Курсовая: Теории лидерства

based on equity theory of motivation.

Propositions 13 through 21 are based on the 1996 version of Path Goal Theory

of leadership (House, 1996).

22. Leaders arouse motives of followers by enacting specific motive arousal

behaviors relevant to each motive. For example, defining tasks and goals as

challenging arouses the achievement motive; invoking the image of a

threatening enemy, describing combative or highly competitive situations or

describing the exercise of power arouses the power motive; making acceptance

of the leader contingent on mutural acceptance of followers, or stressing the

importance of collaborative behavior arouses the affiliative motive.

23. Leaders who engage in selective behaviors that arouse motives

specifically relevant to the accomplishment of the collective vision will

have positive effects on followers' value based motive syndrome described in

Proposition 2.

24. The more leaders engage in the value based leader behavior syndrome the

more their followers will emulate (a) the values, preferences and

expectations of the leader, (b) the emotional responses of the leader to

work-related stimuli, and (c) the attitudes of the leader toward work and the

organization.

Propositions 22 through 24 are slight revisions of propositions advanced in

the 1976 Theory of Charismatic leadership (House, 1977).

25. The use of strong extrinsic material rewards contingent on performance

will conflict with appeals to ideological values and will thus undermine the

effects of the value based leader behavior syndrome. This proposition is

based on dissonance theory (Festinger, 1980) and supported by the findings of

Korman (1970), and Dubinsky and Spangler (1995) described above.

Propositions Concerning Social Context

26. Two necessary conditions for leaders to have the effects specified in

proposition two are that leaders have the opportunity to communicate the

collective vision to potential followers and that the role of followers be

definable in ideological terms that appeal to them. This is a modification

of one of the propositions originally advanced by House (1977).

27. The emergence and effectiveness of value based leaders will be

facilitated to the extent to which a) performance goals cannot be easily

specified and measured, b) extrinsic rewards cannot be made clearly

contingent on individual performance, c) there are few situational cues,

constraints and reinforcers to guide behavior and provide incentives for

specific performance, and d) exceptional effort, behavior and sacrifices are

required of both the leaders and followers. This proposition is based on the

earlier discussion of strength of situations and dissonance theory and is a

modest modification of one of the propositions originally advanced by Shamir

et al. (1993).

The hypotheses were tested within the context of a latent structure casual

model, using Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS). This modelling procedure

requires that substantive hypotheses be modelled in the form of paths

connecting the hypothesized variables. The variables are latent constructs

composed of scores on manifest indicators. The The slopes of these

relationships are presented in Figure 3. This finding supports the

competitive hypothesis 5a which states that LMP will have greater effects in

non-entrepreneurial firms than in entrepreneurial firms, and will be

discussed below.

IMPLICATIONS

In this section we first discuss the implications of the findings with

respect to the value based leadership. Next we discuss the implications of

the findings for each of the five theories that were integrated in the models

tested. We then discuss the more general implications of the study for the

discipline of Organizational Behavior.

Value Based Leadership

Thomas (1988), House et al. (1991), and by Waldman, Ramirez and House (1996)

demonstrate longitudinally, and with adequate controls for spurious

relationships, that leaders have substantial effects on the performance of

the organizations they manage. However, there have been no studies, other

than the U.S. presidential study (House et al., 1991), that investigate the

leader motives and behavior that lead to such leader effects. Thus there has

been a "black box" concerning how leader processes influence overall

organizational performance that remains to be explained.

Collectively, the findings of the present study help to understand the

phenomena in the "black box." More specifically, the findings show, in some

detail, important relationships between chief executives' motives and

behavior and subordinates' motivation and commitment to their organization.

Having shown how the components function, it is now possible to test

linkages between leader behavior, subordinate responses, and organizational

effectiveness using longitudinal quasi experimental designs.

Implications for Specific Theories

In this section we discuss the implications of the study findings for each of

the theories that are integrated to form the Value Based Theory of

Leadership.

Achievement Motivation Theory

Achievement motivation has a more positive effect on CEMS and all leader

behaviors in entrepreneurial firms than in non-entrepreneurial firms. This

finding constitutes yet another confirmation of achievement motivation theory

concerning the specific conditions under which achievement motivation is

predicted to result in high performance.

Moral Responsibility Theory

The bivariate relationships between the moral responsibility disposition and

value based leader behavior, leader fairness and CEMS, and the moderating

effect of responsibility on the relationships between the power motive, and

CEMS, leader charisma, and support/reward behavior all provide support for

Moral Responsibility Theory. Moral responsibility motivation is clearly an

important disposition that deserves further investigation and attention.

Leader Motive Profile Theory

The positive relationships between LMP and executive value based leader

behavior, support/recognition behavior, and directiveness provide support for

LMP Theory. These two relationships are consistent with the interpretation

that because high LMP leaders have low affiliative motivation they enact

social influence in an impersonal and more proactive and assertive manner

than low LMP leaders.

