Profiles in Leadership

Journal of Management Education
http://jme.sagepub.com Profiles in Leadership: Enhancing Learning Through Model and Theory Building
Jeffrey A. Mello Journal of Management Education 2003; 27; 344 DOI: 10.1177/1052562903027003005 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/3/344
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators
Additional services and information for Journal of Management Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 21 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/27/3/344
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com by Tomislav Bunjevac on August 4, 2008 2003 OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
10.1177/1052562903251351 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003 Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING
ARTICLE
PROFILES IN LEADERSHIP: ENHANCING LEARNING THROUGH MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING
Jeffrey A. Mello Towson University

In teaching and learning about leadership, instructors and students are faced with an extensive and, at times, very confusing body of literature that illustrates the complexity of the study, practice, and understanding of leadership. No single theory has been able to capture the essence of leadership and / or leadership dynamics. Students often become frustrated at the array and range of somewhat disparate and contradictory theories they encounter. Described within is an assignment that has been very successful in teaching students about leadership, situational analysis, and model and theory building. Moreover, this assignment has been one that students have found enjoyable and enlightening relative to enhancing their understanding of leadership dynamics in both their professional and personal lives. Keywords: leadership; profiles; theory building; model building; leadership education
Criticisms of management education have focused on the extent to which the real world has not been fully integrated into curriculum content. In addition, many indoctrinating assumptions have plagued the development of the content of what we do teach and the process by which we teach it (Prasad &
Authors Note: The author would like to thank Dale Fitzgibbons, Mark Maier, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article as well as Cary Smedley for her assistance in preparing the final copy. Please address correspondence to Jeffrey A. Mello, Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252; phone: 410-704-2934; fax: 410-704-3236; e-mail: jmello@towson.edu.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 27 No. 3, June 2003 344-361 DOI: 10.1177/1052562903251351 2003 Sage Publications
344
Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING
345
Prasad, 1993). Although the call has been made for management education to consider the ideological foundations of management theory and practice (Caproni & Arias, 1997), such a shift has not been witnessed in the development of leadership training in management. This article provides an overview of leadership theories and their development that forms the basis for an innovative course assignment on leadership that addresses these concerns and meets four specific learning objectives. Students are allowed to gain insights related to not only the complexities of leadership dynamics but also the processes of constructing behavioral models and questioning their assumptions as well as multicultural and multinational perspectives on leadership. The text describes the assignment and provides insights as to how to operationalize it in the learning environment to obtain optimal outcomes of learning objectives.
WHAT LEADERSHIP IS
The study of leadership is not a recent development. Discussions relating to leadership and leadership effectiveness can be found in Greek and Latin classics, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, writings of ancient Chinese philosophers, and early Icelandic sagas (Bass, 1990). Given such a farreaching history, it would seem that there should be some clear and consistent definition of leadership. However, despite the fact that numerous researchers and theorists have described and explained the same phenomenon, there has been no consistent definition of leadership. It has been noted (Stogdill, 1974) that each individual researcher seems to have his or her unique definition of leadership. Leadership has been defined in terms of individual personality traits, leader behaviors, responses to leader behaviors, interpersonal exchange relationships, interaction patterns, role relationships, follower perceptions, task goals, organizational culture, and nature of work processes (Rost, 1991; Yukl, 1989). However, one common element among the various definitions advanced over the years has involved the process of influence (Bryman, 1992; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Stogdill, 1950), particularly noncoercive influence (Jago, 1982; Kotter, 1988). It has been noted, however, that this influence may serve not only the interests of the work group and organization but also the leaders self-interest (Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; House & Howell, 1992; Howell, 1988). In addition, there is sharp disagreement as to how leadership relates to management, where the two overlap and whether the two are distinct processes/phenomena (Rost, 1991; Yukl, 1989). One interpretation conceptualizes management as coping with complexity, whereas leadership, by con-
346
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003
trast, involves coping with change (Kotter, 1990). Clearly, however, it is easily possible to be a manager or a leader yet not the other. Consider, for example, an individual who is the manager of accounts payable with no direct-reporting subordinates. Further, all of us have been influenced (led) by someone who did not hold formal hierarchical authority or power over us. Conceptually, management is more of an active process whereas leadership is an interactive process. Management is often considered and taught as a science whereas leadership is clearly more of an art.
