Chapter 7 Leadership
Table of Contents
1. Traditional leadership approaches
1.1 Trait
1.2 Behavioral
1.3 Contingency
2. Contemporary views of leadership
2.1 Leader-member exchange (LMX)
2.2 Transformational/charismatic leadership
2.3 Authentic
2.4 Laissez Faire
2.5 Paternalistic leadership
2.6 Spiritual
3. Views of leadership: gender, race, culture
4. Power, influence, and politics
1. Traditional leadership approaches
When studying leadership qualities, many sources recognize three different traditional styles;
trait theories which emphasize individual characteristics of the leader, leadership behaviors
which emphasize the behaviors of the leader and contingency approaches which acknowledge
situational behaviors. In the following text, we will discuss each style and the theories that have
been studied to support several hypotheses of each leadership approach.
1.1 Leadership trait theories
According to the author of “Social Scientific Study of Leadership” Robert House out of the
Journal of Management, The Leadership Trait Paradigm focused on the search for individual
characteristics that universally differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Gender, height, age,
physical energy as well as psychological traits and motives were studied. In some studies, there
were traits with a correlation as high as .5 (meaning strong relationship between trait and
leadership), but those studies could not be replicated. The conclusion was, there were few if any
universal traits associated with effective leadership. Instead, an approach in which traits would
be considered as interacting with situational demands facing leaders. While these original studies
mentioned here were conducted early on, there are more recent trait theories with empirical
evidence that support trait leadership in management.
Four Trait Theoretical Perspectives
McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory
This theory is based more on an individual’s efforts than a group or team. Individuals with high
achievement motivation set forth challenging goals for themselves, assume personal
responsibility for goal accomplishment, are highly persistent in the pursuit of goals, take
calculated risk to achieve goals and actively collect feedback for improvement purposes (House,
1997). This theory is predictive best of entrepreneurs or small task-oriented groups (i.e. small
startup companies); and predictive of poor performance in high level executive of large
organizations. The reason being, these types of individuals lack the ability to delegate. This type
of leader would be ideal to have for starting a new business or getting it off the ground, however
as it grows it would be best to search for a leader with better delegating skills.
McClelland’s Leader Motive Profile Theory (LMP Theory)
McClelland’s other theory is Leader Motive Theory, a more complex version of Social Influence
Motivation. This theory’s motive is predictive of leader effectiveness with high power
motivation and their exercise of power. These individuals are looking to acquire status to have an
impact on others, then sustain that power to continue to impact others and finally maintain that
impactful relationship with others. A typical leader is self-satisfied with the power they have
over others and works to maintain that relationship so the collective group can work together
towards the leader’s vision. This theory is more predictive with conditions found at the middle
and high level of management in larger, non-technical organizations (House, 1997).
House’s Theory of Charismatic Leadership
When applying this theory researched by Robert House, envision your favorite President of the
United States. Imagine the advocates he had, the confidence he portrayed and the thick skin that
he must have grew. This theory predicts leaders to be strongly motivated to attain and assert
influence and have strong conviction in their beliefs. I asked you to envision you favorite
President because most Presidents (and other politicians) fall under this category. They will have
a following of advocates that believe in them, but also strong defenders that don’t – along with
other substantial defenders with similar, substantial power that stand up against them. In order
for these types of leaders to be effective in change and challenging the status quo, they must win
over a large group of people, or “followers” (House, 1997). They must also articulate their vision
well enough for the collective group to work towards a better future together. These leaders are
not worried about personal connections and are persistent in their line of work.
Kenny and Zaccaro’s Leader Sensitivity and Flexibility Constructs
Data reported from Barnlund in 1962 was reanalyzed by Kenny and Zaccaro. Kenny and Zaccaro
speculated an underlying characteristic in these leaders, behavioral flexibility and social
sensitivity. Their study was supported in 1991 when the investigation revealed that 59% of
variance in leader emergence was due to behavioral flexibility and social perceptiveness. This
means that leaders were able to shift, or flex, based on the situations they were in simply by
being perceptive of their social setting (House, 1997).
Leadership Trait Conclusion
There are three points that emerge from these theories. First, traits that differentiate leaders from
everyone else are physical energy, intelligence greater than the average intelligence of followers,
