Filetype PDF | Posted on 22 Jan 2023 | 2 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
120x Filetype PDF File size 0.13 MB Source: arwana007.files.wordpress.com
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Copyright 2002 by the Educational Publishing Foundation
2002, Vol. 6, No. 2, 172–197 1089-2699/02/$5.00 DOI:10.1037//1089-2699.6.2.172
Vertical Versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness
of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive,
Directive, Transactional, Transformational,
and Empowering Leader Behaviors
Craig L. Pearce Henry P. Sims Jr.
Claremont Graduate University University of Maryland, College Park
This study investigated vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effective-
ness of 71 change management teams. Vertical leadership stems from an appointed or
formal leader of a team, whereas shared leadership (C. L. Pearce, 1997; C. L. Pearce
&J.A.Conger,inpress; C. L. Pearce & H. P. Sims, 2000) is a group process in which
leadership is distributed among, and stems from, team members. Team effectiveness
was measured approximately 6 months after the assessment of leadership and was also
measured from the viewpoints of managers, internal customers, and team members.
Using multiple regression, the authors found both vertical and shared leadership to be
significantly related to team effectiveness (p .05), although shared leadership
appears to be a more useful predictor of team effectiveness than vertical leadership.
The increasing use of empowered teams and and they may not generalize to traditional work
concomitant flattening of organizational struc- groups. The teams in this study are also all
tures (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995) drawn from one organization, which helps to
brings into question the more traditional models control for situational variables that might in-
of leadership. What kind of leadership is more fluence team effectiveness (e.g., organizational
appropriate for this new team-based environ- culture) but may limit the generalizability to
ment? Pearce (1997), Yukl (1998), Pearce and alternate organizational contexts. More specifi-
Sims (2000), and Pearce and Conger (in press) cally, we explored how the behavior of the
have suggested that shared leadership—leader- appointed team leaders (vertical leadership)
ship that emanates from the members of teams, versus distributed influence from within the
and not simply from the appointed team leader— team (shared leadership) accounted for the ef-
may provide the answer to this question. Thus, fectiveness of the CMTs.
we investigated this issue within the context of In this article, we briefly review the behav-
change management teams (CMTs). The CMTs ioral model of leadership that forms the basis of
in this study are teams that, while not fully this study and then review literature related to
self-managing, have a very high degree of de- the shared leadership process. We offer several
cision-making latitude for improving the oper- hypotheses regarding the potential role of team
ations in their respective areas of responsibility. leadership in team effectiveness. Subsequently,
Thus, our results are most applicable to high- we describe our methods, present our results,
autonomy teams that engage in complex tasks, and offer a discussion and conclusion.
Craig L. Pearce, Peter F. Drucker Graduate School of Leadership Theoretical Development
Management, Claremont Graduate University; Henry P. Our theoretical model of leadership is founded
Sims Jr., Department of Management and Organization, on the conceptual and empirical work centered
H. R. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,
College Park. ontransactional and transformational leadership
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1993) and, more precisely,
dressed to Craig L. Pearce, Peter F. Drucker Graduate on the work of Sims and colleagues (e.g., Cox
School of Management, Claremont Graduate University, & Sims, 1996; Manz & Sims, 1991; Sims &
1021 North Dartmouth Avenue, Claremont, California
91711. E-mail: craig.pearce@cgu.edu Manz, 1996), who articulated a model of lead-
172
VERTICAL VERSUS SHARED LEADERSHIP 173
ership made up of four types: (a) directive, (b) Aversive Leadership
transactional, (c) transformational, and (d) em- The first behavioral type in our model is
powering. Our model also integrates research aversive leadership. The aversive leadership be-
from the consideration–initiating structure par- havioral type describes leadership that primarily
adigm and the transactional–transformational relies on coercive power (French & Raven,
paradigm. We also drew inspiration from path 1959) and is rooted in punishment research
goal theory (e.g., House, 1971; House & (e.g., Arvey & Ivancevitch, 1980). Kazdin
Dessler, 1974; House & Mitchell, 1974) in ar- (1975) defined punishment as “the presentation
ticulating a multitype model of leadership, and of an aversive event or the removal of a positive
webuild on the work of Yukl (1987) and Quinn event following a response which decreases the
(1988). Using empirical analyses, Pearce et al. frequency of that response” (pp. 33–34). Non-
(2001) examined three independent data sets contingent reprimand tends to yield negative
and concluded that the directive component of impact on subordinate satisfaction but has little
the Sims and colleagues’ model may be more effect on performance, and contingent punish-
accurately portrayed with two components: one ment has little effect on subordinate perfor-
that is directive in nature and a second that is mance (Cox, 1994). Representative behaviors
aversive in nature. Thus, our theoretical devel- of aversive leadership include (a) engaging in
opment begins with the following five types of intimidation and (b) dispensing reprimands.
