This document discusses various concepts related to leadership. It begins by listing 12 names that form a leadership group. It then discusses several key distinctions related to leadership, including: - Leader emergence vs leadership effectiveness - Different types of leadership outcomes (positive and negative) - The difference between a leader, manager, and supervisor - Leader development vs leadership development It also outlines several traditional theories of leadership, such as great man theories, the trait approach, sources of power, and behavioral approaches including the Ohio State and University of Michigan studies. Overall, the document provides an overview of fundamental leadership concepts and theories.

1. Leadership
Nama Kelompok NIM
• MuhammadTeguhWiranto 1724090082
• Gabriel Alfa Dianti 1724090046
• Yolanda Zhafrannita Rusli 1724090136
• Winda Frisda lestari 1724090137
• Putri Amalia Hannum 1724090145
• YustikaWidhanti 1724090147
• Echa Hikmatuzzahro Ocktafiani 1724090151
• Chintya Permata 1724090152
• Agustina Dwi Novitasari 1724090154
• SariYulinar 1724090156
• NelasaritoTarihoran 1724090195
• Afifah Aulia Amani 1924090242

2. The Concept Of
Leadership

3. Leader emergence
Study of the characteristics of individuals who
become leaders, examining the basis on which they
were elected, appointed, or simply accepted.
Leadership effectiveness
Study of which behaviors on the part of a designated
leader (regardless of how that position was achieved)
led to an outcome valued by the work group or
organization
SOME CONCEPTUAL
DISTINCTIONS

4. LEADER EMERGENCE VERSUS
LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS
Foti and Hauenstein (2007) studied leaders who emerged as
they went about their leadership duties and found that both
leader emergence and leader effectiveness were predicted by
high levels of intelligence, dominance, self‐efficacy, and
self‐monitoring.

5. LEADER EMERGENCE
• Research on the relationship between leader emergence and the Big Five
personality factors was examined in a meta‐analysis by Judge, Bono, Ilies, and
Gerhardt (2002).
• They found that several of the Big Five factors were associated with leader
emergence. Leader emergence was defined as “whether (or to what degree)
an individual is viewed as a leader by others” (p. 767). Emotional stability,
extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousne were all
positively associated with individuals who emerged as leaders.

6. • Judge and colleagues (2002) also separated the studies into those
conducted in business settings, in military/ government settings, and with
students. They found that the most consistent correlate of both leader
emergence and leadership effectiveness was extraversion.
• Day, Schleicher, Unck less, and Hiller (2002) found that individuals with a
self‐monitoring personality (those who are concerned with projecting a
positive social appearance) are much more likely to emerge as leaders,
particularly in their examination of how promotions are awarded in an
organization.

7. THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING LEADERSHIP
OUTCOMES
• As Day (2001a) pointed out, the effects of a leader’s behavior are not always immediately
obvious or detectable.There is a lag time between action and result.
• The situation is not so clear with leadership. Leadership has been variously credited with
achieving technological breakthroughs, settling labor problems, bringing an organization back
from bankruptcy, increasing share value, increasing consumer confidence, or simply creating a
fun place to work. Which of these is the “right” outcome to examine? If we want to develop a
theory of leadership impact, which criterion variable should we choose to validate the theory?
Day (2001a) pointed out some of the difficulties in assessing leadership outcomes. It is assumed
that leaders affect the structure and performance of an organization. But which aspects of
structure? Which indicators of performance?

8. NEGATIVE LEADERSHIP OUTCOMES :
THE DESTRUCTIVE LEADER
 Einarsen, Aasland, and Skogstad (2007) define destructive leadership behavior
as “the systematic and repeated behavior by a leader, supervisor, or manager
that violates legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or
sabotaging the organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or
the motivation, well being, or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates”.
 Every organization seems to have one: the manager who verbally abuses
subordinates in private with threats and shouts, who has a personal agenda of
self promotion that is different from the stated goals of the group or organization,
who drives people out of the department or unit, or who seems immune to any
attempt to change his or her style. The destructive leader seems to have
particularly toxic effects on workers with little autonomy in their jobs
(Schaubroeck, Walumbwa, Ganster, & Kepes, 2007)

9. Einarsen and colleagues (2007) describe the following three types
of destructive leaders:
Tyrannical
Derailed
Supportive-Disloyal

10. TYRANNICAL
The tyrannical leader may accept the goals of the organization but seeks
to achieve those goals through actively manipulating and humiliating
subordinates. The fact that the tyrannical leader often does accomplish
organization goals may result in very different evaluations of his or her
effectiveness.
DERAILED
The derailed leader behaves abusively—but he or she also engages in anti
organizational behaviors such as laziness, fraud, and theft. Derailed
leaders are often characterized as leaders who have hit a substantial
pothole on their road to success.
SUPPORTIVE – DISLOYAL
The supportive-disloyal leader actually shows consideration for
subordinates but violates the goals of the organization by undermining
goal accomplishment. This undermining may result from stealing
resources from the organization, granting subordinates excessive
benefits, or encouraging loafing or misconduct by subordinates.

