Assignment#1
Leadership & Team Management
Marks: 10
Instructions:
Following is an article on Leadership. You are required to read the article carefully and:
• Prepare a summary of the article in your own words.
• Analyze the article critically, comment on the research
methodology and design.
• Cheating and plagiarism will be marked zero.
• Last Date of submission is: November 27, 2014.
• No assignment will be considered for marking after due date.
How Leaders Woo Followers in the
Romance of Leadership
Judy H. Gray
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Iain L. Densten
Lancaster University, UK
INTRODUCTION
Prior to the development of the romance of leadership theory (Meindl &
Ehrlich, 1987; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985), the importance of
follower perspectives of leadership were largely overshadowed by the sheer
volume of research which attributed organisational successes and failures
primarily to the behaviors and personalities of leaders. As a social constructionist approach, the romance of leadership refers to followers overestimating the influence of leadership on organisational performance (Meindl, 1995).
While not denying the importance of follower implicit theories of leadership,
the current paper contends that leaders too play an active although subtle role
in the development of follower perceptions of leaders and thereby contribute
to the implicit theories of leadership held by followers. The study advances
our understanding of the causes of leader attributions which Meindl and Ehrlich
(1987) suggested should be explored to validate the romance of leadership.
This study examines empirically the impact of social desirability biases (i.e.
self-deception and impression management) on leaders’ perceptions of their
leadership behaviors in order to better understand the origins of the romance
of leadership and to clarify how this process occurs. Social desirability biases refer
to the tactics leaders use to present themselves in a socially approved
manner. We contend that leaders deceive themselves through the process of
self-deception. At the same time, they project and transmit their biases to
cultivate and perpetuate a favorable interpretation of their leadership by others using
impression management. In other words, leaders have romantic views of their own
leadership (self-deception) and they attempt to convince their followers to
romanticise about leadership (impression management).
In
terms
of the romance of leadership
theory (Meindl, 1998), we
suggest that leaders utilise social desirability biases to influence followers
so that followers will attribute organisational successes to their leadership.
The corollary is that leaders downplay negative aspects of their leadership
so that they are not blamed by followers for negative organisational
outcomes. In other words, the use of social desirability biases by leaders
suggests that leaders have a tacit motive to achieve greater leverage in
influencing follower thinking so that leaders can take credit for
organisational successes and are not unduly blamed for failures. Therefore,
leaders consciously and unconsciously contribute to the construction of
leader images by followers in a way that produces romantic notions of
leadership on the part of followers. Thus, the study proposes that leaders are
the initiators of the romance of leadership and thereby “woo” followers.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Follower-Centric Perspective
The follower-centric perspective of leadership suggests that followers hold
implicit theories or preconceived notions that underpin their “romanticised
beliefs” about leadership (Meindl et al., 1985). The extant literature on implicit
leadership theories (e.g. Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, &
Dorfman, 1999; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) elucidates follower perceptions of
leader attributions. Several studies have attempted to identify the ascribed
characteristics of implicit leadership theories (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2005;
Muller & Schyns, 2005). For example, Offermann, Kennedy, and Wirtz (1994), in a
study to describe the content of implicit theories, identified eight factors,
namely: Leader sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma, attractiveness,
masculinity, intelligence, and strength. Further classification of these factors has
identified positive (e.g. dedication) and negative (e.g. tyranny) attributions
(Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). Similarly, Kouzes and Posner (1987) cited
several studies which indicated that the leader characteristics most valued
by followers are honesty, integrity, and truthfulness.
The Leader-Centric Perspective
The leader-centric perspective is predicated on the belief that the most
important aspect of leadership is the ability to influence the interpretations
that significant others give to events and actions (Daft & Weick, 1984). This
view asserts that leadership involves “the framing of meaning and the
mobilisation of support for a meaningful course of action” (Gronn, 1996, p.
8). Thus, if leaders influence how followers construct images of their
leaders, then it follows that leaders would be more inclined to promote the
aspects of their leadership behaviors that correspond to the more socially
desirable factors such as leader sensitivity and attractiveness and would
downplay less socially desirable factors such as tyranny.
The research on leader cognitive and behavioral complexity (e.g.
Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997) and social intelligence (e.g. Zaccaro,
2002) emphasises
that to be
effective,
leaders
need to
have
a large
repertoire of influence tactics and select behaviors that are appropriate to
particular social situations. For example, Kenny and Zaccaro (1983, p.
678) suggested that leaders must have the “ability to perceive the needs
and goals of a constituency and to adjust [their] personal approach to
group action accordingly”.