leader behavior: (a) aversive, (b) directive, (c)
transactional, (d) transformational, and (e) em- Directive Leadership
powering. The fundamental theoretical and re-
search bases of this model are derived from an The second behavioral type in our model is
analysis of the leadership literature. These roots directive leadership. The directive leadership
are summarized in Table 1 and are described in behavioral type describes leadership that pri-
greater detail below. marily relies on position power, which at times
Table 1
Theoretical Bases and Representative Behaviors of Five Types of Leader Behavior
Leader type Theoretical bases Representative behaviors
Aversive Punishment research (e.g., Arvey & Ivancevitch, Engaging in intimidation
leadership 1980) Dispensing reprimands
Directive Theory X management (McGregor, 1960) Issuing instructions and
leadership Initiating structure behavior from Ohio State commands
studies (e.g., Fleishman, 1953) Assigning goals
Task-oriented behavior from Michigan studies
(e.g., Bass, 1967)
Transactional Expectancy theory (e.g., Vroom, 1964) Providing personal rewards
leadership Equity theory (e.g., Adams, 1963) Providing material rewards
Path goal theory (e.g., House, 1971) Managing by exception (active)
Exchange theory (e.g., Homans, 1958) Managing by exception
(passive)
Transformational Sociology of charisma (e.g., Weber, 1946, 1947) Providing vision
leadership Charismatic leadership (e.g., House, 1977) Expressing idealism
Transforming leadership (e.g., Burns, 1978) Using inspirational
Transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985) communication
Having high performance
expectations
Empowering Behavioral self-management (e.g., Thorenson & Encouraging independent action
leadership Mahoney, 1974) Encouraging opportunity
Social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986) thinking
Cognitive behavior modification Encouraging teamwork
(e.g., Meichenbaum, 1977) Encouraging self-development
Participative goal setting Participative goal setting
(e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990) Encouraging self-reward
174 PEARCE AND SIMS
has been referred to as legitimate power (cf. class of theories is that individuals seek to main-
French & Raven, 1959). The roots of the direc- tain equity between what they give vis-a`-vis
tive leadership behavioral type lie in Theory X what they obtain in an exchange (Landy, 1985;
management style (McGregor, 1960), initiating Pinder, 1984). On the basis of this theory of
structure types of leader behavior from the Ohio motivation, prescriptions are made for leader-
State studies (e.g., Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & ship. The prescriptions center on motivating
Winer, 1957) and the task-oriented types of subordinate performance by providing equitable
leader behavior from the Michigan studies (e.g., rewards for inputs, and thus predict that higher
Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950). Theory X levels of subordinate input can be generated
leadership emphasizes the need to provide di- through higher levels of reward. Therefore, this
rection to subordinates. The Ohio State and class of motivation theories serves as another
Michigan studies both defined a type of leader- basis for the transactional leadership behavioral
ship that involved planning and organizing sub- type.
ordinates’ roles and responsibilities. Thus, these Reinforcement theory is summarized by the
three theoretical traditions provide the bases of law of effect (Thorndike, 1911), which suggests
directive leadership. Representative behaviors that the consequence of a behavior is an impor-
of the directive leadership type include (a) is- tant determinant of whether the behavior will be
suing instructions and commands and (b) as- repeated. Using the law of effect, transactional
signing goals. leader behavior influences subordinate behavior
by reinforcing (rewarding) those behaviors that
are desired (Luthans & Kreitner, 1985; Sims,
Transactional Leadership 1977).
Thus, expectancy theory, equity theory, and
The third behavioral type in our model is reinforcement theory serve as the bases of trans-
transactional leadership. The transactional lead- actional leadership. Representative behaviors of
ership behavioral type is generally consistent transactional leadership include (a) providing
with the components of the transactional–trans- personal rewards, (b) providing material re-
formational paradigm of leadership. The bases wards, (c) managing by exception (active), and
of this type lie in expectancy theory (Vroom, (d) managing by exception (passive).
1964), exchange/equity theory (Adams, 1963;
Homans,1958,1961),andreinforcementtheory Transformational Leadership
(Luthans & Kreitner, 1985; Scott & Podsakoff, The fourth behavioral type in our model of
1982). According to expectancy theory, with a leadership is transformational leadership. This
cognitive-rational model of human behavior, in- behavioral type is similar to the transactional–
dividuals assess situations according to three transformational paradigm, but as Bryman
variables: (a) valence, the attractiveness of po- (1992) noted, there is some conceptual diversity
tential outcomes for engaging in certain behav- as to the precise definition of transformational
iors; (b) instrumentality, the perceived linkage leadership. The historical bases of the transfor-
between a behavior and the outcome; and (c) mational leadership behavioral type are drawn
expectancy, the perceived likelihood of effort from the sociology of charisma (Weber, 1946,
resulting in the behavior necessary to obtain the 1947), charismatic leadership theory (House,
outcome. Subsequently, individuals engage in 1977), and transforming/transformational lead-
behaviors that will maximize their expected re- ership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).
