What Makes Leaders Effective? A Stakeholder Approach to Leadership Effectiveness


Published on

This paper suggests using multiple criteria of effectiveness to improve our understanding of
the relationship between leadership behaviors and effectiveness. Using Denison & Neale’s
(1996) leadership framework, the paper examines twelve leadership roles and three criteria of
effectiveness, as judged by bosses, peers, direct reports, and the leaders themselves.

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

What Makes Leaders Effective? A Stakeholder Approach to Leadership Effectiveness

  1. 1. Submission Number: 14333 WHAT MAKES LEADERS EFFECTIVE?A STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS Robert Hooijberg IMD International Institute for Management Development Chemin de Bellerive 23 Lausanne, SWITZERLAND 1001 41-21-618-0172 41-21-618-0707 (fax) hooijberg@imd.ch Daniel R. Denison IMD International Institute for Management Development Chemin de Bellerive 23 Lausanne,SWITZERLAND 1001 41-21-618-0311 41-21-618-0707 (fax) denison@imd.chDivision: Organizational BehaviorThe authors gratefully acknowledge the support for this paper provided by IMD. We are alsograteful for the data analysis expertise provided by Hee Jae Cho.
  2. 2. Submission Number: 14333 WHAT MAKES LEADERS EFFECTIVE? A STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS Abstract Research on leadership roles has clearly shown that there are substantial differences inthe judgements of multiple raters about which leadership roles have greatest influence oneffectiveness. Few studies, however, have used multiple criteria of leadership effectiveness.This paper suggests using multiple criteria of effectiveness to improve our understanding ofthe relationship between leadership behaviors and effectiveness. Using Denison & Neale’s(1996) leadership framework, the paper examines twelve leadership roles and three criteria ofeffectiveness, as judged by bosses, peers, direct reports, and the leaders themselves. Like other studies, our analyses of overall effectiveness show that bosses give higherratings to leaders who show externally oriented traits such as mission, while direct reportsgive higher ratings to leaders with skills in the internally focused area of involvement.However, when assessing three specific criteria of leadership effectiveness: 1) the leader asrole model for the organization, 2) the leader’s potential for the future, and 3) the leader’seffectiveness with customers, our analysis shows how focusing on overall effectiveness alonecan hide interesting and important associations. Involvement proves to be a strong predictor of leaders as role models. Adaptability isa weak predictor of overall effectiveness and leaders as role models, but is a strong predictorof future potential and effectiveness with customers. Finally, mission is a strong predictor ofoverall effectiveness, but a weaker predictor of the specific criteria. These results suggestthat future researchers should consider multiple criteria of leadership effectiveness.Word count: 246 wordsKeywords: leadership; effectiveness; multi-source feedbackDivision: Organizational Behavior 2
  3. 3. Many leadership researchers have found support for the notion that bosses, peers,direct reports and managers themselves find different leadership roles important foreffectiveness. This finding is typically explained by arguing that direct reports observe oneside of a manager’s behavior while peers or bosses observe another, or by arguing thatdifferent observers value different behaviors. There is, however, a much simpler explanation:Direct reports, peers and bosses associate different leadership roles with effectivenessbecause they use different definitions of effectiveness. This explanation has been neglected by most leadership researchers. In most cases,they have continued to use a single general assessment of effectiveness, as they focus onmulti-source feedback. This contrasts with other research areas such as organizationaleffectiveness, team effectiveness, job satisfaction, or commitment in which the interests ofdifferent stakeholders, or the different facets of the criterion measure, are considered a criticalpart of the phenomenon. In this paper, we begin to apply this stakeholder perspective to thestudy of leadership effectiveness. We argue that the term “overall effectiveness” has adifferent meaning for direct reports than it does for peers, bosses, or managers, and that thesedifferences become clearer when multiple criteria of effectiveness are examined. Following a brief review of the treatment of these issues in the leadership literature,we examine the use of a stakeholder or facet approach in several other literatures. Next, wepresent a set of hypotheses, derived from the stakeholder perspective, and test them usingdata on 1,254 focal managers, including data from 10,737 bosses, peers, and direct reports,using the model & measures developed by Denison & Neale (1996). The results of theseanalyses confirm the general pattern in which different respondent groups favor differentleadership roles when making judgements about overall effectiveness. But the results alsoshow that the use of three different criteria of effectiveness help to clarify the particularperspective that each respondent takes when judging overall leadership effectiveness. 3