DOMINANT APPROACHES IN THE 20TH CENTURY
There have been four dominant paradigms of leadership advanced in the 20th century. To a large extent, each approach has been an extension of and response to the criticisms of the previously dominant paradigm. Individually, each approach lends some valuable insights toward leadership but fails to provide a universal theory to aid in our understanding. Collectively, the approaches give us a multifaceted view of leadership while conceptually challenging each others assumptions. The first approach involved studying traits or characteristics of leaders to explain their success as leaders. Trait theories were most popular from the turn of the century until the late 1940s. The various types of traits examined by various researchers included physical characteristics, personality characteristics, social characteristics, and personal abilities and skills (House & Podsakoff, 1994). Trait theories were largely designed to try to predict whether an individual would manifest leadership abilities. However, a group of influential reviews published in the late 1940s (Gibb, 1947; Jenkins, 1947; Stogdill, 1948) reported the lack of any consistent relationship between any kind of individual traits and leadership and consequently encouraged researchers to explore alternative paradigms. This was later summed up in the conclusion that fifty years of study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate leaders and nonleaders (Jenkins, 1947, p. 68). More recently, there has been some renewed interest in trait theories that has concluded that traits relate more to perceptions of leadership (House & Podsakoff, 1994). In other words, traits may help to distinguish leaders from nonleaders in terms of perceptions of subordinates but fail to distinguish effective from ineffective leaders. These criticisms of trait theories moved studies of leadership to a focus on behavior with the dominant approach toward leadership becoming an examination of observable behaviors of leaders. This approach, which was dominant in the 1950s and 1960s, focused on how subordinates reacted to a
347
leaders behavior. This approach seemed quite logical, given the emphasis on influence in defining leadership. The main goal of the various behavioral theories was to try to prescribe how leaders should behave. The major studies of behavioral leadership were conducted at Ohio State University (Halpin & Winer, 1957) and focused on two different dimensions of leader behaviorconsideration (concern for people) and initiating structure (concern for productivity). The assessment of these two types of behaviors and their resultant outcomes found no consistent patterns across situations of relationships between leader behavior and outcomes. However, there were some consistencies within certain types of situations that suggested that the situation or context of the leadership process might affect a leaders effectiveness. Similar studies of leader behavior at the University of Michigan (Kahn & Katz, 1953; Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950) also failed to produce significant generalizable evidence of any relationship between leader behavior and outcomes. No one leadership style was found to be universally superior to others. Despite the fact that the behavioral approaches were not able to fulfill their mission and determine the one best leadership style, they did further the study of the field by concluding that leader behavior was a factor that explained leadership effectiveness within a given context or setting. These outcomes of the behavioral approaches toward leadership gave rise to situational analyses of leadership that were popular from the late 1960s to late 1970s. Building on the fact that leadership effectiveness appeared to be tied to contextual factors, the situational or contingency approaches focused on the moderating effect that certain situational variables would have on the relationship between leader traits and behaviors and outcomes. Fiedlers model of leadership (1967, 1971) argued that leadership style was innate, that leaders were either task- or relations-oriented by nature and that three situational factors (leader/member relations, task structure, and leader position power) determined whether task- or relations-oriented leadership was more appropriate. The model has been criticized for the methodology of measuring leadership style through the least-preferred coworker inventory (Ashour, 1973; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977a, 1977b) as well as for the nature of the evidence used to support the model (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977a, 1977b; Vecchio, 1977, 1983). Further, because Fiedler argued that leadership style was innate, the model implied that as one or more of the three contingency variables of leader/member relations, task structure, or leader position power changed, the possible corresponding mandate that task- or relations-oriented leadership be substituted for the other meant that the leader would have to be replaced.
