Maurice Roussety

Leadership dimensions
Dr. M. Roussety MBA, MLed, PhD

Within the context of the behavioural science, more
particularly organisational behaviour, Robbins et al., (2004)
broadly defines “organisation,” which I adapt (for the express
purpose of this review) to include the word “financial,” and
now reads, “a consciously coordinated social unit, composed
of two or more people, that functions on a relatively
continuous basis to achieve a common financial goal or a set
of financial goals.”

By giving the organisation a requisite financial purpose, I
intentionally narrow the definition to exclude social units such
as army corps, schools, political parties, sporting teams whose
raison d’être materially differ to that of financial-centric
organisations. This small but significant change gives
contextual clarity and purpose to many of the key leadership
principles being explored in this work and reflects this review’s
underlying interest in occupation-related behaviour.

The above definition of the organisation clearly
establishes its relational dependency on the workings of
groups in an open system model. More precisely, it relies
on groups of two or more people to coordinate as a
social unit in order to achieve its financial goals. In
effect, this principle postulates that the organisation
cannot attain its goals without the workings of groups
and an effective leader.

Furthermore, when investigating organisational
behavioural, notably issues such as leadership
effectiveness, it is important to clearly specify the level(s)
of analysis at which phenomena are expected to exist
(House, Rousseau and Thomas-Hunt, 1995; and Klein,
Danseuse and Hall, 1994). Consequently in this review,
my discussion refers generally and equally to individuals,
dyads, work-groups, and departments.

To begin the conceptual classification of key leadership
dimensions and sub-dimensions/factors contained in contemporary
literature, the concept of Leader Capital (LC), Follower Capital
(FC), and Situational Milieu (SM) is presently introduced and
developed in detail later in this paper. These leadership concepts
will be systematically applied to classify and compress the key
leadership dimensions and sub-dimensions/factors into fixed
variables that are able of being consistently and systematically
applied in evaluating leadership models of differing theoretical
constructs.

This task is validated by the fact that conceptual definitions
of leadership components employed in empirical,
theoretical, and meta-analytic studies have typically evolved
independently of one another and lacking in alignment with
one guiding theoretical perspective, as respective authors
strive for differentiation and prominence by developing new
rather than consolidating existing concepts (Schriesheim et
al., 1999; and Raush, 2005).

In keeping with the rudimentary three-dimensional leadership
model that contemplates the interdependence of leader,
follower and situation (Mahsud et al., 2010:562), and consistent
with the view that leadership theories need to embrace task
structure of the job, level of situational stress, level of group
support, the leader’s intelligence and experience; and follower
characteristics such as personality, experience, ability and
motivation (Robbins et al., 2004:352).

Personality and Background Factors

Background factors can be grouped as biographical:-
those that can be objectively determined such as age,
gender and race (Robbins et al., 2004:40), whereas non-
biographical (dynamic) factors comprise those that are
not so objectively determined and largely influenced by
social and environmental conditioning such as values,
needs, motivations, attitudes, capabilities and skills..

Personality and Background Factor Scale (PBFS), biographical factors
are what they are, and cannot be changed by human interference,
however non-biographical factors are not prescribed by nature and
can be manipulated to diverging levels of complexities and temporal
constraints. It is generally accepted that, of the non-biographical
factors, personality is stable and straddles the boundaries of
biographical and dynamic factors (McCrae and Costa, 1990; and
Kornor and Nordvik, 2004); and is the most complex to understand and
transmute.

This phenomenon is such that researchers in leadership theory
are polarised (Brown, 1988; and Barrick et al., 2001) as to how
much of leader or follower behaviour is shaped by personality
characteristics, but has not discouraged the research and meta-
analytic efforts of prominent authors such as Lopes et al., (2003);
Raja et al., (2004); McCrae and Costa (2004); Schyns and Felfe
(2006); Bauer et al., (2006); Berneth et al., (2007); and Nahrgang et
al., (2009) towards establishing credible correlations.

To expound this concept, I now refer to each of the
non-biographical factors for a more comprehensive
analysis of each of their respective roles in leadership
effectiveness.

