نقش ارزش های فردی در رهبری کاریزماتیک مدیران شرکت: مدل و مطالعه میدانی مقدماتی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|3337||2005||24 صفحه PDF||45 صفحه WORD|
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 16, Issue 2, April 2005, Pages 221–244
کلید واژه ها
2. رهبری کاریزماتیک و ارزش ها
3. چارچوب نظری و ایجاد فرضیه
3.1 روابط بین ارزش های فردی رهبر و رهبری کاریزماتیک
شکل 1: مدل پیشنهادی ارزش های رهبری، رهبری کاریزماتیک و نتایج
3.2 روابط بین رهبری کاریزماتیک و نتایج حاصل از عملکرد
3.3 نقش تعدیل کننده عملکرد
4.1 شرکت کننده ها و رویه ها
4.2 مقیاس ها
4.3 تحلیل داده ها
5.1 نتایج حاصل از آزمودن فرضیه
شکل 2: نتایج حاصل از تحلیل نمونه کامل
جدول 3: تعدیل اثرات سطح عملکرد بر روابط در مدل
5.2 تحلیل های تعقیبی
6. نتیجه گیری
6.1 مفاهیم مدیریتی
6.2 محدودیت ها و فرصت های تحقیقات آتی
This study used multi-source field data collected in five organizations to examine linkages among managers' personal value system (i.e., intensity of openness to change, traditional, collectivistic work, self-transcendent, and self-enhancement values), charismatic leadership of managers, and three outcome measures. Two-hundred and eighteen managers provided self-reports of their personal values and ratings of their followers' extra effort and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Nine-hundred and forty-five subordinates rated the focal managers' charismatic leadership. Superiors of the focal managers provided ratings of managerial performance 2 months after collecting the managers' and subordinates' ratings. Results indicated that traditional, collectivistic work, self-transcendent, and self-enhancement values related positively to charismatic leadership, which predicted managerial performance and followers' extra effort and OCB. Managerial performance moderated the relationships between leaders' values, charismatic leadership, and followers' outcomes.
“Leaders embrace values; values grip leaders. The stronger the value systems, the more strongly leaders can be empowered and the more deeply leaders can empower followers.”—James MacGregor Burns (2003, p. 211). Is leadership inherently value-laden? Are values associated with a leader's style and outcomes? Scholars have often pondered these questions and discussed the importance of personal values as desirable modes of behavior in the study of charismatic leadership, frequently referring to their role in influencing leaders' and followers' behavior and attitudes toward performing above and beyond the call of duty (Bass, 1985, Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, Burns, 2003, Egri & Herman, 2000, Gardner & Avolio, 1998 and House, 1977). Both Bass and House have argued that charismatic leaders hold strong convictions and use them as guideposts for behavior and vision that motivates followers to perform beyond expectations. Bass and House's thoughts are echoed in the emerging literatures on positive psychology and authentic leadership which highlight values as corresponding to character strengths demonstrated through behaviors that put ideals into action (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Although values appear to play a key role in charismatic leadership processes and outcomes, they have been examined in only a few studies, with the notable exception of those published in a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly (Volume 12, Issue 2) on values and leadership (e.g., Lord & Brown, 2001 and Thomas et al., 2001). However, these studies have not specifically focused on charismatic leadership despite calls for research to examine such issues ( Bass, 1999 and Burns, 2003). Recent criticisms of the charismatic leadership literature note that more attention needs to be paid to the role of values and intentions in the charismatic leadership process (Yukl, 2002). It remains unclear which values within a leader's value system are most closely associated with the degree of charisma displayed by the leader. Reviews of the values literature (e.g., Meglino & Ravlin, 1998) have called for examinations of values associated with behavioral and performance outcomes using organizational field samples. Researchers have not explored the role that a manager's performance plays in moderating the relationships between the values espoused by leaders, charismatic leadership, and its motivational effects on followers. Organizations struggling to more fully engage employees in their work may benefit from what is learned through such exploration. These important issues provide motivation for the present study. This study examines relationships between aspects of a leader's personal value system, charismatic leadership, managerial performance and two outcome measures of followers' performance beyond expectations. To examine these relationships, data were drawn from a sample of managers from five technology-driven organizations. Compared to managers working in other contexts, managers of technology organizations interact with associates in turbulent contexts and often work under extreme challenges, time constraints, and stress levels (Sosik, Jung, Berson, Dionne, & Jaussi, 2004). This context should allow for studying how a leader's values relate to charismatic leadership and its outcomes, and whether these relationships differ for low- versus high-performing managers (Yukl, 2002). This field study uses multisource data collection and controls for socially desirable responding to provide empirical tests of core aspects of House's (1977) model of charismatic leadership, which is discussed in more detail below.