348
This limiting assumption was discarded in the path-goal theory of leadership (House, 1971), which argued that effective leaders shift from one leadership style to another as situations warrant. Whereas Fiedler focused on the relationship between traits and situational variables, House focused on the relationship between leader behavior and situational variables. House described four different types of leader behavior (directive, participative, supportive, and achievement-oriented) and argued that the general categories of task and subordinate characteristics determined the appropriate leadership style or behavior. The model has been criticized largely for the difficulty in testing the contingency variables selected (Schriesheim & von Glinow, 1977). The complexity of the various combinations of task and subordinate characteristics makes a single comprehensive test of the model impossible (Wagner & Hollenbeck, 1992). However, validation of elements of the model through smaller scale tests (Erez & Zidon, 1984; Keller, 1989; Stinson & Johnson, 1975) have strengthened the logic on which it is built. In addition to the models developed by Fiedler and House, several other contingency models have been developed that examine leadership effectiveness relative to readiness level of team members to perform tasks (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) and of decision problem attributes (Vroom, 1964; Vroom & Yago, 1988). However, none of these models has been able to advance a testable universal theory of leadership. The disenchantment with the situational theories has given rise since the late 1970s to more macro-focused studies of leadership. These approaches have drifted away from individual and small group aspects of leadership toward an examination of how leaders affect structure, culture, and performance within entire organizations. The theories being advanced in this current wave included charismatic leadership theory (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; House, 1977), transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), and visionary leadership theory (Sashkin, 1988). Despite the different names, the common thread of these theories is that these leaders infuse ideological values and moral purpose into organizations that induce commitment and organizational citizenship. Such leaders are able to develop and implement a vision, communicate this vision, and motivate others to commit resources and energy toward vision-oriented goals (Nanus, 1992). Effective leaders hence foster change by empowering employees to achieve some kind of vision. To ensure that human talent and energy are focused on the organizations vision, leaders need to develop a strong sense of community within an organization (Gardner, 1990). This is accomplished through goals and values that guide all plans, decisions, and actions whereby employees can see how their work is
349
meaningful and value-driven (Blanchard & Bowles, 1998). Bennis (2000) best summed these ideas by arguing that leaders manage the dream. The key steps in managing the dream are communicating vision, recruiting carefully, rewarding appropriate results, and retraining and reorganizing when necessary. Visionary, values-based leadership requires a number of hard-to-find characteristics in individuals. In this domain, effective leaders need to be adept at understanding others perspectives and values and adapt their own views to meet the needs and demands of those being affected by any proposed course of action (Bolman & Deal, 1997). This empathy is a key factor in a leaders ability to obtain source credibility (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Honesty, competence, and supportiveness make up source credibility, which is a key factor in the ability to lead in an environment of cynicism. Conger and Kanungo (1998) cite that charismatic leadership involves high levels of sensitivity to organizational issues, credibility, trustworthiness, likeability, an ability to combine criticism of the status quo with a new strategic vision, and a willingness to assume personal risks or use unconventional techniques as needed. Clearly contemporary models of leadership address the need for leaders to articulate a strong vision, obtain commitment to that vision through employee empowerment and trust, and think outside of the box as necessary to achieve results. Greenleaf (1977, 1998) has proposed that 21st-century leaders can be effective by practicing servant leadership. These individuals chose to serve first and then lead as a way of expanding their service to individuals and institutions. As a servant first, the leader ensures that others greatest needs are being met and bears the self-awareness to realize that his or her own healing is the motivation for leadership (Greenleaf, 1998). Toward this end, it has been argued that nonprofit organizations allow far better opportunities for leadership development than for-profit organizations. Such organizations are more open to change, contrary opinion, the mystery of potential, involvement, and unsettling ideas (DuPree, 1997). This image of the servant leader is in stark contrast to the more traditional image of the leader as a power-wielding authority figure (Shriberg, Shriberg, & Lloyd, 2002). This command and control paradigm (Belasco & Stayer, 1993) is the basis for military leadership, which emphasizes tenacity, stamina, clarity, discipline, and mental toughness (Batten, 1989). Rost (1991) argued that the traditional/industrial and military paradigms of leadership were insufficient to explain the new realities of 21st-century leadership or the kinds of leaders that these realities demand. He argued that the post-industrial leadership paradigm prescribes three requirements for effective leadership: influence, collaboration, and purpose-centered change initiatives.