The findings are consistent with the propositions that LMP affects leader

behavior, and leader behavior in turn has a positive effect on CEMS. These

findings suggest a re-specification of the boundary conditions for the role

of LMP in organizational functioning. Contrary to the initially specified

boundary conditions, LMP has negligible effects on leader behavior and CEMS

in non- entrepreneurial firms and positive effects in entrepreneurial firms.

These findings imply that LMP has its' major impact on organizational

outcomes through its' influence on leader behavior under weak psychological

conditions.

Path Goal Theory

As predicted by the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership (House, 1996), leader

contingent

recognition and supportive behaviors are predictive of CEMS, and leader

directiveness is more strongly negatively related to CEMS in entrepreneurial

firms. Thus Path-Goal theory is provided additional support in the present

study.

CONCLUSION

The major conclusions that can be drawn from the above findings and discussion

are: 1) the value based theory of leadership successfully integrates five

prominent theories of leadership (transformational, charismatic, visionary,

LMP, and path-goal theories) and assertions drawn broadly from established

psychological theories of motivation and behavior; 2) the components of the

value based theory of leadership are rather strongly and quite consistently

supported, although their exact combinations remain to be established; 3) the

psychological theories integrated within the value based theory are largely

supported; 4) the value based theory of leadership, with various kinds of

operationalizations, has rather broad generalizability; 5) the theory

supported by the U.S. presidential study holds for CEOs with respect to effects

of leader behaviors on subordinates' cognitions and affective responses; 6) a

re-specification of the boundary conditions of LMP should be further

investigated; and 7) the motives that are most appropriate for effective

leadership are contingent on the orientation of the collective being led.

Beginning with the 1976 theory of charismatic leadership (House, 1977), a new

leadership paradigm has emerged. This paradigm consists of several theories of

similar genre (House, 1977; Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo; 1987; Bennis

& Nanus, 1985; 1987; Sashkin, 1988) and concerns the determinants of

exceptionally effective or outstanding leadership. According to this paradigm,

value based leaders infuse organizations and work with ideological values which

are intrinsically and powerfully motivational. Value oriented motivation

motivation. The theories of the new paradigm are now integrated and

formalized as the Value Based Theory of Leadership. Hopefully, this theory and

the supporting research will stimulate further leadership research and further

development of leadership and organizational behavior theory. As the final

accorsd of my project I am going to say a few words about the Russian research

in this field. Russian Project is a part of annual International Project GLOBE.

Interviews have been taken among the CEO’s of Russian Entrepreneurial and

Non-entrepreneurial Firms. It would be very interesting to mention the fact

sides suffer. Russia has a strong potential for Leadership.

Appendix 1

Table 1

Executive Interview Questions

1. Would you briefly describe your career to date, beginning with your

education and then when you first entered a management position?

2. When you assumed your present position was there a mandate for what you

were expected to accomplish, a number of problems you were expected or

desired to solve, goals you expected or desired to achieve, or a vision of

your own or someone elses to be accomplished?

3. What were the major strengths of your organization that help you

accomplish what you wanted to accomplish when taking this position?

4. What were the major deficiencies in the organization?

4. What were the major barriers to accomplishment?

5. What were your major strengths?

6. Were there any personal weaknesses you needed to overcome or were there

any .personal deficiencies such as lack of skills, that that you needed to

improve upon?

7. Please describe the strategy you used, or the major activities you

conducted, to accomplish the objectives you desired to accomplish.

8. Please describe your philosophy of management (this is usually already

implicitly described in the answers to the above questions).

9. Are there any other considerations we need to know about in order to

understand your role in your current position?

10. Executives often need to devote a large amount of time to ltheir work.

How do you reconcile the potential time conflicts between your work demands

and family demands

Table 2

VALUE BASED LEADERSHIP CONSTRUCT

This construct consists of seven subscales, each of which serves as a

manifest indicator. These subscales are Vision, Performance Expectations and

Improvement, Follower Confidence and Challenge, Intellectual Stimulation,

Role Modeling, Integrity, and Self Confidence.

VISION

PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS-IMPROVEMENT EMPHASIS (for the subordinates)

FOLLOWER CONFIDENCE AND CHALLENGE (sub)

INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION,

ROLE MODELING

INTEGRITY

SELF CONFIDENCE

SUPPORT - REWARD

This construct consists of the Leader Consideration and Contingent Reward

subscales.

CONSIDERATION

CONTINGENT RECOGNITION AND APPROVAL

DIRECTION

FAIRNESS IN EVALUATION (inverted)

COMMITMENT, MOTIVATION, AND PERCEIVED TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

This construct consists of three subscales: Motive Arousal; Commitment,

Satisfaction, and Motivation; Perceived Top Management Team Effectiveness.

MOTIVE AROUSAL,

COMMITMENT, SATISFACTION, AND MOTIVATION,

TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4