how changes in their behavior can lead to future improvement.
The authors conducted a quasi-experiment involving emerging leaders in a
business school and found that using the AER technique led to improved leadership
development. This is because AERs provide needed structure to the reflection process,
and force leaders to truly deconstruct and consider their actions. Generic reflection
processes are not as effective because they allow people to reflect in an automatic and
superficial way.
When do AERs work best? The authors found that several different types of people
gain more from AERs. People who are conscientious benefit more from AERs, as
do people who are emotionally-stable, and people who are open to new experiences.
If you think about it, this makes sense. These kinds of people will be more likely
to dutifully, objectively, or readily consider alternative explanations that may prove
useful to their development. The authors also found that people who have already
experienced some kind of leadership development gain more from AERs than people
without this past experience.
What does this all mean? First, AERs are a great way to provide needed structure to
the leadership development process. They are cheap, easy, and they work! Second,
the authors explain that leadership coaching is great way to improve and develop
leaders. But the presence of a coach is not a cure-all. Coaches will be most successful
when they utilize strategies that are supported by research.
DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Hollenbeck, J.R., & Workman, K. (2012). A quasi-
experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(5), 997-1015.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Should Leaders Care About the Work or the Workers? How About Both?!
Topic: Leadership, Counter-Productive Work Behavior
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (in press)
Article: Effects of Leadership Consideration and Structure on Employee Perceptions of Justice and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Authors: Brian C. Holtz & Crystal M. Harold
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada
Although research on a variety of leadership “types,” such as charismatic and visionary leaders, has flourished in recent years, there has also been a return to a basic distinction that was made in the leadership literature many years ago: the distinction between consideration and initiating structure. Consideration refers to leaders’ “people-oriented” behaviors, such as showing respect for followers and facilitating group cohesiveness. Initiating structure refers to clarifying roles, establishing rules, and providing a framework for effective group and individual performance. These dimensions are not mutually exclusive, and some leaders may be high on both, others low on both, and still others high on one and low on the other. With interest in these dimensions increasing, a recent study examined them in relation to two important outcomes: employee perceptions of justice, and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).
Across two studies using multi-source data, the authors found that both consideration and structure were related to organizational justice in important ways; specifically, structure and distributive justice were strongly related, as were consideration and interpersonal justice. In addition, the authors found that, when consideration was low, higher levels of structure were associated with an increase in CWBs in the workplace.
These findings suggest that, while both consideration and structure are important for understanding leadership, what may be most important is the combination of these dimensions that a leader possesses. As interest in these leadership dimensions continues to return, it is likely that we will gain additional knowledge about how these dimensions interact with a variety of important outcomes.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Getting by Giving: Why Leaders Succeed by Serving (IO Psychology)
Topic: Leadership, Organizational Performance
Publication: Personnel Psychology
Article: CEO Servant Leadership: Exploring Executive Characteristics and Firm Performance
Authors: Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., Lange, D.
Reviewer: Neil Morelli
Sometimes you have to give more to get more. The same is true when it comes to how CEOs lead their company and how well their company performs. According to Peterson and her colleagues, when the CEO (usually the most powerful and influential player in the organization) demonstrates servant leadership their firm becomes more successful.
Recently, organizational research, in combination with business strategy, has shifted its interest to study how the more relational styles of leadership have an impact at the organizational level. In this study, servant leadership was the style of choice and is defined as leading by placing a heavy weight on personal integrity, caring for the needs of followers, and having a “strong moral compass.” Peterson and colleagues not only wanted to see the organizational outcomes of servant leadership, but also to understand what determines this leadership style.
After sampling 126 CEOs from the technology industry, the researchers found that narcissism negatively predicted servant leadership, and founder status (whether the CEO founded the firm) positively predicted servant leadership. They also found that these two characteristics were mediated by organizational identification—whether a CEO sees his or her identity as being synonymous with the identity of the organization. As for firm performance, servant leadership positively predicted return on assets, meaning that there is a relationship between leading by valuing others more highly than oneself and organizational performance.
