کاریزما و تغییر سازمانی : مطالعه چند سطحی از کاریزمای درک شده، تعهد به تغییر، و عملکرد تیم
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4628||2013||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7750 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 24, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 378–389
What makes people perceive a leader as charismatic, and how do team leaders obtain performance outcomes from their followers? We examine leaders in times of organizational change and investigate the mechanisms through which leaders' change-promoting behaviors are associated with team performance. In a multilevel mediation model, we propose that the indirect relationship between change-promoting behaviors and team performance is sequentially transmitted through followers' perceptions of charisma and followers' commitment to change. A study of 33 leaders and 142 followers provides empirical support for the model, using multilevel structural equation modeling to analyze top-down relationships between leaders and followers and bottom-up relationships between followers and team outcomes. Results suggest that team leaders are perceived as more charismatic when they engage in change-promoting behaviors. These behaviors facilitate team performance through individual followers' perceived charisma and commitment to change.
When Max Weber (1947) wrote about charismatic leaders, he envisioned men and women with exceptional, almost mystical, powers, who inspire their followers to support them ardently. Similarly, current researchers see charismatic leaders as set apart from ordinary people (Conger & Kanungo, 1988) and capable of fostering higher levels of employee and team performance in organizations (DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000). Although researchers have conducted a wide range of studies on charismatic leadership over the last half-century (for a review, see e.g., Walter & Bruch, 2009), several critical questions remain unanswered. One of these questions is, what makes followers perceive leaders as being charismatic? Weber (1947; also see Bayer, 1999 and House, 1999) thought that the momentum of crises and change partly encourages such perceptions. Other scholars suggested that charisma's glow comes from certain leadership behaviors (Conger & Kanungo, 1988) or that observers assign leaders those attributes ( Galvin et al., 2010 and Howell and Shamir, 2005). Yet, little research has combined those perspectives for an etiology of charisma (Walter & Bruch, 2009). We bring these different perspectives together and examine certain team leadership behaviors in times of change and their cross-level relationship with individual followers' perceptions of leader charisma (i.e., top-down relationship). Considering that so many studies have found that charisma engenders increased collective efforts and higher team performance (DeGroot et al., 2000 and Wu et al., 2010), another question is, how does that relationship occur? Specifically, we need a more nuanced understanding of how perceived charisma affects followers individually and then propels them to collectively achieve higher levels of team performance. In other words, the individual-level origins of team performance (i.e., bottom-up relationships) are not well understood (cf. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In this study, we address those two questions theoretically and empirically in an integrated multilevel model of charisma. The model depicted in Fig. 1 suggests that in times of organizational change individual followers see change-promoting leaders as being more charismatic. Consequently, followers individually commit themselves to the focal change and this, in turn, increases their collective team performance. Commitment to change refers to “a mind-set that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002, p. 475). We field-tested this model in a company that was undergoing change. We assessed 33 team leaders and 142 subordinate team members, capturing team leaders' behaviors, team members' perceptions of team leaders' charisma, team members' individual commitment to change, and collective team performance during the change. Notably, our model refers to charisma perceptions. We define charisma, as a construct, as “symbolic leader influence rooted in emotional and ideological foundations” (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2011, p. 376). This definition implies that the leader's power is based on emotions and ideology but not on expert influence or reward as stressed in leadership styles of task-focused or transactional leadership ( Antonakis and House, 2002 and Antonakis et al., 2011). Vivid verbal and non-verbal communication tactics (e.g., metaphors, anecdotes, and body gestures) are typically viewed as means that leaders can use to arouse followers' emotions, inspire them, and initiate collective action around a vision ( Antonakis et al., 2011, Den Hartog and Verburg, 1997 and Shamir et al., 1993). Followers validate a leader's charisma through their perceptions of whether the leader acts in ways that make the leader appear to be charismatic or non-charismatic ( Antonakis et al., 2011, Conger, 1999 and Keyes, 2002). Indeed, Conger and Kanungo, 1987 and Conger and Kanungo, 1988 stressed followers' perceptions as the ultimate determinant of leader influence, a position reiterated across the literature on charismatic leadership (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2011, Galvin et al., 2010 and Howell and Shamir, 2005). Therefore, the consequences of charismatic leadership depend on the extent to which followers attribute charisma to the leader ( Antonakis, 2012, Conger and Kanungo, 1987, Conger and Kanungo, 1988, House, 1999, Shamir, 1999 and Yukl, 1999). Accordingly, research shows that perceived charisma relates to desirable outcomes such as cooperation among followers (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002), helping behaviors (Den Hartog, De Hoogh, & Keegan, 2007), leader influence (Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999), and company stock prices (Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, & Yammarino, 2004). Therefore, in this study, we focus on followers' charisma perceptions, rather than charismatic leadership behavior. Our study contributes to the leadership literature in three particular ways. First, we provide an etiology of perceived charisma, identifying leadership behaviors that, in times of change, are associated with followers' perceptions of leaders' charisma. Second, we show that certain team leader behaviors engender collective team benefits through an individual-level mechanism comprising individual followers' perceptions of charisma and commitment to change. Our study is among the first to model and test the multilevel mechanisms of charisma in teams as depicted in Fig. 1, specifically looking at the top-down relationship between leaders and individual followers and the bottom-up relationship between individual followers and their teams. Bottom-up processes refer to organizational phenomena that have theoretical origins at lower levels and emergent properties at higher levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Third, our multilevel model contributes to “the dynamic interplay between the individuals within a team and the team as a whole” (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007, p. 331). Our model is among the first to address both top-down and bottom-up relationships and thus to bridge micro and macro domains — arguably one of the biggest future challenges in management research (Aguinis et al., 2011 and Mathieu and Chen, 2011).