11. LEADER VS MANAGER OR SUPERVISOR
 Fiedler (1967) defined a leader as “the individual in the group given the task of
directing and coordinating task relevant group activities, or who, in the absence
of a designated leader, carries the primary responsibility for performing these
functions in the group”.
 A leader is someone who influences, or attempts to influence, other people. The
behaviors involved in exerting this influence can be called leadership, and those
who exert such influence can be called leaders. But attempts at leadership are
not always successful. Bass (1960) made the following distinctions:
 Attempted leadership
 Successful leadership
 Effective leadership

12. •Person A accepts the goal of changing person B and
can be observed attempting to do so.
ATTEMPTED
LEADERSHIP
•Person B changes his or her behavior as a function
of person A’s effort.
SUCCESFUL
LEADERSHIP
•As a function of person B’s behavioral change
resulting from person A’s effort, person B will be
more satisfied, will be better rewarded, and will have
attained a goal of mutual importance to person A
and person B.
EFFECTIVE
LEADERSHIP

13.  The terms “manager” and “supervisor” are job titles. They imply the tasks or duties of
the person who holds the title. They describe what is to be done.
 Leadership deals with how these tasks or duties are carried out with respect to
members of the work group. “Leader” refers to a social‐psychological aspect of the
role of supervisor or manager. The manager seeks to bring order and consistency to
work; the leader seeks change (Day, 2001a).
 What makes the job of manager or role of leader different from many other work
“behaviors” is the fact that supervisors must depend on subordinates and leaders
must depend on followers to execute their plans. Thus, the study of leadership is
considerably more complex than the study of other work behaviors.

14. Leader Development versus Leadership
Development
I-O psychologist David Day (2001b) make an important distinction between “leader
development” and “leadership development” that strikes at the heart of meaning of
leadership.
Most leadership training programs concentrate on developing, maintaining, or
enhancing individual attributes such as knowledge, skill, and abilities.
Day proposed that training focusing on them is not “leadership” development;
instead, this is leader development. A training program with effective leadership
development will concentrate not on the attributes of the leader but on the nature of
the leader – follower relationship.

15. Day (2001b) viewed the essence of leadership as on of social exchanged. To him,
leadership is “building networked relationships among individuals that enhance
cooperation and resource exchange in creating organizational value”.
Relationship grows out of interactions among individuals in the organization
rather than being an entity independent of those interactions
For Day, the single most important “ability” for creating leadership opportunities
in the interpersonal competence of the person designed as the leader.
Interpersonal competence includes social awareness and social skills such as the
ability of the organization and all of its members to adapt to and create change.

16. Leadership development is focused on integration of the attributes of each
member of the group. The leader leads by helping work group members relate
to one another, engage in cooperative rather than independent action, and
become more aware of the social nature of productive effort and change. By
extension, this means that an efferctive leader will create an environment in
which leadership emerges from and is carried out by the group, not the leader.
Day (2001b) simply approached the concept by using training and
development as a backdrop. Most of the leadership theories focus on the
individual attributes and behavior of the person designated as the leader.
If one were to adopt Day’s approach, individual – regardless of their job tittle
or formal position in the group – would not ask, “How can I be an effective
leader?” Instead they would ask, “How can I participate productively in the
leadership process?” (Day, 2001b)

17. The Motivation to Lead
House and Singh (1987) took an uncomplicated view of the process. Relying heavily
on the psychodynamic work of McClelland (1985), they concluded that people who
aspire to positions of leadership have a high power motive coupled with high activity
inhibition and low affiliation needs.
According to McClelland (1985), people learn that the exercise of power, or control,
over others of the environment is pleasing: the power motive.
High activity inhibiton is the psychological term used to describe a person who is not
impulsive. A low affiliation need means that a person does not have a great desire for
approval or connections with others. According to House and Singh (1987), a low
affiliation neet permits an individual “to remain socially distant frm subordinates and
therefore to be more objective with respect to resource allocation, delegation, and
discipline.”