prosocial influence motivation, adjustment, self-confidence and achievement motivation.
Second, the traits of the leader and effectiveness of the leader depend on the environment in
which the leader functions (House, 1997). For example, the Achievement Motivation is best for
small, task-oriented groups whereas the Charismatic Leadership approach is best for leading
change within a large company. Lastly, a leader’s traits have a stronger influence on behavior
when the situation at hand permits the individuals temperament – and the opposite is true when
an individual’s temperament is suppressed. Which makes it seem like the traits of the leader are
vastly related to the environment or situation at hand. It should also be noted that these studies
were focused on American males and may not reflect the relevance of women in leadership
(House, 1997).
1.2 Behavioral theories
Following the study of traits in leadership, there was an enchantment of studying leaders or those
with authority in the laboratory and in the field. A group of researchers, coined the behavioral
school of leadership, examined leaders and were evaluated for leader effectiveness, bring us to
the Leader Behavior Paradigm (Vroom, 2000). This paradigm was made up of task-oriented and
people-oriented behaviors. The research done to find universal behaviors among leaders was
similar to that of the traits in leadership, however because of several limitations like the specific
roles of the leader and the level of management, the behavioral school of leadership was unable
to decipher if there were universal or non-universal behaviors that influenced the effectiveness of
leaders.
From my experience working with different cross-functional groups within my organization and
outside my organization – along with the studying of several articles – I have come to find that
leaders must assess every situation and weigh out the factors before deciding how to best move
forward. According to Victor H. Vroom, researcher and author of “Leadership and the Decision
Making-Process” in Organizational Dynamics, there is a model that leaders can reference when
they find themselves uncertain in situations. This Normative model was derived from an original
article by Bob Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt. The model, discussed below, is a tool for
managers and leaders to utilize when presented with a problem.
Normative Model
Exhibit 1 from above is Vroom’s adaptation of Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s Taxonomy (Vroom,
2000). The sliding scale from left to right are decisions made by the leader or group and measure
the amount of influence the leader or team has on the final decision. The quality of the decision
made is the most important component of the process. It must be wise, reasonable and consistent
with the goals of the organization. The implementation of the decision also has an effect on the
quality of the decision. If the decision is sound, but not implemented or supported by the team –
it can still fail to meet expectations. By increasing the team participation in the decision, there is
a higher chance of “buy-in”. The team may also commit to a decision if the leader that makes the
decision is viewed as the expert. Challenges may arise when a leader that is unable to delegate
and without proper knowledge or expertise makes the decision without consulting the group.
Similar situation may occur if a team leader is eager to win over a team and delegates a decision
that should be made by themselves.
There are costs associated with decision making and should be considered before making a final
decision; time and money. The more people that are involved in making the decision take up
time, which slows down the process. Direct decisions require less time and are ideal for
emergency situations (Vroom, 2000). However, if you involve a group of individuals in the
decision there is the opportunity for those individuals to grow. If professional growth within the
organization provides value, the additional time needed to make the decision may be worthwhile.
Two types of models have been created for this theory, Time-Driven and Development Driven
(pictured below). Time-Driven may be used in emergency situations or when value is placed on
time. Development-Driven can be used when value is placed developing employees.
Note: In order to use these tools, you must have a problem that needs to be solved, and you have
the power or discretion to make the decision. Second, you must have potential participants that
can weigh in on the decision.
In order to properly utilize these resources, start from left and move to the right, decide whether
the situational factors listed at the top are either present (high) or absent (low). Continue to move
from left to right until coming to a conclusion. Essentially, when faced with a problem, a
manager that lacks the knowledge or expertise should consult the group, especially when those
individuals have more experience handling those situations. If the leader needs to have the
commitment from the team to properly implement the decision, they should look for more
influence from the group. It’s possible to get two different recommendations when using both
models, but the Development-Driven model will also lean to a more participative decision.
Over 25 years of studying these models, researches saw an increase in participative processes,
with 4 suspicions as to “why” (Vroom, 2000):