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The primary objective of this study was to examine the relative contributions of the intensity of five personal values of leaders to followers' perceptions of charismatic leadership and its subsequent effects on managerial performance and followers' extra effort and extra-role performance. Study results for the overall sample (shown in Fig. 2) indicate that the intensity of traditional, collectivistic work, self-transcendent, and self-enhancement values related positively to charismatic leadership. The combination of these values accounted for 10% of the variance in charismatic leadership. This overall pattern of results provides some initial support for House's (1977) theory of charismatic leadership and its elaboration in his discussion of value-based leadership (House, 1996), at least in regard to traditional, collectivistic work, self-transcendent, and self-enhancement values. Results also are consistent with Gardner and Avolio's (1998) proposition that charismatic leaders' values influence their idealized vision, as manifested in the inspirational motivation measure in the present study. Study results concerning the grand means for values intensity reported in Table 1 are consistent with prior theoretical arguments made by Shamir et al. (1993) and others that collectivistic work, traditional/historical, and change-oriented values are among the most salient values held by charismatic leaders. These results suggest that leaders in technology-dependent organizations may espouse collectivistic work values to build a high sense of collective efficacy among associates. These leaders also may rely on traditional values to promote a sense of self-consistency among associates and frame their vision within a historical context. Such leaders also may advocate a vision of change that paints a brighter future for followers. Findings are also consistent with Shamir et al.'s (1993) arguments regarding the role of history and self-consistency as motivational mechanisms of charismatic leadership. Specifically, managers in the present study who held strong beliefs in traditional values were rated by their subordinates as significantly more charismatic than managers who did not hold such beliefs. These results suggest that traditional values may provide a historical link between the past, the unacceptable present condition, and a more positive future through self-consistency. When these values are shared by the leader and followers, they may represent a powerful form of collective self-expression that works toward reclaiming the collective's culture and values. For example, historians have noted that Pope John Paul II has held strong beliefs in traditional Polish values of human dignity, solidarity, and sovereignty. The Pope's articulation of these values in his speeches and exemplification of such values in interactions with communist authorities in Poland and the Soviet Union helped to accelerate the fall of communism (Weigel, 1999). Contrary to expectations, the intensity of a manager's openness to change values was not significantly related to subordinates' ratings of charismatic leadership in the overall sample. One possible explanation for this result is that whereas charismatic leaders may desire a particular change as evidenced by their vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), they, like most individuals, may not value change in and of itself. However, it is interesting to note that while the relationship between openness to change and charismatic leadership was insignificant for low-performing managers, it was significantly more positive for high-performing managers (Table 3). It appears that high-performing managers are able to put their openness to change values into action to gain attributions of charisma from followers more effectively than low-performing managers. The low-performing managers may have contributed to the absence of associations between openness to change and charismatic leadership demonstrated in the overall sample. This pattern of results suggests that there were two types of managers displaying higher levels of charismatic leadership in the present study's sample: those driven by traditional values and those driven by openness to change values. Among the managers displaying higher levels of charismatic leadership, those driven by openness to change values outperformed those driven by traditional values. Thus, the display of charismatic leadership is not necessarily associated with better managerial performance, but may depend on the values manifested in the symbolic behaviors that reflect the values inherent in their vision. As shown in Fig. 2, charismatic leadership explained 11% (direct plus indirect effects) of the variance in managerial performance. Whereas this level of impact at the managerial level is meaningful (Chin, 1998), it suggests that the impact of charismatic leadership at the organizational level may be even smaller and therefore the impact of charismatic leadership on organizational-level performance discussed in the literature may be overstated. For example, Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, and Yammarino (2004) demonstrated that the impact of charismatic leadership of CEOs on organizational performance is meaningful only for organizations experiencing crisis situations. Future research that examines the effects of charismatic leadership on performance across individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis is required to put the impact of charismatic leadership on performance into perspective. An