Several studies have demonstrated that when leaders meet group goals
and their behaviors correspond to follower implicit theories of “good”
leadership, leaders are more likely to be able to influence followers (Kenney,
Schwartz-Kenney, & Blascovich, 1996; Nye, 2005). Further, Schyns
and Meindl (2005) suggested that it may be easier for leaders to lead
followers who have “realistic” expectations (i.e. where there is a high
degree of congruence between leaders’ self-expectations and followers’
expectations of their leaders). This contention may provide a powerful
explanation for why leaders attempt to influence follower attributions
of leadership. In other words, it would be in their own interest for
leaders to behave in ways that attract follower approval. Alternatively,
leaders would be more likely to win the support of followers if leaders
appear to behave in ways that are congruent with follower implicit theories
of leadership. A parallel explanation suggests that when leader behaviors
match follower prototypes of a leader worthy of influence, then the leader
earns the right to be influential (Kenney et al., 1996).
Leaders have difficulty influencing followers until they can establish an
image of being competent and trustworthy (Chemers, 2002). Image creation is
predicated on the implicit theories that leaders have about their own
leadership and the images they want to project. Although it has been
acknowledged that leaders as well as followers are guided by their implicit
theories (Lord, 2005), very little research has been conducted to investigate
implicit theories held by leaders. To address this deficiency in the research
literature, the current study examines leader self-attributions to further
understanding of implicit leadership theories held by leaders.
Leader self-attributions are susceptible to distortions, that is, leaders deny
common faults or exaggerate personal strengths to project a positive
image (Levin & Montag, 1987). Similarly, Donaldson and Grant-Vallone
(2002) suggested that leaders accentuate the positive aspects of their leadership
and under-report behaviors considered socially inappropriate. These
distortions reflect the romantic notions of leadership that leaders hold and
can be measured in terms of social desirability biases. Therefore, the
current study examines the impact of social desirability biases on leader
self-attributions to
further
understanding
of
how
leaders
create
illusions of strength and competence (i.e. romantic images). This study
examines two social desirability biases; namely, self-deception which relates
to “internal” self-attributions of leaders, and impression management which
operates as a “tool” to influence the “external” or public image of leaders.
Self-Deception
Self-deception has been defined as a dispositional or unconscious tendency to
have an unrealistic or overly positive self-image (Sackeim, 1983; Zerbe &
Paulhus, 1987). Lee and Klein (2002) described self-deception as a stable trait
which remains unchanged despite new information that may challenge the
person’s self-image. While self-deception is similar to other concepts such
as self-serving bias (i.e. positively skewing perceptions to enhance selfimage) and wishful thinking, self-deception is more complex and can
involve inten- tional underestimating of a person’s capacity (Litz, 2003).
Self-deception is similar to the concept of self-denial of negative attributes
(Helmes & Holden, 2003), while the antithesis of self-deception, self-awareness,
involves recognition of the strengths and limitations of a person’s own
behavior (Day & Lance, 2004). However, self-deception may handicap leader
capacity to engage in appropriate relationships with followers because of the
lack of awareness of personal shortcomings. Alternatively, there is
evidence that well-adjusted individuals engage in self-deception through
ignoring minor criticisms, discounting failures, and by having a high expectancy of
success (Paulhus, 1986). Consequently, some degree of self-deception may
promote a healthy outlook (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987).
Self-deception enables individuals to have more self-confidence, take more
risks, and be able to command the loyalty of others more easily (Cowen, 2005). In
other words, we suggest that leaders engage in self-deception in order to
counter self-doubt and to thereby bolster their sense of self-efficacy which
enhances performance through increased confidence and persistence.
According to London (2002, p. 67), “leaders are often keenly aware of,
and hesitant about, how others view them, especially in terms of how they
compare to others [leaders]”. Therefore, while displaying self-confidence,
leaders may experience self-doubt resulting from their concerns to meet the
ever-changing demands in the environment. Consequently, self-deception is a
means of self-defense and acts to allay fears concerning inabilities so that
leaders can present a confident public image to followers.
Leaders can attain and maintain a positive self-image by asserting that
they have mostly positive traits (Moskowitz, 2005). Lord, De Vader, and
Alliger (1986) suggested that leaders hold several stereotypic traits
(i.e. control, competence, and consistency) that drive their romantic
notions of leadership and provide “stereotype traps”, which according to
Elsbach (2006) motivate leaders to alter their behaviors to remain
consistent with these traits. For example, leaders caught in the “control
trap” will attempt to maintain their image of being in charge and running
the show (Sutton & Galunic, 1996); if leaders are in the “competency
and consistency trap”, they may hide their misjudgments (Hendry, 2002)
and behave in a way that is consistent with their ideas. Finally, if leaders
are in the “certainty trap”, they will tend to speak of their beliefs and
intentions in absolute terms (Clark & Rayne, 1997). Such traps distort
the traits that leaders think they are required to display for strong
leadership. These traps pro- mote the romantic notions of leadership
(e.g. being competent and in control), thereby making it more likely
that success would be attributed to the leader as suggested in the
romance of leadership (Meindl et al., 1985).
