for medical students

1. LEADERSHIP: PAST,
PRESENT, AND FUTURE
AN OVERVIEW

2. LEADERSHIP
an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect
their shared purposes.
Leadership is a formal or informal contextually rooted and goal-influencing process that occurs
between a leader and a follower, groups of followers, or institutions.
The science of leadership is the systematic study of this process and its outcomes, as well as how
this process depends on the leader’s traits and behaviors, observer inferences about the leader’s
characteristics, and observer attributions made regarding the outcomes of the entity led.

3. VROOM’S VIEW OF LEADERSHIP
• There are few problems of interest to behavioral scientists with as
much apparent relevance to the problems of society as the study of
leadership. The effective functioning of social systems [to countries]
is assumed to be dependent on the quality of their leadership. This
assumption is reflected in our tendency to blame a football coach for
a losing season or to credit a general for a military victory. . . . [T]he
critical importance of executive functions and of those who carry
them out to the survival and effectiveness of the organization cannot
be denied.
• —Vroom (1976, p. 1527)

4. WHAT LEADERSHIP IS NOT
• Leadership is often confused with
• Power
• Management

5. POWER
• Power refers to the means leaders potentially have to influence
others, and can be defined as “having the discretion and the means
to asymmetrically enforce one’s will over entities” (Sturm &
Antonakis, 2015, p. 139). For Example;
• referent power (i.e., followers’ identification with the leader)
• expertise, the ability to reward or punish performance, and the
formal power that is accorded legitimately based on one’s role
(Etzioni, 1964; French & Raven, 1968).

6. THUS,
• the ability to lead others toward some goal, and
get them to exert costly effort toward
concretizing the goal, requires that one has
power; whether one has formal authority or not
does not matter, though by having formal
authority one obtains power ex officio.

7. MANAGEME
NT
• Management is task-driven, resulting in
stability grounded in rationality,
bureaucratic means, and the fulfillment of
contractual obligations (i.e., transactions).
• some view leaders and managers as
different sorts of individuals (Zaleznik,
1977)
• others argue that successful leadership
also requires successful management, that
leadership and management are
complementary, but that leadership goes
beyond management and that leadership is
necessary for outcomes that exceed
expectations (Bass, 1985, 1998; Bass &
Riggio, 2006).

8. MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP
Management Leadership
Direction Planning and budgeting
Keeping eye on bottom line
Creating vision and strategy
Keeping eye on horizon
Alignment Organizing and staffing
Directing and controlling
Creating boundaries
Creating shared culture and values
Helping others grow
Reducing boundaries
Relationships Focusing on objects – producing/selling goods and services
Based on position power
Acting as boss
Focusing on people – inspiring and motivating followers
Based on personal power
Acting as coach, facilitator, servant
Personal Qualities Emotional distance
Expert mind
Talking
Conformity
Insight into organization
Emotional connections (Heart)
Open mind (Mindfulness)
Listening (Communication)
Nonconformity (Courage)
Insight into self (Character)
Outcomes Maintains stability; creates culture of efficiency Creates change and a culture of integrity
8

9. THE NEED FOR LEADERSHIP
• On a supervisory level, leadership is required to complement organizational
systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and resolve complex task and social problems
(Fleishman et al., 1991; Morgeson, 2005; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010).
• On a strategic level, leadership is required to direct and guide organizational and
human resources toward the strategic objectives of the organization and ensure
that organizational functions are aligned with the external environment (Zaccaro,
2001). it is necessary to ensure the coordinated functioning of the organization as
it interacts with a dynamic external environment (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
• For the organization to adapt to its context, leaders must monitor the external and
internal environments, formulate a strategy based on the strengths and weakness
of the organizations and the opportunities presented by the environment,
communicate a vision that is inspiring, provide socio-emotional support, put in
place rewards and sanctions, and then monitor outcomes so that its strategic goals
are met (Antonakis & House, 2014).

10. LEADERSHIP AND MOTIVATIONAL
ELEMENTS
• Some of the elements of leadership are oftentimes equated to
management making the lines between leadership and management
rather blurry to some; after all, leadership is not about just leading in
organizations, but leading of organizations (Hooijberg, Hunt,
Antonakis, Boal, & Lane, 2007; Hunt, 1991). Of course, some aspects
of task-oriented influence have motivational elements and can be
called leadership; also, having task- oriented expertise must precede
vision communication to ensure that the right vision is chosen. Thus,
leadership and management are two sides of a coin—and this
currency can only have value if the leader has power.

