دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 38951
عنوان فارسی مقاله

در زیر ماسک: بررسی رابطه ویژگی های خودارائه گری و مدیریت تاثیر برای رهبری کاریزماتیک

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
38951 2002 26 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Beneath the mask:: Examining the relationship of self-presentation attributes and impression management to charismatic leadership
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 13, Issue 3, June 2002, Pages 217–242

کلمات کلیدی
خودارائه گری - مدیریت تاثیر - رهبری کاریزماتیک
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله در زیر ماسک: بررسی رابطه ویژگی های خودارائه گری و مدیریت تاثیر برای رهبری کاریزماتیک

چکیده انگلیسی

Abstract We tested several hypotheses derived from Gardner and Avolio's [Acad. Manage. Rev. 23 (1998) 32.] self-presentational theory of charismatic leadership. We collected multisource field data in an information technology (IT) consulting firm and examined linkages among managers' self-system attributes (i.e., desired charismatic identity, self-monitoring), pro-social and self-serving impression management of managers, charismatic leadership of managers, and two measures of performance. Eighty-three managers provided self-reports of self-system attributes. Six months later, 249 subordinates rated the focal managers' impression management and charismatic leadership styles. Superiors of the focal managers provided performance ratings 7 months after collecting the subordinate ratings. Results indicated that complexity of desired charismatic identity was positively related to self-monitoring. Self-monitoring was negatively related to ratings of pro-social impression management and positively related to ratings of self-serving impression management. Pro-social impression management related positively to charismatic leadership, which predicted managerial and unit performance.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

