Курсовая: Теории лидерства
motivation to contribute to the organization and to the collective vision.
Members are more inclined to support changes in technology, structure and
strategies introduced by top management, which may result in an
organizational culture characterized by values oriented toward teamwork and
meeting customers', clients', constituents' and competitive needs. There
ensues a marked reduction in intra-organizational conflict and a high degree
of team effort and effectiveness. As noted above, members expend effort above
and beyond the call of duty, and sacrifice their self-interest in the
interest of the organization. As a result, individual motivation,
organizational culture, strategy and structure are likely to become aligned
with the collective vision.
A reinforcing process may also occur whereby organizational members increase
their respect for and confidence in the leader and each other based on the
resulting organizational success. As a result, their initial confidence and
motivation is further reinforced. Such effects are consistent with the notion
of romanticized leadership (Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985). The
resulting increased confidence in the leader in turn gives the leader more
influence and thus contributes to the leader's ability to further influence
This is an “ideal type” theoretical scenario. Clearly all the aspects of
this scenario will not always come to fruition in response to value based
leadership. No such claim is made. Rather, it is argued that organizational
members will be motivated on the basis of shared internalized values and
identification with the leader and the collective, which are far more
motivational than alternative bases of motivation.
It is possible that value based leaders may introduce flawed strategies and
that the result may be organizational decline or failure rather than
improvement and success. It is also possible that the leader may stand for
socially undesirable values such as ethnocentrism, racism, persecution,
dishonesty, or unfair or illegal competitive practices (Lindholm 1990).
Regardless of the strategy or values expressed by the leader, it is argued
that a relationship based on value identification between leader and
organizational members will result in increased member commitment and
motivation, as well as increased organizational cohesion.
There is extensive empirical evidence with respect to the effects of behaviors
specified by value based leadership theory. Charismatic, visionary, and
transformational theories of leadership are precursors of the leader behaviors
specified by value based leadership theory. Tests of these theories have been
based on various operationalizations that qualify as measures of value based
leadership including interviews (Howell & Higgins, 1990), laboratory
experimentation (Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996),
questionnaires (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1995), and quantified
archival data (House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991). In all of these tests, the
leader behavior measured consists of articulating an organizational vision and
behaving in ways that reinforce the values inherent in the vision, thus
qualifying as indirect evidence relevant to the effects of value based
leadership. Space limitations prevent a detailed review of the evidence.
However, Bass and Avolio (1993), House and Shamir (1993), Lowe et al,. (1995),
and Yukl (1994), present overviews of these studies. With surprising
consistency these empirical studies have demonstrated consistently that value
based leader behavior predicts unusual levels of leader effectiveness directed
toward enhancing organizational performance.
Support for the effects of value based leadership is illustrated by a recent
meta-analysis of the charisma subscale of the Bass and Avolio (1989)
Multifacet Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The MLQ charisma subscale
describes relationships between subordinates and superiors. Superiors who
receive high scores on this scale are described by subordinates as having an
exciting vision of the future for the organization they lead, and being
exceptionally motivational, trustworthy, and deserving of respect.
Support for the theoretical main effects of value based leader behavior has been
demonstrated at several levels of analysis including dyads, small informal
groups, major departments of complex organizations, overall performance of
educational and profit making organizations, and nation states. The evidence
is derived from a wide variety of samples including military officers,
educational administrators, middle managers, subjects in laboratory experiments
and management simulations, US presidents and chief executive officers of
Fortune 500 firms (Bass & Avolio, 1993; House & Shamir, 1993; Waldman,
Ramirez & House, 1996).
The evidence shows that the effects of value based leader behavior are rather
widely generalizable in the United States and that they may well generalize
across cultures. For instance, studies based on the charisma scale of the MLQ
have demonstrated similar findings in India (Periera, 1987), Singapore (Koh,
Terborg & Steers, 1991), The Netherlands (Koene, Pennings & Schreuder,
1991), China, Germany, and Japan (Bass, 1997).