11. A BRIEF HISTORY OF
LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

13. TRAIT SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP
The scientific study of leadership began at the turn of the 20th century with
the “great man” or trait-based perspective, which saw the shaping of history
through the lens of exceptional individuals.
This school of thought suggested that certain dispositional characteristics
(i.e., stable personality attributes or traits) differentiated leaders from non-
leaders.
Thus, leadership researchers focused on identifying robust individual
differences in personality traits that were thought to be associated with
effective leadership.
the trait of intelligence was strongly correlated with perceptions of
leadership and that this effect was robust across studies.
Strong relationship of the big-five personality factors with leader emergence
and effectiveness (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Zaccaro, 2007).

14. BEHAVIORAL SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP
• democratic versus autocratic leaders
• leadership researchers began in the 1950s to focus on the behavioral styles of leaders.
• this line of research focused on the behaviors that leaders enacted and how they
treated followers.
• studies identified two overarching leadership factors generally referred to as
consideration (i.e., supportive, person-oriented leadership) and initiating structure
(i.e., directive, task-oriented leadership).
• there was no consistent evidence of a universally preferred leadership style across
tasks or situations.
• From these inconsistent findings, researchers suggested that the success of the
leader’s behavioral style must be contingent on the situation.

15. RESEARCH ON BEHAVIORAL THEORIES OF
LEADERSHIP IS DECLINING
• however, many of the ideas of the behavioral movement have
been incorporated into other perspectives of leadership (e.g.,
contingency theories, transformational leadership).
• Consequently, interest in an initiating structure (or what is also
called “instrumental leadership”) is again on the increase
(Antonakis & House, 2014; Rowold, 2014).

16. CONTINGENCY SCHOOL OF
LEADERSHIP
• The leadership contingency theory movement is credited in large part to Fiedler
(1967, 1971),
• leader–member relations, task structure, and the position power of the leader
determine the effectiveness of the type of leadership exercised.
• House (1971), who focused on the leader’s role in clarifying paths to follower
goals.
• Kerr and Jermier (1978) extended this line of research into the “substitutes for-
leadership” theory by focusing on the conditions where leadership is
unnecessary as a result of factors such as follower capabilities, clear
organizational systems, and routinized procedures.
• Aspects of the contingent school now included in contextual approaches to
leadership

17. CONTEXTUAL SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP
• This perspective has its roots, initially, in cross-cultural psychology
• this perspective covers a broader range of issues regarding how contextual factors, like
• leader hierarchical level,
• national culture,
• leader–follower gender
• organizational characteristics,
• crises, among other factors
• Understanding the contextual factors in which leadership is embedded is necessary for advancing a
more general understanding of leadership.

18. • leadership does not occur in a vacuum (House & Aditya, 1997).
• Leadership is always rooted contextually, and its boundaries must be
made explicit so that its nature is better understood; doing so is what
makes theories more powerful and useful (Bacharach, 1989).

19. RELATIONAL SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP
• relationships between leaders and followers began generating
substantial attention.
• This movement was based on what originally was termed vertical
dyad linkage theory (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975), which evolved
into leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-bien,
1995).
• LMX theory describes the nature of the relations between leaders and
their followers.
• High quality relations between a leader and his or her followers (i.e.,
the “in-group”) are based on trust and mutual respect, whereas low-
quality relations between a leader and his or her followers (i.e., the
“out-group”) are based on the fulfillment of contractual obligations.

20. IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THAT THE QUALITY OF
LEADER–FOLLOWER RELATIONS REFERS TO
AFFECTIVE AND ATTITUDINAL OUTCOMES.
LMX is not a style of leadership but a dependent variable that is driven by some process at
multiple levels of analysis, whether due to the leader, the followers, organizational level, or the
context (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2014; House & Aditya, 1997).
these aspects of leadership are important to study in their own right. LMX theory suggests that
high quality relations generate more positive leader outcomes than do lower-quality relations,
which has been supported empirically (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson,
2007).
This line of research continues to find new directions, and overall interest in elational
approaches to leadership appears to be relatively strong (Antonakis, Bastardoz, et al., 2014;
Dinh et al., 2014; Gardner et al., 2010).

