на тему рефераты
 
Главная | Карта сайта
на тему рефераты
РАЗДЕЛЫ

на тему рефераты
ПАРТНЕРЫ

на тему рефераты
АЛФАВИТ
... А Б В Г Д Е Ж З И К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Э Ю Я

на тему рефераты
ПОИСК
Введите фамилию автора:


Реферат: The Value Based Leadership Theory


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.

Responsibility Disposition

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 judgment.

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 organizational level.

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, contingent on performance and in a fair manner, will clarify expectancies of subordinates concerning work goals and rewards, and will effectively motivate subordinates.  This theory also predicts that leader consideration toward subordinates provides the psychological support subordinates require, especially in times of stress and frustration.

Path-goal theory suggests that either participative or directive leader behavior can provide psychological structure and direction and therefore clarify subordinates' role demands.  Theoretically, directive leader behavior will be dysfunctional and participative leader behavior will be functional when subordinates are highly involved in their work, perceive themselves as having a high level of task related knowledge, and/or prefer a high level of autonomy.  Meta-analyses of 135 relationships tested in prior studies provide support for these assertions (Wofford & Liska, 1993).

Dissonance Theory and Competing Values

According to cognitive dissonance theory, individuals experience anxiety-inducing cognitive dissonance when their self-evaluative cognitions, feelings and behavior are in conflict with each other (Festinger, 1980).  Under such conditions, individuals are strongly motivated to reduce the dissonance by changing one or more of the dissonant components--either their behavior, their cognitions, or their feelings.  It follows from dissonance theory that when leaders appeal to ideological values of followers and also administer extrinsic material rewards strictly contingent on follower performance, they will induce cognitive dissonance in followers.  Offering strong extrinsic incentives for doing what is claimed to be morally correct will theoretically induce dissonance, and is likely to undermine the effects of leaders' appeals to ideological values. From dissonance theory, we would expect that with the exception of social rewards such as approval and recognition, contingent reward behavior on the part of leaders will undermine the effects of value based leader behavior.

Equity Theory

Equity theory asserts that when individuals perceive the ratio of their contributions to their rewards (intrinsic or extrinsic) to be equal to the ratio of contributions to rewards of others, they will believe that they are treated fairly (Adams, 1963).  We expect that under conditions of perceived unfairness followers will feel resentment, be demotivated, will not support and may even resist attempts by leaders to influence them.

Situational Strength

Mischel (1973) has argued that the psychological strength of situations influences the degree to which individual dispositions such as motives or personality traits are expressed behaviorally.  Strong situations are situations in which there are strong behavioral norms, strong incentives for specific types of behaviors, and clear expectations concerning what behaviors are rewarded.  According to this argument, in strong situations, motivational or personality tendencies are constrained and there will be little behavioral expression of individual dispositions.  Thus, in organizations that are highly formalized and governed by well-established role expectations, norms, rules, policies and procedures, there is less opportunity for organizational members to behaviorally express their dispositional tendencies.

Theoretically, in strong psychological situations, leader motives have less influence on leader behavior, and leader behavior has less influence on subordinates and on organizational outcomes than in weak psychological situations.  Studies by Monson, Healy and Chernick (1982), Lee, Ashford, and Bobko (1990), and Barrick and Mount (1993) have demonstrated support for Mischel's situational strength argument.

THE VALUE BASED LEADERSHIP THEORY

This theory consists of six axioms and twenty-seven propositions that relate leader behavior, leader motives, and situational variables to leader effectiveness.

The Parsimonious Meta–Proposition of Value Based Leadership

Value based leadership theory is based on the meta–proposition that non-conscious motives and motivation based on strongly internalized values is stronger, more pervasive, and more enduring than motivation based on instrumental calculations of anticipated rewards or motivation based on threat and avoidance of punishment.  The axioms and propositions that follow are derived from  and can all be explained in terms of this parsimonious meta-proposition.