  4. 4. Multi-Source Feedback Research Leadership research applying the multi-source feedback paradigm in most casessupports the notion that members of a manager’s role-set differ in the behaviors they see asmost critical for leadership effectiveness. For example, Bernardin and Alvares (1975) assertthat the organizational level of the constituent (relative to the ratee) has an impact on theperceptions of what constitute critical leadership behaviors. It is important for managers toknow what various constituents consider critical leadership behaviors, because constituents“make decisions to give or withhold resources, such as information, materials and their ownefforts, that are critical to a manager’s success in performing his or her job” (Tsui, Ashford,St. Clair, & Xin, 1995, p. 1516). This literature has demonstrated a number of interesting empirical findings. Pfefferand Salancik (1975) found that housing supervisors’ perceived expectations of theirsubordinates were more important in influencing their social behaviors, while the perceivedexpectations of their bosses were more important in determining their work-related behavior.Salam, Cox, and Sims (1997) found that the subordinates’ perceptions of leadershipbehaviors had different relationships with effectiveness depending on the rater ofeffectiveness. Tsui (1984) found that the managers’ own perceptions of which leadershiproles were most strongly associated with effectiveness differed significantly from theperceptions of their subordinates, peers, and superiors. Using a sample of public utilitymanagers, Hooijberg and Choi (2000) found support for the existence of distinct leadershipeffectiveness models for managers themselves, direct reports, peers, and bosses. Others haveargued that not only the rater-ratee relationship influences the leadership behavior-effectiveness association but so does the organizational context (e.g., Eggleston & Bhagat,1993; Hooijberg & Choi, 2001). 4
  5. 5. The above-mentioned studies generally support the notion that, depending on theperspective and organizational context, different leadership roles are seen as important forleadership effectiveness. While anywhere from two to eight leadership roles were examinedin these studies, each study employed only one overall assessment of effectiveness. The same research cited above, however, does provide indications that using a singlecriterion variable may hide interesting relationships. Church and Bracken (1997), forexample, in their review of the Salam, Cox, and Sims (1997) article in their special issue on360-degree feedback, state that “it is interesting to learn that leaders who challenge theformal system may tend to receive higher performance ratings from their followers (i.e.,direct reports) but lower performance ratings from their supervisors” (p. 153). If the samebehavior influences overall effectiveness differently depending on the rater then this suggeststhat the direct reports and supervisors in the Salam, et al. (1997) study use different criterionvariables even though both label them overall effectiveness. Research in other areas such asorganizational effectiveness, team effectiveness, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,and careers have acknowledged this phenomenon and suggest that it is useful to break downan overall criterion assessment into relatively independent component parts.Stakeholder and Facet Approaches in Other Literatures Although the concept of multiple stakeholders with different perspectives, needs, anddemands has had little impact on the leadership literature, it has been a central feature ofresearch in several other areas. The area of organizational effectiveness, for example, has abasic grounding in Ashby’s concept of requisite variety (Ashby, 1952) and has long held thatorganizations must serve multiple constituencies who make competing demands (Seashore,1983; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). This basic framework has influenced many aspects oforganizational theory (Clarkson, 1995; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Lewin, Long, & 5
  6. 6. Carroll, 1999). More recently, Schneider (2001) has used this background to being todevelop a stakeholder perspective on organizational leadership. The stakeholder perspective has also had a considerable impact on the study of teameffectiveness. Contemporary teams often operate in complex goal environments. Thus,comparing teams across levels, functions, geography, and time all suggest that a judgement ofoverall effectiveness will be less useful than a careful consideration of the needs of differentconstituencies (Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Katzenbach & Smith,1994). This area of research also helps provide a second model of how to examine leadereffectiveness from a stakeholder perspective. In addition, several other areas of research have taken an approach that focuses on“facets” as a way to define important criterion variables. For example, many researchershave divided overall job satisfaction into various facets and have acknowledged that, “theeffects of personality dispositions on all facets and global satisfaction items are notnecessarily uniform” (Dorman & Zapf, 2001: 499). In addition to examining overall jobsatisfaction, these researchers have examined such dependent variables as satisfaction withsupervisor, pay, coworkers, promotion and work (e.g., Jung, Dalessio & Johnson, 1986),burnout (e.g., Klein & Verbeke, 1999), and openness to change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Asimilar approach has been taken to examining organizational commitment. In this area,researchers have examined in-role and extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g.,Morrison, 1994), intent to leave the organization (e.g., Levine, 1993), and absenteeism. Derr(1986; 1987) observes that the careers literature has been dominated by a getting-aheadorientation. As an alternative, he distinguishes five career orientations rather than just oneand argues that people with a different career orientation value different aspects of their workenvironment. In other words, depending on their career orientation they hold differentdefinitions of career success. Researchers have found that these criterion variables, while 6