Impression Management
Rosenfeld, Giacalone, and Riordan (2002, p. 117) viewed impression manage- ment
as “the tendency to deliberately over-report desirable behaviors” in order to
influence the perceptions of others by controlling the information others
receive. The cluster of behaviors which contribute to impression
management assists in the development of social identities and influences how
people respond and treat each other (Schlenker, 2003). While impression
management behaviors may be conscious, for example, when people rehearse
in preparation for an interview (Rosenfeld et al., 2002), people are often
unaware that they are engaging in such behaviors (Bozeman & Kacmar,
1997). According to Gardner and Cleavenger (1998), leaders use several
impression management strategies to project and maintain socially desirable selfimages including: Exemplification behaviors which present the leader as a
worthy role model; ingratiation where the leader appears more attractive or
likable; self-promotion where the leader appears to be highly competent; and
intimidation where the leader uses threats, punishment, or coercive
behaviors to benefit the leader at the expense of others.
Impression Management and Charismatic Leadership
The concept of impression management has been extended to account for the
development of charismatic leadership. Impression management has been
considered a fundamental element of charismatic leadership (Conger &
Kanungo, 1998). According to Turner (1993), to acquire charismatic power,
leaders need to impress followers through promises or deeds which fit with
the expectations of success and well-being on the part of followers.
The leader transforms follower perceptions of risk and in doing so, the leader
is perceived as a winner, who is more likely to achieve goals. Rather than
supporting a loser, followers prefer leaders they perceive as winners who they
assume will improve the odds of success. This suggests that leaders trade on
follower expectations through impression management and self-promotion to
elicit attributions of charisma from followers.
Leader Motives Underpinning Social Desirability Biases
Meindl et al. (1985, p. 97) asserted that organisations need leaders who have
confidence in their convictions and convey “a sense of efficacy and control”.
Therefore, self-deception serves to boost leader self-efficacy in the first
instance while impression management is the mechanism by which leaders
convey confidence in their own leadership and reinforce an illusion of
control. Leaders in particular are driven to use impression management
tactics to enhance favorable impressions of themselves and to influence the
perceptions of followers so they are regarded as effective leaders who are
able to achieve organisational objectives. In some situations, managing
impressions may allow leaders to maintain a pretense of confidence and
strength. Impression management can be used to highlight self-attributed
virtues while minimising deficiencies (Ralston & Kirkwood, 1999). In addition, the
use of impression management by leaders improves their subjective social
well-being (Rosenberg, 1979). Therefore, the use of impression management
allows leaders to attract follower support and build faith in their leadership.
Social Desirability Biases and Leadership Behaviors
Previous leadership studies have demonstrated that impression management and
image building are associated with particular leadership behaviors. For
example, impression management has been linked to leader behaviors which
encourage
followers
to
trust
and
be
confident
in
their
leaders’
abilities (Densten, 2003). Therefore, in studies using measures of
leadership behaviors (e.g. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
1990; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984), we would expect that
leader self-perception scores on transformational factors such as Articulates
Vision, Fosters Acceptance of Goals, Provides Individual Support, and
Provides an Appropriate Model would be inflated by impression
management because these factors reinforce favorable self-views of leaders
through encouraging followers to perform at their best. In contrast, leader
self-perceptions of the use of the more negative aspects of transactional
leadership such as contingent punishment behaviors would be deflated
because these behaviors could encourage followers to have a negative
view of the leader’s contribution to organisational performance.
In
summary,
the
romance
of
leadership
has
been
investigated
mainly from a follower-centric perspective. While there is considerable
evidence in the literature that leaders actively influence follower perceptions,
the current study aims to clarify the origins of the romance of leadership
from a leader- centric perspective. The study develops a model to
measure to what extent leaders distort their self-attributions of leadership
behaviors. We propose that the romantic notions held by leaders act as a
precondition for leaders to “woo” followers by positively influencing
follower implicit leadership theories through impression management.
METHOD
The data were drawn from a nation-wide survey where a stratified random
sample of 6,500 business executives was selected from the population of
20,563 members of the Australian Institute of Management (AIM) at the time
of data collection (May 2004). The sample was stratified on the basis
of personal membership categorised by state of origin resulting in a total
sample of 2,376 useable responses (a 37% response rate).
Sample
The majority of respondents were male (73% male), between 40 and 59 years of
age (70%). Around half of the sample (53%) were at the top and executive
levels (CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Vice President, Director, board
level) and 47 per cent were Department Executives, Superintendents,
or Plant Managers. Only 20 per cent were in organisations with 1,000 or more
employees, while two-thirds (67%) of the sample were at executive level in
organisations of 499 or fewer employees.
Due to excess statistical power, a large sample size can inflate tests of
statistical significance such as estimates of chi-square model fit and
standard errors (Loo & Loewen, 2002) and satisfactory models can be
rejected because of trivial discrepancies (Bollen, 1989). Consequently,
a randomly selected sub-sample of approximately 25 per cent (n = 594)
of the total sample (N
= 2,376) was used as the basis for initial
structural equation calculations (i.e. the derivation sample). In addition,
randomly selected sub-samples (approximately 25% of the total sample)
were
used
to
cross-validate
the
results.