External environments (greater rates of change, greater complexity)



Flattening of the pyramid (greater spans of control resulting in difficulties in hierarchical
control)
Growth of information technology, making it easier to get information closer to the
occurrence of problems
Changing the nature of the labor force (higher education, higher needs for independence)
(Vroom, 2000) After further study and applying these techniques, here are some universal (or
near universal) leader behaviors:
o
o
o
o
o
Ensure task orientation
Develop and maintain cohesiveness and collaboration amongst members
Disposition to be influential
Conduct negotiations and transactions with external constituencies
Desire to get work done, while using less authority
1.3 Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards
Performance contingent reward behavior was found to affect subordinate performance
significantly. Positive relationships were found between leader contingent reward behavior and
employee satisfaction. Rewards (such as pay) made contingent upon performance increased
performance and variability in satisfaction – high performers increased, low performers
decreased. Contingent punishment had no effects on subordinate performance or satisfaction
(Podsakoff, 1982). What this study tells us, is that higher performers want to be rewarded or
punished based off their performance. Low performers were dissatisfied with contingent rewards
and punishment, because they wouldn’t receive their unfair share anymore. Organizations that
want higher performers should focus their rewards and punishments contingent upon
performance to ensure higher performance and higher satisfaction. This will weed out low
performers from entering the organization. The theory that supports this statement is the Path
Goal model of leadership. Briefly defined, according to an online source “Path Goal Leadership
Theory”, the leader chooses their behavior based on the employee’s needs and what will
motivate them to perform at a higher level. The goal is to increase the employee’s motivation,
empowerment and satisfaction.
Key Takeaways
There are several key takeaways from this portion of the chapter. However, remember that each
study and all research has its limitations. Some studies were done in laboratory settings while
others were from recall, so the data isn’t concrete. Also, mostly men in leadership positions were
studied so these theories may not, necessarily, translate directly to women in leadership roles. To
be an effective leader, be flexible in all situations. If anything, these studies showed that there
was not one universal trait, behavior or contingency theory that was associated with successful
leadership. Use the models and theories outlined in this chapter as they apply, with the best
judgement suitable based off the information or data available to you. There are many resources
that can be referenced beforehand (i.e. Time-Driven or Development-Driven models), but cross-
reference those resources with other approaches (i.e. Path Goal theory, Charismatic Leadership
Theory). This will allow you, as a leader, to view outcomes from several perspectives before
making the best, informed decision.
2. Contemporary Views of Leadership
2.1 Leader Member Exchange (LMX)
When examining leadership, there are three facets that researchers center around, which are the
leader, the follower, and the relationship amongst those areas. Most leadership theories examine
attributes of the supervisor and how these attributes make that leader either successful or
unsuccessful. These studies take an in-depth look at the traits, behaviors, and styles that combine
to form the leader’s capabilities. The follower-based theories are focused around the
empowerment approach. This is where the follower’s buy-in and self-leadership regardless of
title take precedent. LMX Theory, otherwise known as leader-member exchange, examines the
relationship between the leader and the follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This theory
examines what makes a successful partnership between subordinate and supervisor.
As stated by Graen and Uhl-Bien: “Effective leadership processes occur when leaders
and followers can develop mature leadership relationships (partnerships) and thus gain access to
the many benefits these relationships bring (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)”. To further understand
these partnerships, it is essential to look at how LMX theory has evolved.