18. Motive Item
Affective- identity I prefer being a leader
I want to be the leader
I have a tendency to take charge in groups
I am seldom reluctant to be the leader of a group
Instrumental
I am interested in leading if there are advantages to me
I will agree to lead if I can see personal benefits
Leading others is more a dirty job than an honorable one
Social- normative
I fell I have a duty to lead when asked
I have been taught to volunteer to lead others when I can
I was taught to believe in the value of leading others
People should volunteer to lead than wait to be asked

19. Hendricks and Payne (2007) suggest that screening for leadership training
programs might include an identification of those with a strong social-
normative motive to lead
What these results tell us is that there are several different motives for leading.
Chan, Uy, Chernyshenko, Ho, and Sam (2015) explored other individual
differences and found that low risk aversion and a proactive personality
correlated with leadership motivation. Both studies by Chan and colleagues
dealt with a narrow range of participants, so additional research with business
leader is needed in this area. Nevertheless, the nation of multiple motivations
to lead is more plausible than the proposition that all leaders are driven by a
need for control and power.

20. Traditional theories
of leadership

21. The “Great Man” Theories
Leadership Theory developed by historian who
examined the life of a respected leader for clues to the
person’s greatness, often focuses on the joyful
experience (overcoming a near-fatal illness) or
admirable traits (persistence, optimism, intelligence) a
leader has to some degree.

22. From the perspective of I‐O psychology, “great man” theories are of modest value.
However, by examining the biographies of leaders, we can surmise that every successful
leadership career is a combi- nation of individual attributes and circumstances in which
the leaders found themselves.
For Example :
Harry Truman won admiration for leading the United States to victory in the Second
World War. But Truman was thrust into the presidency as a result of the sudden death of
Franklin D. Roosevelt. Truman’s leadership success, therefore, may be attributed to a
combination of factors: the circumstance of Roosevelt’s death and its occurrence at a
crucial phase of the war, and Truman’s personal experiences and qualities that went into
shaping him as an individual and a leader.
Some have suggested that in order to emerge and be accepted as a leader, an individual
has to have a dramatic, appealing life story that explains how he or she rose to become a
leader—a story that rings true to potential followers (Shamir & Eilam, 2005).

23. The Trait Approach
When I‐Opsychologists set out to understand the leadership
phenomenon in the 1920s and 1930s, the first approach
they utilized was known as the trait approach.
Leadership Theory which seeks to find out that leaders have
certain characteristics that are not shared by non-leaders.

24.  Intelligence
 Age
 Responsibility
 Altruism
 Ambition
 Confidence
 Sensitivity
 Motivation
 Maturity
 Empativity
 Persistance
 Self-Confidence
Characteristics of Leaders :

25. A bigger reason for the failure of the approach might have been an
unwillingness to accept leadership in a larger context that would include
the organization, the situation, and the followers (Hollander & Julian,
1969).
In more recent years, it has become clear that leadership has to do with
much more than productivity; factors like commitment, motivation, and
satisfaction also play key roles. It is also clear that when the leader does
affect productivity, he or she does it indirectly by influ- encing other
variables.

26. One of the most obvious characteristics of managers is
that they have power that subordinates do not have. The
higher the manager is in the organization, the more
power, or authority, he or she tends to have

27. French and Raven (1959) proposed that formal authority is only one kind of power.
They suggested at least five different types of power, including the following:
 Reward power. The potential of a supervisor to dispense valued rewards
 Coercive power. The potential of a supervisor to dispense punishments
 Legitimate power. The “right” of a supervisor to influence a subordinate and the
obligation of the subordinate to accept that influence
 Referent power. The identification of the subordinate with the supervisor; the
desire of the subordinate to be like and act like the supervisor; the power of
example Expert power.
 The knowledge or expertise that a supervisor has in a special area

28. Managers use their formal power or authority to increase other power bases
(Yukl, 1998).
They use methods such as the following:
 Forming coalitions : e.g., managers from different departments joining
forces; a marketing manager forming an alliance with a supplier
 Controlling important decisions : e.g., attempting to get sympathetic
representatives appointed to decision‐making groups
 Co‐opting the opposition : e.g., inviting a strong opponent to join a
committee or decision‐making body
 Controlling information flow : e.g., limiting the distribution of
information about bad decisions that the manager made and maximizing
the distribution of informa- tion about good decisions

29.  The Ohio State University Studies
By the early 1950s, A group of leadership researchers at the Ohio State University decided to pur-
sue a behavioral approach. Fleishman and Harris (1962) they first classified the leader behaviors
into ten broad categories. These ten categories were ultimately grouped into two more basic
dimensions of leader behavior, which were labeled consideration and initiating structure.
1. Consideration included behavior indicating mutual trust, respect, and a certain warmth and
rapport between the supervisor and the group. This dimension emphasized a concern for group
members’ needs and included such behavior as allowing subordinates more participation in
decision making and encouraging more two‐way communication.
2. Initiating structure included behavior in which the supervisor organizes and defines group
activities and his or her relationship to the group. This dimension emphasized overt attempts to
achieve organizational goals .