The Value Based Leader Behavior Syndrome

Behaviors that characterize value based leadership include a) articulation of a challenging vision of a better future to which followers are claimed to have a moral right; b) unusual leader determination, persistence, and self-sacrifice in the interest of the vision and the values inherent in the vision; c) communication of high performance expectations of followers and confidence in their ability to contribute to the collective; d) display of self-confidence, confidence in followers, and confidence in the attainment of the vision; e) display of integrity;  f) expressions of concern for the interests of followers and the collective; g) positive evaluation of followers and the collective; h) instrumental and symbolic behaviors that emphasize and reinforce the values inherent in the collective vision; i) role modelling behaviors that set a personal example of the values inherent in the collective vision; j) frame-alignment behaviors--behaviors intended to align followers' attitudes, schemata, and frames with the values of the collective vision; and, k) behaviors that arouse follower motives relevant to the pursuit of the vision.  We refer to these behaviors collectively as the value based leader behavior syndrome.

This specification of value based leader behaviors  integrates the behaviors specified in prior extensions of the 1976 theory of charismatic leadership as well as behaviors specified in other theories of charismatic, transformational and visionary leadership.  House and Shamir (1993) provide the rationale for inclusion of the above behaviors in the theoretical leader behavior syndrome. 

Axioms

Axioms are statements, the validity of which are taken for granted, either because the enjoy  substantial empirical evidence or becuse they cannot be tested.  Axioms provide a foundation for more specific statements, such as propositions.  The axioms stated here provide the foundation for the selection of leader behaviors from among all of the leader behaviors specified in the various theories described above.

Axioms Concerning Human Motivation

1.  Humans tend to be not only pragmatic and goal-oriented, but are also self-expressive.  It is assumed that behavior is not only instrumental-calculative, but also expressive of feelings, aesthetic values and self-concepts.  We "do" things because of who we "are," because by doing them we establish and affirm an identity for ourselves, at times even when our behavior does not serve our materialistic or pragmatic self-interests. 

2.  People are motivated to maintain and enhance their generalized self-efficacy and self-worth.  Generalized self-efficacy is based on a sense of competence, power, or ability to cope with and control one's environment.  Self-worth is based on a sense of virtue and moral worth and is grounded in norms and values concerning conduct. 

3.  People are also motivated to retain and increase their sense of self-consistency.  Self-consistency refers to correspondence among components of the self-concept at a given time, to continuity of the self-concept over time, and to correspondence between the self-concept and behavior.  People derive a sense of "meaning" from continuity between the past, the present and the projected future, and from the correspondence between their behavior and self-concept.

4.  Self-concepts are composed of values, perceptions of self-worth, efficacy, and consistency, and also identities.  Identities, sometimes referred to as role-identities, link the self-concept to society.  Social identities locate the self in socially recognizable categories such as nations, organizations and occupations, thus enabling people to derive meaning from being linked to social collectives.

5.  Humans can be strongly motivated by faith.  When goals cannot be clearly specified or the subjective probabilities of accomplishment and rewards are not high, people may be motivated by faith because being hopeful in the sense of having faith in a better future is an intrinsically satisfying condition.

6.  When individual motives are aroused in the interest of the collective effort, and when individual identify with the values inherent in the collective vision, they will evaluate themselves on the basis of the degree to which they contribute to the collective effort.  Under conditions of motive arousal and value identiication individuals experience intrinsic satisfaction from their contribution to the collective effort and intrinsic dissatisfaction from failure to contribute to collective efforts.

These axioms incorporate the extensions of the 1976 theory of charismatic leadership offered by Shamir, House and Arthur (1993), and House and Shamir (1995) and provide the integrative framework for the Value Based Theory of Leadership.

PROPOSITIONS

The theory is expressed in the form of twenty-seven propositions which assert specific ways in which leader motives and behaviors, in conjunction with situational variables, affect follower motivation and performance and organizational performance.  These propositions are based on the leadership and psychological theories reviewed above and reflect the extensions of the 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership contributed by House et al. (1991), Shamir et al. (1993), House and Shamir (1993), and Waldman, Ramirez and House (1996).

Propositions Concerning Leader Behavior and Its Effects

1. The motivational effects of the behaviors of the value based leader behavior

syndrome described above will be heightened follower recognition of shared values between leaders and followers, heightened arousal of follower motives, heightened follower self-confidence, generalized self-efficacy and self-worth, strong follower self-engagement in the pursuit of the collective vision and in contributing to the collective, and strong follower identification with the collective and the collective vision. We refer to these psychological reactions of followers as the value based motive syndrome .

2.  The behavioral effects of the value based motive syndrome will be heightened commitment to the collective as manifested by follower willingness to exert effort above and beyond normal position or role requirements, follower self-sacrifice in the interest of the vision and the collective, and increased collective social cohesion and organizational collaboration.  We refer to these effects as the value based follower commitment syndrome.  While the value based motive syndrome described in proposition one is not directly observable, the behaviors of the value based follower commitment syndrome are.