Stage 1: Discovery of Differentiated Dyads
Relationships differ between a manager and a professional direct report in a one-on-one basis
that does not translate to other individuals (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Asking two subordinates
to describe the same manager will result in varying answers dependent on that relationship with
their manager. Think about your current manager, do you have the same relationship as someone
new on your team or if you are new, vice versa? As the quality of these relationships increase,
leaders begin to treat their followers as trusted partners rather than just a subordinate taking
orders. Conversely, if the quality of these relationships do not increase, followers essentially act
as “hired hands” not willing to go beyond their job description.

Stage 2: Focus on the Relationship and its Outcomes
Upon a series of investigations, there was additional confirmation that relationships differed
amongst individuals as well as how these relationships were built over time. Higher quality LMX
relationships are influenced by both leaders and members. There are very positive outcomes
when the exchanges are high quality. These outcomes start to affect the entire organization,
moving beyond just the individual relationship.

Stage 3: Description of Dyadic Partnership Building
Due to the impacts from the previous stage, the third stage focuses on how managers work with
each person in their sphere to increase quality and build a partnership. The emphasis drifts away
from discrimination and towards a feeling of collaboration. It moves beyond leader to follower to
examine leadership as a collaboration (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The bulk of current LMX
Theory focuses on this stage.

Stage 4: Expansion of Dyadic Partnership to Group and Network Levels
This stage takes an individual level of examination which is then applied to entire teams.
Investigation at stage four examines how each task is woven together and the condition of how
relationships are increased amongst a whole group as a result of these tasks being interwoven
(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Further developing on stage 3, we take a deeper look at the Leadership Making Model. The main
concept is that everyone will perform better when a relationship is present between follower and
leader (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The first step of this model is the “stranger phase”. This is a
contractual economic exchange based on requirements (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). When you are
new to a job or have a new boss, you have not developed a relationship with your boss, so you
are just getting the work done that is required of you and what they are paying you to do. The
second step is the “acquaintance phase”. This is a proposal to improve the relationship in the
workplace through social interactions (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The offer must be made and
accepted, however either party can initiate the offer. Once accepted, the parties begin sharing on
a personal and work basis. As these exchanges grow, they develop into the third stage, “mature
partnership exchanges”. In this stage, each party can rely on one another for support and loyalty.
Each person proceeds beyond their own selfish ambitions and focus on the whole group’s
success. They satisfy their own interests in the process (eg. “if the company does well, then I do
well”.) Finally, crossing organizational boundaries, there is an examination of how this mutually
beneficial partnership begins to affect employee’s relations with parties outside of the
organization such as customers and vendors.
2.2 Transformational/Charismatic Leadership
As stated by the leadership researcher Bernard Bass, "the organization's culture develops in large
part from its leadership while the culture of an organization can also affect the development of its
leadership. For example, transactional leaders work within their organizational cultures
following existing rules, procedures, and norms; transformational leaders change their culture
first understanding it and then realigning the organization's culture with a new vision and a
revision of its shared assumptions, values, and norms (Bass & Avolio, 1993).” Today’s everevolving world requires leaders who are able to build culture within a strategic and effective
organization (Bass & Avolio, 1993). There are four attributes of transformational leadership
which enable leaders to pursue effectiveness, otherwise known as the “4 I’s”:

Idealized influence

Inspirational motivation

Intellectual stimulation

Individualized consideration
(Avolio & Gardner, 2005)
For better or worse, the entrepreneurial founder of a company typically has a lasting influence on
the culture. This can impact organizations for years and decades, but it also should be noted that
the even though a culture affects leadership, a leader can affect culture to the same extent or
more (Bass & Avolio, 1993). If a change in culture is necessary, transformational leaders have
the competence and charisma to make lasting changes. Transformational leaders are different
than transactional leaders in a variety of aspects. Transactional leaders’ interactions with their
followers are based on consequences received for doing something right or wrong. “If you finish
the project on time, you are doing your job and will not be punished.” These types of leaders
work inside of the culture that they inherited. However, transformational leaders believe that
people can be trusted and serve a purpose through their own skills in the workforce, and difficult
issues are handled on the front lines of the workforce. These leaders truly believe that all people,
regardless of position or title, can be developed further to help the organization and their own
self (Bass & Avolio, 1993). This requires charisma and the ability to get people to rally around
the vision and shared goals of the organization above all other motives. Think about some of the
transformational leaders in today’s world or perhaps you may have worked for one directly, what
were some tactics they used to pursue change and what qualities did they possess in order to
implement a certain culture across the organization?
It is also important to be able to define the current culture you are in and where you want this
culture to go. Bass and Avolio define different types of culture across a grid:

Purely transformational (Predominantly 4I's and Moderated 4I's): At this extreme,
there is a constant dialogue surrounding the vision, purpose, values, and beliefs
without a focus on internal controls or written agreements.