No
statistically
significant
differences were detected for the results among the sub-samples in
this cross-validation process. Consequently, the results are reported for the
derivation sample only.
Measures
A multi-instrument survey was distributed which included measures of leadership, innovation, and social desirability biases. The study relied on gathering cross-sectional data on a single occasion and, consequently, a measure
of common method variance was included.
Leadership. The Transformational Leadership Scale (Podsakoff et al.,
1990) was used to examine six Transformational Leadership factors
(number of items and reliabilities are shown in parentheses): Articulates
Vision (five items, α = .73), Fosters Acceptance of Goals (four items, α =
.73), Intellectual Stimulation (four items, α = .77), Provides Individualised
Support (four items, α = .80), High Performance Expectations (three items,
α = .75), Provides an Appropriate Model (three items, α = .69), and
the Transactional Leadership factors (Podsakoff et al., 1984) of
Contingent Reward Behaviors (five items,
α = .77) and Contingent
Punishment Behav- iors (five items, α = .84). Respondents were asked to
evaluate statements on a Likert scale from 1 =
strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree.
The content validity of all items was assessed in terms of underlying factors
and whether they represented reflective or formative indicators (MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, & Jarvis, 2005). The examined item groupings were found to
be reflective indicators and were tested using one-factor congeneric
measure- ment models. The results supported the original factor structure
for both instruments (see Podsakoff et al., 1984, 1990).
Social Desirability Biases. A shortened-version (10 items) of the Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) was included in the questionnaire
under the title: “View of yourself ”. Barlow, Jordan, and Hendrix (2003)
used the same 10-item scale (α = .92) in a study of US cadets (N
= 794).
In the current study, respondents were asked to rate each statement on a Likert
scale where 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
All items were evaluated for their contribution to the particular latent
variable by assessing standardised regression weights, critical ratios, and
factor scores (see Gray & Densten, 2007). Statistical analyses indicated that
two items had non-significant critical ratios and were omitted from further
calculations resulting in two reflective factors, namely Self-Deception: four
items, α = .89 (e.g. no matter whom I’m talking to, I’m always a
good listener); and Impression Management: four items reverse-scored, α =
.75 (e.g. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget). While
three items are considered statistically adequate for a just identified model,
four items loading on a latent variable is sufficient to demonstrate convergent
validity (Chin, 1998).
Common Method Variance. Additional items were included among the
leadership items to provide a marker variable to assess common method
variance. The recommendations of Lindell and Whitney (2001) were followed
which involved the creation of a highly reliable factor which operated at the
organisational rather than at the individual level but was not theoretically
distinct or statistically independent from the items in the main instruments.
Items from the Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Scale (Podsakoff et al.,
1990) were selected: Three items from the civic virtue and one from
the conscientiousness sub-scales (α = .74). The resulting factor provided
a robust measure of common method variance.
Innovation. An innovation scale was included to enable the transformational
and transactional leadership factors to be considered as formative rather
than reflective constructs within the structural equation models (see Densten,
Gray, & Sarros, 2006). Four items from the Organizational Culture
Profile (Sarros, Gray, Densten, & Cooper, 2005) that represented Innovation
(α = .80) were selected (e.g. to what extent is your organisation
recognised
for: being innovative, or quick to take advantage of opportunities).
Respondents were asked to evaluate statements on a Likert scale from 1
= not at all to 5 = very much.
Analyses
The study used a multiple-method factor approach (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003) to assess the impact of social desirability biases
on transformational and transactional leadership behaviors which also
took into account common method variance. This approach developed
from Schaubroeck, Ganster, and Fox’s (1992) research which presented a
con- founded measurement model that assessed the measurement
contamination within a latent-variable model. Several studies have since
provided empirical support for this model (Brown & Keeping, 2005;
Williams & Anderson, 1994) which involves allowing each substantive
indicator to have additional factor loadings, attributable to the substantive
factor and a bias factor (e.g. common methods variance). The technique
involves multiple first-order bias factors being added to the model that load
directly onto the items of the factors under investigation to provide a
more
precise
assessment
in
terms
of
the
items
and
their
biases.
According to Williams, Edwards, and Vandenberg (2003), this type of
technique yields more evidence about the extent of bias than traditional
approaches using partial correlation and multiple regression.
