Leaders are multidimensional, complex personalities. Douglas MacArthur was, according to his biographer William Manchester (1978), “a great thundering paradox of a man, noble and ignoble, inspiring and outrageous, arrogant and shy, the best of men and the worst of men, the most protean, most ridiculous and most sublime.” Manchester used traits, values, actions, orientations, motives, and self-concepts in his word painting of MacArthur’s unique individuality. So far I have detailed how the intricacies of the personal factors of leadership involve a variety of traits including activism and orientation toward authority, power, and manipulativeness. This chapter examines how leaders regard themselves; Chapter 9 will discuss how others regard them. Presented are the leaders’ self-ascribed personal values, valued activities, and identification; and how subconscious and conscious motives energize and direct leaders. Their risk taking, self-concept, physical fitness, and mental health are discussed. The attitudes of leaders toward their organization and their satisfaction with their roles as managers are also examined.
A value is “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state” (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5). Objects and actions are valued if they are believed to be right, good, worthwhile, and important. A value may be instumental, that is, a means to some desired end, on terminal, an end in itself. Ambition, honesty, and courage are instrumental values. A comfortable life, social recognition, and family security are terminal values. Rokeach (1973) provided 18 examples each of instrumental and terminal values. Values may also be espoused or enacted. Espoused values are what people say they value. Enacted values are inferred from what people do. Enacted values resulted in greater organizational commitment of 135 assistant managers, according to a study by Furst, Cable, and Edwards (2001).
Personality is made up of cognitive and behavioral traits; character is made up of values. Piotrowski and Armstrong (1987) concluded that all 30 chief executive officers they interviewed had clear values. Values determine what is considered the right thing to do (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1993). The leader who values courage will take unpopular stands on issues; the leader who values self-control will tend to remain aloof from a highly emotional follower. The leader who values being imaginative rather than logical will evaluate others depending whether they appear logical rather than imaginative. The leader who values obedience over independence will not question orders from higher authority. Bad values motivate bad behavior. The manager who scores high in vanity “does not share credit when we do something upper management really likes”; the greedy manager “is not calm when working under pressure” (Hogan, 2003).
Leaders and nonleaders value themselves differently. Peppers and Ryan (1986) found that when 79 individuals in positions of leadership were contrasted with 110 who were not, the leaders differed from the nonleaders in three general ways in traits and values. First, they saw themselves as more talkative, aggressive, intelligent, committed, and ambitious. Second, they aspired to be more sensitive, democratic, fair, committed, imaginative, confident, and self-assured. Third, there was more congruence between the leaders’ aspirations and self-perceptions than the nonleaders’. Trow and Smith (1983) found that people who volunteered to serve on the boards of directors of agencies that planned and advocated social change systematically differed in their values from those in the same community who did not volunteer to serve. Those who volunteered were much more likely to value goodwill and the need to eradicate sin and were much less likely to endorse a hard line in dealing with social problems. Generally, leaders endorse the values of their social and political movements more strongly than do ordinary followers.
Importance of Values to Leaders. Baltzell (1980) illustrated how the careers that leaders pursued were influenced by the values they assimilated. He contrasted the values of upper-class Protestant Bostononians and upper-class Protestant Philadelphians. Puritan-influenced Bostonians viewed human beings as inherently sinful, in need of authoritative institutions headed by righteous leaders of superior education. Quaker-influenced Philadelphians viewed human beings as inherently good, individually perfectable, with no need of mediation by state or church, erudition, or professionalism. For Boston’s Brahmins but not for Philadelphia’s elite, public service became obligatory; Boston’s Adamses, Cabots, and Lowells produced a good many eminent political leaders; Philadelphia’s Biddles, Cadwaladers, and Whartons did not. Baltzell attributed the difference to the original Puritan and Quaker values inculcated in succeeding generations of family members. The Bostonians, who pursued political leadership, and the Philadelphians, who pursued leadership in business and finance, clearly differed in their attitudes and opinions about what was important to them and what interested them.
In a review of available research, Ghiselli (1968a) noted that managers’ personal values correlated .25 to .30 with criteria of their effectiveness. U.S. Army officers and enlisted personnel are expected to live by the army’s seven core values: (1) loyalty, (2) duty, (3) respect, (4) selfless service, (5) honor, (6) integrity, and (7) personal courage (Berenson, 1998). Violations could lead to disciplinary action.
Shared Values. “Leaders cannot function effectively without some base of shared values in their constituents or followers” (J. W. Gardner, 1988, p. 22). Shared values play an important role in Nel’s (1993) value-centered leadership. Unity within diversity in an organization can be developed if its members and teams share a vision and values. Weiss (1978) found that leaders’ success and competence were greater when the leaders and their subordinates held values in common. Job satisfaction was also greater (Murray, 1993). Nonetheless, leaders have to choose which values they should articulate (Beckhard, 1995). En gland and Lee (1974) offered six reasons for the influence on a leader’s performance of the values that the leader regards as right, good, and important. These values affect: (1) a leader’s perception of situations and problems to be faced; (2) a leader’s decisions and solutions to problems; (3) the leader’s view of other individuals and groups, and thus of interpersonal relationships; (4) the leader’s perception of individual and organizational success, as well as how to achieve them; (5) the leader’s determination of what is and what is not ethical behavior; and (6) the extent to which the leader accepts or resists organizational pressures and goals. The leader has to choose which values to articulate.
Values and Transformational Leadership. According to Burns (1978) and House, Howell, and Shamir (2002), values are central to the neocharismatic and transformational theories of leadership (see Chapters 21 and 22). In these theories, leaders are assumed to move their followers to transcend their own needs for the needs of their group, organization, or society. They foster the sharing of transcendental values with their followers. These values may include altruism, social welfare, supportiveness, service, spirituality, honesty, fairness, and aesthetics (Engelbrecht & Murray, 1995). Transformational leaders and their visions are also concerned with moral values and end values such as liberty, equality, and justice (Burns, 1976). Such leaders amplify, elevate, or idealize values of consequence to the followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). They are strongly convinced of the rightness of these values and imbue followers with the same feelings. Strongly held values underlie the commitments of both the neocharismatic leader and the led (House, 1977). For instance, to achieve a strong customer focus, an organization will need to promote the values of service, honesty, and integrity in its leadership, in its employees, and in itself (Snyder, Dowd, & Houghton, 1994).
For Drucker (1999, p. 73), “to work in an organization whose value system is unacceptable or incompatible with one’s own values condemns a person both to frustration and to nonperformance.” An organization may value a policy of hiring from the outside; a leader may value promoting from within. A leader may value developing subordinates but may be discouraged by the organization from spending time or resources to do so. A leader may value long-term results; organizational policies may emphasize short-term results.