High Contrast: These organizations face a constant battle between formal
management and transformational leadership over which way is the right one. This
consistent struggle between two forces is mostly constructive and can help an
organization move forward with balance.

Coasting organization is in the middle of transformational and transactional. These
organizations are very moderate and tend to coast along but do not exceed.

Predominantly to moderate contractual cultures operate transactionally and are
deficient in transformation leadership. The interests of the individual are more
important than the larger group. These organizations act as an internal market with
constant negotiations regarding the bounds of the organization.

A pedestrian company leans more towards transactional with only a slight hint of
transformational influence, if any at all. Most everything in these organizations are
completed as the result of a formal agreement or contract. Risk taking is avoided at all
costs.

And lastly and certainly least, a garbage can culture is neither transactional nor
transformational in terms of leadership. Each member stays in their own lane and
remains lacking in effectiveness. "The organization is a garbage can of fruitless
activities (Bass & Avolio, 1993).”
2.3 Authentic Leadership
Bill George, the former leader of Medtronic, wrote and influenced a lot on Authentic Leadership.
He stated that “we need leaders who lead with purpose, values, and integrity; leaders who build
enduring organizations, motivate their employees to provide superior customer service, and
create long-term value for shareholders (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).” Authentic leaders can
develop authentic followers through their own self-awareness, self-regulation, and positive
modeling. As a result, when followers are authentic, the result is beneficial to their overall
satisfaction, sustained success, and increased productivity (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Authentic
followership and relationship to authentic leaders is important in the development of this theory.
Some of the key traits of authentic leaders include:
● Deep awareness of their thoughts and behaviors
● Perception from those around them regarding their morals, knowledge, and strengths
● Self-awareness of their surroundings
● Confident in their beliefs
● Hopeful for the future
● Sense of optimism
● Able to withstand tough times
● Unwavering character regardless of circumstance
These traits are a part of the formula for what makes an authentic leader along with certain
characteristics. Rather than putting on a fake front or imitating leadership, authentic leaders trust
their own self and do not adapt to external expectations. Authentic leaders are deeply motivated
by personal convictions from their past experiences and they are not concerned with status,
awards, or benefits. Authentic leaders are the real deal, they do not copy others, rather they lead
from their own personal viewpoint. Authentic leaders act upon one’s own beliefs and principles,
which are not easily swayed or moved.
There are similarities between a transformation and authentic leader, however authentic leaders
do not necessarily need to be charismatic. They lead by building strong relationships, putting in
the hard work each day, leading with purpose, meaning, and value, and staying true to their
course. A transformational leader, must be authentic but the opposite is not always true, a
authentic leader is not necessarily charismatic (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Authentic leaders will
rely on their own character to lead others toward self-awareness of values and morals. They do
not need to lean on motivating requests, enticing presentation skills, or a sales-first attitude (Bass
& Avolio, 1993).
2.4 Empowering/Laissez-Faire Leadership
Empowering leadership decentralizes power in the organization by involving employees in the
decision-making process (Wong & Giessner, 2018). On the flip side of the coin, Laissez-Faire
“leadership” is described as a passive style in which leaders avoid interactions with their
followers entirely by maintaining social distance and avoiding confrontational situations which
in turn ignores followers’ needs (Wong & Giessner, 2018). Empowering leadership is an active
style that involves the leader trusting his subordinates to make decisions on their own and be
responsible for their own actions. Followers must be willing and ready to accept empowerment
intervention or else the leader risks being portrayed as laissez-faire. Communication and
expectation setting are crucial in that clarification of empowerment vs laissez-faire.
As organizations become more and more decentralized, middle management roles are becoming
marginalized and thus there is a greater importance to be able to trust followers with the ability
to be autonomous and effective in their daily activities (Wong & Giessner, 2018). Leaders still
need to be responsive and enforcing when needed but the bulk of the responsibility falls on the
subordinate to step up and make decisions. Leaders must be available or else their followers will
soon slide down the slope of seeing their authority figure as nothing more than a figure who
rejects responsibility and lacks leadership skills.
2.5 Paternalistic Leadership
Paternalistic leadership is the predominant leadership approach for Chinese and Taiwanese
companies (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004). There are three distinct elements:
authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, and moral leadership (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang,
& Farh, 2004). Discipline and authority work in conjunction with a fatherly love and high moral
standard to achieve a personal approach of leadership. One of the tenets of Confucianism within
Chinese culture is the father-son relationship trumps all other social relations (Cheng, Chou, Wu,
Huang, & Farh, 2004). The father has power over the household and thus possesses absolute
authority and validity. To better understand Paternalistic leadership, it can be compared to
similar constructs surrounding Transformational leadership:

Individualized consideration is the concept that a leader shows respect to his
followers, puts their needs first, and gives them encouragement. This aligns with
individualized care within benevolent leadership (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, &
Farh, 2004).