While the one-factor congeneric measurement model procedure is useful in
determining construct validity of a single factor, higher-order confirma- tory
factor analyses (HCFA) were used to assess the unique variance of each factor and
to evaluate the overall model fit (McDonald, 1999). This proce- dure allows
common method variance and other biases (i.e. social desirabil- ity biases) to
be statistically investigated (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
MacKenzie et al. (2005) suggested that the leadership constructs should
be organised into reflective and formative indicators. In practical terms, this
means that the eight substantive first-order factors (e.g. Articulates Vision,
Fosters Acceptance of Goals) were considered reflective while the two
substantive second-order factors of transformational and transactional
leadership were considered formative. Three additional reflective factors
were included in the HCFA, namely Common Method Variance and the
two social desirability factors of Impression Management and Self-Deception
which were loaded directly on the item-level responses (see Podsakoff et al.,
2003). Finally, a reflective outcome factor of Innova- tion from the
Organizational Culture Profile (Sarros et al., 2005) was also included as
recommended by MacKenzie et al. (2005) for models containing formative
factors. An acceptable model (Model B, see Figure 1) was achieved, 2 =1573.77,
df = 774, p = .000; CFI = .91; TLI = .89; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .04
(for further details see Densten et al., 2006).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations
among the leadership, common method variance, and social
desirability factors. The relationships among the leadership factors were
consistent with previous research (Podsakoff et al., 1984, 1990).
Table 2 presents the two models, namely Model A: Baseline Model which
shows the standardised loadings for each item on its respective factor
without taking into consideration common method variance or social desirability
2
biases. This resulted in an inadequate fit ( = 2315.50, df
= 832, p = .000;
CFI = .82; TLI = .81; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .14). Item 1 was the only item
which had a non-significant estimation and therefore, this item was excluded
from further analysis.
Model B had a superior fit to Model A as a result of taking into account
common method variance and the social desirability factors of Impression
Management and Self-Deception. Common method variance had significant
positive loadings on all except two leadership items (items 31 and 35). Common
method variance was calculated to account for systematic sources of error
(Cote & Buckley, 1987) which then allowed the unique impact of Self-Deception
and Impression Management on each leadership factor to be examined.
Overall, Self-Deception and Impression Management had differential
effects on various leadership factors. Both Self-Deception and Impression
Management had significant positive loadings for all items on Provides
Individual Support and Provides an Appropriate Model. Self-Deception
had significant positive loadings for all items on Fostering Acceptance of
Goals, Intellectual Stimulation, and Contingent Reward Behaviors. There were
significant negative loadings on two items for Contingent Punishment
Behaviors (items 19 and 36). Impression Management had significant positive
loadings on one item for Articulates Vision (item 34), two items for Fosters
Acceptance of Goals (items 23 and 30), and three items for Contingent
Reward Behaviors (items 8, 18, and 35). Impression Management had
significant negative loadings for all items on High Performance Expectations
and Contingent Punishment Behaviors.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the extent to which self-perceptions of leadership
behaviors are distorted by self-deception and impression management in
order to gauge the degree to which leaders hold and transmit romantic
notions about their leadership. The unique relationships among the social
desirability factors and the leadership factors were investigated after
common method variance had been taken into account. A key contribution of
the study is the identification of the variations in the impact of
570
©
GRAY
2376)
AND
=
©
2007
Inte rna tio nal
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Articulates Vision
4.64
.71
2. Fosters Acceptance of Goals
5.35
.59 .54***
3. Intellectual Stimulation
5.81
.71 .54***
.51***
4. Provides Individual Support
5.76
.73 .38***
.50***
.40***
5. High Performance Expectations
5.59
.85 .46***
.48***
.39***
.60***
6. Provides an Appropriate Model
6.03
.75 .47***
.80***
.46***
.49***
.43***
7. Contingent Reward Behaviors
5.85
.68 .35***
.58***
.46***
.50***
.38***
.50***
8. Contingent Punishment Behaviors
4.79
1.02 .18***
.15***
.16***
.19***
.46***
.16***
.18***
9. Self-Deception
3.73
.75 .12***
.21**
.09***
.19**
− .03
.19***
.09*
− .10*
10. Impression Management
3.86
.53 .15***
.26***
.22***
.27***
.09*
.21***
.29***
− .03
11. Common Method Variance
5.55
.91 .26***
.28***
.22**
.28***
.33***
.35**
.20***
of
Asso ciation
Impression Management): 1 =
*
8
p
< .05 level (two-tailed); **
strongly disagree to 5 =
p
< .01; ***
p
< .001.
strongly agree.
9
10
.17***
.14** .08
.17***
DENS TEN
among Variables (N
Note: Leadership Behavior and Common Method Variance: 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; Social Desirability Biases (Self-Deception and
Applied
.Ps ycholo gy
20 07
The
.A uth ors
M
Factors
com pila tion
Jour na l
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
TABLE 2
Estimates, Common Method Variance, Impression Management, and Selfdeception Loadings on Leadership Factors (N = 594)
Model A
Item
Factor
Q11
Q21
Q29
Articulates Vision
Q34
Articulates Vision
Q03
Fosters Acceptance of Goals
Q13
Fosters Acceptance of Goals
Q23
Fosters Acceptance of Goals
Q30
Q07
Q17
Q26
Model B
SD
IM
.43***
.09
.05
.46***
.51***
.50***
.47***
.51***
.53***
.40***
−.08
Est.