350
These theories have been grouped together under the label outstanding leadership theory (House & Podsakoff, 1994). Outstanding leaders are those who accomplish outstanding achievement (such as a corporate turnaround) in direct contrast to fulfilling normal requirements of positions and everyday responsibilities. Outstanding leadership theory is based heavily on the belief that stress (either individual or organizational) is a key to facilitating the leadership dynamics (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Pillai & Meindl, 1991). Outstanding leaders are said to have three effects on those that they influence: (a) commitment to the vision of the leader, (b) transcended selfinterests for the sake of the organization, and (c) outstanding organizational citizenship. However, although outstanding leadership can be explained through certain leader behaviors such as vision, self-sacrifice, and confidence, the theory still doesnt prescribe how these outcomes are achieved nor how different organizational contexts might affect their attainment. The theory also ignores the importance of ordinary leadership: the day-to-day backbone of organizations and the key to efficiency and short-term success. Further, because the theory relies on stress as a catalyst to the influence process, it fails to address leadership in organizations that are not experiencing a major crisis and/or among nonstressed followers. The above represents just a summary of the major issues found in the leadership literature. The discussion within is not by any means complete because the leadership literature is voluminous. Leadership is an extremely complex phenomenon, heavily dependent on a number of different situational variables, not all of which are always relevant to understanding the leadership dynamics present in any given situation. Cultural differences complicate the equation even further. Although students could easily read about this, their appreciation of these issues and complexities can be heightened by allowing them to come to these realizations themselves.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Because the leadership literature shows that different scenarios present different issues for leadership and influence, it makes sense to reason that the best way to illustrate the complexity of leadership processes is to expose students to as many different leadership scenarios as possible. As a result, the following four specific objectives are offered for this assignment:
1. to allow students to understand the myriad factors that may affect leadership dynamics;
351
2. to develop students abilities to assess different organizational factors that mandate or influence leadership processes; 3. to allow students to practice model and theory building, affording them the opportunity to develop a heightened appreciation of the complexities of behavioral science; and 4. to allow students to examine leadership and organizational processes from a multicultural, multinational perspective and understand how to frame organizational leadership within a multicultural context.
The first two objectives are directly related to the conclusions drawn from the leadership literature outlined in the previous section of this article: that leadership is a complex and multifaceted process with no simple, direct explanations as to how to explain leadership effectiveness. The third objective is based on previous teaching experiences in which students have expressed frustration in having to study a large number of theories related to a particular concept (for example, eight separate motivation theories). In this assignment, students analyze and critique all of the theories discussed within this article, which allows them, in part, to see the complexity of leadership. Students see how multiple theories make different and often contradictory assumptions about leadership, human behavior, and the factors that affect behavior and organizational processes. In addition, it allows them to examine the unchallenged goals and assumptions on which these theories are built and to realize the contextual factors that plague the development of traditional management theory. Requiring them to develop their own model, as explained below, helps to illustrate the elusiveness of developing that one, perfect, universally applicable theory, thereby making them see the need to study multiple theories relating to a single concept as well as understand the different contexts and realities on which the theories were grounded. The fourth objective pertains to literature that cites the importance of the larger context within which leadership happens. In looking beyond the nature of the leader and follower(s), students need to realize that understanding culture, values, and society is a critical prerequisite for understanding leadership dynamics and what contributes to effective leadership. Individuals in different cultures construe the self, others, interpersonal relationships, and their social order in strikingly different ways (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Effective management in a multicultural environment requires special competencies in understanding cultural differences (Bell, 1990; Brannen, 1995). Hence, the study of leadership needs to not only examine the limitations inherent in theory development but also consider the implications of an increasingly multicultural workforce.