Starting in the 1930s, the Allport-Vernon Study of Values (1931) became a widely used inventory for assessing Spranger’s (1928) six-fold typology of values: (1) theoretical, (2) economic, (3) aesthetic, (4) social, (5) political, and (6) religious. Questionnaires asking respondents to rank Rokeach’s 18 instrumental and 18 terminal values in order of preference became another common approach from the 1970s onward. The Allport-Vernon was criticized as too abstract and Rokeach’s values were said to lack relevance in organizational and management contexts (Hambrick & Brandon, 1988). A more recent addition to the assessment of values, validated with working adults, is Hogan and Hogan’s (1996) Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) with value scales such as aesthetic, affiliation, altruistic, commercial, hedonistic, power, recognition, scientific, and tradition. Each scale is reliable. Validated scale questions address respondents’ valuing of lifestyles, beliefs, occupational preferences, aversions, and preferred associates.
Many methods other than questionnaires have been used to assess values. For instance, Hall (2000) and Benjamin Tonna ascertained that there are about 125 values embedded in written and spoken language that are basic to human behavior. Documents such as a presidential address can be analyzed using a thesaurus of more than 5,000 synonyms of the 125 values, to count their presence in the speech. The values can then be prioritized according to their frequency of appearance in the speech, in En glish and in translations into French, Spanish, or German. Bass (1975a) developed Exercise Objectives in which the performance of participants was a gauge of their pragmatism or idealism. In Exercise Objectives, five simulated budgeting decisions were required to deal with problems of safety, labor relations, the morale of managers, the quality of products, and environmental pollution. Bass’s (1968c) study of 113 MBA students showed that an unwillingness to spend money to remedy any of the five problems was related to strong economic, rather than humanistic, values. Conversely, willingness to spend money to handle the problems was positively associated with a social orientation to trust others. It was negatively correlated with a political orientation to bluff and to maintain psychosocial distance (Bass, 1968c).
Education. Systematic differences in the values of managers are associated with differences in their education. Esser and Strother (1962) found that managers with average amounts of education tended to be rule oriented. Those with the least education were least rule oriented, followed closely by those with the most education. And En gland (1967a) observed that managers with less education placed more value on organizational stability. Those with college majors in the humanities, the fine arts, and the social sciences stressed the importance of productivity and efficiency as organizational goals. The Indian civil service, mostly all British under the British raj, had been educated in public schools such as Eton and Harrow and universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. They had been bred and trained to feel and act superior. They despised altruism or sympathy for the Indians. Rather, they had been indoctrinated with ideals like fair and open justice, efficient administration, and the opportunity to make improvements. On this basis, the 1,200 members of the Indian civil service provided rule over hundreds of millions of Indians (Lapping, 1985).
Cognitive Style. Values are linked to differences in the way managers sense, think, judge, and feel, according to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962). Mitroff and Kilmann (1976) showed in a content analysis of managers’ stories about their ideal organization, that sensory-thinkers emphasized factual details, the physical features of work, impersonal organizational control, certainty, and specificity; intuitive-thinkers focused on broad, global issues built around theories of organization; and intuitive-feelers stressed personal and humanistic values in their ideal organization. Intuitive-feelers were also found to risk takers (Behling, Gifford, & Tolliver, 1980; Henderson & Nutt, 1980). The sensory-feelers described their ideal organization as one that focuses on facts and processes, with attention to human relationships and qualities.
Personal Considerations. A kind of discounting seems to occur on the basis of perceptions of abundance or scarcity. In a study of a hospital, Jensen and Morris (1960) found that supervisors valued leadership and executive ability more highly when these traits were less prevalent among them. And when the supervisors were socially adjusted and personable, they attached even less value to these qualities.
What leaders value as an activity for its own sake obviously depends on their vocation. Distinct patterns of interests demarcate the different professions (E. K. Strong, 1943). Among governmental leaders, one is likely to see leaders with strong political values; in the military, a strong interest in adventure; in business, a strong interest in computational matters; and in science, a strong preference for theoretical activities—understanding the “why” of things. Managers and executives tend to score highest among the professions in economic and political values, in contrast to scientific personnel who tend to value theory and understanding. Artists value creativity more highly; and people in the helping professions have stronger social or religious values.1
Student leaders, mostly from the middle class themselves, were more likely than followers or isolates to identify with middle-class values (Martin, Gross, & Darley, 1952). Some strongly valued academic and vocational activities and goals; others strongly valued socializing (Brainard & Dollar, 1971).
Status. As one rises on the organizational ladder, one usually finds shifts in values that cannot be attributed to age, education, or seniority. Status differences emerge, and commitment to the organization is generally more highly valued the higher one’s level in the organization. Pfiffner and Wilson (1953) surveyed two levels of supervisors. Their results indicated that the higher-level supervisors felt at ease with superiors and were interested in duties involving management functions. The lower-level supervisors identified with their work groups and were less critical of workers than were the higher-level supervisors. Rosen and Weaver (1960) found four levels of management in agreement regarding the importance of factors that affect the effectiveness of jobs (authority, knowledge of plans, consultation) as opposed to the importance of a role in policy making and communication with higher-ups. But first-line supervisors differed from higher levels of management in emphasizing the importance of consideration and fairness. Compared with workers, managers at all levels regarded themselves as upholders of group norms (Fruchter & Skinner, 1966). W. K. Graham (1969) factor-analyzed the intercor-relations among the job-attitude scores of personnel at three levels of organization in life insurance agencies. Higher-level managers differentiated managerial actions from the organizational climate, whereas supervisors and agents did not.
Meaning of the Job. Triandis (1960) factor-analyzed the meanings attached to job descriptions by managers and workers. Six factors were isolated, five of which were similar for managers and workers. However, in a study of meanings attached to words describing jobs and people, Triandis (1959a) found that upper-level managers stressed the importance of status, polish, and education; lower-level managers stressed power and position; and workers stressed money and dependability. In comparing the attitudes of Swedish managers, superiors, and workers, Lenneröf (1965b) discovered that workers value good personal relations to a greater extent than do supervisors, and supervisors value it more than do their superiors. Also, the supervisors and their workers felt more strongly than their superiors that the supervisor should strive to attain an independent and influential position. Nonetheless, when Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark (1966) compared the values of U.S. supervisors and workers, they found that the two groups agreed in placing greater value on job security, wages, and working conditions than on interpersonal relations. Similarly, Friedlander (1966a) found few differences between the values of U.S. civil service employees at different levels of status. Top managers often espouse values in their top-down communications that may or may not be practiced. These values include openness, leanness, localizing initiatives, and decisions based on merit.