In summary, the studies based on various operationalizations of value based
leadership clearly show that this genre of leadership results in a high level
of follower motivation and commitment and well-above-average organizational
performance, especially under conditions of crises or uncertainty (Pillai &
Meindl, 1991; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1995; Waldman, Ramirez &
House, 1996; Waldman, Atwater & House, 1996).
NEWLY INTEGRATED THEORIES
The value based theory of leadership integrates the precursor theories
discussed above with a number of assertions advanced in several psychological
theories of motivation and behavior. Following is a brief review of the
psychological theories that are integrated into the Value Based Leadership
McClelland's Theories of Non-conscious Motivation
According to this theory, the motivational aspects of human beings can be
understood in terms of four non-conscious motives in various combinations
(McClelland, 1985). These motives are the achievement, power, affiliation,
and social responsibility motives. McClelland has developed a theory of
entrepreneural effectiveness based on the role of achievement motivation, and
a more general theory of leader effectiveness consisting of theoretical
assertions concerning the optimum combination of the above four motives for
effective leadership. This theory is entitled the Leader Motive Profile
Theory (LMP). In the following sections we discuss the four motives
discussed by McClelland and the LMP theory.
Achievement motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for achieving
excellence in accomplishments through one's individual efforts
(McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958). Achievement motivated
individuals set challenging goals for themselves, assume personal
responsibility for goal accomplishment, are highly persistent in the pursuit of
goals, take calculated risks to achieve goals and actively collect and use
information for feedback purposes. Achievement motivation is theoretically
predicted to contribute to effective entrepreneurship (McClelland, 1985) and
effective leadership of small task oriented groups (House et al., 1991).
Litwin and Stringer (1968) demonstrated experimentally that small groups led
by managers who enacted achievement oriented and arousing behaviors were more
effective than groups with managers who did not.
In management positions at higher levels in organizations, and particularly
in organizational settings where technical requirements are few and impact on
others is of fundamental importance, managerial effectiveness depends on the
extent to which managers delegate effectively and motivate and co-ordinate
others. Theoretically, high achievement motivated managers are strongly
inclined to be personally involved in performing the work of their
organization and are reluctant to delegate authority and responsibility.
Therefore, high achievement motivation is expected to predict poor
performance of high-level executives in large organizations. House et al.
(1991) found that achievement motivation of U.S. presidents was significantly
inversely related to archival measures of U.S. presidential effectiveness.
Affiliative motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for
establishing, maintaining, and restoring close personal relationships with
others. Individuals with high affiliative motivation tend to be non-
assertive, submissive, and dependent on others (McClelland, 1985).
Theoretically, highly affiliative motivated managers are reluctant to monitor
the behavior of subordinates, to convey negative feedback to subordinates
even when required, or to discipline subordinates for ethical transgressions
or violations of organizational policies. Highly affiliative motivated
managers are also theoretically expected to manage on the basis of personal
relationships with subordinates and therefore show favoritism toward some.
House et al. (1991) found that the affiliative motive was significantly
negatively correlated with U.S. presidential charismatic leadership and
archival measures of U.S. presidential effectiveness.
Power motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for acquiring status
and having an impact on others. Individuals with high power motivation tend
to enjoy asserting social influence, being persuasive, drawing attention to
themselves, and having an impact on their immediate environment including the
people with whom they interact. Theoretically, if enacted in a socially
constructive manner, high power motivation should result in effective
managerial performance in high level positions (McClelland, 1975; 1985).
However, unless constrained by a responsibility disposition, power motivated
managers will exercise power in an impetuously aggressive manner for self
aggrandizing purposes to the detriment of their subordinates and
High power motivation induces highly competitive behavior. Therefore, when
unconstrained by moral inhibition, power motivation is theoretically
predictive of leader effectiveness when the role demands of leaders require
strong individual competitiveness, aggressiveness, manipulative exploitive
behavior, or the exercise of substantial political influence. The power
motive was found by House et al. (1991) to significantly predict presidential
charismatic behavior and archival measures of presidential effectiveness.