30.  The University of Michigan Studies
At around the same time as the Ohio State leadership studies, researchers at the
University of Michigan also became interested in leadership behavior, but they
concentrated more on the dynamics of how leaders and groups interacted
(Yukl, 2006)
The Michigan results was that participative behavior on the part of a leader
was a key to group effectiveness. They suggested that leadership was not
exclusively, or even predominantly, about individual leader–follower
interactions. Instead, effective leaders expended considerable energy in
interacting with the work group as a whole (Likert, 1967).

31. Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) completed a meta‐analysis and found that
relations‐oriented behavior had strong positive correlations with follower
satisfaction, motivation, and leader effectiveness, whereas task‐oriented
behavior was more strongly related to leader, group, and individual
performance.
Casimir (2001) made an argument that task‐oriented behavior on the part of a
leader should always be preceded by relations‐ oriented behavior if it is to be
effective.

32. The Contingency Approach
One general finding from both the power and the behavioral approaches has been that
the success of any given tactic (e.g., the use of reward power, the initiating structure
approach) depends or is contingent upon multiple factors or situations. As a result, a
number of contingency approach theories were proposed to take into account the role of
the situation in the exercise of leadership. Fiedler (1967) made the first comprehensive
attempt to explain leader behavior from the contingency perspective. In essence, the
style adopted by a leader interacted with characteristics of the situation to determine
effectiveness.

33.  Hersey and Blanchard (1977) proposed that the success of various leadership approaches
depended in part on the maturity of the subordinate. Maturity had two different facets to it. Job
maturity was defined by the subordinate’s job‐related ability, skills, and knowledge.
Psychological maturity was defined as the self‐confidence and self‐ respect of the subordinate
(Yukl, 2006).
 Hersey and Blanchard proposed that for subordinates with low maturity, structuring styles would
work best. As the individual increased in maturity to a medium or moderate level, the leader
should decrease his or her structuring behavior and increase considerate behavior.
 In spite of its intuitive appeal, Hersey and Blanchard’s theory received little direct support.
Nevertheless, it served to emphasize the idea that leadership is not a one‐size‐fits‐all process, as
Yukl (2006) pointed out. Different styles may be warranted by different situations.
 House and his colleagues (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) suggested a contingency theory
approach that has been called the path–goal theory because it assumes that the leader’s
responsibility is to show the subordinate the path to valued subordinate goals.

34. THE CONSEQUENCES OF PARTICIPATION :
THE VROOM–YETTON MODEL
 Both the Michigan and the path–goal models identified a participative leadership style.
Participative behaviors on the part of the leader were also implied in the Ohio State and Hersey
and Blanchard models. Yukl (1981) identified the following advantages of a participative leader
style:
 It helps subordinates understand the circumstances requiring a decision.
 Individuals are more likely to identify with the decision and work hard to make it succeed.
Contingency approach Leadershiptheoryproposed totakeintoaccount therole of thesituation in the
exerciseof leadership. Job maturity A subordinate’s job‐related ability, skills, andknowledge.
Psychological maturity Theself‐confidenceand self‐respectof the subordinate. Landy-c12.indd 457
11/2/2015 6:49:08 PM 458 Chapter 12 Leadership

35.  Participation requires that objectives and plans necessary to meet those objectives be
made clear to the participants.
 It makes potential rewards and punishments clearer, thus increasing motivation.
 Participation is a normal, mature, and satisfying experience.
 Participation results in social pressures on group members to accept the decision.
 It results in improved communications and more effective conflict resolution between
leader and subordinate.
 It results in better decisions to the extent that the talent and skills of the group are
tapped.

36. Victor Vroom and his colleagues developed a model to address just this issue (Vroom
& Yetton, 1973). Yukl (2006, p. 130–131) has summarized the decision rules regarding
participation that have emerged from more than three decades of research on what
became known as the Vroom–Yetton model:
1. When the decision is important and subordinates possess relevant information
lacked by the leader, an autocratic decision is not appropriate because an important
decision would be made without all of the available information.
2. When the decision quality is important and subordinates do not share the leader’s
concern for task goals, group decision making isinappropriate because it would give
too much influence over an important decision to uncooperative and even hostile
people.
3. When decision quality is important, the decision problem is unstructured, and the
leader does not possess the necessary information and expertise to make a good
decision, then the decision should be made by interaction among the people who
have relevant information.