High performance standard is the expectation from a leader that the follower
will perform to the best of their abilities and with the utmost quality. Rigorous
and doctrine within authoritarian leadership are similar expectations.

Modeling in transformational leadership means that the leader will show high
moral character and will emphasize equality and justice through leading by
example. This is similar to moral leadership.
Paternalistic leaders must show their leadership behaviors to their followers. In turn, the
subordinates respond to those leader behaviors. Morality by the leader causes followers to show
respect and identify with the leader. Benevolence causes subordinate to feel gratitude and in turn
repay the leader with hard work for their act of kindness. Authoritarianism causes the followers
to become dependent and compliant to the requests of the leader.
2.6 Spiritual Leadership
“A causal theory of spiritual leadership is developed within an intrinsic motivation model that
incorporates vision, hope/faith, and altruistic love, theories of workplace spirituality, and
spiritual survival. The purpose of spiritual leadership is to create vision and value congruence
across the strategic, empowered team, and individual levels and, ultimately, to foster higher
levels of organizational commitment and productivity (Fry, 2003).” Spiritual leadership is about
helping people find meaning in their work beyond one’s self. Effectiveness at work increases
when people feel purpose in what they are doing. Spiritual leadership requires oneself to put
others above yourself. This is the golden rule in almost any religion in the world and can be
applied in a leadership context to encourage others to put the goals of the organization beyond
their own personal desires. A good example is many non-profit organizations. People are not
necessarily working there to make a lot of money or seek fame, rather they are doing it because
they believe in the cause they are supporting.
Intrinsic motivation is a key factor in spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003). It is defined as “interest
and enjoyment of an activity for its own sake and is associated with active engagement in tasks
that people find interesting and fun and that, in turn, promote growth and satisfy needs beyond
the basic necessities (Fry, 2003)”. Two follower needs are calling and membership. When a
follower feels called, the increase of engagement in work is reflected positively. People also have
an innate desire to feel a part of something bigger than oneself and membership helps to satisfy
that need.
The spiritual leader paints a picture for followers to feel calling and meaning that changes the
world. These leaders must also establish a culture focused on selfless love where genuine care,
concern, and appreciation for oneself and others is paramount (Fry, 2003). When these traits are
portrayed across the organization, a sense of belonging whereby the member feels understood
and appreciated trickles across followers and appreciation for their work increases.
3. Views of Leadership
Leadership is an inherent human trait. Regardless of race, culture, gender, or language,
leadership is universally practiced. However, the nuances of leadership depend on external
factors such as location, and the demographics of the group being led. Examining effective
leadership throughout five different countries, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Mexico, and the
US. (237, Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate, & Bautista, 1997) Leadership behavior takes
different forms between cultures. “Successful CEO’s often employ leadership styles consistent
with society’s cultural values.” (234, Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate, & Bautista, 1997).
Leadership has distinction between cultures. As a great American leader in Japan may not be as
effective as a less stellar Japanese leader in their own country.
Six different leadership behaviors
1. Directive– The degree to which employees clarify performance, expectations, and
assign tasks.
2. Supportive– Concern for employees’ welfare, showing warmth, respect, and trust.
3. Contingent reward – The degree to which leaders provide praise, and positive
feedback for high performance.
4. Contingent punishment – Voicing displeasure, and negative feedback for poor
performance.
5. Charisma – Inspiring, developing confidence, setting challenging goals, encouraging
high expectations.
6. Participation – Consulting with subordinates for important decisions.
Pictured below is the model developed by Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate, & Bautista, that
displays culture as a main influencer of leadership behavior. (235, Dorfman, Howell, Hibino,
Lee, Tate, & Bautista, 1997) From the six leadership behaviors, this model theorizes that these
behaviors impact employee’s satisfaction with work, satisfaction with supervision, and role
ambiguity. Which in turn affect employee’s commitment to the organization, and ultimately job
performance.
In the study conducted by Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate, & Bautista, the model is applied
to each country individually, and it is hypothesized that each country will reflect leadership
behavior that is largely rooted in the cultural values of the countries. When comparing
leadership behaviors in Asia versus the Americas – the US is the clear outlier, and Mexico aligns
more with the Asian countries than the US. (Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate, & Bautista,
1997) While there are clear universal patterns that withstand changes of culture. Such as,
employees throughout all countries valuing a leader that shows care, and a charismatic leader
that motivates; the US was found to be the only culture where contingent punishment and
participative leadership both had a positive effect on subordinates (266 (Dorfman, Howell,
Hibino, Lee, Tate, & Bautista, 1997). It is theorized that an increased professionalism, a shift to
more egalitarian leadership, and employee empowerment has contributed to this conclusion.
Directive leadership – Theorized that because of Japan, Korea and Taiwan have strong
Confucian beliefs in regards to respect and obedience to leaders, and Mexican culture was
formed with authoritarian leadership all the way back to their days of colonization, it was
predicted that all countries employees would be strongly influenced by directive leadership.
While the US, a country that values individualism would not be significantly influenced by
directive leadership.
Supportive leadership – It was predicted that all countries expect leaders to show concern for
their followers. The authors cite that Japan is big on mentorship, ultimately it turns out this is a
leadership behavior that all humans value regardless of culture.
Leader contingent reward – The study mentions that collectivist countries generally issue
rewards to the group rather than individuals, but other research showed social rewards are
individualized and are received positively in collectivist cultures. All countries employees were
predicted to be strongly influenced by contingent reward.
Leaders contingent punishment – High individualism in the US supports expectation for
criticism, Eastern countries where “saving face” and harmony are valued were predicted to be
negatively influenced by punishment. The US was found to be the only culture where
punishment had a positive effect on subordinates. It was theorized that an increased
professionalism, a shift to more equal leadership, and the employee empowerment movement
contribute to this finding. The study concludes in the US employees yearn to know where they
stand with their work, as hierarchies have become less important.
Participative leadership – The authors thought Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico would not be
influenced by participative leadership largely because of the historical leadership in their
countries. It is found that it is more significant than previously thought.
Charismatic leadership – The thinking was that Taiwan and Japan would not be swayed by
charismatic leaders but as it turns out, everyone values a charismatic leader.
Results
Gender
While culture influences different leadership behaviors, gender also plays a role in our
perception of leaders. The role of gender perceptions during failure is examined in the paper,
How Leader Gender Influences External Audience Response to Organizational Failures by
Nicole Montgomery and Amanda Cowen.