Est.
Articulates Vision
.65***
.47***
Articulates Vision
Fosters Acceptance of Goals
.64***
.80***
.69***
.70***
.70***
.76***
.66***
.47***
.63***
.43***
.17***
.21***
.45***
.32***
Intellectual Stimulation
Intellectual Stimulation
Intellectual Stimulation
.21***
.28***
.51***
.46***
.57***
.69***
.34***
.37***
.41***
.16**
.17**
.23***
−.05
Q32
Q16
Q25
Q31
Q04
Intellectual Stimulation
Provides Individual Support
Provides Individual Support
Provides Individual Support
.46***
.80***
.87***
.51***
.54***
.58***
.42***
.34***
.37***
−.09
Q14
High Performance Expectations
.33***
.47***
.61***
.20***
.20***
.33***
−.03
.60***
.63***
.15*
.33***
.39***
.20***
.04
.09
Q24
High Performance Expectations
Provides an Appropriate Model
Q12
Provides an Appropriate Model
Q22
Provides an Appropriate Model
Q08
Q18
Q27
Q33
Q35
Contingent
Contingent
Contingent
Contingent
Contingent
.90***
.50***
.60***
.81***
.64***
.76***
.81***
.80***
.35***
.87***
.31***
.30***
.84***
.40***
.59***
.55***
.56***
.23***
.47***
.39***
.52***
.51***
.28***
.39***
.45***
.43***
.07
−.03
Q2
Q09
Q19
Q28
Contingent Punishment Behaviors
.69***
.82***
.83***
.53***
.67***
.66***
.35***
.39***
.46***
−.03
−.14*
.02
Q36
Q37
Contingent Punishment Behaviors
.48***
.58***
.39***
.46***
.19***
.29***
−.20**
−.29***
−.27***
−.22***
−.20***
−.01
−.16***
High Performance Expectations
Reward
Reward
Reward
Reward
Reward
Behaviors
Behaviors
Behaviors
Behaviors
Behaviors
Contingent Punishment Behaviors
Contingent Punishment Behaviors
Contingent punishment Behaviors
Note: Est. = Estimate, CMV
Impression Management.
* p < .05 level; ** p
= Common Method Variance, SD
< .01; *** p
CMV
.08
.05
.19**
.09
.06
.16**
.15**
.11
.10
.39***
.47***
.27***
.38***
.02
.05
.34*
.31***
.22*
−.17***
−.22**
−.11**
.12*
.35***
.16**
.40***
.29**
.37***
.36***
.29***
= Self-Deception, IM
.12*
.16***
.12*
.10**
.10***
.08
.10
.18***
=
< .001.
Self-Deception and Impression Management across leadership factors. These
variations suggest that different processes underpin how leaders attempt to
convince themselves and others of their leadership abilities. Although it is
logical to expect that Self-Deception and Impression Management would
inflate all transformational leadership factors because these behaviors
contribute to promoting socially desirable self-images, surprisingly, the results
indicate that Self-Deception had no impact on the transformational leadership factors of Articulates Vision and High Performance Expectations.
Both Self-Deception and Impression Management had a positive impact and
thereby inflated the responses for items loading on the two transforma- tional
leadership factors of Provides Individual Support and Provides an Appropriate
Model. The inflated scores in relation to Self-Deception suggest that leaders
bolster their self-perceptions in regard to these aspects of leadership which
contribute to a favorable self-image. The positive impact of Impression
Management on Provides Individual Support and Provides an Appropriate
Model reflects the promotion of socially desirable images of an effective
leader in terms of: Showing respect for others, being thoughtful
and
considerate, as well as leading by example and providing a good model.
These behaviors are likely to contribute to projecting an image of a trustworthy and competent leader (Chemers, 2002). The results are consistent with
the findings of a study by Gardner and Cleavenger (1998) who con- cluded
that the use of the impression management strategy, exemplification, was
related to presenting an image as a worthy role model and was positively
related to leader effectiveness. Also, Rozell and Gundersen (2003, p. 212)
suggested that exemplification is related to “perceptions that a leader is
transformational, effective, and capable of creating follower satisfaction”.
A similar relationship is evident in regard to Contingent Reward Behaviors. SelfDeception inflated scores on items such as provide rewards and recognition.
Therefore, leaders appear to deceive themselves concerning the extent to
which they provide rewards and recognition. Giving rewards plays a central
role in the social exchange process between leaders and followers ( Hollander,
1978), so it is feasible that leaders would perceive themselves as providing
rewards that are likely to be valued by followers. Thus, such behaviors
contribute to positive leader self-identity. The significant positive impact of
Impression Management on two items for Contingent Reward Behaviors:
Giving positive feedback and providing recognition is consistent with
leaders using ingratiation strategies to appear more likable in the eyes of
followers (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998). Further, leaders are likely to
assume in terms of their implicit theories concerning follower expectations
of leaders that these behaviors would be considered socially desirable by
followers and would encourage follower support.