. Results Table 1 presents the scale means, standard deviations, alphas, and Pearson Product–Moment correlations among the constructs. PLS generates statistics to test the reliability and validity of latent constructs with two or more indicators. These statistics are summarized in Table 2, which shows the factor loadings, weights, composite scale reliabilities, and average variance extracted. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, alphas, and intercorrelations (N=83 managers) DCII=desired charismatic identity images. Gender coded 0=female; 1=male. Management level coded 1= account manager; 2=area manager; 3=director; 4=CEO. Boldfaced elements on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. Off diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. Significant correlations (P<.001) are underlined. Construct Measure Number of items Mean S.D. α Correlations between constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Desired charismatic identity (manager's ratings) Number of DCII 1 1.37 1.55 na (.93) Number of DCII Categories 1 0.92 0.89 na % of DCII 1 0.24 0.29 na 2. Self-monitoring (manager's ratings) Social Stage Presence 6 3.51 0.61 0.65 Full-size image (<1 K) (.76) Other-Directedness 11 2.82 0.50 0.68 Expressive Self-Control 5 2.71 0.86 0.75 3. Pro-social impression management (subordinate ratings) Exemplification 6 2.86 0.69 0.87 .07 −.16 (.88) Ingratiation 9 2.17 0.52 0.75 4. Self-serving impression management (subordinate ratings) Intimidation 5 0.95 0.64 0.77 .02 Full-size image (<1 K) Full-size image (<1 K) (.83) Self-Promotion 5 1.18 0.74 0.71 5. Charismatic leadership (subordinate aggregated ratings) Inspirational Motivation 4 2.91 0.70 0.89 .13 −.02 Full-size image (<1 K) −.16 (.79) Idealized Influence Behavior 4 2.65 0.78 0.81 Strategic Vision/Articulation 7 4.98 0.83 0.94 Sensitivity to Environment 4 5.23 0.70 0.80 Unconventional Behavior 3 3.99 0.94 0.80 Personal Risk-Taking 3 4.02 1.08 0.85 6. Managerial performance (superior's ratings) Job Accomplishment 3 5.00 0.75 0.81 .12 .16 .03 .02 .16 (.82) Client Relationships 4 5.08 0.59 0.84 Working Relationships 3 5.04 0.65 0.83 7. Unit performance (superior's ratings) Revenue Generation 3 4.57 0.85 0.86 .09 .01 .05 .02 .11 Full-size image (<1 K) (.79) Business Unit Growth 3 4.71 0.91 0.91 8. Socially desirable responding (manager's ratings) Self-Deception 20 8.34 3.65 0.73 .07 Full-size image (<1 K) .06 Full-size image (<1 K) .11 Full-size image (<1 K) Full-size image (<1 K) (.82) Impression Management 20 8.58 4.04 0.79 9. Gender Manager's Gender 1 0.75 0.44 na .04 .03 .01 −.01 .05 −.18 −.07 −.02 – 10. Management level Manager's Organizational Level 1 1.77 0.80 na .07 −.13 .04 −.05 −.11 −.07 −.07 Full-size image (<1 K) .18 Table options Table 2. Factor loadings, composite scale reliability, and average variance extracted for multi-indicator constructs (N=83 managers) DCII=desired charismatic identity images. Construct Measures Factor loading Weights of measures Composite scale reliabilitya Average variance extractedb 1. Desired charismatic identity (manager's ratings) Number of DCII .94 .30 .95 .86 Number of DCII Categories .92 .34 % of DCII .93 .44 2. Self-monitoring (manager's ratings) Social Stage Presence .60 .17 .80 .58 Other-Directedness .87 .66 Expressive Self-Control .80 .41 3. Pro-social impression management (follower ratings) Exemplification .94 .71 .87 .77 Ingratiation .81 .41 4. Self-serving impression management (follower ratings) Intimidation .96 .82 .81 .69 Self-Promotion .68 .33 5. Charismatic leadership (follower aggregated ratings) Inspirational Motivation .85 .26 .90 .62 Idealized Influence Behavior .87 .25 Strategic Vision/Articulation .92 .27 Sensitivity to Environment .73 .23 Unconventional Behavior .60 .08 Personal Risk-Taking .69 .15 6. Managerial performance (superior's ratings) Job Accomplishment .89 .56 .86 .67 Client Relationships .88 .44 Working Relationships .66 .17 7. Unit performance (superior's ratings) Revenue Generation .89 .84 .77 .63 Business Unit Growth .68 .43 8. Socially desirable responding (manager's ratings) Self-Deception .75 .48 .81 .68 Impression Management .89 .72 a Composite scale reliability=(∑λ)2/((∑λ)2+∑ var(ϵ)), where the summation (∑) is performed over all the items for a variable, λ is the factor loading, and var(ϵ) is the variance of error term of the item in question. b Average variance extracted=∑(λ2)/(∑(λ2)+∑ var(ϵ)), where the summation (∑) is performed over all the items for a variable, λ is the factor loading, and var(ϵ) is the variance of error term of the item in question. Table options First, the factor loadings of indicators associated with each construct were high, equaling or exceeding .6, indicating adequate reliability (Bagozzi & Youjae, 1988). Second, the composite scale reliability for each construct, an internal consistency estimate similar to Cronbach's alpha, exceeded the suggested cut-off of .7. Third, the average variance extracted by the above constructs from their indicators exceeded the recommended criterion of .5 for all measures (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In PLS, convergent and discriminant validity is assessed using criteria similar to a multitrait/multimethod analysis (Wold, 1985). Specifically, the construct representing items should share more variance with its items than with other constructs in the model (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). In Table 1, the diagonal elements in the matrix show the square root of the average variance extracted by each construct with its indicators. Adequate convergent and discriminant validity was obtained based on an inspection of these results; the diagonal values in the parentheses (convergent validities) exceeded those values in the respective columns (discriminant validities). 5.1. Results of hypothesis testing Fig. 2 summarizes results of the PLS analysis.5 As predicted by Hypothesis 1, the complexity of managers' desired charismatic identity was positively related to self-monitoring [β=.30, t(9)=27.82, P<.001, r2=.09]. Contrary to Hypothesis 2a, self-monitoring was negatively related to pro-social impression management [β=−.16, t(9)=−12.12, P<.001, r2=.03]. As predicted by Hypothesis 2b, self-monitoring was positively related to self-serving impression management [β=.18, t(9)=19.93, P<.001, r2=.05]. Results of PLS analysis. Fig. 2. Results of PLS analysis. Figure options As predicted by Hypothesis 3a, pro-social impression management was positively related to ratings of charismatic leadership [β=.44, t(9)=95.30, P<.001, r2=.16]. Contrary to Hypothesis 3b, self-serving impression management was positively related to ratings of charismatic leadership [β=.06, t(9)=4.86, P<.001, r2=.01]. As predicted by Hypothesis 4a and Hypothesis 4b, charismatic leadership was positively related to managerial [β=.22, t(9)=22.02, P<.001, r2=.05] and unit [β=.18, t(9)=11.62, P<.001, r2=.03] performance.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.