352
THE ASSIGNMENT
The major student project for the course is to develop a leadership profile. Students are required to select an example of an effective leader from a movie, book, popular culture, or modern history and analyze what contributed or contributes to his or her effectiveness. Students are strongly discouraged from profiling well-known corporate leaders (such as Lee Iacocca, Jack Welch, etc.) because most of what has been written about them already analyzes their leadership. Instead, students are asked to look at individuals, either real or fictitious, whom they find particularly compelling on a personal level. This serves to make students more enthusiastic about the assignment and encourages a selection of diverse leaders from all walks of life, which is critical to the ultimate course objectives. Students are further encouraged to profile leaders from a cultural setting dissimilar to their own.
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PROFILE
Students are required to prepare a written assessment of the leader and the factors that they subjectively feel contribute(d) to his or her effectiveness. No minimum or maximum page requirement is imposed, but papers are generally 12 to 15 pages in length, which is suggested for students who just need some length guideline. The eventual outcome of this paper is the students own theory of leadership as developed through an analysis of his or her chosen leader. Students are free to incorporate and confirm any one or some combination of the existing theories of leadership discussed in class and/or to refute or modify any such theories. They are encouraged, however, to start from scratch and build a model from the ground up based on their own analysis of their chosen leader. In short, students are asked to surface their implicit conceptualization and understanding of leadership and render it as an explicit theory. In their papers, students are required to explain in detail specific examples of situations and behaviors to support their claims that the leader was/is influential and analyze the factors that contribute(d) to this influence process. More specifically, their analyses have to address the following issues:
What qualities does the leader have that contribute(d) to his or her effectiveness? (Note the intentional use of the word qualities as opposed to traits.) What seems to motivate him or her? Specifically, who is this individual able to influence? How? Specifically, how do national/cultural setting, values, and so on influence the leadership dynamics? What effects do the following variables have on the leadership dynamics: subordinates/followers? situations? (organizational) culture? resources?
353
In addition to strengths, what weaknesses does the leader have? To what extent do these weaknesses limit his or her effectiveness? Would this individuals effectiveness as a leader be as evident in different situations, organizations, or with other followers?
Students are given this assignment during the first class meeting and are required to submit a brief proposal by the 3rd week of class identifying who they plan to profile, how they will investigate this individual (reading specific source materials, viewing video clips, etc.), and why they selected the individual. They are forewarned that only one student will be allowed to investigate any given leader and that proposals are to be approved on a first-come, first-served basis. As a result, they are encouraged to submit a second choice along with their first. It is critical at this point for instructors to be discerning in their approval of leaders. Instructors may question students as to exactly how influential the proposed leader is or was. Students occasionally wish to profile individuals who are personal role models but not necessarily significant in terms of their range or magnitude of influence on others. In several years of using this assignment, students have selected a diverse array of leaders to profile. Political figures have been very popular choices, particularly those with whom students identify based on values, ethnicity, and/or culture. Among the more frequently profiled leaders are John F. Kennedy, Margaret Thatcher, Martin Luther King, Jr., Indira Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Harvey Milk as well as Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini. Leaders from movies have included characters from Dead Poets Society and Twelve Angry Men to Disney cartoon characters. Students have profiled religious leaders such as the Pope and Mother Theresa, whereas others have focused on leaders of causes such as David Duke, Jim Jones, Clara Barton, and Gloria Steinem. Leaders portrayed in literature have run the gamut from biblical characters to Shakespearean characters to characters in John Grisham and Danielle Steele novels. Characters in television shows and professional athletes have also been the subject of leadership profiles. Leadership theory generally suffers from the normative paradigm of analyzing largely those leaders who were/are socially desirable. Certainly some of the darker individuals mentioned above were extremely influential leaders. Hence, profiles of such individuals are not discouraged to allow the class to study and understand leadership within as broad a context as possible.