Lifestyles. Bray, Campbell, and Grant (1974) reported on a comprehensive comparison of the assessed values of those who had advanced further in the Bell System with those who had not. Over the eight years of the survey, systematic changes occurred in the lives of 400 Bell System managers who were followed up after evaluations at an assessment center. Two contrasting lifestyles were identified—the enlarger and the enfolder. The enlarger’s lifestyle stressed innovation, change, self-development, and movement away from traditional ways of thinking and doing things. The enfolder’s lifestyle was oriented more toward tradition and maintaining the close family and friendship ties that the individual had gained during adolescence and college. Enfolders were less likely to leave their hometown area and were much less likely to engage in any self-improvement activities. More successful managers were enlargers; less successful managers were enfolders. Enlargers gained occupational interests and lost concern for parents and family; enfolders either suffered small losses in such concerns or remained the same. Enlargers sharply reduced their interest in recreational and social activities; enfolders showed only a slight loss in such interests.
Which is cause, and which is effect? As managers rise faster and higher, they may have less time for family ties and recreation. But they do obtain increasingly greater satisfaction from their job as they rise in rank. Less successful managers are likely to derive less satisfaction from their jobs and have more time for family and recreation. However, one cannot ignore the evidence that successful people are more likely to be career-oriented before they actually began to work, which suggests that they bring to their job at least some semblance of a lifestyle that will contribute to their success in the organization.
Societal Developments. Early on, the values of unfettered capitalism reflected societal and cultural trends. In developing industrial societies, a belief in social Darwinism (the social survival of the fittest) fit with the doctrine that an “invisible hand” made the unrestricted free market the best economic system. This belief also meshed with the Calvinist doctrine of predestination (of being chosen by God for success) and with the frontier value of individualism. All these beliefs and values combined to justify profit maximization (the bottom line) as the single objective of enterprise. Poverty, drudgery, and exploitative employment of the “unfit” (those not chosen) for the longest possible hours at the lowest possible wages were justified as the best means to achieve the highest profits to enrich the employer-owner and shareholders, who were blessed by God to prosper and were rightfully entitled to profits. Sharing the belief were the employer’s agents—the managers. The constraints of governmental regulation and union movements were unnatural, uneconomic, unreligious, and immoral. In reaction to the excesses of unconstrained profit maximization came the voting public’s and legislatures’ more sophisticated views of the government’s regulatory role, the acceptance of unionism, and more socially conscious religion. Equally if not even more important, these came some awareness by management that profit maximization was a chimera. There was a realization that instead of concentrating on the single objective function of maximizing profits, managers ought to concentrate on maintaining and improving the value of the systems for which they were responsible as stewards. Thus managers needed to integrate the needs and interests of the constituencies of the system—the owners and shareholders; the employees, including the managers themselves; the suppliers; the clients and customers; and the community. Instead of valuing the longest working hours at the lowest possible wages, managers ought to value the highest hourly productivity per employee at equitable and satisfying wages. Integration meant alignment of the employees’ and the organization’s interests in their mutual growth and development.
More often than not, managers need to view themselves as stewards. For example, in the technologically driven electronics industry, keeping abreast or ahead of competition in new products means maintaining a committed, loyal, and involved management, research and development, engineering, and manufacturing work-force; satisfied investors; cooperative suppliers; and confident consumers.
Pressures for Short-Term Results. Mergers, acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, and corporate raiding force managements to keep their eyes on short-term results, current earnings, and the price of their shares in relation to their assets. Nevertheless, attention to longer-term investment and outcomes must still be maintained if the firm is to remain healthy and viable (Freeman, 1984). At the same time, as reviewed by Laverty (1996), managers may still value short-term strategies for a variety of reasons. Intangible investments and qualitative payoffs may be ignored in formal quantitative techniques discounting the future (Hayes & Abernathy, 1980). A short-term strategy may be optimal for the manager who is planning to move out of the organization but suboptimal for the organization (Campbell & Marino, 1994; Rumelt, 1987). Investors and board directors may be impatient and want to see quick results (Jacobs, 1991); information about long-term prospects may be lacking (Thakor, 1990). And as said above, short-term maximizing of stock prices may be necessary when a hostile takeover by another corporation is possible (Drucker, 1986).
Short-term maximizing may be a matter of economic beliefs and ideals. Libertarians share a belief in unfettered free enterprise driven by self-interest. Everyone has a price. Everyone should try to maximize their own self-interests (Rand, 1959). Free-market consultants to Russia in the 1990s underestimated the effects of the human and cultural sides of enterprise. In 10 years, the new competitive economic policies had reduced the Russian economy by 50% and raised the poverty level disastrously (Lawrence, 2002).
Religious Faith. Toney and Oster (1998) presented the results of interviews and surveys of approximately 200 CEOs, of whom 65% were Protestant, 23% Catholic, and 12% Jewish. One specific question they were asked was how often they consciously applied the teachings of their religion to the daily decision process. Those who said they always did so were compared with those who said they never did so. The organizations led by CEOs who applied religious teachings earned 8% more net income than the organizations led by those who never did. In relation to their comparison group, these religious CEOs spent more time teaching and coaching and made more judgments on the basis of intuition and experience. They focused less on organizational and personal financial goals, were satisfied with a much smaller personal net worth, were more optimistic, gave twice as much to charity, more enjoyed being of service to others, and reported that their strong faith sustained them and made them more effective in coping with adversity.
Nationality. The value references in the annual reports for 1986–1990 of 53 American and 77 Australian organizations were content-analyzed and profiled in terms of nine values. Affiliation and leadership were espoused more frequently by the American organizations and authority and participation were espoused more frequently by the Australian organizations (Kabanoff & Daly, 2000). Presumably, the values espoused reflected the public views of the CEOs and managing directors. The GLOBE project (House, Hanges, Javidan, et al., 2004) assessed the leadership values of midlevel managers in 62 countries. The values of participative leadership were highest in the managers of the Anglo countries, Nordic Europe, and the Germanic cluster. These values were lowest in Eastern Europe, southern Asia, Confucian Asia (China, Taiwan, Korea), and the Middle East. Valuing team orientation was highest in Latin America and lowest in the Middle East. A humane orientation was most valued by managers in southern Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Anglo countries and least valued in Latin and Nordic Europe. The value of self-protection was most important in the Middle East, southern Asia, Eastern Europe, and Confucian Asia and was least important in the Anglo, Germanic, and Nordic countries (see also Chapter 33).