37. 4. When decision acceptance is important and subordinates are unlikely to accept an
autocratic decision, then an autocratic decision is inappropriate because it may not
be implemented effectively.
5. When decision acceptance is important and subordinates are likely to disagree
among themselves about the best solution to an important problem, autocratic
procedures and individual consultation are inappropriate because they do not
provide the opportunity to resolve differences through discussion and negotiation
among subordinates and between subordinates and the leader.
6. When decision quality is not important but acceptance is critical and unlikely to
result from an autocratic decision, the only appropriate procedure is a group
decision because acceptance is maximized without risking quality.
7. When decision acceptance is important and not likely to result from an autocratic
decision, and subordinates share the leader’s task objectives, subordinates should
be given equal partnership in the decision process because acceptance is
maximized without risking quality.

38.  The Vroom– Yetton model assumes that one of the most important tasks of a
leader is to make decisions, and it suggests ways to choose a decision-making
strategy. Equally important is the implication that group decision making or a
fully participatory style is not always appropriate.
The Vroom–Yetton model was developed for leaders of the 20th century. It is
unlikely that it would transfer without modification to the 21st‐century
organizational environment. Yukl (2006) sees the Vroom–Yetton approach to
leadership decision making as one of the more robust contributions to
leadership research in the past 50 years. We agree, but, as noted above, we
think it needs some updating to match 21st‐century leadership challenges.

39. New approaches
to leadership

40. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
In their leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, they
hypothesized that leaders adopt different behaviors with
individual subordinates and that the particular behavior
pattern of the leader develops over time and depends, to
a large extent, on the quality of the leader-
subordinaterelationship.

41. Based onresearch conducted in manufacturing organizations,
these authors proposed that subordinates fall into two distinct
groups.
In-grup
• In-group members have
high-quality relationships with
their leader and high latitude
for negotiating their work
roles; the leader tends to deal
with in-group members
without resorting to the use of
formal power or authority.
Out-grup
• Out-group members have low-
quality relationships with their
leader and little latitude for
negotiating their work roles;
the leader is more likely to
rely on formal power and
authority to influence their
behavior.

42. • In a meta-analysis of LMX research, Gerstner and Day (1997) concluded that high-
quality relationships are positively associated with subordinate job performance and
with satisfaction (both overall and with the leader) and negatively associated with
intentions to quit.
• Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, and Walker (2007) suggest that the key mechanism
in LMX is the concept of social exchange: The leader and follower are exchanging
valued rewards. The leader provides an open and supportive environment, and the
follower provides commitment and higher levels of performance.
• Another new stream of LMX research is related to the implicit theories of an effective
leader that might be held by subordinates. The hypothesis is that the more closely the
leader conforms to the implicit theory of a good leader held by the subordinate, the
higher the LMX will be.

43. Transformational Leadership
• Transformational leadership, which James MacGregor Burns (1978) introduced to describe
the behavior of inspirational political leaders.
• Transformational leadership is the interplay between leaders and followers in which each
raises the other to higher levels of ethics, morality, and motivation. The leader transforms
the followers by appealing to their nobler motives, such as justice and peace.
• Burns (1978) contrasted transformational leadership with transactional leadership :
Transformational Transactional
The transformational leadership more
traditional process by which leaders show
followers how they can meet their
personal goals by adopting a particular
behavior pattern.
The transactional leader makes it clear to
the followers what behaviors on their part
will be rewarded. Followers can then
adopt that behavior pattern if they wish to
achieve the promised rewards.

44. Bass and Avolio (1997) viewed the transformational leader as
one who uses the following behaviors to motivate followers :
• Impressing on followers the importance and implications of
the tasks they are performing
• Persuading followers to ignore self-centered strategies and
concentrate on the goals of the work group or organization
• Appealing to higher-order needs such as making a
contribution, having an impact, improving society through
their efforts (Yukl, 2006)

45. Bass and Avolio (1997) proposed that transformational leaders typically use one of four
general strategies. The four are listed below, along with a description of the critical
characteristics of each (Bass, 1997, p. 133) :
1. Idealized influence. Leaders display conviction, emphasize trust, take stands on
difficult issues, emphasize the importance of commitment and purpose, and are aware
of the ethical consequences of their decisions.
2. Inspirational motivation. Leaders articulate an appealing vision of the future,
challenge followers with high standards, talk optimistically with enthusiasm, and
provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done.
3. Intellectual stimulation. Leaders question old assumptions, values, and beliefs;
stimulate new ways of doing things; and encourage expression of ideas and reasons.
4. Individualized consideration. Leaders deal with others as individuals; consider
individual needs, abilities, and aspirations; listen attentively; and advise, coach, and
teach.