Perceptions of Leader, and Gender Stereotypes
Women are typically thought of as communal, sensitive, and express more concern for general
welfare. While men are typically thought of as decisive, assertive, unemotional, and analytical.
Though there are many gender-neutral traits that align with leadership typical male traits align
more with perceived leadership qualities (640, Montgomery and Cowen). Montgomery and
Cowen provide examples of organizational failures and theorize that men and women are treated
different by the public when an organization fails.
Failure Attributions and Salient Norms
When a failure happens, an individual response depends on what norms are noticeable at the time
of infraction. These expectations are defined by organizations throughout their history.
Consumers and stakeholders often view organizational behavior as though the organization itself
is a human. Generally, people will forgive a competency failure more than an ethical failure
(641, Montgomery and Cowen).
Ethical Failure - defined as a moral shortcoming. Knowing damaging information and not
sharing. Examples would be failing to disclose a violation of emissions, or a labor law.
Competency Failure – defined by lack of ability, failure of product because of poor engineering
or quality standards. Unknowing failure.
These norms of organizational expectation extend to a leader, and Montgomery and Cowen
theorize that gender norms affect the way stakeholders respond to an organization’s failure.
It is found that Males are judged more harshly for competency failures, while woman are judged
more harshly by ethical failures. Though it is not proven that male and female organizations are
viewed different, it is proven that they are penalized differently (646, Montgomery and Cowen).
To further prove this, Cowen and Montgomery conducted a second study that found female
leaders that were described with counter stereotypical traits (more masculine) were judged less
harshly for ethical shortcomings. Proving that gender norms play a large role in the way gender
can influence stakeholder’s judgement of leader’s failing. A third study was performed that
examined stakeholder’s response to failures of females in congruent and incongruent industries.
It was found in female dominated industries, a female leader is judged more harshly for a
competence failure, and likewise a female leader is judged more harshly for an ethical failure
than their male leader counterparts.
4. Power, Influence, and Politics
Culture and Conformity
In the 1950s Solomon Asch conducted a series of studies that measured conformity. Participants
were shown cards, then asked to say out loud which line matched the card. The catch was, actors
were present in the study and they were told how to respond. The intent was to test how an
individual would respond to going against the majority. It was found that often subjects would
just go along with the crowd despite clearly being wrong.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
Conformity Over Time
Levels of conformity have changed over time. Bond, & Smith, 1996_PB_Culture and conformity
A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's Line Judgement Task, discusses how levels in the US
have ebbed and flowed in accordance with current events. In the 1950’s experiments found that
the US had relatively high levels of conformity, possibly in part to the McCarthy era red scare
(111, Bond and Smith) whereas today the levels of conformity are much lower.
Conformity across Cultures
Just as leadership traits are expressed different throughout cultures, so are levels of conformity.
Levels of conformity can most commonly be predicted by the level of individualism or
collectivism found in a culture.
Individual Culture – most people’s behavior is determined by personal goals that overlap with
collective goals. (Family, Country, Work). When conflict arises individuals can place their
personal goals ahead of collective goals. The self is separate from the collective goals and
separate from society. Self esteem is driven from being able to express oneself.
Collective Culture - social behavior is determined by shared goals, and the team goals are put
ahead of personal goals. Self and identity are directly tied to the group rather than being apart.
Examples: In Japan, it is common for people to place their company ahead of personal career
goals. In China, the family takes precedence over individual goals. In Latin America, peer groups
and friendship circles goals take precedent over individual goals. Self esteem is driven from
being able to maintain harmony and fit in.
Logically conformity is believed to be higher in collectivist cultures, and strong support for this
argument is obtained in the study done by Bond and Smith. Yet while this fact appears true,
measuring a level of conformity in individuals is difficult when dealing with the influence of
cultural factors and personality. The larger the majority, the more likely the participant would
conform (123, Bond and Smith). Yet, ultimately individuals’ personalities can be at odds with
culture norms. It is logical to think individuals willingness to go against the grain would be
impacted by the situation and overall level of comfort with the other contestants in the study.
Managers upward influence tactics
Being an effective manager largely relies on one’s ability to influence employees. When
quantifying leaders on a spectrum. On the positive top of the leadership spectrum is
transformational leadership. This leadership style is the most effective type of leadership and it
quite literally transforms an employee’s views on work. A transformational leader is likely to use
a large array of different influence tactics on their employees to articulate their vision and
motivate. (211, Cable and Judge) On the other end of the spectrum is transactional leadership,
also known as Laissez-faire leadership. This is the least effective type of leadership and can be
quantified as ineffective and unmotivating. It is likely a transactional leader use few if any
influence tactics. Rather employees are often required to use influence tactics on their leader, in
some cases as a cry for help. In reality, most leaders fit somewhere in the middle of the
spectrum. The five-factor model of personalities (Goldberg, 1990) is a test that measures a score
for 5 different personality categories. Depending on how a manager scores, is likely to correlate
with their specific use of influence tactics, or strategies to generate shared meaning with
employees.
The five-factor model of personalities
The five-factor model of personalities was coined by (Goldberg 1990) as a uniform study of
personalities.
Extraversion – Sociability, Dominance, Positive emotionally.
Agreeableness – Altruistic, warm, generous, trusting, cooperative.
Conscientiousness – Ambitious, practical, task focused, persistent, careful, organized.
Emotional stability – Calm, secure, and unnerved.
Openness to experience – Imaginative, original, unconventional, artistic.
Influence Tactics
Rational persuasion – using logical arguments and facts for tasking objectives
Consultation – seeking a targets participation in planning a strategy or activity
Inspirational appeal – arousing enthusiasm by appealing to the values of the target
Ingratiation – seeking to get the target in a good mood before asking something
Personal Appeal – appealing to targets feelings of loyalty or friendship
Exchange – offering reciprocation, promising help on a future task
Coalition – seeking the aid of others to persuade a target to do something
Legitimizing – seeking to establish legitimacy of a request by claiming authority
Pressure – using demands, threats, and consistent reminders
Cable and Judge theorize that depending on how a manager scores within the five-factor model
of personality, they are more likely to use certain influence tactics while shying away from
others. Managers in marketing positions are more likely to use soft influence tactics, such as
inspirational and ingratiation, while managers in finance positions are more likely to use hard
tactics, such as pressure and legitimization. (211, Cable and Judge, 2003) Ultimately watching
the way someone tries to influence others will give good insight into what tactics will work to
influence that person. (211, Cable and Judge, 2003) The findings of Cable and Judge suggest it
would be useful for managers to take an inventory of their employee’s personalities to lead more
effectively.
Cable and Judge’s hypotheses supported