CLASS PRESENTATIONS
In addition to preparing a written report, each student is also required to give an oral presentation to the class during the last 4 weeks of the class. Here,
354
each student orally advances his or her own theory of leadership developed in his or her paper to the class. They are encouraged to illustrate key points of their arguments by showing video clips and/or having the class read excerpts of written material prior to class. This graded presentation is designed to be somewhat persuasive; students are required to present their models to the class, illustrate them with examples from their leaders, and answer questions pertaining to their espoused views. Students are further encouraged to attempt to get the class involved in their presentations as much as possible. Presentations are graded on content and organization as well as mechanics (eye contact, posture, etc.). Students are also initially informed that they cannot profile their own bosses/managers or personal acquaintances. The reason for this restriction is that personal acquaintances of one student would be more difficult for classmates to relate to and understand on the same level. Also, examples of this individuals ability to influence others could generally only be illustrated through anecdotal descriptions, which could be fabricated. After several classes of individual presentations of leadership profiles and models have been completed, the last session of the course is spent analyzing the presentations and attempting to bring some sense of understanding to the art and process of leadership. The entire final class period is spent attempting to develop a model that can capture the essence of all of the leaders profiled. In other words, the class attempts to take its sample of culturally diverse leaders and try to do what seemed impossible: develop a single model that encompasses effective leadership. During this session, students become quite energized and emotions run high as no one wants his or her leader discounted in the process. Often, when one class member proposes that a certain variable is not important in understanding leadership, another will refute the claim with evidence about his or her leader. The instructors role in this process is largely that of a facilitator by recording information on the board, drawing arrows, circles, and boxes as requested, and, as necessary, asking questions to promote (or provoke) further discussion. The class session promotes a good deal of discussion, compromise, and thought about what leadership really is, how we understand it, what factors affect it, and how differences in national culture and diversity within cultures affect leadership dynamics.
COMMON DISCUSSION THEMES
Instructors should be prepared for a number of common themes or elements that usually emerge during the discussions. Among them are factors that contribute to the acceptance of individuals as leaders. Students have cited factors such as trust, contrast to other potential leaders, personal competence,
355
giving back to the community, and overall perceptions of individuals as factors influencing leadership dynamics. One student who profiled basketball legend Michael Jordan cited how the media influenced perceptions about Jordan as a leader as well as how his giving back to the community enhanced his legitimacy as being a good person. The class then contrasted this to how the media influenced perceptions that contributed to the downfall of Newt Gingrich as a leader. An interesting class discussion ensued as to whether and how leaders are created. Another common theme in the discussions has been how opportunities to lead influence leadership dynamics. The issues of whether and how leaders are created also present themselves here as students discuss leaders who are groomed and benefit from a formal position, such as a monarch. Students also explain how political states can allow fear to result in opportunities to lead, particularly in explaining the leadership of dictators such as Castro and Hitler, as well as how political beliefs can result in opportunities to lead by those who have strong, articulated values, such as Gloria Steinem and Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as those who challenge authority, such as Rosa Parks. A third common but related theme is the readiness of followers to be led. Students have argued that religion and spirituality influence beliefs that contribute to the acceptance of individuals as leaders, such as Ghandi and Jesus Christ. The personal and political beliefs of leaders have also been cited as affecting readiness of followers. It is interesting that one controversy in this discussion pertains to whether effective leaders are rigid or flexible in their beliefs and values. Students, using Rosa Parks and Harvey Milk as examples, have argued that effective leaders are highly dogmatic whereas others have argued that the effectiveness of leaders such as Ronald Reagan have, in part, been attributable to flexibility and compromise. Some of the relationships that have been advanced based on these themes are presented in Figure 1. These mini models merely represent portions of larger frameworks that have been developed in class but are presented here to provide an idea of what results from the class discussion. The eventual outcome is that the class is unable to construct one coherent model that explains the effectiveness of all of the leaders profiled. Very simply, the variables are too numerous, diverse, and very much dependent on the situation(s) or context of the interaction between leaders and followers. Despite being unable to construct that one perfect model, the process of attempting to do so provides an excellent means of reviewing and summarizing all that has been studied, presented, and discussed throughout the course. In addition, attempting and failing to construct one model allows students to realize that there are different forms of leadership. In one particular class, stu-