  7. 7. being components of overall satisfaction, commitment or career success, are predicted bydifferent independent variables depending on the context in which they are examined. Interestingly, while in much of the leadership literature researchers seem to haverelied on a single, overall measure of effectiveness, early studies such as those conducted bySeashore, Indik and Georgopoulos (1960) and Friedlander and Pickle (1968) have oftenpointed out that the correlations among various effectiveness criteria are generally low andsometimes even negative. Few researchers have followed up on those findings by examiningmore than one criterion variable. There are several exceptions. Zammuto, London and Rowland (1982), in a multi-source study of hospital nursesand university resident advisors, explicitly examined whether overall performance means thesame to different raters. They found that different groups of raters “appeared to focus ondifferent aspects of performance in their evaluations of overall performance” (p. 649).Borman and Motowidlo (1993) also argued for expanding the domain of criterion variablesand proposed that we should distinguish between task and contextual performance.Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) found support for the notion that task and contextualperformance contribute independently to overall performance. While Antonioni and Park(2001) acknowledge the distinction between task and contextual performance in their study ofmulti-source feedback and affect, they focus only on the contextual performance criterion. Given these approaches have been so central in other literatures, it seems important toexplore the idea that direct reports, peers and bosses use different criteria of effectiveness.Given that we are entering a relatively new area, we test four general hypotheses. HYPOTHESES Consistent with findings in multi-source feedback research, we expect that bosses,peers, and direct reports will vary in the extent to which they see various leadership roles as 7
  8. 8. critical for overall effectiveness. This hypothesis asserts that our findings regarding anoverall measure of effectiveness will reflect the typical findings in the existing literature. P1: Direct reports, peers, and bosses associate different leadership roles and in different degrees with overall effectiveness. The more important contribution of this paper, however, is to examine the impact ofmultiple criteria of leadership effectiveness. In order to do this, we selected three additionalcriteria of effectiveness that we thought would be valued differently by direct reports, peers,and bosses: 1) the degree to which the leader serves as a role model in their organization, 2)the future potential of the leader, and 3) their effectiveness in customer relationships. Webriefly elaborate on these three criteria to formulate our hypotheses. Direct reports look at the behavior of their leaders to see whether they “walk the talk.”In other words, can they really believe that their leader is a role model? We expect that directreports will be more concerned with the degree to which their boss is a role model and thatpeers and bosses are more concerned with actual results, rather than the way in which theywere received. Thus, we propose that: P2: Direct reports will associate leadership roles more strongly with the role- model criterion than will peers or bosses. Peers will look to see who among them has the most potential to be a leader in thefuture. In assessing that they may take into consideration current performance but also assessto what extent the person is ready for the next level of leadership. Peers do as a form ofsocial comparison (i.e., “who are my competitors?”) and from a point of view of objectivelyassessing their colleagues performance. We expect peers to be more concerned with thiscriterion relative to direct reports and bosses. Therefore, we propose that: P3: Peers will associate leadership roles more strongly with the future leadership potential criterion than will direct reports or bosses. 8
  9. 9. Bosses will be most concerned with current results. One of the ways I which theyassess this is by examining the quality of the relationships their managers have with theinternal and external customers. We do not say that direct reports and peers do not feelconcerned about customer relationships, just that this criterion will be more prominent in theminds of bosses than in the minds of direct reports and peers. We propose, therefore, that: P4: Bosses will associate leadership roles more strongly with the customer relationship criterion than will direct reports or peers. METHODSSample 1254 Managers participated in the study between 1996 & 2001. In addition to theresponses from the managers themselves we received responses from 1201 bosses, 4518peers, and 4323 direct reports. Of the participating managers 25% were female, 60% had atleast a Bachelor’s degree, 66% were between the ages of 30-49, 85% had been at least 2years with their company, and 85% were White Caucasian. This sample of managers camefrom a broad collection of companies in a broad range of industries, and include both privateand public sector managers. Approximately 75% of these managers reside in North America,with approximately 15% in Europe and 10% in Asia.Measuring Leadership Behaviors To define the leadership roles for this study we used Denison & Neale’s (1996)leadership framework (see Figure 1). Denison identifies four broad leadership traits;involvement, consistency, adaptability & mission. Each of these traits is measured with threeindexes made up of eight survey items each. Insert Figure 1 About Here 9
  10. 10. Involvement - Building human capability, ownership and responsibility. Individualmanagers who know how to create "high-involvement" strongly encourage others to beinvolved and create an environment of experimentation and exploration, as well as a sense ofownership and responsibility. Highly involved individual managers depend on informal, voluntary and implicitleadership skills to move their work group or organization forward rather than formal,explicit, bureaucratic directives. Out of this sense of ownership grows a greater commitmentto the organization, an increasing capacity for leadership, and a sense of autonomy.Receptivity to the ideas of others increases leadership quality and improves implementationof new ideas. The three measures of the Involvement role are: Empowers People; BuildsTeam Orientation; and Develops Organizational Capability. Consistency - Defining the values and systems that are the basis of strong leadership.Consistency provides a central source of integration, coordination and control. Consistentindividual managers develop a mindset and a set of operations that create an internal systemof governance based on consensus. They have highly committed employees, key centralvalues, a distinct method of doing business, a tendency to promote from within, and a clearset of "dos and donts." Consistency produces leadership based on a shared system of beliefs, values, andsymbols that are widely understood by members of a work group or organization. Implicitcontrol systems based on internalized values can be a more effective means of achievingcoordination and integration than external-control systems that rely on explicit rules andregulations. The power of leadership consistency is particularly apparent when organizationalmembers encounter unfamiliar situations, when it enables leadership to react in a predictableway to an unpredictable environment by emphasizing a few general, value-based principles 10