Personality:- Pe
“Personality is the unique pattern of psychological
and behavioral characteristics by which each person
can be compared and contrasted with other people”
(Bernstein et al., 2006:540) and “dimensions of individual
differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of
thoughts, feelings and actions” (McCrae et al., 1990:23)
which are shaped by hereditary, environmental and
moderated by situational factors.

The study of personality has to date been voluminously
covered from an empirical and theoretical perspective as
personality traits are deemed valid predictors of behaviour
(Hough et al., 1990; Barrick and Mount, 1993:111; and Kornor
and Nordvik, 2004:49) and more broadly by Cooper and
McClenaghan (2008:1:2) when they stated that organisational
behaviour presupposes that human behaviour in an
organisational context is substantively predictable.

The accuracy of predicting behaviour is enhanced by the
empirical observation that human behaviour, especially in the
workplace, is relatively consistent across situations and time.
That is, human behaviour is driven by a person’s personality,
which is most resistant to change. To that end, various models
have been developed to try, to the extent possible, to make
an objective assessment of otherwise subjective traits of human
personality, i.e., Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

However, the MBTI has not been clinically proven to be a valid
measure (Robbins et al., 2004:103), unlike Allport and Cattell’s
Five-Factor-Model (FFM) which Costa and McCrae (1992)
subsequently revised into a hierarchical taxonomy comprising,
extraversion (e.g., sociable, talkative and assertive),
agreeableness (e.g., good-natured, cooperative, and trusting),
Conscientiousness (e.g., responsible, dependable, persistent and
achievement oriented), emotional stability (viewed from the
negative pole; tense, insecure, and nervous); and openness to
experience (e.g., imaginative, artistically sensitive, and
intellectual), (Barrick and Mount).

Although disagreement abounds amongst academics as to the
theoretical validity of FFM (Block, 1995) in predicting leadership style
and recently confirmed by Bono and Judge (2004:908) “in summary,
results of the present study provide the first meta-analytic evidence on
the relationship between personality and transformational and
transactional leadership. Results indicate generally modest validities
overall”
The FFM domains were recently empirically examined by Berneth
(2007) who affirmatively confirmed what Dienesch and Liden (1986);
and Phillips and Bedeian (1994) reported: - that they all individually or
in concert play a role in leadership relations.

It is worth noting that even though personality as an active meta-
moderator of leadership behaviour has been the subject of leadership
research since the early 1970s, not much work had been done on the
five distinct domains of FFM (Murphy and Ensher, 1999:562) until
Berneth’s research. This point is further reinforced by my analysis of
work undertaken by Schriesheim et al., (1999:63-113) where the
authors chronicled the evolution of LMX theory with an analytical
focus on the theoretical definitions (57 identified) and Sub-Domains
(164 identified) embedded in 147 LMX studies (10 theoretical and 137
empirical) from 1972 to 1998.

My analysis entails a qualitative and quantitative decomposition
of these definitions and domains to enable the attribution of each
of the 164 Sub-Domains to one of the non-biographical factors of
greater contextual congruence and I found that personality was
the most (66%) considered dimension in 147 LMX studies. Similar
research by Bono and Judge (2004) found that out 15,000 studies
on leadership since 1990, 12% considered the personality
dimension, which I suspect would be significantly higher had they
adopted the attribution approach of my analysis rather than
search for the keywords ‘personality’ and ‘leadership’.

The FFM is by far been the dominating force in contemporary
research in personality (Bernstein et al., 2006:555) across different
cultures (Barrick and Mount, 1993:111) and as a consequence has
substantively contributed to our ability to predict behaviour.
However, as Bernstein et al., (2006:555) caution, “even if the big-five
model is correct and universal, its factors are not all-powerful,
because situations also affect behaviour.” To put it in context of
leadership theory, this suggests that leader or follower behaviour is
not moderated by personality alone, but is instead positively or
negatively correlated to other factors

Accepting the above, it is reasonable to assert that
personality is remarkably stable (Kornor and Nordvik, 2004:45;
and Robbins et al., 2004:101), is genetically wired (Tellegen et
al., 1998), therefore complex and resistant to change,
influences non-biographical factors of leaders/followers
(Nahrgang et al., 2008:258) and has implications in leadership
behaviour (De Vader and Alliger, 1986; Matthews and Dreary,
1988; and Barrick et al., 2001).