In terms of Fostering Acceptance of Goals, the results suggest that leaders
deceive themselves in regard to the extent to which they encourage team work and
collaboration among followers. In addition, leaders appear to project an image
that they facilitate team attitudes and spirit to achieve group goals. According to
van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003), promoting group or team salience
increases the status of members and such behaviors are likely to be well
received by followers. Consequently, leaders are likely to promote these
behaviors as part of creating a favorable image and making a good
impres- sion on followers.
Self-Deception inflated the scores on all items loading on Intellectual
Stimulation (e.g. challenge others to think about old problems in new ways,
ask questions that prompt others to think) which suggests that leaders appear
deceive themselves about the extent to which they challenge followers to
think in new ways. Intellectual stimulation is a very desirable leadership
behavior because leaders view themselves as the main drivers of innovation
and change. Therefore, leaders may be protecting their self-image by
deceiving themselves about the extent to which they encourage others to
to
rethink the way they do things. Interestingly, there was no relationship between
Impression Management and Intellectual Stimulation. These results suggest that
while leaders may be aware of the importance of intellectual stimulation for encouraging innovation, they realise intuitively that there is little social benefit for
them personally from encouraging followers to challenge the status quo.
This conclusion is consistent with Rosenberg’s (1979) theory that individuals
are only motivated to use impression management where it improves social
relations, enhances self-esteem, or contributes to desired identities. In addition,
actually encouraging others to be innovative involves risk and frightens
leaders (Ahmed, 1998) which could also account for why there was no
relationship between Impression Management and Intellectual Stimulation.
The negative impact of Self-Deception on two items of Contingent
Punishment Behaviors suggests that leaders engage in self-denial concerning
their use of these behaviors as part of their repertoire, namely to show
displeasure when employees’ work is below acceptable standards and to
reprimand employees if their work is below standard. In other words, these
behaviors make little positive contribution to favorable self-presentation by
leaders. Further, the negative impact of Impression Management on all
items for Contingent Punishment Behaviors suggests that leaders appear to
downplay their use of these behaviors because it is unlikely that if leaders
demonstrate their disapproval and reprimand followers that such behaviors
would attract follower approval. The results appear to corroborate Gardner and
Cleavenger’s (1998) conclusions that leader intimidation is associated with
negative follower perceptions of leaders. The results are consistent with
implicit leadership theory which identified that negative attributions of leaders
by followers (e.g. tyranny) does not facilitate constructive leadership (
Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). Similarly, in our study, leaders appear to
recognise the negative consequences of using contingent punishment on
productive relationships with followers.
Leaders did not engage in Self-Deception in relation to High Performance
Expectations. However, the negative impact of Impression Management on
High Performance Expectations (expect a lot from employees, insist on only
the best performance, and will not settle for second best) suggests that leaders
downplay their use of High Performance Expectations and recognise that
expecting exceptional performance from followers may not ingratiate themselves to followers. The results might indicate that leaders appreciate that
followers may have concerns regarding whether they are able to fulfill high
leader expectations. While encouraging or exhorting followers to search for
new and better ways of operating has been shown to increase performance in
the long term, it decreases performance in the short term (MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001). Consequently, in the short term, using high performance expectation behaviors could have negative social outcomes for
leaders and may account for the under-reporting of these behaviors.
There was no relationship between Self-Deception and Articulates Vision, which
suggests that leaders do not distort their self-perceptions concerning the degree
to which they share their visions. Apart from one item: Able to get
others
committed to my dream, there was no relationship between Impression
Management and Articulates Vision. The results seem counter-intuitive but
may relate to the particular sample of Australian executive leaders in
the study. Articulates Vision had the lowest mean score of all the
leadership factors, which suggests that respondents perceive that their
engagement in all other leadership behaviors exceeds sharing a vision. These
findings pro- vide an opportunity for further research.
Practical and Theoretical Implications
Overall, the results provide evidence that Self-Deception inflates most transformational leadership and Contingent Reward Behaviors and deflates
Contingent Punishment Behaviors in leader self-attributions. In a practical
sense,
giving
feedback
to
leaders
in
regard
to
their
use
of
self-
deception could provide opportunities for leaders to gain insight into the
extent to which they use self-deception for self-enhancement purposes. In
addition, it may draw attention to possible discrepancies between their
“espoused theo- ries”, that is, how people talk about thoughts, feelings, and
ideas and their “theories-in-use” which determine actual behavior (Argyris,
1999). Leaders should be encouraged to engage in self-monitoring which could
enable them to develop greater self-awareness of their strengths and
limitations.