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In this study, we investigate whether specific leadership behaviors explain why followers view some leaders as charismatic in times of change. In addition, we investigate the multilevel mechanisms through which team leader's behaviors are associated with team performance. We find support for the hypothesized model depicted in Fig. 1. Specifically, leader's change-promoting behaviors are positively associated with followers' perceptions that the leader has charisma. A follower's perception of leader charisma is positively related to his or her commitment to change that, in turn, is positively associated with team performance. Additionally, the association between leaders' change-promoting behaviors and team performance occurs because followers individually perceive their leaders as charismatic and thus become more committed to change. 5.1. Theoretical implications Our study makes several important contributions to the leadership literature. First, we combine varying theoretical perspectives for an etiology of perceived leader charisma (Conger and Kanungo, 1987 and Weber, 1947). We identify that leadership behaviors that promote change are associated with an individual follower's perceptions of leader charisma in times of organizational change. This insight fills an important gap in the leadership literature (Walter & Bruch, 2009) and contributes to the quest for determinants of the elusive quality that has been called charisma since Max Weber's time. In addition, our study explains why perceived leader charisma is associated with better performing teams (cf. DeGroot et al., 2000), by identifying individual commitment to change as an intervening mechanism. We show that charisma functions through a complex assortment of associations between the leader, individual followers, and the team as a whole. Our multilevel model thus emphasizes and empirically supports both the top-down associations between the leader and individual followers, and the bottom-up associations between individual followers and collective team performance (cf. Chen & Kanfer, 2006). This study also contributes importantly to understanding the dynamic relationship between individual team members and the team as a whole (cf. Kark and Shamir, 2002, Wang and Howell, 2010 and Wang and Howell, 2012), which is likely to be greatly valuable for future studies seeking to address the relationships between individuals (or other lower-level units) and collectives (higher-level units; Aguinis et al., 2011, Bamberger, 2008, Chen et al., 2007 and Mathieu and Chen, 2011). Specifically, we examine not only how group-level variables are associated with individuals' functioning in teams (top-down associations) but also how individual-level variables are associated with group-level outcomes (bottom-up associations). The very few studies that considered such bottom-up relationships (e.g., Chen et al., 2005, Griffin, 1997, Liao and Chuang, 2004 and Vandenburg et al., 1999) were severely constrained by available analytical methods (Croon & van Veldhoven, 2007). We are aware of only one study (Zhang et al., 2012) that used recent methodological developments in modeling bottom-up relationships. Taken together, results of that prior study and our study show that informal leader emergence (Zhang et al., 2012) and commitment to change are positively associated with team performance. We drew from recent developments in modeling bottom-up relationships (Croon and van Veldhoven, 2007, Lüdtke et al., 2008 and Preacher et al., 2010) to answer calls “to generate and test bottom-up theories that truly break paradigmatic boundaries” (Bamberger, 2008, p. 842). Notably, our findings are consistent with available theories on bottom-up relationships. Chen and Kanfer's (2006) integrative model of individual and team motivation suggests that discretionary and ambient stimuli synergistically shape both team and individual motivation, which in turn synergistically affect team performance. This model is in line with our observation that an ambient stimulus (i.e., a team leader's change promoting behavior) is associated with team members' individual commitment to change (through perceived charisma) and that individual team members' commitment to change is associated with team performance. Our research has several connections with other scholarly areas such as the literature on organizational change. Researchers have paid significant attention to how leaders manage and involve their followers during change (e.g., Battilana et al., 2010, Carter et al., in press, Kotter, 1996, Kotter and Cohen, 2002 and Lind and Tyler, 1988), and have found that leadership behavior strongly drives employees' reactions to change (e.g., Beer, 1980, Herold et al., 2008 and Lind and Tyler, 1988). Somewhat surprisingly, those studies have neglected our focus on an interesting interconnection between leaders' behaviors during change, perceptions of charisma, and performance. Also, our research should interest researchers investigating groups and teams, because we essentially examine two team-level phenomena that are linked through an individual-level mechanism. Team researchers have been urged to “consider both top-down effects of team characteristics and processes on individual cognition and behavior as well as bottom-up effects of individual cognition and behavior on team processes” (Chen & Kanfer, 2006, p. 225) to better understand, “the dynamic interplay between the individuals within a team and the team as a whole” (Chen et al., 2007, p. 331). Our study suggests that such research endeavors are possible and, indeed, worthwhile. 