The Value Based Leadership Theory

established role expectations, norms, rules, policies and procedures, there

is less opportunity for organizational members to behaviorally express

their dispositional tendencies.

Theoretically, in strong psychological situations, leader motives have

less influence on leader behavior, and leader behavior has less influence

on subordinates and on organizational outcomes than in weak psychological

situations. Studies by Monson, Healy and Chernick (1982), Lee, Ashford,

and Bobko (1990), and Barrick and Mount (1993) have demonstrated support

for Mischel's situational strength argument.

THE VALUE BASED LEADERSHIP THEORY

This theory consists of six axioms and twenty-seven propositions that

relate leader behavior, leader motives, and situational variables to leader

effectiveness.

The Parsimonious Meta–Proposition of Value Based Leadership

Value based leadership theory is based on the meta–proposition that

non-conscious motives and motivation based on strongly internalized values

is stronger, more pervasive, and more enduring than motivation based on

instrumental calculations of anticipated rewards or motivation based on

threat and avoidance of punishment. The axioms and propositions that

follow are derived from and can all be explained in terms of this

parsimonious meta-proposition.

The Value Based Leader Behavior Syndrome

Behaviors that characterize value based leadership include a)

articulation of a challenging vision of a better future to which followers

are claimed to have a moral right; b) unusual leader determination,

persistence, and self-sacrifice in the interest of the vision and the

values inherent in the vision; c) communication of high performance

expectations of followers and confidence in their ability to contribute to

the collective; d) display of self-confidence, confidence in followers, and

confidence in the attainment of the vision; e) display of integrity; f)

expressions of concern for the interests of followers and the collective;

g) positive evaluation of followers and the collective; h) instrumental and

symbolic behaviors that emphasize and reinforce the values inherent in the

collective vision; i) role modelling behaviors that set a personal example

of the values inherent in the collective vision; j) frame-alignment

behaviors--behaviors intended to align followers' attitudes, schemata, and

frames with the values of the collective vision; and, k) behaviors that

arouse follower motives relevant to the pursuit of the vision. We refer to

these behaviors collectively as the value based leader behavior syndrome.

This specification of value based leader behaviors integrates the

behaviors specified in prior extensions of the 1976 theory of charismatic

leadership as well as behaviors specified in other theories of charismatic,

transformational and visionary leadership. House and Shamir (1993) provide

the rationale for inclusion of the above behaviors in the theoretical

leader behavior syndrome.

Axioms

Axioms are statements, the validity of which are taken for granted,

either because the enjoy substantial empirical evidence or becuse they

cannot be tested. Axioms provide a foundation for more specific

statements, such as propositions. The axioms stated here provide the

foundation for the selection of leader behaviors from among all of the

leader behaviors specified in the various theories described above.

Axioms Concerning Human Motivation

1. Humans tend to be not only pragmatic and goal-oriented, but are also

self-expressive. It is assumed that behavior is not only instrumental-

calculative, but also expressive of feelings, aesthetic values and self-

concepts. We "do" things because of who we "are," because by doing them we

establish and affirm an identity for ourselves, at times even when our

behavior does not serve our materialistic or pragmatic self-interests.

2. People are motivated to maintain and enhance their generalized self-

efficacy and self-worth. Generalized self-efficacy is based on a sense of

competence, power, or ability to cope with and control one's environment.

Self-worth is based on a sense of virtue and moral worth and is grounded in

norms and values concerning conduct.

3. People are also motivated to retain and increase their sense of self-

consistency. Self-consistency refers to correspondence among components of

the self-concept at a given time, to continuity of the self-concept over

time, and to correspondence between the self-concept and behavior. People

derive a sense of "meaning" from continuity between the past, the present

and the projected future, and from the correspondence between their

behavior and self-concept.

4. Self-concepts are composed of values, perceptions of self-worth,

efficacy, and consistency, and also identities. Identities, sometimes

referred to as role-identities, link the self-concept to society. Social

identities locate the self in socially recognizable categories such as

nations, organizations and occupations, thus enabling people to derive

meaning from being linked to social collectives.

5. Humans can be strongly motivated by faith. When goals cannot be

clearly specified or the subjective probabilities of accomplishment and

rewards are not high, people may be motivated by faith because being

hopeful in the sense of having faith in a better future is an intrinsically

satisfying condition.