Some of the balanced, salient values are likely to remain the same in profit-making enterprises as in government, education, health, and social service organizations, although specific values that are consistent with the purposes of the organization obviously need to be substituted. Leaders of organizations providing environmental products and services value the environment more than do leaders of nonenvironmentally-oriented organizations whether or not the organizations are for profit or not for profit (Egri & Herman, 2000). In health organizations, concern for the care of patients is substituted for concern with the quality of products, but the steward in a health organization must keep alert to the employees’ as well as the patients’ interests. Maslow (1965, pp. 128, 131) captured an ideal set of balanced objectives for the management of any system:
[The leader in the work situation] is the one who … can help to organize things in such a fashion that the job gets done best. … [The good leader must also have the] ability to take pleasure in the growth and self-actualization of other people. … He must be strong, he must enjoy responsibility … ; he must be able to mete out discipline as necessary, to be stern as well as loving [like] a good father and a husband; … watching his children grow up well and … his wife … grow on toward greater maturity and self-actualization.
Competing Values. Quinn (1984) theorized that managers are faced with competing values that need to be kept under consideration. For example, they must make choices either for expansion and adaptation or for consolidation and continuity. They must choose between risk-taking inventiveness and conservative cautiousness, and sometimes between allocation of resources and information gathering and distribution.
Profit-maximizing values and balancing consituents’ values may have to compete with a third set of values (Hay & Gray, 1974). For a minority of managers, quality of life, environmental protection, and other social and political values compete with constituent interests of the firm. For socially oriented managers, there can be no balanced compromise about the quality of a product, environmental pollution, or the safety of workers. Likewise, peace-minded investors avoid investing highly in the profitable military weapons industries, and public health advocates refuse to work for tobacco firms.
But it is not enough to say that some executives are profit maximizers, others are systems balancers, and still others have social concerns of consequence. There may be trade-offs between the three objectives that are not mutually exclusive. For instance, Osborn and Jackson (1988) presented data on the safety of 41 nuclear plants that suggested that the past experience of high profitability was associated with fewer major safety violations if the utility’s total energy output was not committed to nuclear energy. However, if there was a relatively larger commitment to nuclear than to nonnuclear power, more major safety violations occurred with high profitability. Like riverboat gamblers, executives in the latter utilities appeared to be more willing to increase the risks of losing it all as profits increased. A survey of 6,000 business managers by Posner and Schmidt (1984) found that of 11 values, the 2 most important were effectiveness and productivity and the least important were value to the community and service to the public. In another study of 803 public officials at the federal GS-15 level, Schmidt and Posner (1986) reported that among the 11 values effectiveness and productivity were first and third in importance, while service to the public and value to the community were seventh and eighth. The general public was tenth in ratings of the importance of constituents’ interests; clients, bosses, self, technical personnel, managers, and coworkers were all more important. The evidence suggests that public and private administrators are less concerned about their obligations to society than about their obligations to their organization and its people.
A multiplicity of values involving personal and organizational considerations underlie the objectives of management. For managers to restrict themselves to a single objective function—profit maximization—is a fictional convenience for classical economists and some operational research specialists. For example, when Dent (1959) asked a representative sample of 145 U.S. chief executive officers or their deputies in confidential “off-the-record” interviews, “What are the aims of top management in your company?” only 36 percent mentioned as their first aim “to make money, profits, or a living.” Three-fourths talked about multiple goals including growth, public service, the welfare of employees, and the quality of products. High-quality products and public service were mentioned more often by the executives in larger firms; the welfare of employees was cited more often in smaller nonunion and larger unionized companies. In firms with higher percentages of white-collar, professional, or supervisory employees, fewer executives spoke of profitability and more spoke of growth. In addition, the willingness of managers to pursue noneconomic objectives may be a matter of how much their own income depends on the profitability of the firm. Furthermore, if they have alternative sources of income, they may express a broader range of valued objectives for the company (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
Factors in Organizational Values. Shartle (1956) conducted studies of the elements that executives in several kinds of organizations said they valued to various degrees. A factor analysis of item intercorrelations produced nine factors that described the value dimensions for business firms: (1) organizational magnitude, expansion, and structure; (2) internal consideration for welfare, health, and comfort; (3) the degree of competition, strategy, and shrewdness; (4) the degree of ethical and social responsibility; (5) the quality of the product or service; (6) the degree of change; (7) the degree of organization control over the identifications of members; (8) the degree of external political participation; and (9) the degree of equality and recognition of members.
In a survey of 1,576 first-time supervisors at Japanese National Railways, Furukawa (1981) isolated five valued objectives. Three were task related (to establish order, to increase motivation, and to accomplish goals), and two were interpersonally oriented (to establish and maintain dependable relationships and peaceful work units). To achieve the human relations objectives, the supervisors saw a need to be more considerate and less initiating. To achieve task-oriented objectives, the need was for more initiation of structure and less consideration.
Individual Differences in Values. Valuing nonprofitable activities such as social programs, community programs, and employee welfare programs seems rooted more in individual differences than in socialization processes within the organization. This idea was inferred by Sukel (1983), who found that status as a top, middle, or first-level manager in manufacturing, banking, or retailing made no difference to the valuing of such socially relevant activities. At the same time, senior management could be seen as self-serving rather than more broadly interested in the organization and its members. This was seen when the board of directors rejected the bid of its own senior management to buy control of the RJR-Nabisco conglomerate, although the bid matched an outsider’s leveraged buyout offer. The board of directors openly said they did not trust the management to protect the rights of the employees or to maintain the integrity of the firms’ operations (Sterngold, 1988).
While maintaining some sense of balance, most managers and business leaders, if given the choice, do tend to place a higher priority on organizational effective-ness and productivity, according to Posner and Schmidt (1984). For 803 senior federal officials, results were similar. Organizational effectivess and productivity were rated first and third; value of service to the public and to the community were seventh and eighth (Schmidt & Posner, 1986). En gland (1967a, 1967b), who studied managers at nine hierarchical levels, found general agreement that the goals of organizational effectiveness and productivity was more important than than social welfare goals. Community leaders of middle-size cities in the Midwest, most of whom were in business or banking, believed that economic development was the paramount goal of university extension services (Moss, 1974). A similar sample did not regard environmental concerns to be of much importance to their communities (Sofranko & Bridgeland, 1975). But community leaders in rural Georgia saw less need for economic exchange than for coordination, in contrast to rural heads of households with whom they were compared (Nix, Singh, & Cheatham, 1974). No doubt, concerns about the environment, climate change, and pollution have risen in importance in the past 30 years, along with concerns about health, education, and public affairs.
Using En gland’s (1967a) Personal Values Questionnaire, En gland and Weber (1972) contrasted the extent to which U.S. managers regarded various issues as successful, as right, and as pleasant. From these judgments, managers were identifed as emphasizing either what is pragmatic, what is moral, or what is pleasurable. En gland and Lee (1974) then administered the Personal Values Questionnaire to almost 2,000 U.S., Australian, Indian, and Japanese managers. The success of these managers was measured by their income adjusted for their age. In all four countries, successful managers were more likely to hold pragmatic values emphasizing productivity, profitability, and achievement.