  11. 11. on which actions can be grounded. The three measures of the Consistency role are: DefinesCore Values; Works to Reach Agreement; Manages Coordination and Integration. Adaptability - Translating the demands of the organizational environment into action.Successful individual managers hold a system of norms and beliefs that support his or hercapacity to receive and interpret signals from the environment and translate them into internalchanges that increase the organizations chances for survival, growth and development. Three aspects of adaptability influence an individual managers effectiveness. First isthe ability to perceive and respond to the external environment. Successful individualmanagers are very focused on their customers and their competitors. Second is the ability torespond to internal customers, regardless of level, department or function. Third is thecapacity to restructure and re-institutionalize a set of behaviors and processes that allow theorganization and its employees to adapt. Without this ability to implement adaptive response,an organization cannot be effective. The three measures of the adaptability role are CreatesChange, Emphasizes Customer Focus, and Promotes Organizational Learning. Mission - Defining a meaningful long-term direction for the organization. Theindividual managers mission provides purpose and meaning by defining goals and a purposefor his or her unit. It provides a clear direction that defines an appropriate course of action forthe individual manager and his/her employees. The individual manager is able to align themission and goals for his/her functional area or unit to the mission and goals of theorganization. A sense of mission allows an individual manager to inspire, to direct activities,and to formulate strategy by envisioning a desired future state. Being able to translate his/hermission into action contributes to both short and long-term commitment to the organization.Success is more likely when individual managers and organizations are goal directed. Thethree measures of the Mission role are: Defines Strategic Direction and Intent; Defines Goalsand Objectives; and Creates Shared Vision. 11
  12. 12. Validity and Reliability To establish the reliability and validity of these measures, we include in this paper abrief summary of our validity testing. This model was developed from the general model oforganizational culture and effectiveness developed by Denison (Denison, 1990; Denison &Mishra, 1995). Ninety-six items are used to define twelve separate measures of the four basictraits. All items were rated on a seven-point agree-disagree scale. A response of sevenindicates that the respondent strongly agrees. All items are presented in Appendix A. Each of the indexes is highly reliable. Indeed, reliable measures can be formed formfive of the eight items in all cases. The alpha coefficients for these measures are presented inTable 1. A correlation matrix of the twelve measures is presented in Appendix B. Insert Table 1 About Here Next, we present a confirmatory factor analysis that tests for the presence of threeseparate measures for each leadership traits. This analysis focused on the 24 items used foreach trait, to see if they fit into the three separate measures as prescribed by the framework.The fit statistics presented for these models shows that the three-factor model fits better foreach trait than does a one-factor model. The fit statistics also show that a one-factor modelfits quite well in three of the four traits, but fits less well for the Adaptability role. Thisanalysis is presented in Table 2. Insert Table 2 About Here The next step in our validity analysis was to analyze the twelve measures to see ifthey in fact fit into the four basic traits defined by the model. The results of this analysis arepresented in Table 3. These results show that the four-factor model is indeed a significant 12
  13. 13. improvement over a one-factor model. The model parameters for this model are presented inFigure 2. Insert Table 3 About Here Insert Figure 2 About Here This analysis helps to establish the validity of the model and measures. Similarresults were obtained for separate analyses of each of the sub-groups of bosses, peers, directreports and the leaders themselves. But a detailed discussion of these results is well beyondthe scope of this paper. For the purposes of this paper we focused on the four mainbehavioral traits of involvement, consistency, adaptability, and mission as our independentvariables.Dependent Variables This study uses four dependent variables. The first is a question about overalleffectiveness to compare and contrast our results with those of previous research. This itemasks, “Overall this individual is a highly effective leader.” In addition, we use three items toassess the focal manager’s effectiveness as a role model (“This individual’s leadership styleserves as a role model for others in the organization”), his/her potential as a future leader(“This individual has great potential as a future leader in our organization”), and his/hereffectiveness in relating to customers (“This individual develops high quality relationshipswith internal and external customers”). These last three criteria of effectiveness will help usexplore to what extent overall effectiveness is an effective criterion variable. RESULTS The regression analyses presented in Table 4 show that our results are consistent withprevious multi-rater feedback research. The analyses show that involvement has the 13