46. Yukl (2006) summarized the research on transformational
leadership and suggested guidelines for leaders wishing to
adopt a transformational style. These guidelines include :
(1) Articulate a clear and appealing vision
(2) Explain how the vision can be attained
(3) Use dramatic, symbolic actions to emphasize key values
(4) Empower people to achieve the leader's vision

47. Emphasize
Authenticity
Wholeness and
accompanied by a
lifestyle
Refering to
Integrity
Not project

48. Bass dan Steidlmeier (1999)
Distinguish
Authentic leadership
Not authentic or pseudo-
transformational
Authentic transformational
leadership is considered to
be driven by moral values

49. Ilies, Morgeson, dan Nahrgang (2005)
 Authentic leadership is defined by positive self-concept, emotional
intelligence, integrity, desire to learn, continuous self-monitoring, high
self-esteem, and a history of past positive leaders - follower
relationships.

50. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, dan
Peterson (2008)
Introduce
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) scale for
measuring authentic leadership style

51. Charismatic Leader
 Charism leaders are like magnets that can captivate or have an appeal to
inspire so that followers are amazed and obeyed.
 Den Hartog and Koopman (2001) define the attributes of a charismatic
leader that can hypnotize followers and force them to imitate.
 Charisma is a combination of personal characteristics and behavior of
leaders and beliefs of followers

52. Yukl (2006) Characterizes Charismatic Leaders as Follows :
 Requires power
 Confidence
 Designing behaviors to impress followers (for example, talking about
achievements).
 Have a compelling vision for the future.
 Setting an example for their followers on their own (and greatly losing their
appeal when less attractive behavior arises
 They set high goals for followers and express confidence that followers will do so
to achieve those goals.
 They try to appeal to followers' fundamental motives, such as need for power,
affiliation, or achievement; they often make this call through inspired speech
and writing

53. Cremer (2002)
 Leaders who are self-sacrificing are seen as more charismatic than leaders
who are seen as meeting their own personal needs.
 Conger and Kanungo (1987) noted the behavior of leaders who have a
charismatic aura by showing awareness of the reality of the situation,
describing the ideal vision of a final state, and using innovative strategies
to achieve that vision.

54.  Transformational and charismatic appear to be closely related, but there
are some important differences. Transformational leaders will often
increase follower appreciation and effectiveness, making them stronger
than ever before, charismatic styles also emphasize personal loyalty to the
leader and can thus actually work to keep followers steady. weak (Yukl,
2006).
 Charismatic and transformational leadership must be considered related
but conceptually unique. The theory of transformational and charismatic
leadership is itself "conceptually charismatic."

55. Judge, Woolf, Hurst, and Livingston (2006) echo
Burns
 People crave interesting and creative leadership, so for now,
transformational and charismatic leadership is the version that is most
often coveted. Life is a path, not a campsite. The same can be said of
leadership theory: It is about the path, not the final state.

56. Energing topics and
challenges in
leadership research

57. Leadership in a Changing Workplace
As we have seen in virtually every chapter, changes in the
workplace in the past two decades have been substantial. One
consequence of these changes is a very different work
environment for leaders. We will review a few of the more
salient changes with respect to the challenge of leadership.

58. Knowledge‐Oriented Organizations
Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) note that historical models of
leadership, especially top-down and bureaucratic ones, are best suited for 20th-
century economies. By expanding, they approach that these old models are not
suitable for century-old workplaces-21, which is best characterized as
knowledge-oriented. Furthermore, they pray that one of the keys of the 21st
century Organization is the need to adapt and learn. Thus theories of
entitlement leadership should include outcomes such as organization,
innovation, and assessment abilities on the bureaucratic and administrative
functions of leaders.

59. Teams/Groups
The team or group is a separate entity and must be considered independent from its
members. As Bell and Kozlowski (2002) pointed out, virtual teams present new
challenges for a leader, including socializing new team members and monitoring team
progress as they do their job. They hypothesized that as virtual team work becomes
more complex, communication will need to be more frequent and intense.
Telecommuting
Telecommuting presents a monitoring and communication challenge for a leader. a
manager might be faced with a very basic problem: tracking employees on any given
day. Adams suggests that effective leaders in telecommuting environments need to be
more proactive about communication in both directions.
Research shows that transformational (as opposed to transactional) leadership styles
are more difficult to establish as physical distance between leader and followers
increases (Howell, Neufeld, & Avolio, 2005)

60. Temporary Workers
The advantage of hiring temporary workers is that it allows the organization to respond
to market changes by rapidly increasing or decreasing the workforce. From a leader's
point of view, however, temporary work is a challenge. It is possible that temporary
workers will influence the behavior of permanent employees. Harris (2000) suggests
that permanent employee job satisfaction can decrease due to feelings of insecurity,
including concerns about being replaced by temporary or part-time workers.
Fuzzy Job Boundaries
The team concept changes the idea of individual contribution. This increases the
pressure on leaders to anticipate how the job is developing and how the roles of
various team members are integrated.
Regardless of how fast the job changes, OCB performed by individual workers will
most likely represent added value. Thus, one of the tasks of modern leaders may be
to encourage OCB among followers.