Managers who score high on extraversion are more likely to adopt upward influence
tactics that emphasize inspirational appeal and ingratiation. (206, Cable and Judge, 2003)

Managers who score high on openness to experience will be less likely to adopt upward
influence tactics that emphasize coalition. (206, Cable and Judge, 2003)

Managers who score high on emotional stability will be likely to adopt upward influence
tactics that emphasize rational persuasion, and less likely to use tactics that emphasize
inspirational appeal. (206, Cable and Judge, 2003)

Managers scoring high on agreeableness will be less likely to adopt upward influence
tactics that emphasize legitimizing and pressure. (206, Cable and Judge, 2003)

Managers scoring high on conscientiousness will be more likely to adopt upward
influence tactics that emphasize rational persuasion. (206, Cable and Judge, 2003)

Manager trying to influence an inspirational leader will be more likely to adopt upward
influence tactics that emphasize consultation and inspirational appeal. (206, Cable and
Judge, 2003)

Managers trying to influence a laissez-faire leader will be more likely to adopt upward
influence tactics that emphasize exchange coalition, legitimizing, and pressure. (206,
Cable and Judge, 2003)

An individual scoring high on extraversion and perceives her leader as inspirational will
be most likely to employ inspirational influence tactics and least likely to employee
rational persuasion tactics. (206, Cable and Judge, 2003)
Workplace Politics
In the 1960s organizational behavior literature started paying attention to what people meant
when they spoke about politics at work. Prior there was a lack of standardization in the way
people described workplace politics. (Gandz and Murray, 1980) discuss the role of workplace
politics, and how this affects employees job satisfaction.
Definition 1 – workplace politics is a neutral behavior associated with use of power and
influence. In this category any conflict over policy or allocation of resources is considered
politics.
Definition 2 – workplace politics as consciously self-serving behavior. Behavior that is selfinterested and at odds with the organization.
Ganz and Murray theories of workplace politics
1. Talk about politics is common in most organizations (239, Gandz and Murray, 1980).
2. Talk of politics would occur around issues not guided by clear policy or precedent (239,
Gandz and Murray, 1980).
3. Political actions would be self-serving and detrimental to the organization’s effectiveness
(239, Gandz and Murray, 1980).
4. People believe that political astuteness is necessary for advancement (239, Gandz and
Murray, 1980).
5. People who see their organization as highly political would tend to be at lower levels in
the organization and are dissatisfied with their job and pessimistic about their future.
(Cognitive dissidence theory - people at the lower levels will perceive more politics.)
(239, Gandz and Murray, 1980)
6. Public sector employees would be likely to see their organizations as more political than
private sector. (239, Gandz and Murray, 1980)
Paradox
From Gandz and Murray’s findings there is some lack of self-awareness in the way people view
politics in their own workplace. Ganz and Murray find that most people who see their
organization as highly political had lower job satisfaction, which was correlated to a lack of
opportunities for promotion. Coincidentally those in lower positions perceive the middle and
upper management to be the most political. While this is indeed true from Ganz and Murray’s
findings, upper and middle management have several processes where manager discretion is
high, and sometimes the perception of politically fueled behavior may not take in to account all
the facts. (241, Gandz and Murray, 1980) The study shows that politics are more prevalent at
higher levels of organizations, yet the executives and top management deny this fact. Also, the
executives had a much higher job satisfaction. It follows that those who had lower satisfaction
look for political explanations for their own failure to achieve desired goals suggesting that
workplace politics may be more of a “state of mind” rather than an objective truth (245, Gandz
and Murray, 1980).
Applicants influence tactics
When applying for a job, it is typical to bring your list of past accomplishments and sell yourself
verbally as the most competent candidate for the job. Likewise, give a firm handshake and look
the interviewer in the eye. These respectful actions are influence tactics, which are behaviors
used by an individual to manage shared meaning (Cable and Judge, 2003).
When an interview is granted, the interviewer begins with measuring the applicants fit. In step
one of the process, both the interviewer and the candidate are gathering information about each
other. The interviewer is looking for at the candidates fit within organizations (623, Higgins and
Judge, 2004):
Person to Environment – P-E fit
Recruiters look for two different categories of fit when interviewing an applicant. Person to
organization. P – O fit, is the fit between values and a person. This is thought to be the most
important factor in the selection process, and if the recruiter perceives good P-O fit, it is likely to
lead to a hiring recommendation (Cable & Judge, 1997: Kristof – Brown, 2000). Person to job,
P- J fit is the fit between abilities and demand for a given job. Its acknowledged to be common
practice for many recruiters to find whose objective qualifications best match the job. However,
subjective evaluations by recruiters tend to have a more influential effect on hiring (Werbel &
Gilliland, 1999) (624, Higgins and Judge, 2004).
Common Influence Tactics
The most common influence tactics are ingratiation and self-promotion.
Self-promotion – touting your competencies

Ingratiation – getting others to like you
What happens when the interviewer is a recruiter? What happens when the interviewer is a future
manager or coworker? It is likely that an applicant would display different levels of ingratiation
compared to self-promotion, as their audience has different roles. In the research by Higgin and
Judge, though not significant, its most likely ingratiation will be the best influence tactic to use
when interviewing with a recruiter, though self-promotion may be more important as you
interview with future co-workers and managers so they understand your competencies.
References
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 315-338.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture.
Public Administration Quarterly, 112-121.
Bond, & Smith, 1996_PB_Culture and conformity A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's
(1952b, 1956) Line Judgment Task. Psychological Bulletin 1996, Vol 119, No.1 (111137)
Cable & Judge, 2003_JOB_Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: the role of manager
personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 24, (197214)
Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., Wu, T.-Y., Huang, M.-P., & Farh, J.-L. (2004). Paternalistic
leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese
organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 89-117.
Dorfman, Howell, Hibino, Lee, Tate, & Bautista, 1997_LQ_Leadership in Western and Asian
countries
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 693-727.
Gandz & Murray, 1980_AMJ_The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management
Journal. 1980, Vol. 23, No.2, 237-251.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990) An alternative description of personality: the big five factor structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216 -1229.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership:
Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years:
Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 219-247.
Higgins & Judge, 2004_JAP_applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring
recommendations: A Field Study. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004, Vol. 89, No. 4,
622-632
House, Robert J., and Ram N. Aditya. “The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo
Vadis?” Journal of Management, vol. 23, no. 3, 1997, pp. 409–473.,
doi:10.1177/014920639702300306.
Montgomery & Cowen, 2020_JPSP_Leader Gender Influences External Audience Response to
Organizational Failures
“Path-Goal Leadership Theory.” Path-Goal Theory of Leadership,
www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/lead_path_goal.html.
Podsakoff, Philip M., et al. “Effects of Leader Contingent and Noncontingent Reward and
Punishment Behaviors on Subordinate Performance and Satisfaction.” Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, 1982, pp. 810–821., doi:10.5465/256100.
Vroom, Victor H. “Leadership and the Decision-Making Process.” Organizational Dynamics,
vol. 28, no. 4, 2000, pp. 82–94., doi:10.1016/s0090-2616(00)00003-6.
Wong, S. I., & Giessner, S. R. (2018). The Thin Line Between Empowering and Laissez-Faire
Leadership: An Expectancy-Match Perspective. Journal of Management, 757-783.