  14. 14. strongest association with overall effectiveness for direct reports and that mission has thestrongest association with overall effectiveness for the bosses. The strength of the associationbetween involvement and overall effectiveness is strongest for the direct reports, weaker forthe peers and weaker yet for the bosses. The pattern for mission is quite different. Theassociation between mission and overall effectiveness is strongest for the bosses, weaker forthe peers, and weakest for the direct reports. This confirms that for overall effectiveness, ingeneral terms, direct reports have a more internal focus and bosses a more external focus.This is consistent with findings by Hooijberg and Choi (2000; 2001). Insert Table 4 About Here The results of the regression analyses for the three components of effectiveness showinteresting differences from this overall picture. Table 5 shows the results for the regressionanalyses of the effectiveness of the leader as role model. Surprisingly we see few differencesamong the direct reports, peers, and bosses as to which leadership roles have the strongestassociation with perceptions of the leader as role model. Consistent with hypothesis 2 thedirect reports perceived a slightly stronger association between involvement and consistencyand the leader as a role model effectiveness than the peers and bosses, but these differenceswere small. Involvement and consistency have the strongest association with a leader’seffectiveness as a role model for the organization for direct reports, peers and bosses alike.Adaptability has little or no association with a leader’s effectiveness as a role model for theorganization. Only mission has a stronger association with a leader’s effectiveness as a rolemodel for bosses (.39) than it has for direct reports (.27) and peers (.25). 14
  15. 15. These results show that effectiveness as a role model comes from empowering people,building teams, developing people, defining core values, working to reach agreement, andcreating coordination and integration. Insert Table 5 About Here The results for the second effectiveness criterion of future leadership potential arevery interesting because the three groups of raters associate different leadership roles withthis criterion. Table 6 shows that direct reports associate the involvement, consistency andadaptability leadership roles with future potential as a leader; peers associate the consistencyand adaptability leadership roles with future potential as a leader; and bosses associate theadaptability and mission leadership roles with future potential as a leader. The bosses do notsee a significant association between involvement and future potential as a leader. While all three groups of raters associate a different set of leadership roles witheffectiveness as a future leader, hypothesis 3 does not get support. That is, peers do notassociate leadership roles more strongly with this role than do the direct reports and bosses. The one consistent part in this picture is the role of the adaptability leadership role.While the adaptability role had only a small association with effectiveness as a role model,direct reports, peers and bosses all see a strong association between the adaptability role andeffectiveness as a future leader. Especially bosses see a strong relationship here. Insert Table 6 About Here Table 7 presents the results for the third criteria of effectiveness in customer relations.The results provide some support for the proposition that the bosses see the strongestassociation between the leadership and effectiveness with customers. This is especially true 15
  16. 16. for the strong association bosses see between consistency and customer relationshipeffectiveness (.66). Overall, however, the results are similar for the direct reports, peers and bosses. Allthree groups see the strongest association between consistency and adaptability and customerrelationship effectiveness. It is interesting to see that effectiveness in managing therelationships with internal and external customers comes from balancing seemingly oppositeroles (see Figure 1). This seems to suggest that the leaders who are judged most effectivewith respect to the customer effectiveness criterion are in fact those that manage the valuechain of internal and external customers (Denison, 1997). Interestingly enough, the missionleadership role has no association with customer relationship effectiveness in the perceptionsof the bosses and even a small negative association in the perceptions of the direct reports (-.06) and peers (-.11). Insert Table 7 About Here DISCUSSION This paper set out to explore the extent to which differences among raters in multi-source feedback studies stem from implicit differences in definitions of overall effectiveness.We first confirmed the basic finding in multi-source feedback that different groups of raterstend to associate different leadership roles with overall effectiveness. Specifically, weconfirmed two general findings. First, direct reports see a stronger association betweeninternally oriented leadership roles, such as involvement, and overall effectiveness than dopeers and bosses. Second, bosses see a stronger association between externally orientedleadership roles, such as mission, and overall effectiveness than do direct reports and peers. Then we explored the extent to which these same relationships would hold up whenwe explored components of overall effectiveness. Specifically we explored three components 16
  17. 17. of overall effectiveness: effectiveness as a role model; effectiveness as a potential futureleader; and effectiveness in relationships with internal and external customers. We foundlimited support for our formal propositions, but did uncover several interesting findings. Most interesting were the findings that different leadership traits had strongassociations with the three effectiveness components. Involvement, adaptability and missionshowed interesting variations across the three effectiveness criteria. Consistency, in contrast,showed great uniformity across the three effectiveness criteria. Involvement showed a strong association with the effectiveness criterion of leader asa role model, but much weaker associations with the effectiveness criteria of future potentialleadership and quality of customer relationships. Adaptability role showed the weakest association with overall effectiveness andleader as role model of all four leadership roles, but it did show a strong association withfuture potential leadership and quality relationships with customers. In particular, the contrastfor the bosses for the association between adaptability and overall effectiveness (.18) and forthe association between the adaptability role and future potential leadership (.53) is striking.Based on these results, we would conclude that it is highly important to include multiplecriteria of effectiveness in future leadership studies. A study using overall effectivenessmeasures only would conclude that adaptability was not very important. Using multipleeffectiveness measures adds a powerful caveat – adaptability appears to be highly importantfor organizations that want to have customers and leaders in the future! Mission also shows some interesting effects, several of which are in the oppositedirection of the adaptability role. Mission has strong associations with overall effectiveness,but none of its associations with the more specific criteria of effectiveness exceed that of theassociation with overall effectiveness for any of the three groups of raters. 17