61. Male and Female Leaders :
Are They Different?
According to the American Psychological Association,
women tend to have a more cooperative and
participatory leadership style. Meanwhile, men tend to
give more orders and control. They are more task-
oriented and direction-oriented, while women are more
democratic.

62. Men provide direction for their employees, while women
encourage employees to find their own direction. The
cooperative style involves more conversation and
listening, it takes more time but makes employees feel
more valued.

63. Reward system Women often motivate their employees by
helping them find self-esteem and satisfaction at work, this
also serves as a reward for the employees Women help
employees find their identity in the work they do. Men are
more likely to use a transactional leadership approach in
providing incentives to succeed and punishments for
failure.

64. Personality and Leadership
 The role of personality traits has become more prominent in I‐O
psychology as a result of the introduction of the Big Five model of
personality.
 The classical leadership models identified leader traits by having
subordinates describe the extent to which a leader behaved in a
considerate, structuring, or participative manner. As the Big Five model
of personality has emerged, it is now possible to go beyond the work
setting and ask how an individual such as a leader behaves in a much
wider array of situations.
 every one of the Big Five factors appears in one or another leadership
theory, either directly or indirectly. One interesting aspect of the role of
personality in leader effectiveness is that the influence of personality is
more apparent to the leader’s followers than to his or her managers.

65.  Harris and Hogan (1992) found that managers serving under a leader
made judgments about the lead-er’s effectiveness based primarily on
factors related to technical competence and knowledge. In contrast, the
subordinates of the leader made judgments about effectiveness based on
personality characteristics, particularly trustworthiness.
 Van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, van Kleef, and Damen (2008)
suggest that affect or emotion has an explanatory role in leader
effectiveness and hypothesize that emotional intelligence might play a
role. However, they specify that they are talking about emotional
intelligence as an ability, not as a personality characteristic.
 Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994) reviewed the research literature on the
personality/leader effectiveness relationship and concluded that there is a
strong foundation for believing that each of the Big Five factors
contributes to leader effectiveness.

66.  Hogan and Hogan (2001) presented data suggesting that leaders fail as a
result of one or more of the following four tendencies: a tendency to blow
up, show off, or conform when under pressure and an inability to profit
from experience.
 They further suggested that it is unlikely that any of these tendencies
would be obvious in traditional assessment scenarios (e.g., interviews,
assessment centers) because
 The pathological manager often has strong social skills and will only reveal
his or her dark side to subordinates—and even then, only after an
extended period of exposure to them.
 Judge and Bono (2000) also looked more specifically at the contri-bution
of Big Five dimensions to transformational leadership behaviors and found
that extraversion and agreeableness were somewhat predictive of
transformational behaviors on the part of the leader.

67. Leadership and Neuroscience
 An interesting and controversial area that is gaining attention in I‐O psychology involves
linking measurable aspects of the brain with leadership behaviors and with how followers
respond to leaders.
 A recent study in this area proposed that complex organi-zational environments require
leaders to be highly adaptive and to adjust their behaviors to be effective across a
range of diverse roles (Hannah, Balthazard, Waldman, Jennings, & Thatcher, 2013).
 This research area is very new, but some organizational researchers (e.g., Ashkanasy,
Becker, & Waldman, 2014) propose that neuroscience has great promise for advancing
our understanding of organizational research and practice.
 Ashkanasy (2013) states that “studies of the neurological underpinnings of behavior in
general and leadership in particular are already proving new insights and
understandings of these phenomena, and will continue to do so in the future” (p. 312).
However, researchers caution that much solid research needs to be done before
neuroscience could be applied in organizations, and ethical and moral issues in this area
will need to be considered and addressed as well (Lindebaum, 2013).

68. Cross-Cultural Studies of Leadership
•In 1991, House and his colleagues began planning a massive
cross‐cultural study of leadership (House, Javidan, &
Dorfman, 2001; House et al., 1997). There are some following
the questions they hoped to answer:
1. Are there universally (i.e.across all cultures) endorsed and rejected
leader attributes and behaviors?
2. Are there some leader attributes and behaviors that are accepted in
some cultures but rejected in others?
3. How does culture influence the acceptance and rejection of leader
attributes and behaviors?
4. What is the effect of the presence of a rejected leadership attribute or
behavior within a particular culture?