356
Figure 1:
Examples of Results of Class Discussions
357
dents asked and attempted to develop different models for different contexts (i.e., one in which followers had been oppressed, one based on ego and power needs of leaders, one based on interpersonal dynamics within groups, etc.). This segmented approach still failed to develop context-specific models due to the differences and variations in dynamics present in the different situations. Despite the fact that the discussion failed to produce a model, the process produced one much more significant outcome: Students were able to develop more fully the diagnostic skills for understanding the contextual or situational influences on leadership. The assignment as presented has been modified from initial trials based on some technical difficulties students initially encountered. The first time this assignment was presented, some students chose inappropriate leaders. As discussed earlier, subjects were more role models than leaders. This has been remedied by having students first submit a proposal to the instructor that indicates not only the name of the individual to be profiled but also why this individual was selected and why his or her leadership would be of value to examine. A second difficulty initially encountered was that many students had little or no experience in critiquing theories of management. Much of their past study had involved learning and, in some cases, applying theory but very little critical analysis of it. The result was an inability to build their own model and understand its context, implications, or limitations. Instructors considering adopting this pedagogy should spend several class sessions ensuring that students are comfortable with and competent in critical analysis. Several short writing assignments early in the term that critique theory can allow instructors to gauge student aptitude in this area. This assignment has been used in a semester-long course on leadership but could easily be used in courses on organizational behavior, group dynamics, psychology, sociology, political science, management, or any other course where the benefits of a critical and contextual approach to the study of leadership would satisfy course objectives. It has also been used as an independent study where students look at the cultural contexts of leadership. Although it was originally developed for working adult graduate students, the assignment has also been used successfully, without modification, with both traditional and part-time undergraduate students. Traditional undergraduate students may need closer direction than working adult students due to the nature of the independent thinking required by the assignment. Several caveats should be extended to instructors considering adopting profiling in teaching leadership. First, the instructor needs to be comfortable with experiential learning and a skills-based approach to learning. This assignment allows students to develop analytical and reasoning skills, oral
358
and written communication skills, persuasion skills, and self-awareness skills, among others. Second, the assignment is difficult to administer in large classes due to the time constraints for presentations and the need to work oneon-one with the instructor. The assignment has been used in classes with as many as 30 students but larger class sizes might pose problems relative to available time. Third, the assignment can be demanding on instructors. Because many students have limited training in critical analysis and theory building, demand for one-on-one consultations with the instructor may be high. This can, in part, be alleviated by setting aside some time in each class session for general questions, issues, clarifications, and so on as some concerns may be generic. Students can also be encouraged to submit outlines or rough drafts of papers for guidance and direction. Student feedback on the assignment has been no less than overwhelmingly positive; the following are representative student comments about the leadership profile exercise.
This assignment was overwhelming at first but it helped me come to grips with different styles of leadership and what makes them effective more than any other activity in the course. Studying leadership by doing profiles gave me lots of insights that I was able to apply to my job. The last class session really brought the whole course together and allowed me to see why certain people in my company are good or poor leaders. The leadership profile was, without question, the most challenging assignment I have ever had. It really required me to think and gave me a lot of selfconfidence. We need more of this in our coursework. I feel proud of what I was able to learn in doing this.