  18. 18. The results even show negative associations between mission and the quality ofcustomer relationships. This seems to indicate that having a shared vision and a clearstrategy at best (for bosses) does not affect the quality of relationships with internal andexternal customers, and at worst (for direct reports and peers) may get in the way! Consistency showed the opposite effect of mission. In all but one case, it exceededthe strength of the associations with overall effectiveness. It showed especially strongassociations with the effectiveness criterion of the quality of relationships with internal andexternal customers. In general, consistency seems to play an important part in the perceptions of all threegroups of raters for all three criteria of effectiveness. If we had used only the overalleffectiveness criterion we would have been unable to detect this central role of consistency.It indicates that defining core values, working to reach agreement and managing coordinationand integration represent key leadership behaviors for managers’ effectiveness as a rolemodel, as a future potential leader, and for having high quality relationships with bothinternal and external customers. Given that this was an exploratory study, we expect that future research will build amore comprehensive framework of leadership effectiveness. Company, industry, and othercontextual factors may also have a strong effect. But at a minimum, the strong contrastbetween the strength of the results for mission and consistency between overall effectivenessand the more specific criteria indicates that researchers have not yet uncovered all of thecriteria that make up leadership effectiveness. Thus, we conclude that this exploratory studyhas shown that a single criterion of overall effectiveness can hide many interesting andimportant dynamics. In answer to the question posed by this paper, we conclude that a focuson overall effectiveness alone is not very effective! 18
  19. 19. REFERENCESAntonioni, D. & Park, H. 2001. The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Management, 27: 479-495.Ashby, W. R. 1952. Design for a Brain, NY: Wiley.Borman, W.C. & Motowidlo, S.J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schimitt & W.C. Borman, Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Cho, H.J. 2000. The validity and reliability of the organizational culture questionnaire. Working paper, IMD - International Institute for Management Development.Church, A.H. & Bracken, D.W. 1997. Advancing the state of the art of 360-degree feedback. Group & Organization Management, 22 (2): 149-161.Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance, Academy of Management Review, 20, 1, 92-117.Cohen S. G., and Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite,” Journal of Management, 23, 3, 239-290.Denison, D.R. 1990. Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Denison. D. R. (1997), “Toward a Process-Based Theory of Organizational Design: Can Organizations be Designed Around Value Chains and Networks?” Advances in Strategic Management, 14, 1-44.Denison, D.R. & Mishra, A.K. 1995. Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 2, 204-223.Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., and Kahn, J. A. 1996. From chimneys to cross-functional teams: developing and validating a diagnostic model, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 4, 1005-1023.Denison, D.R. & Neale, W.S. 1996. The Denison leadership development survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Aviat.Derr, C.B. 1986. Five Definitions of Career Success: Implications for Relationships. The International Review of Applied Psychology, 35 (3): 415-434.Derr, C.B. 1987. What value is your management style? Personnel Journal: 74-83.Eggleston, K.K. & Bhagat, R.S. 1993. Organizational context and contingent leadership roles: A theoretical explanation. Human Relations, 46 (10): 1177-1192.Hooijberg, R. & Choi, J. 2000. Which leadership roles matter to whom?: An examination of rater effects on perceptions of effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (3): 341-364.Hooijberg, R. & Choi, J. 2001. The impact of organizational characteristics on leadership effectiveness models: An examination of leadership in a private and a public sector organization. Administration & Society, 33 (4): 403-431.Jung, K., Dalessio, A. & Johnson, S.M. 1986. Stability of the factor structure of the Job Descriptive Index. Academy of Management Journal, 29 (3). 19