Fast-Track Managers’ Priorities. From 46 to 77% of an international sample of 5,122 managers were willing to spend money for all five budgeting problems on Exercise Objectives described above; but faster-climbing managers tended to exhibit more pragmatism than idealism in that they were less willing to spend money to handle the requests for safety, to settle a strike, to deal with morale, to improve the quality of products, or to eradicate pollution in a stream. Although they did not want to risk wasting money, faster-climbing managers did value generosity and fair-mindedness. The faster-climbing managers wanted productive value for their expenditures (Bass, Burger, Doktor, et al., 1979).
What managers judge to be important and valuable for success as a manager is related to their own success. Managers who stressed the importance of inner-directed values such as imagination and self-confidence were rated more effective in their jobs than those who viewed their roles as demanding other-directed behavior such as co-operativeness and tactfulness (Lawler & Porter, 1967a, 1967b; Mitchell & Porter, 1967; Porter & Lawler, 1968). Bass, Burger, et al. (1979) found that for several thousand middle managers from 12 countries, fast-trackers considered the values of generosity, fair-mindedness, sharp-wittedness, and steadiness as more important for top management, whereas slower-climbing managers considered tolerance and adaptability more important. The values considered most important by fast-trackers for middle managers were generosity, sharp-wittedness, and reliability; for slow-trackers, tolerance, adaptability, and self-control were most important for middle managers. Fast-trackers thought that the most important values for first-line supervisors were generosity and reliability. In contrast, slow-trackers judged fair-mindedness, tolerance, and adaptability most important for first-line supervisors.
The Valuing of Pay. In response to the traditionalists’ overemphasis on pay as a motivator, humanist scholars overreacted, attempting to minimize the importance of pay to managers and their subordinates. According to reviews of research on pay and managerial motivation, pay remained a strong motivator for managerial personnel.2 Senior executives stressed the importance of pay slightly less than did managers at lower levels, but pay was highly significant for all. Pay may satisfy not only lower-order needs such as the need for safety and security, but also higher-order needs such as autonomy and self-actualization. Porter and Lawler (1986) found that managers who perceived that their pay depended to a great degree on their job performance tended to perform better on their jobs when both they and their superiors rated their performance. The relationship between the probability of higher pay and their likely effort was stronger for those who attached a high reward value to pay. Effective performance was related to the extent to which it was seen as instrumental to higher pay.
The Valuing of Technical Competence. Studies before 1965 indicated that first-line supervisors valued the technical aspects of their assignments more than their human relations responsibilities.3 Their higher-level managers tended to agree with them (Rubenowitz, 1962). Increasingly, however, recognition of the importance of other attributes such as interpersonal competence has accompanied the valuing of technical competence in supervision. Such a shift in values (an increased subscription to pragmatism) occurred for managers in Western Australia in a period of 23 years. The change was attributed to changing Australian business conditions during the same period (Spillane, 1980). The valuing of technical competence was enhanced greatly by the information revolution.
Personal Priorities. Managers and leaders have their own personal priorities regarding what is important to them. In the aggregate, some personal goals—such as self-actualization, independence, and expertise—are more important than others such as duty, prestige, and wealth. There are wide individual differences among managers and leaders, depending on their organizational level, their nationality, whether they have job security, and so on. Hofstede (1978) found that in the responses of 65,000 supervisors, salesmen, and service personnel to a worldwide survey of IBM employees, these individual differences could be accounted for by two factors: (1) the valuing of personal assertiveness (leadership, independence, and self-realization), and (2) the valuing of personal comfort (pleasure, security, and affection). The Indian civil service, staffed mainly by 1,200 middle-and upper-class Britons educated at British public schools and universities, had contempt for moneymaking and the hustle and corruption accompanying it. They saw themselves as Plato’s guardians and the “heaven born” (Lap-ping, 1985).
Bass, Burger, Doktor, et al. (1979) obtained results indicating that 3,082 managers in an international sample valued 11 life goals as follows (with 1.00 5 most important, and 11.00 5 least important): self-realization, 4.09; independence, 4.89; expertness, 5.17; affection, 5.21; leadership, 5.32; security, 5.50; service, 6.01; pleasure, 6.78; duty, 7.08; prestige, 7.65; and wealth to build a large estate, 8.27. But the standard deviations from 2.6 to 3.3 for each goal indicated that some managers rated the same goal first in importance whereas others ranked it eleventh. Wide individual differences, particularly across the 12 countries studied, were the rule.
One value of importance that many leaders and managers gain from their membership in an organization is a feeling of belonging to and identification with it (Wald & Doty, 1954). For example, Mullen’s (1954) survey of 140 clubs of supervisors in 32 states found that 88% of the supervisors wanted to feel identified with the company, and 71% reported being treated as if they were a part of management. D. D. Braun (1976) noted that identification with the community of Mankato, Minnesota, was strongly associated with community leadership rather than only with participation in community activities.
Some leaders tend to feel closer to the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the higher authorities in their organization; others tend to identify with those below themselves. The best leaders are able to do both. Furthermore, their performance will be affected by how much they identify with the organization’s values. Their values are a key to understanding the relations between leaders and subordinates (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). D. T. Campbell and associates (1955, 1957, 1958, 1961) developed various methods of measuring orientation toward or identification with one’s superiors and subordinates.
With these methods, Campbell and McCormack (1957) compared attitudes of air force and civilian personnel. The leader’s location in the organization affected his or her orientation toward those above and those below. The researchers found that colonels were significantly less oriented toward their superiors than were majors or college men, and majors were less so than were air force cadets or their instructors. Air force majors and lieutenant colonels were significantly more subordinate-oriented than were the other groups tested. Orientation toward superiors or toward subordinates appeared to be independent of tested information about leadership (Campbell & Damarin, 1961); nor were self-reported orientation measures consistent with the observed orientation to superiors or subordinates in a role-playing exercise (Burwen & Campbell, 1957a). However, orientation toward superiors did correlate with authoritarianism and with valuing discipline (Chapman & Campbell, 1957a).
Identification with the Values of Higher-Ups. The alignment of the individual manager’s goals and those of the organization is central to the manager’s sense of belonging to and identification with the organization (Culbertson & McDonough, 1980). Vroom (1960b) observed that the goals of a large firm are likely to be more accurately perceived by those executives who have more favorable attitudes toward the firm. Subordinates who resemble their superiors in the personality traits “sociable” and “stable” are better satisfied than those who do not closely resemble their superiors in this respect. Furthermore, subordinates who identify themselves with and express interests similar to their superiors are more satisfied than those who do not (Eran, 1966). Such identification also helps their careers. Top managers generally preferred and rated as more effective those subordinates whose attitudes and values were similar to their own (R. E. Miles, 1964a; V. F. Mitchell, 1968). Identification with management also contributed to the likelihood that an employee would be promoted to a management position (J. C. White, 1964).