6. When individual motives are aroused in the interest of the collective

effort, and when individual identify with the values inherent in the

collective vision, they will evaluate themselves on the basis of the degree

to which they contribute to the collective effort. Under conditions of

motive arousal and value identiication individuals experience intrinsic

satisfaction from their contribution to the collective effort and intrinsic

dissatisfaction from failure to contribute to collective efforts.

These axioms incorporate the extensions of the 1976 theory of

charismatic leadership offered by Shamir, House and Arthur (1993), and

House and Shamir (1995) and provide the integrative framework for the Value

Based Theory of Leadership.

PROPOSITIONS

The theory is expressed in the form of twenty-seven propositions which

assert specific ways in which leader motives and behaviors, in conjunction

with situational variables, affect follower motivation and performance and

organizational performance. These propositions are based on the leadership

and psychological theories reviewed above and reflect the extensions of the

1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership contributed by House et al. (1991),

Shamir et al. (1993), House and Shamir (1993), and Waldman, Ramirez and

House (1996).

Propositions Concerning Leader Behavior and Its Effects

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

behavior

syndrome described above will be heightened follower recognition of shared

values between leaders and followers, heightened arousal of follower

motives, heightened follower self-confidence, generalized self-efficacy and

self-worth, strong follower self-engagement in the pursuit of the

collective vision and in contributing to the collective, and strong

follower identification with the collective and the collective vision. We

refer to these psychological reactions of followers as the value based

motive syndrome .

2. The behavioral effects of the value based motive syndrome will be

heightened commitment to the collective as manifested by follower

willingness to exert effort above and beyond normal position or role

requirements, follower self-sacrifice in the interest of the vision and the

collective, and increased collective social cohesion and organizational

collaboration. We refer to these effects as the value based follower

commitment syndrome. While the value based motive syndrome described in

proposition one is not directly observable, the behaviors of the value

based follower commitment syndrome are.

Propositions Concerning Leader Attributes

3. Self-confidence and a strong conviction in the moral correctness of

one's beliefs will be predictive of proactive leadership. This proposition

is a slight modification of proposition three of the 1976 Theory of

Charismatic Leadership. This proposition has been supported by Smith

(1982), House et al. (1991), and Howell and Higgins (1991).

4. Strong leader concern for the morally responsible exercise of power

will be predictive of constructive, collectively oriented exercise of

social influence by leaders and predictive of the value based motive and

follower commitment syndromes specified in propositions 1 and 2 above.

5. Power motivation coupled with a strong concern for the morally

responsible exercise of power will be predictive of the constructive,

collective-oriented exercise of social influence by leaders.

6. Power motivation, unconstrained by a strong concern for the moral

exercise of power, will be predictive of impetuously aggressive and self-

aggrandizing exercise of social influence.

7. Power motivation, in conjunction with a strong concern for the moral

exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the role

demands of leaders require substantial delegation of authority and

responsibility and the exercise of social influence.

8. Power motivation, unconstrained by a strong concern for the moral

exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the role

demands of leaders require strong individual competitiveness,

aggressiveness, manipulative and exploitive behavior, or the exercise of

substantial political influence.

9. Affiliative motivation will be predictive of non-assertive leadership,

close relationships with a small subgroup of followers, partiality toward

this subgroup, and ineffective leadership.

10. The leader motive profile will be predictive of proactive leadership

and leader effectiveness when the role demands of leaders require

substantial delegation of authority and responsibility and the exercise of

social influence.

11. Achievement motivation will be predictive of effective leader

performance in entrepreneurial contexts and for small task-oriented groups

in which members have direct interaction with the leader.

12. Achievement motivation will be predictive of ineffective leader

performance for the leadership of organizations in which the role demands

of leaders require substantial delegation of authority and responsibility

and the exercise of substantial social influence.

Propositions four through twelve are derived from the motivation

theories reviewed earlier.

Propositions Concerning Specific Leader Behaviors

13. Leader behaviors intended to enhance followers cognitive abilities

will increase follower and overall organizational performance when such

behaviors complement formal organizational practices and the informal

social system by providing direction, clarification, feedback,

encouragement, support, and motivational incentives to subordinates which

are not otherwise provided.