Values:- V
“Values comprise our feelings of what's right or wrong, are
shaped from our formative years by environmental factors. They are
generally stable, and enduring, thereby often impede objectivity
and rationality. They assist in shaping our attitudes and general
behaviour” (Rokeach et al., 1989:775-84); or as Ravlin and
Meglino (1987:667) put it: - values influence the selection and
interpretation of external stimuli, thereby affecting the organisation
of behavioral choices or the formulation of alternative courses of
action.

Mahsud et al., (2010) narrow it down to ethical leadership
which they maintain includes “altruism, honesty,
empowerment, fairness, and justice, and these values are a
core aspect of several theories that have been prominent in
the leadership literature in recent years, including servant
leadership (Russell and Stone, 2002; and Smith et al., 2004),
spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003); and authentic leadership
(Gardner et al., 2005)”.

As indicated on the high-low continuum in Fig. 1, values are
the most resistant to change out of the six dynamic factors
(values, needs, motivations, attitudes, capabilities, and skills)
that are driven by personality. It has been successfully argued
that values of individuals in an organisational setting vary
according to their occupational cohorts (Munson and Posner,
1980; and Frederick and Preston, 1990).

Rokeach’s Value Survey identified that executives, union
members, and activists had diverse value sets, which he
grouped as terminal and instrumental. For the executive
cohorts terminal values included self-respect, family security,
freedom, sense of accomplishment, and happiness whereas
instrumental values consisted of honest, responsible, capable,
ambitious, and independent.

Reverting to the connection that Ravlin and Meglino
(1987); Rokeach et al., (1989); Ayman et al., (1995); Varma et
al., (2005); and Mahsud et al., (2010:565) make between
values and behaviour, and more particularly the composition
of terminal and instrumental values; it is hard not to expect a
leader’s style and his ultimate effectiveness to be influenced
by his values.

As Frederick and Weber (1990:132) rightly state when
discussing the way different cohorts behave in organisations:-
when critical stakeholder groups within organisations interact
over economic and social issues, built-in differences in
personal value preferences will most likely be manifested:-
even in those with leadership roles, thereby engendering
predictable behaviour patterns. The consequential impact of
values on a leader’s style is insightfully expressed by Mahsud
et al., (2010:565)

Ethical values are likely to encourage leaders to use
more relations-oriented behaviours with subordinates
when they are appropriate for the situation. A leader
who values altruism is more likely to be supportive and
helpful to subordinates. A leader who values
empowerment is more likely to use delegation. A
leader who values personal growth and fairness is
more likely to develop subordinates and provide equal
opportunities for career advancement.

A leader who values humility and fairness is more likely
to provide recognition to subordinates who make
important contributions to the mission rather than
claiming credit for them. Leaders with strong ethical
values will not deceive or exploit subordinates, and
they will not be abusive or unkind in their behaviour
towards subordinates.

Needs: N
“A need is a biological requirement for well-being”
(Bernstein et al., 2006:401), which captures the essence of
Maslow (1943)’s hierarchy of physiological, safety,
belongingness and love, esteem and self-actualisation needs
and when considered in an organisational context can be
condensed to the need for affiliation, power and
achievement (Levinson, 1994; McClelland, 1961; and Stahi,
1986).

However those basic needs are influenced by personality
along with values and vary in form and motive from one
individual to another. As researched by Sheldon et al., (2001),
a group of college students cited the need for autonomy,
relatedness to others, competence, and self-esteem to
prevail over the need for luxury or self-actualisation.