  20. 20. Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. 1994. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. New York: HarperBusiness.Klein, D.J. & Verbeke, W. 1999. Autonomic feedback in stressful environments: How do individual differences in autonomic feedback relate to burnout, job performance, and job attitudes in salespeople? Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (6): 911-924.Levine, D. 1993. What do wages buy? Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (3): 462-Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., and Carroll, T. N. 1999. The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms, Organization Science, 10, 5, 535-550.Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts, Academy of Management Review, 22, 4, 853-886.Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (6): 1543-Motowidlo, S.J. & Van Scotter, J.R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 475- 480.Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1975. Determinants of supervisory behavior: A role set analysis. Human Relations, 28: 139-164.Quinn, R.E. 1988. Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Quinn, R.E. & Rohrbaugh, J. 1983. A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a conmpeting values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29: 363- 377.Salam, S., Cox, J.F., & Sims, H.P. 1997. In the eye of the beholder: How leadership relates to 360-degree performance ratings. Group & Organization Management, 22 (2): 185- 209.Schneider, M. 2001. A stakeholder theory of organizational leadership. Organization Science (in press).Seashore, S.E. 1983. A framework for an integrated model of organizational effectiveness. In K.S. Cameron & D.A. Whetten, (Eds.), Organizational Effectiveness. New York: Academic Press.Seashore, S.E., Indik, B.P. and Georgopoulos, B.S. 1960. Relationships among criteria of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44: 195-202.Tsui, A.S. 1984. A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 64-96.Tsui, A.S., Ashford, S.J., St. Clair, L., & Xin, K.R. 1995. Dealing with discrepant expectations: Response strategies and leadership effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1515-1543.Wanberg, C.R. & Banas, J.T. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1):132-142.Zammuto, R.F., London, M. & Rowland, K.M.1982. Organization and rater differences in performance appraisals. Personnel Psychology, 35: 643-658. 20
  21. 21. Figure 1.Denison Leadership Development Model 21
  22. 22. 0.18 Empower 0.17 Team 0.84 0.91 0.19 CapDev 0.90 Involve 1.00 0.23 Core 0.96 0.82 0.28 Agree 0.80 Consist 1.00 0.91 0.81 0.22 Coord 0.97 0.89 0.26 CreCh 0.85 Adapt 1.00 0.92 0.71 0.35 Customer 0.79 0.94 0.18 OrgLearn Mission 1.00 0.92 0.12 StrDir 0.87 0.95 0.16 Goal 0.18 VisionChi-Square=3401.55, df=48, P-value=0.00000, RMSEA=0.078 22
  23. 23. Table 1. Alpha Coefficients by Index Trait Index Alpha (α) Involvement Empowers People α = .89 Builds Team Orientation α = .93 Develops Capability α = .92 Consistency Defines Core Values α = .92 Works to Reach Agreement α = .93 Manages Coordination & Integration α = .92 Adaptability Creates Change α = .93 Emphasizes Customer Focus α = .93 Promotes Organizational Learning α = .88 Mission Defines Strategic Direction & Intent α = .93 Defines Goals & Objectives α = .93 Creates Shared Vision α = .94 Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results (Total N=11,991) Model χ2 df RMSEA SRMR GFI AGFI NNFI CFI ∆χ2(df)Measurement ModelsItems and Indexes by Trait(24 × 24 Item Covariance Matrix)Involvement One-index model 37482.45 252 .119 .048 .77 .73 .84 .86 Three-index model 19261.63 249 .085 .044 .87 .84 .90 .91 1822.82 (3)***Consistency One-index model 63119.28 252 .153 .068 .67 .61 .78 .80 Three-index model 17093.86 249 .080 .043 .88 .86 .91 .92 46025.42 (3)***Adaptability One-index model 69551.14 252 .162 .175 .65 .58 .74 .76 Three-index model 22742.19 249 .093 .050 .85 .82 .88 .89 46808.95 (3)***Mission One-index model 38765.86 252 .120 .044 .77 .72 .86 .88 Three-index model 22951.35 249 .093 .037 .85 .83 .91 .92 15814.51 (3)*** *** p < .001 Table 3. Structural Equation Modeling Results (N=11,991) Model χ2 df RMSEA SRMR GFI AGFI NNFI CFI ∆χ2(df)Testing the Theoretical ModelTwelve Indexes and Four Traits(12 × 12 Covariance Matrix) One-trait model 11295.21 54 .135 .029 .86 .80 .92 .94 Four-trait model 3401.55 48 .078 .019 .95 .92 .97 .98 7893.66 (6)*** *** p < .001 23
  24. 24. Table 4 Overall Effectiveness Regressions RaterLeadership Roles Direct Report Peer Boss Involvement .48 .39 .28 Consistency .33 .25 .32 Adaptability .19 .24 .18 Mission .27 .38 .48 R2 .66 .63 .63 Table 5 Leader as Role Model Effectiveness Regressions RaterLeadership Roles Direct Report Peer Boss Involvement .56 .52 .49 Consistency .49 .41 .42 Adaptability .09 .21 Mission .27 .25 .39 R2 .70 .64 .62 Table 6 Future Potential as Leader Effectiveness Regressions RaterLeadership Roles Direct Report Peer Boss Involvement .33 .22 Consistency .43 .33 .22 Adaptability .31 .42 .53 Mission .17 .26 .43 R2 .60 .53 .48 Table 7 Leader Relationships with Customers Effectiveness Regressions RaterLeadership Roles Direct Report Peer Boss Involvement .27 .22 .15 Consistency .52 .57 .66 Adaptability .46 .46 .44 Mission -.06 -.11 R2 .61 .56 .55 24
  25. 25. Appendix A Denison Leadership Development Survey: Items by Index and Trait Trait Index ItemInvolvement Empowers People 1. Sees that decisions are made at the lowest possible level. 2. Shares information so that everyone gets the information s/he needs. 3. Creates an environment where everyone feels that his/her effort can make a difference. 4. Involves everyone in shaping the plans and decisions that affect them. 5. Ensures that the necessary resources are available to do the job. 6. Conveys confidence in people’s competence to do their job. 7. Encourages others to take responsibility. 8. Delegates authority so that others can do their work more effectively. Builds Team 9. Builds effective teams that get the job done. Orientation 10. Encourages effective teamwork by others. 11. Knows how to use a team approach to solve problems. 12. Knows when to use a team approach to solve problems. 13. Fosters teamwork within the work unit. 14. Knows how to design work so that it can be done by a team. 15. Values the contributions of the people s/he works with. 16. Acknowledges and celebrates team accomplishments. Develops 17. Builds the capabilities of employees into an important source for competitive advantage. Organizational 18. Knows how to utilize the diversity of the workforce. Capability 19. Coaches others in the development of their skills. 20. Is sensitive and responsive to diversity issues when dealing with others. 21. Helps direct reports create realistic development plans and create opportunities for them. 22. Uses rewards and recognition to motivate good performance. 23. Develops his/her own people so that they are ready for promotion. 24. Builds employee skills so that the organization always has good “bench strength”.Consistency Defines Core Values 25. Does the “right thing” even when it is not popular. 26. “Practices” what s/he “preaches”. 