14. When leader behaviors intended to enhance followers cognitive

abilities are redundant with formal organizational practices and the

informal social system they will be viewed as excessively controlling, will

cause follower dissatisfaction, and will be resented and resisted.

15. To be accepted by followers, it is necessary for leaders to be

perceived by followers as acting in the interest of the collective and the

followers, to be perceived as fair and trustworthy in their interactions

with followers, and to be perceived as not self-aggrandizing.

16. Leader support behavior will be predictive of low follower stress,

trust in by followers, and follower satisfaction with their relationships

with leaders.

17. Leader contingent recognition and approval will be predictive of

follower role clarity, follower perceptions of leaders as fair, and

heightened follower satisfaction and motivation.

18. Directive leader behavior will result in follower role clarification

but will be dysfunctional when followers prefer to exercise independent

actions and initiative, are highly involved in their work, and/or perceive

themselves as having requisite knowledge and skills for effective task

performance.

19. Participative leader behavior will result in follower role

clarification and will be functional when followers prefer to exercise

independent actions and initiative, are highly involved in their work,

and/or when followers perceive themselves as having requisite knowledge and

skills for effective task performance.

20. Leader fairness behavior will be predictive of follower acceptance of

leaders, and the leader's vision and values.

21. Perceived lack of fairness will result in follower resentment and

resistance to the leaders vision and directions. These propositions are

based on equity theory of motivation.

Propositions 13 through 21 are based on the 1996 version of Path Goal

Theory of leadership (House, 1996).

22. Leaders arouse motives of followers by enacting specific motive arousal

behaviors relevant to each motive. For example, defining tasks and goals as

challenging arouses the achievement motive; invoking the image of a

threatening enemy, describing combative or highly competitive situations or

describing the exercise of power arouses the power motive; making

acceptance of the leader contingent on mutural acceptance of followers, or

stressing the importance of collaborative behavior arouses the affiliative

motive.

23. Leaders who engage in selective behaviors that arouse motives

specifically relevant to the accomplishment of the collective vision will

have positive effects on followers' value based motive syndrome described

in Proposition 2.

24. The more leaders engage in the value based leader behavior syndrome the

more their followers will emulate (a) the values, preferences and

expectations of the leader, (b) the emotional responses of the leader to

work-related stimuli, and (c) the attitudes of the leader toward work and

the organization.

Propositions 22 through 24 are slight revisions of propositions

advanced in the 1976 Theory of Charismatic leadership (House, 1977).

25. The use of strong extrinsic material rewards contingent on performance

will conflict with appeals to ideological values and will thus undermine

the effects of the value based leader behavior syndrome. This proposition

is based on dissonance theory (Festinger, 1980) and supported by the

findings of Korman (1970), and Dubinsky and Spangler (1995) described

above.

Propositions Concerning Social Context

26. Two necessary conditions for leaders to have the effects specified in

proposition two are that leaders have the opportunity to communicate the

collective vision to potential followers and that the role of followers be

definable in ideological terms that appeal to them. This is a modification

of one of the propositions originally advanced by House (1977).

27. The emergence and effectiveness of value based leaders will be

facilitated to the extent to which a) performance goals cannot be easily

specified and measured, b) extrinsic rewards cannot be made clearly

contingent on individual performance, c) there are few situational cues,

constraints and reinforcers to guide behavior and provide incentives for

specific performance, and d) exceptional effort, behavior and sacrifices

are required of both the leaders and followers. This proposition is based

on the earlier discussion of strength of situations and dissonance theory

and is a modest modification of one of the propositions originally advanced

by Shamir et al. (1993).

The hypotheses were tested within the context of a latent structure

casual model, using Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS). This modelling

procedure requires that substantive hypotheses be modelled in the form of

paths connecting the hypothesized variables. The variables are latent

constructs composed of scores on manifest indicators. The The slopes of

these relationships are presented in Figure 3. This finding supports the

competitive hypothesis 5a which states that LMP will have greater effects

in non-entrepreneurial firms than in entrepreneurial firms, and will be

discussed below.

IMPLICATIONS

In this section we first discuss the implications of the findings

with respect to the value based leadership. Next we discuss the

implications of the findings for each of the five theories that were

integrated in the models tested. We then discuss the more general

implications of the study for the discipline of Organizational Behavior.