examination of Table 3 indicates that managerial performance also moderated the impact of three other personal values on charismatic leadership. The associations between collectivistic work and self-enhancement values and charismatic leadership were more positive for high-performing managers than for low-performing managers. In contrast, the relationship between traditional values and charismatic leadership was more positive for low-performing managers than for high-performing managers. These results are consistent with profiles of charismatic leaders as favoring collective action (Shamir et al., 1993) and self-promotion (Gardner & Avolio, 1998) and prior empirical research linking high managerial performance to ratings of charismatic leadership (e.g., Hater & Bass, 1988 and Sosik et al., 2002). These results also suggest that low-performing managers may rely on putting traditional values into action to a greater extent than high-performing managers, who favor emphasizing openness to change values to gain attributions of charisma. The high-tech organizations in this study's sample had cultures that valued individual initiative and entrepreneurial activities, which are consistent with self-enhancement, as evidenced in Table 3 by the significantly more positive relationship between self-enhancement values and charismatic leadership for high-performing managers. This pattern of results is consistent with Sosik et al.'s (2004) findings that high-tech executives in the U.S. and Israel valued entrepreneurial employee behaviors (e.g., self-motivation, personal risk-taking) and rewarded them with individual-based pay-for-performance incentives and stock options. These organizational practices may have prompted managers to engage in charismatic behaviors grounded in self-enhancement values of gaining influence, power, and wealth. Such behaviors symbolize for followers the attainment of social status, prestige and resources often flaunted by the “dot-com millionaires” and “Internet entrepreneurs” of the late 1990s. Subordinates in the present study may have perceived leaders who possessed intense self-enhancement values as more charismatic because they saw the leader as role modeling the quest for wealth, authority, power, and social recognition associated with successful performance in technology-driven industries. As indicated in Fig. 2, charismatic leadership displayed by managers was positively related to followers' extra effort and OCB. These relationships were significantly more positive for high-performing managers than low-performing managers (see Table 3). These results are consistent with those reported by Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper (1998) showing that leaders' charismatic behavior emphasizing a collective identity predicted followers' heightened motivation and sacrifice. These results also provide support for the propositions of several charismatic/transformational leadership theoretical perspectives (e.g., Bass, 1985, Burns, 2003, Conger & Kanungo, 1998, House, 1996 and Shamir et al., 1993) which predict that leaders who use inspirational leadership and role model important values empower followers to perform beyond expectations. According to Conger and Kanungo (1998, p. 191), “leaders embody for followers the characteristics that are important to be emulated and internalized if the organization's mission is to be achieved.” Results of the present study suggest that followers can learn vicariously from such leaders from observation of leaders' charismatic behaviors reflecting their values of collectivistic work, self-transcendence, self-enhancement, and cultural traditions and customs that become symbols of the group's solidarity and unique worth. An unexpected result was the lack of association between managers' ratings of subordinates' extra effort and superiors' ratings of managerial performance in the overall sample. One potential explanation concerns social distance and the nature of extra effort. Extra effort represents intrinsically motivated exertion beyond what is expected (Bass, 1985). The intrinsic nature of extra effort makes it very difficult to be perceived by superiors as contributing to managerial performance due to the social distance between the subordinates and superiors in this study (Shamir, 1995). Performance ratings are primarily a function of observed recent and/or extraordinary behaviors and outcomes (DeNisi & Peters, 1996), such as charisma and OCB, which may be more noticeable than the extra effort of subordinates. Thus, the socially distanced superiors may have focused on outcomes rather than levels of effort in their attributions of performance effects. Future research is needed to test the plausibility of this explanation. 