27. Has an ethical code that guides his/her behavior. 28. Helps define the organization’s culture, values, and ethical standards. 29. Helps employees learn to apply the organization’s values when dealing with others. 30. Lives up to promises and commitments. 31. Has earned the confidence and trust of others. 32. Clearly articulates a set of fundamental beliefs that are not negotiable. Works to Reach 33. Helps people to reach consensus, even on difficult issues. Agreement 34. Works to find alternatives that will benefit all when confronted with a disagreement. 35. Helps people in his/her organization be effective at reaching agreement on key issues. 36. Incorporates diverse points of view when making decisions. 37. Promotes constructive discussion among people with conflicting ideas. 38. Is willing to compromise when necessary in order to reach agreement. 39. Works toward win/win solutions when disagreements occur. 40. Reconciles differences by seeking to clarify and understand other’s points of view. Manages 41. Works hard to foster the alignment of goals across all functional areas. Coordination and 42. Builds coordination across departmental boundaries. Integration 43. Uses informal networks to get things done. 44. Builds relationships with key people in other functions and levels. 45. Helps create an environment that facilitates coordination of projects across functional units. 46. Makes certain that things do not “fall between the cracks”. 47. Builds support for ideas through contracts with other departments. 48. Establishes mechanisms that facilitate effective cross-functional communication. 25
  26. 26. Appendix A, Continued Denison Leadership Development Survey: Items by Index and Trait Trait Index ItemAdaptability Creates Change 49. Continuously looks for new and better ways to do work. 50. Encourages creative thinking. 51. Challenges the way that things have always been done and looks for a better way. 52. Champions change that goes beyond the scope of his/her job. 53. Challenges organizational practices that are nonproductive. 54. Foresees problems before they arise. 55. Serves as a model that creates change in other parts of the organization. 56. Generates innovative ideas and solutions to problems. Emphasizes 57. Encourages direct contact with customers. Customer Focus 58. Responds quickly and effectively to customer feedback. 59. Ensures that employees have a deep understanding of customer wants and needs. 60. Uses customer comments and recommendations to change organizational practices. 61. Actively seeks feedback from customers. 62. Continuously tries to improve service to customers. 63. Incorporates customer input into the planning process. 64. Recognizes the need to respond quickly to customer concerns. Promotes 65. Deals constructively with failures and mistakes. Organizational 66. Views failures as an opportunity for learning and improvement. Learning 67. Creates a working environment in which learning is an important objective. 68. Openly accepts criticism without being defensive. 69. Works well under conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty. 70. Knows the strengths and weaknesses of the competition. 71. Encourages others to learn about the best practices in the industry. 72. Helps others to understand “the big picture”.Mission Defines Strategic 73. Provides employees with a clear mission that gives meaning and direction to their work. Direction & Intent 74. Implements strategies by developing clear goals, objectives, and tactics. 75. Focuses on long-term strategies, rather than quick fix “band-aid” solutions. 76. Effectively allocates resources in line with strategic priorities. 77. Helps define strategies and tactics that keep his/her organization competitive. 78. Has a clear strategy for the future of his/her own part of the organization. 79. Is able to meet short-term demands without losing sight of the long-term strategy. 80. Communicates a clear and compelling rationale for the business strategy. Defines Goals & 81. Sets clear goals that are ambitious, but realistic. Objectives 82. Holds individuals and teams accountable for achieving goals and objectives. 83. Provides clear directions and priorities for employees. 84. Establishes high standards of performance. 85. Involves employees in the goal-setting process so goals and objectives are understood and shared. 86. Tracks progress against stated goals. 87. Effectively communicates the goals and objectives of the organization. 88. Aligns goals and objectives with the strategy and vision. Creates Shared 89. Helps create a shared vision of what this organization will be like in the future. Vision 90. Communicates the organizational vision to his/her employees. 91. Uses the vision to create excitement and motivation for employees. 92. Realizes short-term goals without compromising long-term vision. 93. Organizes work so that everyone sees the connection between the vision and daily activities. 94. Translates the vision into reality in a way that helps guide individual action. 95. Inspires others with his/her vision of the future. 96. Engages others in ways that ensure buy-in and commitment. (Self survey item starts with “I…”; Other raters’ survey item starts with “This person…”) Copyright © 2000 Daniel Denison 26
  27. 27. Appendix B Correlation Matrix for Twelve Indexes (Alpha Coefficients in Parentheses)(N=11,991) Index Mean STD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Empowers People 5.53 .95 (.89) 2 Builds Team Orientation 5.54 1.00 .83 (.93) 3 Develops Org. Capability 5.22 .99 .79 .81 (.92) 4 Defines Core Values 5.69 .95 .74 .74 .75 (.92) 5 Works to Reach Agreement 5.43 .96 .72 .75 .72 .72 (.93) 6 Manages Coordination & Integration 5.48 .94 .71 .74 .73 .74 .72 (.92) 7 Creates Change 5.47 1.00 .67 .69 .72 .72 .66 .73 (.93) 8 Emphasizes Customer Focus 5.63 .93 .60 .61 .64 .62 .60 .66 .66 (.93) 9 Promotes Org. Learning 5.41 .90 .72 .73 .76 .74 .75 .73 .75 .70 (.88) 10 Defines Strategic Direction & Intent 5.41 .98 .72 .73 .77 .76 .67 .76 .78 .68 .77 (.93) 11 Defines Goals & Objectives 5.51 .96 .71 .72 .76 .74 .64 .75 .73 .67 .73 .86 (.93) 12 Creates Shared Vision 5.21 1.04 .73 .75 .78 .73 .69 .75 .76 .68 .77 .85 .81 (.94)Note. All correlation coefficients are significant at p < .0001. 27