Lawler, Porter, and Tannenbaum (1968) found that interactions with superiors were more favorably valued than were those with subordinates. Balma, Maloney, and Lawshe (1958a, 1958b) concluded that supervisors who identified with management were rated as having significantly more productive groups than were those who did not. But the employees’ satisfaction with a supervisor was not related to the supervisor’s orientation. R. S. Barrett (1963) also discovered that first-line supervisors who perceived that their approach to problems was similar to that of their immediate superiors tended to feel free to do things in their own way. Fleishman and Peters (1962) observed that the effectiveness of lower-level managers was identified with that of their immediate middle-level superiors. Read (1962) found that the successful upward mobility of managers was related to their problem-oriented communication with superiors. This tendency to communicate with superiors was associated with trust in their superiors and a perception of their superiors’ in-fluence.
Henry (1949) and others found that rapidly promoted executives tended to identify themselves with their superiors as a primary organization reference group. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Welck (1970) suggested that fast-trackers tended to identify with fast-trackers higher up in the organization and were less interested in their current group of subordinates. To get promoted, they might even work against the best interests of their immediate subordinates. But the extent to which they enhanced their subordinates’ sense of belonging to the organization tended to pay off in their subordinates’ better performance. Habbe (1947) demonstrated that insurance agents who thought they were fulfilling their managers’ expectations sold more policies and experienced fewer lapses than did those who thought they were not meeting these expectations.
Identification with the Values of Subordinates. Some evidence also suggests that for many leaders, satisfaction and success are connected with identification with those who are below them in the organization. According to R. E. Miles (1964a), managers did not regard lower-level supervisors as being highly promotable when they identified only with the company. Similarly, Mann and Dent (1954b) found that supervisors and employees agreed that the promotable supervisor is one who will stand up for employees and their rights, train them for better jobs, and let them know where they stand on matters that concern them. Pelz’s (1952) study of industrial work groups indicated that first-line supervisors who were oriented to subordinates tended to be evaluated positively by workers, but only of they were perceived to have sufficient influence with superiors so they could satisfy the workers’ expectations.
Supervisors who valued belonging and identification did much to increase their subordinates’ sense of “ownership” of activities (Habbe, 1947). Consistent with this finding was Anikeeff’s finding (1957) that the greater the satisfaction of managers, the greater the similarity between the attitudes of managers and workers. Satisfied managers prevented a cleavage in attitudes between workers and management.
The favorable attitudes of leaders toward their subordinates are reciprocated. Obrochta (1960) reported that workers’ attitudes toward supervisors were favorable only when the supervisors held favorable attitudes toward the workers. Murphy and Corenblum (1966) observed that loyalty to a superior was higher at all levels in an organization if the superior perceived his or her group of subordinates as a primary source of social support.
Leaders can provide a model of behavior and values (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). They can set examples for their teams that result in the team’s productivity (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Ahearne, 1997). Lock and Thomas (1998) found that such leaders could influence team members in good group citizenship, voluntary behaviors, and suitable responses to the organization’s vision that result in desired organizational outcomes. But team leaders who gave a high priority to making money were more likely to lead teams that were less responsive to customers’ needs for changes. Also, leaders who valued fun and pleasure were less likely to have teams motivated to find technological solutions for their customers. Sosik (2005) reported that 945 subordinates with higher traditional, collectivistic, and self-enhancement values rated their 218 managers as more charismatic in leadership. In turn, charismatic leadership predicted greater performance, extra effort, and good organizational citizenship behavior.
One has to look to journalists, biographers, historians, and philosophers for the best understanding of the values that underlie the performance of political leaders. Rokeach (1973) suggested that two values—freedom and equality—were basic to systems of political philosophy. He analyzed four political leaders: Norman Thomas, Barry Goldwater, Vladimir Lenin, and Adolf Hitler. Each leader, revealed distinctively different patterns of reference to the values of “freedom” and “equality.” For Thomas (a Socialist), the values of freedom and equality were both highly salient. Hitler (a Fascist), seldom referred to them. For Lenin (a Communist), equality was much more important than freedom. For the conservative Republican Goldwater, freedom was prized over equality (Rokeach, 1972).
Paige (1977) offered a number of hypotheses about the importance of values to the behavior of political leaders.
1. Terminal values (the worthwhileness of the end state) can be used by political leaders to justify contrary instrumental values (the worthwhileness of activities). Lenin argued that violence is justifiable to destroy the state and achieve the peaceful communist society. Woodrow Wilson justified the United States’ entry into World War I because this was to be the war to end all wars.
2. Values influence the scope of what is relevant. Political leaders who sincerely value “one world” look at the same conflicts between nations differently from the way ardent nationalists look at them and try to act accordingly—for instance, on the subject of nuclear proliferation.
3. Political leaders and followers very in the intensity of their value commitments. Both loyalty and treachery determine what happens to political movements in crises.
4. To achieve desired ends, political leaders may sacrifice the values of truth and honesty. “A good precinct captain [in Chicago] will always find a way to steal votes” (p. 124).
5. Values become salient to a political leader’s behavior in reaction to circumstances and objectives. What a political leaders says to get elected may be the opposite of what he does after he is elected. In his campaign for the presidency in 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt argued for the popular economic value of a balanced federal budget. When elected, he moved rapidly into federal deficit spending to stimulate the economy to deal with the Great Depression.
To be politically successful in the United States a leader must emphasize the value of individualism. Since the two major U.S. political parties cross social boundaries to a considerable degree, personalized leadership, rather than social and economic policy issues, dominates elections. But economic values become salient in times of economic downturns, and foreign policy increases in importance in times of real or imagined threats to national security. Leaders differ in how much they value diplomacy over militancy and the support of international institutions to keep the peace. Fascist leaders value militarism and authoritarianism and are against welfare favored by democratic leaders (Eckhardt, 1965).
The U.S. Constitution was designed to check runaway leadership; nevertheless, individual leaders are seen as a panacea. Individual initiative and responsibility are prized in the U.S. culture; the role of leader is similarly valued. During the long-drawn-out electoral process and then after gaining office, the president has to “showcase” and sell his (or her) own qualities as a person to obtain power and remain powerful and influential (Rockman, 1984).
Values of the Political Revolutionary. Certain values, including asceticism, appear to stand out among revolutionary leaders such as Oliver Cromwell, Maximilien Robespierre, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong (Mazlish, 1976). All 32 revolutionary leaders studied by Rejai and Phillips (1979) were driven by a sense of justice and injustice and a corresponding attempt to right wrongs. Nationalism and patriotism were also important. When Rejai and Phillips (1988) contrasted 50 revolutionary leaders who aimed to overthrow their governments and 50 loyalist leaders who aimed to preserve them, according to 96 scholars, values that were more apparent in the revolutionaries than in the loyalists were an optimistic view of their human nature but a fluctuating optimistic view of their countries. Revolutionaries tended to abandon religion and to become atheists.