5.2. Directions for research and practice The current study provides fruitful avenues for future research, which could investigate other multilevel mediation designs such as 2–1–2 or 1–1–2–2 models (see Preacher et al., 2010). Our 2–1–1–2 model provides an encouraging step in treating upper-level variables as outcomes within the framework of multilevel structural equation modeling. It is open for including additional paths and levels. For example, future studies may investigate not only individual processes within teams, but also individual processes within teams within organizations. Such studies would introduce organizations as a third level of analysis, in addition to the teams and individuals nested within organizations (cf. Menges, Walter, Vogel, & Bruch, 2011). Although complex, such studies would offer further valuable insights into the dynamic interplay between levels within organizations. Additionally, future studies could further explore the interplay between change or crises and perceptions of charisma. The mixed findings on how crises and charisma are related highlight the need to address potential moderators of the relationship, such as crises attributions. If followers attribute crises to poor leadership, then crises should be negatively related to perceived charisma. In contrast, if followers believe that the leader is not responsible for the crisis, and the leader demonstrates strong conviction and confidence in overcoming the challenge, then crisis should be positively related to charisma. Although we cannot test the former case, our results are in line with the latter case. In our specific study context, upper-level decision makers, not team leaders, introduced the change. Therefore, team leaders could not be blamed for causing the crisis. Our results show that when followers believe that the leader is not responsible for the crisis, and the leader demonstrates behaviors to confront the challenge, then crisis or change is positively associated with perceived charisma. Moreover, our study offers several practical implications. Most important, leaders who fail to display behaviors that support change will fail to be seen as charismatic and therefore potentially will achieve lower team performance. Organizations facing changes should therefore ensure that leaders are well-trained in change-promoting behaviors (Kotter, 1996), ideally before the change occurs. Furthermore, organizations should provide opportunity for leaders to display those behaviors, especially in ways that followers may observe. Even in calm and stable periods, organizations wishing to benefit from charismatic leadership during future change should seek to recruit and retain leaders who are able to engage in charismatic leadership and change-promoting behaviors. 5.3. Strengths and limitations Among the methodological strengths of this study are data from two sources and the use of multilevel structural equation modeling. However, some limitations deserve discussion. First, the cross-sectional nature of the design prevents statements about causal directions. Although the directions of relationships assumed in our model are theoretically derived, teams could also impact team leadership; that is, team leadership could also be an outcome variable rather than an input variable (cf. Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). For example, teams' network structure can result in higher perceived charisma on the part of the formal leaders (Balkundi, Kilduff, & Harrison, 2011). Due to our cross-sectional design we are unable to conclude on causal directions. Therefore, we encourage future research to address the important issue of causality through (quasi-) experimental or longitudinal study designs. Second, common method bias may have inflated the observed relationships, which we tried to minimize by following recommendations from Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). First, we assured participants that their answers were anonymous and were neither right nor wrong. We also encouraged them to respond as honestly as possible. Second, we collected data from two different sources (i.e., leaders and followers), further minimizing common method bias concerns. Nevertheless, common method bias may have affected variables collected from leaders (i.e., leaders' change promoting behaviors and team performance) and variables collected from followers (i.e., perceived leader charisma and commitment to change). However, factor analytical results revealed that the hypothesized two-factor model for leader data fit the data better than a single-factor model. We found a similar pattern of factor analytical results for follower data. If common method variance were substantial, a single-factor model would fit the data better than the hypothesized two-factor model. Although common method variance is unlikely to be a major concern in this study, future studies could use multiple measurement points in time and other assessment methods in addition to self-reports, such as objective performance data (cf. Podsakoff et al., 2003). As a third limitation, we gathered our data from a specific cultural and industrial setting, a German railway company, which introduces the question of whether the results can be generalized to other populations. Although researchers have found positive relationships between charisma and desirable outcomes in Western (e.g., team performance; Zhang & Peterson, 2011) and non-Western cultures (e.g., creativity; Shin & Zhou, 2003), some attributes of charisma are not universally recognized (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Thus, the results could unfold differently if the study were conducted in a different culture. Therefore, we encourage researchers to replicate and extend our findings. Finally, the low follower response rate may be a potential concern although our follower response rate of 48% compares favorably with those reported in prior studies (e.g., Jung et al., 2009 and Rodell and Colquitt, 2009). 5.4. Conclusion Leaders play an important role in successfully managing organizational change. At the same time, organizational change gives leaders an opportunity to demonstrate behaviors that followers may perceive as charisma. Our study shows that in times of change, change-promoting leadership behaviors are positively related to followers' perceptions of leader charisma which, in turn, can have performance consequences. We now return to the two questions we posed earlier. What makes followers perceive that leaders are charismatic? How does perceived charisma boost team performance? First, followers perceive leaders as charismatic when the leaders engage in change-promoting behaviors. Second, followers' perceptions of charisma are related to team performance through followers' commitment to change. Hence our study contributes an etiology of perceived charisma in times of planned organizational change and an understanding of how top-down and bottom-up relationships combine to shape team outcomes. We hope this new knowledge will help future leadership scholars better address the inherent complexities of the enchanting powers of those leaders that Max Weber called charismatic.