6.1. Managerial implications Results of the present study have several implications for managers. First, organizations are increasingly suffering from the adverse effects of employee disengagement, which has been estimated to cost the U.S. economy between $250 and $300 billion every year in lost productivity. Getting employees fully involved in and positive toward their work is predictive of retention, productivity, and other positive business outcomes (Crabtree, 2003). In order for employees to feel enthusiastic about the future of their company and their place within it, they must have the sense that they are part of something bigger. By working toward a broader collective vision that is consistent with their own values, managers may empower employees to work toward the vision. Study results suggest that high-performing managers who display charismatic leadership grounded in openness to change, collectivistic work, and self-enhancement values can promote the extra effort and extra role performances that fully engage employees. Promoting the OCB of employees also appears to be a “win-win” proposition for managers and organizational members given the positive associations between OCB and managerial performance shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2. Second, high-performing managers used openness to change, collectivistic work, self-enhancement and traditional values to garner ratings of charismatic leadership from their subordinates. Trainers who provide feedback to participants attending leadership training programs may consider offering feedback on personal values to improve participants' self-awareness of how their leadership can impact subordinates' motivation and OCB, and in turn influence their managerial performance. Executive coaches may use such feedback in their mentoring of managers' self-presentation and communication skills and leadership effectiveness. Participants' effectiveness may be a function of the extent to which they espouse and role model values shared by organizational members. Third, espousing values related to charismatic leadership doesn't necessarily mean that one actually possesses these values. Some managers may claim they value some things more than they actually do. A review of the correlations in Table 1 indicates that socially desirable responding of managers was positively associated with strong collectivistic work, traditional and self-transcendent values. These results suggest that such values are considered by managers as ideals they need to espouse in order to gain approval from others (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). To gain positive performance reviews from superiors and the support, compliance and loyalty of subordinates, it appears that managers should possess and act upon these values in an authentic manner. Enacting these values may help a manager to be perceived as a team player committed to the organization and its legacy and future. 6.2. Limitations and future research opportunities Several limitations of this study offer avenues for future research. These include the sample characteristics, measurement issues, and several relevant variables not examined in the present study. The sample consisted of managers from the U.S. who work in technology-driven organizations. These sample characteristics may limit the generalizability of our findings. Values and leadership style have been shown to differ based on culture and organizational context (Bass, 1985 and Schwartz, 1992). Thus, future research should examine how cultural differences relate to values and charismatic leadership using a more diverse sample of leaders and followers from various industries and countries. A set of limitations concerns measurement issues. First, this study's results were based upon measures of charismatic leadership (inspirational motivation and idealized influence). Whether study results would replicate for other transformational (intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration) and transactional leadership scales measured by the MLQ is an issue for future research. Second, the present study did not examine the symbols representing the expression of values in visions. In research examining vision content (Berson et al., 2001 and Sosik et al., 2004), values such as teamwork, integrity, hope, pride in work, and entrepreneurship have emerged. Future research should assess how leaders' and followers' personal values are reflected in the content of vision statements. Third, the present study assessed in-role managerial job performance because this type of measure is commonly used by corporations in pay-for-performance and scorecard/metric systems (DeNisi & Peters, 1996). To the extent that in-role performance may be a minimalist assessment in the context of charismatic leadership, future research should measure both in-role and extra-role managerial performance. Future research also needs to control for other factors (e.g., perceived stress, organizational culture, and structure) that may influence extra role and managerial performance in high tech organizations, in addition to focusing on leadership and values. Moreover, this study focused on examining socialized (rather than personalized) charismatic leadership (Howell, 1988), and its results should be interpreted within this conceptual boundary. Valid and reliable measures of personalized charismatic leadership need to be developed to advance our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of the “dark side” of charisma. Despite these limitations, this study makes a meaningful contribution to the leadership literature by focusing on testing how values relate to behaviors and outcomes. While empirical research has examined many personal attributes of charismatic leaders, values have been relatively understudied despite their wide recognition as being important to charismatic leadership (Lord & Brown, 2001). As Peterson and Seligman (2004) have pointed out, values become important to leaders when the behaviors they organize and direct are enacted and embraced by followers to create a positive and highly motivated organizational culture. Socialized charismatic leadership can be a powerful force in that process, and this study is among the first to have examined how charisma grounded in a leader's values is associated with followers who are more fully engaged in their work.