Leadership flash cards
(94 cards)
Contingency Theory
Leadership theory by Fielder (1974) that divides leaders into task- or relation-motivated through their score on the “Least-Preferred Coworker” Scale. It states that the needed leadership style is based upon 1) leader-follower relations, 2) goal clarity, and 3) hierarchy formality. Extremely good or bad situations call for task-motivated leadership, whereas moderate situations call for more relation-motivation.
Barling et al (2011)
Handbook chapter on leadership. Covered leadership theories, research methods, dark leadership, and selection.
What are the 3 contingency theories of leadership?
Contingency Theory Path-Goal Theory Leadership Substitutes Theory
Path-Goal Theory
(House 1971) Leaders determine the goals of their followers and align them with the goals of the org, providing a path for follower’s goal achievement. The theory states that leaders will be more or less effective based on situational factors (environment, job design, etc), but there’s little evidence to support this.
Subtitutes for Leadership
(Kerr & Jermier 1978) Adds to path-goal theory by dividing the situational factors into neutralizers (those that render leadership efforts obsolete) and substitutes (neutralizes, but creates the positive attitude and outcomes of good leadership). Research shows that substitutes actually contribute to leadership efforts, without neutralizing them.
LMX
Shifts away from task focus to a relational focus. Specifically it looks at the relationship between a leader and follower. High quality LMX is characterized by mutual support, trust, liking, and loyalty. It creates positive performance outcomes and reduces turnover.
Transformational Leadership Theory
Inspirational Motivation Idealized Influence Intellectual stimulation Individual consideration
Charismatic Leadership
A leader can only achieve this in the eyes of their followers (Conger 1999). This style of leadership is attributed to leaders who challenge the status quo, inspire followers with their vision, show sensitivity to the needs of followers, and take personal risks to achieve their vision.
Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002)
- Leadership emergence v. effectiveness Results from meta-analysis indicated that the Big 5 (ECONA- from most to least related) personality factors were related significantly with both leader emergence (R =.53) and leader effectiveness (R .39). – support for trait approach also found that the corrected population correlation b/w intelligence and leadership is lower than what was previously reported in the literature found meta-analytic support for consideration and initiating structure Extraversion was the most consistent correlate of leadership of leader emergence and leadership effectiveness.
Glass Cliff
Ryan & Haslam (2005) - states that women are more likely to be put in high level leadership positions that are associated with greater risk, thus setting them up for failure
What are the 3 types of destructive leadership?
Passive Abusive Unethical
Hunter et al 2007
Article that criticizes the assumptions of much of the leadership research literature.
What are the main criticisms of leadership research laid out by Hunter et al 2007?
- Leadership is equally important to all followers - Followers witness and can evaluate all of the leader’s behaviors - Instruments capture all critical leader behaviors - Instruments are psychometrically sound
Lord et al., 2017
Century Review Article of the Leadership historical trends and research; Forecasts the below areas as where research will go 1. multidisciplinary collaborations (think the neuroscience trend) 2. virtual leadership/remote work 3. Collective leadership/shared leadership 4. Leadership Development 5. Social Network Analysis 6. Leadership in radically different org structures 7. Ethical leadership; abusive leadershp 8. how the changing, increasingly volatile environment (natural disasters, wars, etc), diversity, and climate influences how leaders need to be 9. how leadership looks at each level of analysis
Jackson et al., 2020 Findings
found the measurement structure of 360s is defined by a) impressions related to differneces sources (not raters) (ai.e., managers, peers) b) general performance specific dimensions had no practical relevance to this measurement structure
Jackson et al., 2020 Practical Implications
360s should be designed such that only source based and general perspectives on perormance are used by presenting scores as aggregates at the soure level (not individual dimensions of performance) as an overall general performance rating. We should not break down each source aggregate by dimensions (which is common practice currently)
Jackson et al. 2020
JAP 2020 Paper examining the confounds in 360 performance ratings and what information we truly are capturing when we control for these confounds
Derue et al., 2011
Meta-analysis to examine the metchanisms by which leader traits influence leadership effectiveness (combining trait and behavior theories) leader behaviors had a greater impact on leadership effectiveness criteria than leader traits, but leader traits predicted affective and relational criteria more than performance criteria. Conscientiousness was the most consistent trait predictor of leadership effectiveness Transformational leadership was the most consistent behaviorial predictor across all criteria
Two Main Aspects of Leadership according to Bart
Decisions Making
Leader Emergence vs. Effectiveness
Emergence- whether or not they are viewed or perceived as a leader; from a formal leadership role or informally Effectiveness- how well they’re doing in leading/leadership roles (Barling et al., 2011)
What are the 4 forms of transactional leadership?
Contingent Reward (best and often highly correlated with transformational; repackaged path-goal theory) Active management-by-exception (not too bad) Passive management-by-exception (bad) Laissez-Faire (the worst- basically absense of leadership)
Judge & Picolo (2004) Meta Analysis
Contingent reward -> job satisfaction (.64); satisfaction w/leader (.55); follower motivation (.59); effect (.55) Active mgmt –> follow satisfaction w/leader (.24); follower motivation (.14); leader effectiveness (.21) passive mgmt -> follower motivation (-.27); group performance (-.17); effectiveness (-.19) laissez-faire –> job satisfaction (-.28); satisfaction w/leader (-.58); leader effectiveness (-.54)
oxymoron of transational leadership
the behaviors are responses to employees behaviors and are based on the formal power given to managers; leadership transcends situational needs, based more on informal sources of power; transactional leadership may be more consistent with “managemant than leadership” (Barling et al., 2011)
Implicit Leadership Theories vs. Leader Categorization Theory
ILTs are the schemas for leaders that people have in their heads Categorization theory is the actual theory describing how we use cognitive categorizations/schemas to process the world– leaders included * a distinction Bart is very picky about
