According to McClelland, individuals who have a high concern for the moral
exercise of power will use power in an altruistic and collectively-oriented
manner. Indicators of high concern for responsibility are expressions of
concern about meeting moral standards and obligations to others, concern for
others, concern about consequences of one’s own action, and critical self
Winter and Barenbaum (1985) developed and validated a measure of concern for
moral responsibility, which they label the responsibility disposition1
. The measure is based on quantitative content analysis of narrative text
material. Winter (1991) demonstrated that the responsibility disposition, in
combination with high power and low affiliative motivation, was predictive of
managerial success over a sixteen-year interval.
The responsibility motive should be predictive of leader integrity and
leaders' concern for the consequences of their own actions on others. Leaders
with high responsibility disposition are expected to stress the importance of
keeping one's word, honesty, fairness, and socially responsible behavior.
Thus, we expect the responsibility disposition to be associated with value
based leader behavior, supportive leader behavior, fairness, follower trust
and respect for the leader and commitment to the leader’s vision, and
consequently organizational effectiveness.
Leader Motive Profile Theory
McClelland (1975) argued that the following combination of non-conscious
motives are generic to, and predictive of, leader effectiveness: high power
motivation, moderate achievement motivation, high concern for the moral
exercise of power, and power motivation greater than affiliative motivation.
This combination of motives is referred to by McClelland (1975) as the Leader
Motive Profile (LMP).
According to LMP theory, the power motive is necessary for leaders to be
effective because it induces them to engage in social influence behavior, and
such behavior is required for effective leadership. Further, when the power
motive is higher than the affiliative motive, individuals do not engage in
the dysfunctional behaviors usually associated with high affiliation
motivation - favoritism, submissiveness, and reluctance to monitor and
discipline subordinates. Finally, when high power motivation is coupled with
a high concern for moral responsibility, individuals are predicted to engage
in the exercise of power in an effective and socially desirable manner.
Earlier research, also reviewed by McClelland (1985), suggests that the
achievement motive is a better predictor of leader effectiveness and success
in entrepreneurial organizations than LMP.
Theoretically the leader motive profile is predictive of managerial
effectiveness under conditions where leaders need to exercise social
influence in the process of making decisions and motivating others to accept
and implement decisions. In formal organizations these conditions are found
at higher levels and in non-technical functions. By contrast, in smaller
technologically based organizations, group leaders can rely on direct contact
with subordinates (rather than delegation through multiple organizational
levels), and technological knowledge to make decisions. Thus LMP theory is
limited to the boundary conditions of moderate to large non-technologically
oriented organizations (McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1978; 1991), and to
managers who are separated from the work of the organization by at least one
Several studies have demonstrated support for the LMP theory. Winter (1978)
found that LMP was predictive of the career success of entry level managers in
non-technical positions in the US Navy over an eight-year interval. Both
McClelland and Boyatzis (1982), and Winter (1991), in separate analyses of the
same data but with different operationalizations of LMP, found similar results
at AT&T over a sixteen-year interval. McClelland and Burnham (1976) found
high-LMP managers had more supportive and rewarding organizational climates,
and higher performing sales groups than low-LMP managers did in a large sales
organization. House, et al. (1991) found that the motive components of the LMP
predicted US presidential charisma and presidential performance effectiveness.
Since high LMP leaders have greater power than affiliative motivation it is
expected that they will be assertive and at least moderately directive.
Further, since they have high responsibility motivation it is expected that
thay will have highly internalized idological values - values concerning what
is morally right and wrong - and that they will thus stress ideological value
orientation, integrity, and fairness, as explained above, both verbally and
through personal example.
The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
The essence of path-goal theory is that leader behaviors will be effective when
such behaviors complement formal organizational practices and the informal
social system by providing direction, clarification, support and motivational
incentives to subordinates, which are not otherwise provided (House, 1971;
House & Mitchell, 1974; House, 1996). According to the 1996 version of
path-goal theory, leaders who give approval and recognition of subordinates,
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4