Leaders vary in many motives, drives, desires, and needs that guide and energize them. These include curiosity, the desire for knowledge; order, the desire for structure; acquisition, the desire for saving and collecting; tranquillity, the desire for emotional calm; and eating, drinking, sex, romance, and physical activity (Reiss, 2000). How does a motive differ from a value or trait?
A value is a belief that an action or end state is preferable to its opposite. Leadership may be a value. A trait is a regular, consistent, and generalized cluster of intercorrelated behaviors. Extroversion is a trait. A motive can energize a variety of behaviors that may differ from each other but all create a similar inner affective state of goal satisfaction if consummated. A motive also provides direction or orientation to the energized behaviors. The need or desire to lead is a motive. Traits and motives interact with each other (Winter, John, Stewart, et al., 1998). For instance, in a study of 818 ROTC cadets, Thomas, Dickson and Bliese (2001) found that prediction of the cadets’ assessed leadership in summer camp was completely mediated by the need for affiliation, and to a lesser extent by the need for power. Motives and needs may be conscious, implicit, or subconscious strivings toward our goals. If competing motives and obstacles do not interfere, we take action to satisfy our motives (Winter, 2002). The motives may be stable and generalizeable propensities that are far from action. Or they may be intentions and choices that are close to action—momentary and applicable to a specific situation (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Believing that we need not be completely aware of our motives to be able to accurately answer direct questions about them, McClelland (1961) and McClelland and Winter (1969) developed the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Winter (1969) provided strong initial evidence to support the proposition that the need for achievement is an important value for effective leaders, particularly successful entrepreneurs.4 Their data were corroborated by numerous studies, both in the United States and abroad, that demonstrated that managerial and entrepreneurial success was predicted by the need for achievement.5 Likewise, Cummin (1967) found that more successful executives had a higher need for achievement. Wainer and Rubin (1969) observed that the need for achievement of 51 technical entrepreneurs who founded and operated their own firms was related to the growth rate of their companies. The highest-performing companies were those whose owners had a strong need for achievement and a moderate need for power. Furthermore, data from over 1,000 managers gathered by Hall and Donnell (1979) found that the speed of these managers’ career advancement was associated with their motivation to achieve. Mussen and Porter (1959) concluded that leaders who were more effective in group discussions scored significantly higher in the need for achievement and affiliation and in feelings of adequacy than those who were ineffective.
However, unlike most other investigators, Harrell and Harrell (1978) failed to find such a measured need for achievement in a forecast at Stanford University of the subsequent success of trainees in small business. And Litwin and Stringer (1968) found that although participants in small-group experiments were more satisfied if their leaders had a high need for achievement, their groups experienced the same satisfaction if their leaders had a high need for affiliation. Nonetheless, the preponderance of many studies of the achievement motive suggest that those high in this motive try to outperform others. They are competitive. Winning makes them feel good. They get satisfaction from succeeding at tasks. They have self-imposed standards of excellence. Easy tasks may not be as interesting to achievers as challenging tasks on which they can succeed. Team success satisfies their high need for achievement only when each individual member’s effort can be identified (Springer, 2001).
This is concern with emotional impact for reputation, status, and strong actions affecting others. Achievement motivation and power, when each has been assessed alone, have been reasonably accurate in predicting the success of entrepreneurs and increases in their performance (McClelland & Winter, 1969). But each makes only a partial contribution to a full assessment of the motivation to manage. For a full assessment, as was noted in Chapter 7, one needs to return again to the imperial motive—i.e., how need for power combines with high achievement motivation and low need for affiliation to account for their behavior as leaders. (The affiliation motive is concerned with close social and emotional relations with others.) High inhibition also is important. As Browning and Jacob (1964) observed, whether the need for achievement and for power directs individuals toward leadership in the economic or political arena depends on which arena in the community is open and available to them. In the political arena, dynamic, activist, and effective presidents gave inaugural addresses high in both the need for achievement and the need for power. Inactive presidents, less highly regarded by posterity, gave inaugural addresses that were low in both needs (Winter & Stewart, 1977).
Vision statements were analyzed after being obtained from 111 supervisors in a government service organization organization and 269 CEOs heading mainly small manufacturing companies that produced and installed wood products. As hypothesized, the stronger appearance of the achievement motive in the vision statements was more important in manufacturing than in service. The affiliation motive was more important in service (Kirk-patrick, 1999).
Defining Task Orientation. The achievement motive, far from action, as measured by projective techniques, reflects a deep-seated, subconcious fantasy about success and accomplishment (Winter, 2002). Task orientation is a self-reported, inventoried, conscious motive scored by the Orientation Inventory (ORI, Bass, 1962b). Although the projected need and the conscious orientation have low correlation with each other (Bass, 1967c), they both appear to contribute positively to the emergence and success of a leader. Successful accomplishment is rated highly as a value and personal goal by managers in diverse organizations and countries (Bass, Burger, et al., 1979; En gland, 1967a, 1967b). The desire to achieve and to complete tasks successfully is a motive associated with those who emerge and succeed as leaders. Bass (1960a, p. 149) conceived of task orientation as a characteristic of persons who in social settings “will [try] hardest to help obtain the group’s goals, solve its problems, overcome barriers preventing the successful completion of the group’s tasks, and who persist at … assignments.” Task orientation is distinguished from interaction (relations) orientation (to have fun, work cooperatively, and be helpful) and from self-orientation (to be praised, recognized, respected, and have loyal associates). The ORI assessed orientation toward the task, toward relating to others, and toward the self (Beckhard, 1995).
According to a review of research by Bass (1967b), those who were in higher-status positions in organizations uniformly were more task oriented. Thus top managers scored higher on the ORI than middle managers; middle managers scored higher than supervisors; supervisors scored higher than nonsupervisory workers. In addition, the higher the task orientations revealed by college student leaders in sensitivity training groups, the more they were rated positively by their peers on behaviors that are relevant to leadership. The task-oriented student leaders were seen to help other group members express their ideas, help the groups stay on target, help get to the meat of issues, give good suggestions on proceeding, provide good summaries, encourage high productivity, take the lead, work hard, and offer original ideas (Bass & Dunteman, 1963). Again, observers at an assessment center rated temporary supervisors who were under consideration for promotion as being more promotable if the supervisors were high in task orientation. Task orientation was higher among second-line supervisors whose superiors rated them “best” rather than “less than best.” Likewise, it was higher among top-and middle-performing first-line supervisors than among those whose performance was low (Dunteman & Bass, 1963). Although tested intelligence correlated only .19 with task orientation, self-sufficiency and resourcefulness correlated .33 with task orientation. Other correlations with task orientaion found in various studies were as follows: .31, controlled willpower; .28, need for endurance, .28, sober-serious; and .27, tough-realistic (Bass; 1967b).