Propositions Concerning Leader Attributes

3.  Self-confidence and a strong conviction in the moral correctness of one's beliefs will be predictive of proactive leadership.  This proposition is a slight modification of proposition three of the 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership.  This proposition has been supported by Smith (1982), House et al. (1991), and Howell and Higgins (1991).

4.  Strong leader concern for the morally responsible exercise of power will be predictive of constructive, collectively oriented exercise of social influence by leaders and predictive of the value based motive and follower commitment syndromes specified in propositions 1 and 2 above.

5.  Power motivation coupled with a strong concern for the morally responsible exercise of power will be predictive of the constructive, collective-oriented exercise of social influence by leaders.

6.  Power motivation, unconstrained by a strong concern for the moral exercise of power, will be predictive of impetuously aggressive and self-aggrandizing exercise of social influence.

7.  Power motivation, in conjunction with a strong concern for the moral exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the role demands of leaders require substantial delegation of authority and responsibility and the exercise of social influence.

8.  Power motivation, unconstrained by a strong concern for the moral exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the role demands of leaders require strong individual competitiveness, aggressiveness, manipulative and exploitive behavior, or the exercise of substantial political influence.

9.  Affiliative motivation will be predictive of non-assertive leadership, close relationships with a small subgroup of followers, partiality toward this subgroup, and ineffective leadership.

10.  The leader motive profile will be predictive of proactive leadership and leader effectiveness when the role demands of leaders require substantial delegation of authority and responsibility and the exercise of social influence.

11.  Achievement motivation will be predictive of effective leader performance in entrepreneurial contexts and for small task-oriented groups in which members have direct interaction with the leader.

12.  Achievement motivation will be predictive of ineffective leader performance for the leadership of organizations in which the role demands of leaders require substantial delegation of authority and responsibility and the exercise of substantial social influence.

Propositions four through twelve are derived from the motivation theories reviewed earlier.

Propositions Concerning Specific Leader Behaviors

13.  Leader behaviors intended to enhance followers cognitive abilities will increase follower and overall organizational performance when such behaviors complement formal organizational practices and the informal social system by providing direction, clarification, feedback, encouragement, support, and motivational incentives to subordinates which are not otherwise provided.

14.  When leader behaviors intended to enhance followers cognitive abilities are redundant with formal organizational practices and the informal social system they will be viewed as excessively controlling, will cause follower dissatisfaction, and will be resented and resisted.

15.  To be accepted by followers, it is necessary for leaders to be perceived by followers as acting in the interest of the collective and the followers, to be perceived as fair and trustworthy in their interactions with followers, and to be perceived as not self-aggrandizing.

16.  Leader support behavior will be predictive of low follower stress, trust in by followers, and follower satisfaction with their relationships with leaders.

17.  Leader contingent recognition and approval will be predictive of follower role clarity, follower perceptions of leaders as fair, and heightened follower satisfaction and motivation.

18.  Directive leader behavior will result in follower role clarification but will be dysfunctional when followers prefer to exercise independent actions and initiative, are highly involved in their work, and/or perceive themselves as having requisite knowledge and skills for effective task performance.

19.  Participative leader behavior will result in follower role clarification and will be functional when followers prefer to exercise independent actions and initiative, are highly involved in their work, and/or when followers perceive themselves as having requisite knowledge and skills for effective task performance.

20.  Leader fairness behavior will be predictive of follower acceptance of leaders, and the leader's vision and values. 

21. Perceived lack of fairness will result in follower resentment and resistance to the leaders vision and directions.  These propositions are 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 is stronger, more pervasive, and more endurable than pragmatic oriented 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.



Страницы: 1, 2


на тему рефераты
НОВОСТИ на тему рефераты
на тему рефераты
ВХОД на тему рефераты
Логин:
Пароль:
регистрация
забыли пароль?

на тему рефераты    
на тему рефераты
ТЕГИ на тему рефераты

Рефераты бесплатно, реферат бесплатно, курсовые работы, реферат, доклады, рефераты, рефераты скачать, рефераты на тему, сочинения, курсовые, дипломы, научные работы и многое другое.


Copyright © 2012 г.
При использовании материалов - ссылка на сайт обязательна.