Value Based Leadership

Thomas (1988), House et al. (1991), and by Waldman, Ramirez and House

(1996)

demonstrate longitudinally, and with adequate controls for spurious

relationships, that leaders have substantial effects on the performance of

the organizations they manage. However, there have been no studies, other

than the U.S. presidential study (House et al., 1991), that investigate the

leader motives and behavior that lead to such leader effects. Thus there

has been a "black box" concerning how leader processes influence overall

organizational performance that remains to be explained.

Collectively, the findings of the present study help to understand the

phenomena in the "black box." More specifically, the findings show, in

some detail, important relationships between chief executives' motives and

behavior and subordinates' motivation and commitment to their organization.

Having shown how the components function, it is now possible to test

linkages between leader behavior, subordinate responses, and organizational

effectiveness using longitudinal quasi experimental designs.

Implications for Specific Theories

In this section we discuss the implications of the study findings for

each of the theories that are integrated to form the Value Based Theory of

Leadership.

Achievement Motivation Theory

Achievement motivation has a more positive effect on CEMS and all

leader behaviors in entrepreneurial firms than in non-entrepreneurial

firms. This finding constitutes yet another confirmation of achievement

motivation theory concerning the specific conditions under which

achievement motivation is predicted to result in high performance.

Moral Responsibility Theory

The bivariate relationships between the moral responsibility

disposition and value based leader behavior, leader fairness and CEMS, and

the moderating effect of responsibility on the relationships between the

power motive, and CEMS, leader charisma, and support/reward behavior all

provide support for Moral Responsibility Theory. Moral responsibility

motivation is clearly an important disposition that deserves further

investigation and attention.

Leader Motive Profile Theory

The positive relationships between LMP and executive value based

leader behavior, support/recognition behavior, and directiveness provide

support for LMP Theory. These two relationships are consistent with the

interpretation that because high LMP leaders have low affiliative

motivation they enact social influence in an impersonal and more proactive

and assertive manner than low LMP leaders.

The findings are consistent with the propositions that LMP affects

leader behavior, and leader behavior in turn has a positive effect on CEMS.

These findings suggest a re-specification of the boundary conditions for

the role of LMP in organizational functioning. Contrary to the initially

specified boundary conditions, LMP has negligible effects on leader

behavior and CEMS in non- entrepreneurial firms and positive effects in

entrepreneurial firms. These findings imply that LMP has its' major impact

on organizational outcomes through its' influence on leader behavior under

weak psychological conditions.

Path Goal Theory

As predicted by the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership (House, 1996),

leader contingent

recognition and supportive behaviors are predictive of CEMS, and leader

directiveness is more strongly negatively related to CEMS in

entrepreneurial firms. Thus Path-Goal theory is provided additional

support in the present study.

CONCLUSION

The major conclusions that can be drawn from the above findings and

discussion are: 1) the value based theory of leadership successfully

integrates five prominent theories of leadership (transformational,

charismatic, visionary, LMP, and path-goal theories) and assertions drawn

broadly from established psychological theories of motivation and behavior;

2) the components of the value based theory of leadership are rather

strongly and quite consistently supported, although their exact

combinations remain to be established; 3) the psychological theories

integrated within the value based theory are largely supported; 4) the

value based theory of leadership, with various kinds of

operationalizations, has rather broad generalizability; 5) the theory

supported by the U.S. presidential study holds for CEOs with respect to

effects of leader behaviors on subordinates' cognitions and affective

responses; 6) a re-specification of the boundary conditions of LMP should

be further investigated; and 7) the motives that are most appropriate for

effective leadership are contingent on the orientation of the collective

being led.

Beginning with the 1976 theory of charismatic leadership (House,

1977), a new leadership paradigm has emerged. This paradigm consists of

several theories of similar genre (House, 1977; Bass, 1985; Conger &

Kanungo; 1987; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; 1987; Sashkin, 1988) and concerns the

determinants of exceptionally effective or outstanding leadership.

According to this paradigm, value based leaders infuse organizations and

work with ideological values which are intrinsically and powerfully

motivational. Value oriented motivation is stronger, more pervasive, and

more endurable than pragmatic oriented motivation. The theories of the new

paradigm are now integrated and formalized as the Value Based Theory of

Leadership. Hopefully, this theory and the supporting research will

stimulate further leadership research and further development of leadership

and organizational behavior theory.

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

Страницы: 1, 2, 3