Further to this, Baumeister and Leary (1995); and Oishi et al.,
(1999) make the point that needs associated with basic
survival and security generally take precedence over those
relating to self-enhancement or personal growth. That being
said, it is reasonable to draw the inference that human
behaviour in an organisational setting is most likely to exhibit
motives for affiliation, power, and achievement. To that end,
research has established a strong relationship between needs
and job performance

Motivations:- M
“Motivation is the process that account for an individual's
intensity, direction, and persistence of effort towards attaining
a goal” (Mitchell, 1997), it is the interaction of the individual
and the situation” (Robbins et al., 2004:164); it is the “force,
either internal or external to a person that arouses enthusiasm
and persistence to pursue a certain course of action.” The
individual is constrained by his personality and to an extent,
the situation is moderated by that individual’s values and
needs.

Accepting that intensity relates to how hard the work effort is
and that the direction of that effort either accrues to the individual
or the organisation, then given the situation, the goal may not be
attained unless there is a degree of persistence:- duration of effort.
Building on Daft and Pirola-Merlo (2009:230) who posit that “people
have basic needs, such as the needs for food, recognition or
monetary gain, that translate into internal tension that motivates
specific behaviour to fulfil those needs”

it will be the intimate fusing of personality, values and
needs of the individual that will lead the effort: - behaviour
required for intensity, direction and persistence. It must also
be said that motivation is fluid and dynamic, so much so that
it must be kept in check to ensure that it is justified in context
of the structure, goals, and visions of the organisation.

Attitudes:- At
“Attitudes comprise cognitive, affective, or behavioral elements
that reflect our likes as well as dislikes and is evaluative in intent”
(Olson et al., 1993) which is consistent with the thinking of Bernstein
et al., (2006:70) except that they go further to say that attitudes are
derivatives of values, which is further reinforced by Ayman et al.,
(1995:152) by writing that values assist in shaping attitudes as well as
general behaviour, to which Robbins et al., (2004:70) add:-
attitudes are less stable and complex than values, which is
consistent with where they respectively situate on the PBFS
continuum.

As Brooke et al., (1988) reason, attitudes are manifested in a
broad triad of organisational dimensions: - job satisfaction, job
involvement, and organisational involvement. Job satisfaction
refers to the individual’s own evaluation of whether or not he/she
is gratified by the job at hand and more or less reflects his/her
present and future needs. Depending on those needs, the
resultant behaviour may be counter-productive to personal
and/or organisational goals.

On the other hand job involvement is more of a
psychological concept. It is the extent that the
individual connects and identifies with the job together
with the effort required for reward and a measure of self-
worth (Blau and Boal, 1987:290). This psychological
condition appears to be driven more by motivations,
which in turn are driven by the combined workings of
personality, values, and needs.

It is a form of self-efficacy which Bandura (1977) defines as
“the conviction that one can successfully execute the
behaviour required to produce the outcomes” and similarly
Schyns and Von Collani (2002: 227) describe occupational
self-efficacy as “one’s belief in one’s own ability and
competence to perform successfully and effectively in
situations and across different tasks in a job.”

Organisational commitment is the last of Brooke’s
attitudinal dimensions and manifests much the same
emotions as does job commitment except that, Blau and
Boal (1987) point out, it is centered on the organisation and its
goals rather the job, and defined by Mowday et al. (1982:27)
as “relative strength of an individual’s identification with, and
involvement in, a particular organisation”.

Meyer and Allen (1991:67) went further to break down this
commitment into three dimensions: - affective, continuance,
and normative. They explained that affective commitment
refers to “the employee’s emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in the organisation,”
whereas continuance commitment refers to “an awareness
of the cost associated with leaving the organisation,” and
normative commitment reflects “a feeling of obligation to
continue employment.”

To that end Mael and Ashforth (1992); and Dutton et al.,
(1994) reveal that most people desire to belong to and
identify with an organisation that is believed to have socially
valued characteristics. Regardless of whether their opinion is
accurate, such internal employees’ own assessments can
influence how they interact with and within the organisation
(Clardy, 2005; and Mignonac et al., 2006).