In terms of impression management, the results indicate that leaders tend to
over-report most transformational leadership behaviors but downplay
expectations of follower high performance as well as their use of contingent
punishment. Again, providing feedback to leaders may assist them to
understand the likely impact various impression management tactics may have
on followers. Coaching could enable leaders to appreciate the impression
management strategies that are most effective. These strategies may assist
leaders to develop more accurate self-perceptions which are associated with
enhanced individual and organisational outcomes ( Yammarino & Atwater, 1993).
The findings suggest that leaders appear to distort the images they project to
appear more favourably disposed to followers. The results have implica- tions
in terms of leader–follower relational authenticity. According to Eagly
(2005), unless relational authenticity can be established, leaders are unable to
elicit the personal and social identification of followers required to achieve
success. In addition, if followers hold romantic notions of leader- ship and
expect too much of their leaders, there is a risk that followers may be
disappointed in their leaders and become disillusioned. In other words,
creating romantic images of leaders may hinder leader–follower relationships
because followers may develop unrealistic and unfulfilled expectations.
This can be seen as the downside of impression management.
Transformational leadership is predicated on leaders having credibility and
building trust with followers. Consequently, leaders need to be aware of the
potential ramifications when they consciously or unconsciously attempt to
influence follower perceptions.
This study makes several valuable contributions to the romance of
leadership theory. While most of the research on the romance of leadership
has taken a follower-centric approach, a major contribution of this study using
a leader-centric approach is to develop theory concerning the pro- cesses
involved in the romance of leadership. The study demonstrates how selfdeception and impression management have unique relationships with various
transformational and transactional leadership factors which suggests that
different and complex processes are occurring as leaders attempt to
convince themselves and others of their abilities to lead. Further, the findings
challenge theories of authentic leadership (e.g. Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999;
Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005). Given the self-serving
nature of self-deception ( Litz, 2003) and the demonstrated impact of
impression management, it would seem to be a romantic notion to
contemplate that leaders could ever behave in a totally authentic manner.
The results provide empirical evidence of the distortions to self-attributions
which underpin implicit theories of leadership. In other words, the results
indicate that leaders hold overly positive self-images as a result of attributional
“errors” which reflect romantic or idealised images of themselves as leaders.
Given that it is well established in the impression management literature that
leaders influence follower behaviors and leaders stand to gain from
perpetuating romantic ideas concerning their leadership, we contend that
leaders initiate the leader attribution process. Our research highlights the
potential for leaders to play a more active role in influencing follower
attributions of leaders than previously acknowledged in the follower-centric
approach to the romance of leadership. Therefore, we propose that leaders
“woo” followers by using impression management strategies to create a
frame of reference for followers so that leaders appear “successful” in the eyes of
followers. This proposition goes to the heart of leadership by clarifying
the origins of the romance of leadership and raises a key question: To
what extent should leaders engage in self-deception and impression
management to optimise their influence in leader–follower relationships
without creating unrealistic follower expectations that cannot be met?
Limitations and Further Research
A number of limitations need to be taken into account which suggest
directions for future research. This study was based on a nation-wide
survey of Australian business executives and therefore we recommend that the
study should be replicated in other countries to investigate the impact of
different cultures on self-deception and impression management. Although
common method variance was taken into account, all the usual limitations
associated with studies based on cross-sectional data apply.
The study relies on self-report data gathered from leaders only, which may
be seen as a limitation of the study. To address this concern and to validate
the conclusions of the current study, we recommend that further research be
conducted based on an investigation of the implicit leadership theories of
leader–follower dyads. This research would allow the compari- son of
follower perceptions of their leaders with leader self-attributions and may
assist in clarifying the reciprocal relationships between leaders and
followers that contribute to the development of leader attributions. Such an
approach could provide additional insights into the romance of leadership
process. In addition, this research could be extended to explore the motives
of leaders to use self-deception and impression management to influence
others by undertaking 360 degree research which would involve collecting
data from superiors and peers in addition to followers (i.e. to investigate how
leaders “woo” their bosses and colleagues).
Longitudinal research could clarify how the romance of leadership
develops over time in association with leader–follower relationships.
Further research should investigate whether there are significant differences
among respondents grouped according to gender, organisational level, and
distance from leader. For example, followers who are closer to their
leader may see through the impression management tactics used by their
leader while those further away might have greater difficulty.
Given that this study demonstrates the significant impact that self-deception and
impression management have on leadership, we recommend that future studies
of leadership behaviors using self-rated measures should control for the
powerful effects of these two processes. Future research could also con- sider
using other measures of impression management, for example, the Leader
Impression Management Questionnaire (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998), to provide
further insights into the range of impression management tactics utilised and
their corresponding effects. Qualitative research should be
conducted to investigate leaders’ own prototypes of effective leadership which
could be compared with follower prototypes of leadership to advance
understanding of the similarities and differences in leader–follower perceptions of leadership. While Meindl (1995) suggested that follower construction
of
leadership
leads
to
follower
commitment
to
the
leader,
further investigation of the motives that underpin the construction of
leadership images by leaders and followers is required.