21. SKEPTICS-OF-LEADERSHIP SCHOOL
• Challenges in the 1970s and 1980s.
• The validity of questionnaire ratings of leadership was criticized as likely biased
by the implicit leadership theories of those providing the ratings.
• This position suggests that what leaders do (i.e., leadership) is largely attributed
to performance outcomes and may also reflect the implicit leadership theories
that individuals carry “in their heads”.
• observers attribute leadership as a way of explaining observed results, even if
those results were due to factors outside of the leader’s control (Weber et al.,
2001).
• these evaluations were made by observers in the process of understanding and
assigning causes to organizational outcomes (Calder, 1977; Meindl & Ehrlich,
1987)

22. THUS;
• what leaders do might be largely irrelevant given that performance outcomes of the
leader’s group or organization affect how leaders are rated (Lord et al., 1978).
• leadership was an attribution made to an individual based on how well their respective
unit performed.
• research doubted whether leadership existed at all or was even needed, thus questioning
whether it made any difference to organizational performance (Gemmill & Oakley, 1992;
Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Pfeffer, 1977).
• Interest in the skeptics’ perspective has diminished, although there is increasing research
in followers’ roles in leadership processes (Gardner et al., 2010).
• Many of the questions posed by the skeptics’ school, the study of leadership has
benefited from (a) using more rigorous methodologies, (b) differentiating top-level
leadership from supervisory leadership, and (c) focusing on followers and how they
perceive reality.

23. • The study of followership and the resultant information-
processing perspective of leadership have generated many
theoretical advances that have strengthened the leadership
field immensely.

24. INFORMATION-PROCESSING SCHOOL OF
LEADERSHIP
• The major impetus for the information-processing perspective is based on the work of
Lord and colleagues (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984).
• The focus of the work has mostly been on understanding how and why a leader is
legitimized (i.e., accorded influence) through the process of matching his or her personal
characteristics (i.e., personality traits) with the prototypical expectations that followers
have of a leader.
• The information-processing perspective has also been extended to better understand
how cognition is related to the enactment of various behaviors (e.g., Balkundi & Kilduff,
2006; Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998).
• Research in the areas of cognition, information processing—and emotions—should
continue to provide us with novel understandings of leadership.

25. THE NEW LEADERSHIP SCHOOL
(CHARISMATIC, VISIONARY,
TRANSFORMATIONAL)
The motivation for this movement was House’s
(1977) theory of charismatic leadership, which
inspired the work of Bass (1985a); he, and
previously Burns (1978) and Downton (1973),
argued that the then-paradigms of leadership
were mainly transactional;
they were focused on the mutual satisfaction of
transactional (i.e., social exchange) obligations.
Bass believed that a different form of leadership was required to account for follower
outcomes centered on a sense of purpose and an idealized mission (Transformational
leadership).
Transformation leadership is idealized, and inspiring leader behaviors induced followers
to transcend their interests for that of the greater good.

26. • Transformational and charismatic leadership, and other models
categorized under the heading of “neo-charismatic”
approaches, currently make up the single most dominant
leadership paradigm and also hold the top spot in terms of
published articles in all the premier journals (Antonakis,
Bastardoz, et al., 2014; Dinh et al., 2014).

27. BIOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY
SCHOOL
• Ironically, one of the oldest branches of science—biology and evolution—is the new kid
on the block in leadership studies.
• This perspective is rooted in the hard sciences by directly measuring observable
individual differences (e.g., biological variables or processes); it also considers the
“ultimate” (as opposed to proximal) causes of adaptive behaviors via evolutionary
processes.
• This research stream is novel and is currently producing interesting findings including,
for instance, the heritability of leadership emergence (Ilies, Gerhardt, & Le, 2004) and
leadership role occupancy (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006; Ilies
et al., 2004), as well as identifying specific genes associated with leader emergence
(De Neve, Mikhaylov, Dawes, Christakis, & Fowler, 2013).

28. • Other interesting avenues include studying the effect of hormones on
correlates of leadership and leader outcomes (Bendahan, Zehnder,
Pralong, & Antonakis, 2015)
• neuroscientific perspectives of leadership (Balthazard, Waldman,
Thatcher, & Hannah, 2012)
• general evolutionary points of view on leadership (Van Vugt & Grabo,
2015).
• Another trendy topic concerns the effects of physical appearance on
leader outcomes (Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009; Antonakis & Eubanks,
2017).

29. WHAT LEADERSHIP INVOLVES
29
Influence Intention
Followers
Shared
purpose
Chang
e
Personal
responsibili
ty and
integrity
Leader

30. THE NEW REALITY FOR LEADERSHIP
• OLD Paradigm
• Stability
• Control
• Competition
• Uniformity
• Self-centered
• Hero
• NEW Paradigm
• Change/crisis mgt.
• Empowerment
• Collaboration
• Diversity
• Higher purpose
• Humble
30