turn from performance. In line with expectancy House (1977) addressed in his article “A
theory, transactional leadership is focused on 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership” a
clarifying the effort–reward relationships, using long-standing gap in the formal study of lead-
reward systems to achieve maximal motivation. ership. House’s viewpoints have continued to
Homans (1961) and Adams (1963) are gen- develop, and later revisions of the theory
erally credited with the development of the ex- (House, Howell, Shamir, Smith, & Spangler,
change or equity group of theories. Although 1993; House & Shamir, 1993) proposed that
several versions exist, the basic tenet of this charismatic leaders engage in the following be-
VERTICAL VERSUS SHARED LEADERSHIP 175
haviors in order to achieve charismatic effects: clinical applications to organizations by defining
(a) impression management, (b) articulation of self-management as a substitute for leadership.
ideological goals, (c) definition of subordinate The basic proposition of social cognitive the-
roles in terms of ideological values, (d) role ory is that of triadic reciprocality (Bandura,
modeling, (e) communication of high expecta- 1986). According to triadic reciprocality, indi-
tions and confidence in subordinates, and (f) viduals influence their environment through
engagement in behavior designed to arouse ap- their behavior, both of which (environment and
propriate follower motives. behavior), in turn, influence the individual. One
Burns (1978) more clearly explicated a dis- of the key contributions of social cognitive the-
tinction between transactional and what he ory is a framework for understanding how mod-
termedtransformingleadershipbehaviors.Bass eling influences individual behavior. In terms of
and colleagues (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1988; the empowering leadership behavioral type, it is
Bass, 1985, 1990, 1998; Bass, Avolio, & Good- proposed that the leader models appropriate
heim, 1987; Hatter & Bass, 1988; Waldman, self-leadership behavior, which is subsequently
Bass, & Einstein, 1987; Yammarino & Bass, adopted by the subordinate. Similar to social
1990) operationalized and empirically tested cognitive theory, cognitive behavior modifica-
Burns’s leadership concepts under the label of tion research has focused on “conceptualiz[ing]
transformational leadership. Bass also ex- cognitive events and . . . understand[ing] their
tended Burns’s (1978) model by including lead- role in behavior change” (Meichenbaum, 1977,
ers who do not necessarily appeal to only higher p. 11). Cognitive behavior modification is sim-
moralvalues. The behaviors contained in Bass’s ilar to the cognitive self-leadership strategies of
(1998) model include (a) charismatic leadership SuperLeadership, such as the strategy of recon-
(or idealized influence), (b) inspirational moti- ceptualizing performance obstacles not as prob-
vation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) indi- lems but rather as opportunities for learning
vidualized consideration. Thus, these three the- (Manz & Sims, 1989, 2001), thus providing
oretical traditions form the bases of transforma- another basis of the empowering leadership be-
tional leadership. Representative behaviors of havioral type.
this type include (a) providing vision, (b) ex- Finally, Locke and Latham (1990) reviewed
pressing idealism, (c) using inspirational com- 25 years of goal-setting research. The major
munication, (d) having high performance ex- findings indicate that specific, difficult goals
pectations, (e) challenging the status quo, and
(f) providing intellectual stimulation. lead to higher performance, and that, in general,
it does not matter if the goals are participatively
Empowering Leadership or unilaterally set. Erez and her colleagues (e.g.,
Erez & Arad, 1986) have found some instances
The fifth behavioral type in our model of in which participatively set goals can lead to
leadership is empowering leadership. Empow- higher performance and satisfaction. While the
ering leadership emphasizes the development of directive leadership behavioral type includes as-
follower self-management or self-leadership signing goals, the empowering leadership be-
skills. In the popular media, Manz and Sims havioral type emphasis on developing subordi-
(1989, 1991, 2001) have called this type of nate self-leadership skills is more in keeping
leadership “SuperLeadership,” or leading others with participative goal setting, as in the case of
to lead themselves. The historical bases of em- an ideal management by objectives system (cf.
powering leadership are found in behavioral Drucker, 1954).
self-management (e.g., Thorenson & Mahoney, Thus, these four theoretical traditions provide
1974), social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura, the bases of the empowering leadership type.
1986), cognitive behavior modification research Representative behaviors of this type include (a)
(e.g., Meichenbaum, 1977), and participative encouraging independent action, (b) encourag-
goal-setting research (e.g., Erez & Arad, 1986). ing opportunity thinking, (c) encouraging team-
Behavioral self-management has its roots in work, (d) encouraging self-development, (e) us-
clinical psychology (e.g., Mahoney & Arnkoff, ing participative goal setting, and (f) encourag-
1978). Manz and Sims (1980) expanded the ing self-reward.
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