This phenomenon is often referred to as ‘perceived
external prestige’ (Mael and Ashforth, 1992), or ‘construed
external image’ (Dutton et al., 1994) and is of increasing
interest to researchers and practitioners for the reason that it
has broad implications for attitudes and behaviours in
organisations (Herrbach and Mignonac, 2004).

Capabilities:- C
Capabilitiesrefer to the ability that is present or can be
developed which is necessary to achieve, consisting of intellectual
and physical abilities (Robbins et al., 2004:44-45). To follow,
Dunnette (1976) argues that intellectual ability can be multi-
dimensionally classified as number aptitude, verbal
comprehension, perceptual speed, inductive and deductive
reasoning, spatial visualisation, and memory. Conversely, Fleishman
(1979) tags physical abilities with strength, flexibility and other
factors such as body coordination, balance, and stamina.

Capabilities:- C
Capabilities refer to the ability that is present or can be
developed which is necessary to achieve, consisting of intellectual
and physical abilities (Robbins et al., 2004:44-45). To follow, Dunnette
(1976) argues that intellectual ability can be multi-dimensionally
classified as number aptitude, verbal comprehension, perceptual
speed, inductive and deductive reasoning, spatial visualisation, and
memory. Conversely, Fleishman (1979) tags physical abilities with
strength, flexibility and other factors such as body coordination,
balance, and stamina.

Based on the above, capabilities are vital links in the chain of
goal achievement. In a dynamic organisational setting, individuals
are not always assigned jobs meritoriously. There are times when job
appointments are politically motivated or are just circumstantially
inherited. This, according to Robbins et al., (2004:46) can be
problematic as “sometimes jobs make different demands on
people and that people differ in the abilities they possess” which
may obstruct the likelihood of achieving personal and
organisational goal. Conversely, at times individuals are posted to
roles for which they are overly qualified to do, which can cause
frustration, dampen motivation and ultimately sabotage goal
delivery.

Irrespective of personality, values, needs, motivations and
attitudes; efforts to achieve a goal better or worse that another
can and will to a large extent depend on capacity. Saying that, if
the capacity to do exists and the individual’s needs, motivations
and attitude are where they ought to be, then learning and
training can bridge the gap between what one individual can do
well and another do better. This obviously hits a chord with Daft
and Pirola-Merlo (2009:60) who write that the differences in task
readiness (affected by training, ability, skills etc.) call for a certain
type of leadership style that differs for members with a high level of
task readiness and “training can change leadership behaviour and
attitudes”

Similarly, a study of MBA graduates by Cheng and Ho
(2001) showed that, since individuals with high commitment
to their careers have the intention of improving skills and
performance in their jobs, they are likely to exert considerable
effort towards learning the training content. As a result,
research has been exploring the underlying attributes and
behaviours of leaders who successfully perform these
contemporary leadership roles in order to identify leadership
selection and training criteria for the recruitment and
development of effective leaders (Church and Waclawski,
1998).

Skills:- Sk
Skills means the competence to achieve which is gained
through experience and training. They can be either
emotional or physical and feature at the polar end to
personality on the PBFS indicating that they can be the most
responsive to change over a relatively small time period when
compared to the other non-biographical factors discussed
above..

Competence can be considered in terms of technical,
general business, and interpersonal skills (Gabarro, 1987;
Butler, 1991; and Mishra's, 1994) all of which are needed in
nearly all roles, but individually in some more so than others.
At the end of it all, the individual who travels well along the
PBFS continuum but falters before acquiring the necessary
skills may become inextricably failure-bound.

Dr. Maurice Roussety is an Executive Consultant at DST
Advisory and Lecturer in Small Business, Franchising and
Entrepreneurship at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia.
Maurice holds a PhD from the Griffith University in Intellectual
Property and Franchise Goodwill Valuation. He also holds a
Master’s degree in Leadership and a Master of Business
Administration.

Maurice Roussety

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (10)

Semelhante a Maurice Roussety

Semelhante a Maurice Roussety (20)

Último

Último (20)

Maurice Roussety