Of course, the most obvious practical implication is that the non-narcissistic, founding CEO who highly identifies with his or her organization and displays servant leadership will be more successful, but there are other important points to note. As the authors suggest, having leaders at any level share a “we” mentality over a “me” mentality will help leaders at any level develop more servant leader behaviors. Also, knowing what kind of characteristics to look out for will be helpful to anyone involved in the decision-making process in promoting or selecting new leaders for the future.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
That It’s OK to Be Me: Authentic Leadership Drives Performance in Stressful Conditions (IO Psychology)
Topics: Leadership, Stress
Publication: The Leadership Quarterly (JUN 2012)
Article: The relationship between authentic leadership and follower job performance: The mediating role of follower positivity in extreme contexts.
Authors: Suzanne J. Peterson, Fred O. Walumbwa, Bruce J. Avolio, & Sean T. Hannah
Reviewed By: Aaron Manier
In stressful working environments, it’s good to know that your boss is a real, caring, genuine person who’s got your back in the toughest of situations. Not only does it seem like a good idea generally, but research is beginning to support the notion that authentic leaders, or leaders who are self-aware, moral, open, and objective, not only increase perceived support among followers, but drive higher performance in extreme and stressful working conditions.
Several key features of the authentic leader-follower relationship impact the strength of the relationship between authentic leadership and performance in extreme working conditions, specifically in police and military contexts. An authentic relationship between a leader and an employee creates a situation where employees can genuinely experience all of their emotions. The encouragement of authentic leaders for employees to feel their true emotions contradicts traditional thinking that emotions in extreme or stressful environments should be detached—a repressive, “tough it out” mentality. However, authenticity can lead to stronger positive emotions and improved performance.
Authentic leaders also create a working situation that activates employee’s psychological capital to drive improved performance. Psychological capital is like a pool of psychological resources that an employee can draw on to succeed, including confidence, strength of will, optimism, and resilience. By supporting employees and allowing them to develop this pool of psychological capital, authentic leaders empower employees to have the personal strength to confront stressful and potentially negative situations.
Given the impact that authentic leadership can have on performance and the work environment, organizations that operate in stressful or extreme conditions should consider switching their “tough it out” stance to one of support, genuineness, and a willingness to experience the challenges of a difficult work situation.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Paradoxes and Self-examination: Exploring the gaps in Global Leadership Literature
Topic: Leadership, Culture
Publication: Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (JUN 2012)
Article: Global Leadership: A Developmental Shift for Everyone
Authors: Katherine Holt and Kyoko Seki
Reviewed By: Nupur Deshpande
To begin on a personal note, in reading even the first few lines of this article, I had several ‘Ah-ha’ moments! This article details the potential issues of having only American or U.S.-based psychologists studying cross-cultural issues in the field. The Western ideals and perspectives may bias the research and be inapplicable to other audiences. This article brings to light all the discrepancies inherent in the cross-cultural psychology literature such as definitional confusion about culture-general and culture-specific dimensions, intercultural sensitivity, and competency models.
To address these concerns holistically, the authors propose four changes to the research direction, along with inherent challenges in the definition, conception, development, and adoption of cross-cultural research by global leaders. These shifts are: (a) developing a metric for multicultural effectiveness (b) becoming adept at managing the paradoxes inherent in global work (c) cultivating the “being” dimension of human experience, and (d) appreciating individual uniqueness in the context of cultural differences. Additionally, the authors propose a framework of 10 paradoxes organized into five categories of performance, relationships, culture, agility and orientation facing global leaders.
In this article, the authors urge the I/O Psychology community to integrate the various perspectives about cross cultural psychology, explore potential dimensions that might address developmental gaps, revamp existing models to incorporate paradoxes and to create, develop, and cultivate these developmental shits in the way we work.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