69. • The answers to questions 1 and 2 are both yes. There are accepted leader behaviors that are
both universal and culture‐specific. In an analysis of the first wave of GLOBE data, Den
Hartog et al. (1999) identified a number of leader traits that were universally accepted and
rejected as well as certain attributes that were more acceptable in some cultures than in
others (see Table 12.4).
• In contrast, the universally rejected leadership attributes would never be mistaken for the
attributes of a transformational or charismatic leader. The attributes and behaviors that seem
to be endorsed or rejected depending on the culture are hard to label, although the traits of
ambition and status con-sciousness might fit into Hofstede’s cultural concepts of power
distance or individualism/collectivism.
The implications of these studies seem clear. Transformational and charismatic
leader behaviors travel well. This is good news for the multinational company and the
global man-ager (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, & House, 2006; Javidan, Stahl,
Brodbeck, & Wilderom, 2005). It means that selection and training can emphasize
these leader behaviors, which appear relevant regardless of the culture. In essence,
these are “core” attributes and behaviors that are not specific to any culture.

71. Leadership in a Diverse Environment
• The most substantial challenge might be for the expatriate manager learning the customs and
values of a completely different culture. As an example, singling out an individual for praise
might be wise in an individualist culture but ill advised in a collectivist culture.
• Another culturally sensitive matter that leaders must face is the commemoration of holidays.
How does a leader reconcile Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanza and Ramadan? What about
workers who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and celebrate only wedding anniversaries? I‐O
psychology will need to identify the ways in which the leaders of today and tomorrow solve
these dilemmas.
One way to take advantage of all the benefits that a diverse workforce can
bring is for leaders to workhard on developing high‐quality relationships with
members who are not like themselves. This makes perfect sense and is
compatible with the latest thinking of those advocating the LMX theory of
leadership; that is, leaders should develop high‐quality relationships with all
work group members (Graen & Uhl‐Bein, 1995).

72. • Thus, if a leader were to adopt a transformational or charismatic style with a work
group, we would expect positive results (in terms of performance) and positive
reactions (in terms of the attitudes of group members). This should be true regardless
of the diversity of the work group.
• To be sure, there is a knowledge component involved. Even the transformational
leader can stub a toe without specific cultural and subcultural awareness. The studies
by Brodbeck and colleagues (2000) and Den Hartog and colleagues (1999) identified
attributes and behaviors that were not universal. Domestic transformational leaders
need to be aware of the same nonuniversality in leading a work group.
• Chrobot‐Mason and Ruderman (2003) suggested ways that the domestic leader can
take these cultural and subcultural differences into account in work group
interactions. Thomas (1998) argued that the multicultural leader, domestic or
international, needs to understand and appreciate the differences that exist among
work group members. The only way to achieve this appreciation is through
reflection on one’s own culture and the culture of others who populate the
workplace.

73. • To be sure, there is a knowledge component involved. Even the transformational
leader can stub a toe without specific cultural and subcultural awareness. The
studies by Brodbeck and colleagues (2000) and Den Hartog and colleagues (1999)
identified attributes and behaviors that were not universal. Domestic
transformational leaders need to be aware of the same nonuniversality in leading a
work group.
• Chrobot‐Mason and Ruderman (2003) suggested ways that the domestic leader
can take these cultural and subcultural differences into account in work group
interactions. Thomas (1998) argued that the multicultural leader, domestic or
international, needs to understand and appreciate the differences that exist among
work group members. The only way to achieve this appreciation is through
reflection on one’s own culture and the culture of others who populate the
workplace.

74. Guidelines for Effective Leadership
1. Leaders help followers interpret events.
This means identifying threats and
opportunities, as well as helping people
understand complex problems and
environments.
2. Leaders help build and maintain
consensus about objectives, priorities,
and strategies.
3. Leaders increase efficacy (individual
and group) and commitment to tasks
and objectives, particularly in the face
of obstacles.
4. Leaders foster trust, respect, and
cooperation among group members
5. Leaders foster identification with the group
or organization
6. Leaders help coordinate the activities of
group members.
7. Leaders facilitate learning and innovation
among group members.
8. Leaders promote and defend their group
and organization and obtain necessary
resources for their group.
9. Leaders help group members develop
skills and prepare them for leadership
responsibilities.
10. Leaders promote social justice, as well as
ethical and moral behavior.