Although students report the assignment to be time-consuming and require a significant amount of work in that it requires them to think about and analyze material in new ways, they also report that they gain a good deal from the assignment. While it can be quite time-consuming on the instructors part, it is important to make oneself available for discussion of issues and problems during the course of the assignment and have a willingness to read and comment on outlines and/or drafts of papers. The instructor can also benefit significantly from this assignment through having his or her understanding of leadership and its contexts enhanced, but more important, students consistently report that the four objectives of the assignment were unquestionably achieved. Students leave the assignment and the course with a deep appreciation not only of different types of leadership but also of the numerous situational factors that affect leadership dynamics and influence processes in general.
359
References
Ashour, A. S. (1973). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 339-355. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Batten, J. D. (1989). Tough-minded leadership. New York: American Management Association. Belasco, J. A., & Stayer, R. C. (1993). Flight of the buffalo: Soaring to excellence, learning to let employees lead. New York: Warner Books. Bell, E. (1990). The bicultural life experiences of career-oriented Black women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 1-59. Bennis, W. (2000). Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Blanchard, K., & Bowles, S. (1998). Gung ho! New York: William and Morrow. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brannen, M. Y. (1995). Bicultural alienation in Japanese-owned companies: A preliminary study in scale development. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of International Management, Maui, HI. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma & leadership in organizations. London: Sage. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Caproni, P. J., & Arias, M. E. (1997). Managerial skills training from a critical perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 292-308. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. A. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. A. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 78-97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. A. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass. DuPree, M. (1997). Leading without power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Erez, M., & Zidon, I. (1984). Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship between goal difficulty and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 69-78. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128-148. Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press. Gibb, C. A. (1947). The principles and traits of leadership. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 267-284. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 39-51). Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
360
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 6-38). Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hogan, R. T., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of leadership. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338. House, R. J. (1977). A theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108. House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future direction for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 45-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. House, R. J., Spangler, D. W., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396. Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28, 315-336. Jenkins, W. O. (1947). A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems. Psychological Bulletin, 44, 54-79. Kahn, R. L., & Katz, D. (1953). Leadership practices in relation to productivity and morale. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 554-571). New York: Harper & Row. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale among railroad workers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center. Keller, R. T. (1989). A test of the path-goal theory of leadership with need for clarity as a moderator in research and development organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 208-212. Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: The Free Press. Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103-111. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-263. Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The effects of a crisis on the emergence of charismatic leadership: A laboratory study. Best Paper Proceedings: Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Miami. Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (1993). Reconceptualizing alienation in management inquiry: Critical organizational scholarship and workplace empowerment. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2, 169-183. Rost, J. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
361
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 122-160). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. (1977a). R. I. P. LPC: A response to Fiedler. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 51-56). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. (1977b). Theories and measures of leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 9-45). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Schriesheim, C. A., & von Glinow, M. A. (1977). Tests of the path-goal theory of leadership: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 398-405. Shriberg, A., Shriberg, D. L., & Lloyd, C. (2002). Practicing leadership: Principles and applications (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stinson, J. E., & Johnson, T. W. (1975). A path-goal theory of leadership: A partial test and suggested refinements. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 242-252. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71. Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 114. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press. Vecchio, R. P. (1977). An empirical examination of the validity of Fiedlers model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 180-206. Vecchio, R. P. (1983). Assessing the validity of Fiedlers contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 404-408. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vroom, V. H., & Yago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wagner, J. A., III, & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1992). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15, 251-289.

Profiles in Leadership

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Profiles in Leadership

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Management Education

OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators

PROFILES IN LEADERSHIP: ENHANCING LEARNING THROUGH MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

Jeffrey A. Mello Towson University

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Examples of Results of Class Discussions

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Mello / MODEL AND THEORY BUILDING

Potrebbero piacerti anche