Other Measures of Conscious Task Motivation. Many self-reporting questionnaire inventories such as the California Personality Inventory contain scales of conscious task motivation. The Saville and Holdsworth Motivation Questionnaire (MQ) generated 18 factored primary scales based on 700 British respondents. Two of the four higher-order factors that emerged were (1) intrinsic motivation, dealing with desire for interesting work that allowed for flexiblity and autonomy; and (2) extrinsic motivation, from work which provided material rewards, career progress, and status. Status, in turn, systematically affected the strengths of the different motives. The MQ mean scores from 63 senior, 192 middle, and 231 junior managers revealed that the seniors were motivated most by the need to avoid failure. They would invest further energy in a project to ensure its success. Also, they had greater need for power and autonomy. At the same time, the junior managers were most concerned with their career progress. The middle managers fell in between these differences in motives. All the managers were similar in means on the other primary factor scales (Page & Baron, 1995).
Barbuto and Schell (1998) developed the reliable and valid Motivation Sources Inventory (MSI) to measure intrinsic, instumental, external, and internal motiva-tion and goal internalization. The instrument was based on a typology by Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999). Barbuto and Schell administered to 56 middle managers the MSI and Harrell and Stahl’s (1981) Job Choice Decision-Making Exercise (JCE), a validated assessment of the needs for achievement, affiliation, and power. They also asked 217 raters to describe the managers’ transformational leadership behavior using Bass and Avolio’s (1991) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) assessing the managers’ idealized, inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually considerate leadership behaviors. Significant correlations were found between the MSI and the MLQ but not between the JCE and MLQ. Idealized influence correlated with internalized goals and instrumental motivation. Inspirational leadership was correlated with the managers’ internalized goal motivation. Individualized consideration was correlated with instrumental motivation.
A variety of other indicators of conscious task motivation generally have been positively linked to attitudes and performance in work settings and their effects. For example, Rubenowitz (1962) found that superiors in an industrial situation tended to rate their subordinates higher in effectiveness when the subordinates were production-oriented rather than person-oriented. Tziner and Elizur (1985) created an assessment that was relevant to managers’ motivation to achieve. It was unlike previous measures that were derived from projective approaches or self-reporting personality inventories. Their instrument consisted of 18 questions that asked 90 managers from a large Israeli corporation about how much they preferred to undertake difficult, problem-solving, high-responsibility tasks involving calculated risks, and how gratifying it was to do so if they were successful. The motivation to take calculated risks and solve problems correlated modestly with the rated performance of the managers, but no correlation was found between the motivation for responsible or difficult tasks and gratification for success with them.
Some people enjoy taking risks, but others do not. Such preferences and behavior affect the leadership that emerges. Older leaders have been found to be generally more conservative and more likely to avoid taking risks (Alluto & Hrebiniak, 1975). They want more information and higher probabilities of success and may be content with lower payoffs as a consequence. The contrast between older and younger leaders was illustrated by two Roman consuls in 210 B.C.; Fabius who was older, was a delayer, whereas Maximus, who was younger, was eager to fight immediately to try to trap Hannibal’s forces. Along with a higher than ordinary need to achieve (McClelland, 1965c) and an internal locus of control (Bor-land, 1974), entrepreneurs and the founder-leaders of organizations also, as would be expected, have higher risk-taking propensities than do managers, in general (Brockhaus, 1980). They also have a higher tolerance for ambiguity than do managers in general (Schere, 1981). Wallach, Kogan, and Bern (1962) found that high risk takers were more influential in discussions than low risk takers. Marquis (1962) and Collins and Guetzkow (1964) observed that high risk takers were more persuasive than more cautious members of a group.
For a random sample of 26 express-mail managers, Hater and Bass (1988) reported an average correlation of .47 between the extent to which each manager was described by three subordinates as a transformational leader (charismatic, individualizing, and intellectually stimulating) and the extent to which the same managers were judged by their bosses to be high in risk taking. But the correlation was .02 with risk taking judged by the boss if the manager was described by subordinates as transactional in leadership (practicing contingent reward and management by exception). Frost, Fiedler, and Anderson (1983) found that taking physical risks was also related to performance as a leader. In a questionnaire survey of 40 army leaders, they found that effective combat leaders engaged in more personally endangering acts than did ineffective combat leaders. Interviews with 19 fire-battalion chiefs and evaluations of 124 fire-service leaders again suggested that effective leaders exhibit more personal bravery than ineffective leaders. Such personal bravery is expected of combat leaders, as in the Israeli army, where policy dictates that they are expected to go first into danger, to be followed by their men.
Willingness to Take Risks and Achievement Motivation. Those high in need for achievment are calculating risk takers (Springer, 2001). Tasks with moderate risks are satisfying to those who have a great need to achieve. A risk-free task will lack challenge, and a highly risky task entails the likelihood of failure (Atkinson, 1964). However, a higher level of risk of failure will be entertained if a task is inherently interesting (Shapira, 1975). Leaders must take calculated risks using the limited information available to them. Thus Cleveland (1985) emphasized that an executive needs to be motivated to achieve and prepared to take risks if he or she is to take the lead in the “perilous, problematic and participatory climate for policy making of today’s information-rich world.”
Optimism. By definition, optimists are more willing to take risks. Leaders need to be optimists rather than pessimists. Successful leaders have revealed a more optimistic view of themselves and the world around them than have nonleaders and those leaders who have tried and failed. Content analyses of archival records by Zullow, Oettingen, Peterson, and Seligman (1988) found that 9 of the 10 losers of presidential elections between 1948 and 1984 tended in their speeches to see the pessimistic side of issues. Other analyses have found that bold leadership was predicted by optimistic styles. President George W. Bush is illustrative. Similarly, those individuals who have learned a sense of helplessness are much less likely to take the initiative in social situations (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Cleveland (1985) observed that the generalist executive in an information-rich world of work needs to be optimistic about what can be accomplished. Community leaders have more positive expectations about outcomes than do nonleaders.
Closely associated with the willingness to take risks is the willingness to trust. Sgro et al. (1980) found that the leadership behavior of 41 cadet officers, as described by their 149 cadet subordinates, was associated with the officers’ scores on a self-inventory of interpersonal trust. Interpersonal trust correlated significantly with their consideration and tolerance of freedom and their subordinates’ satisfaction with them. According to Devine (1977), who conducted a survey of opinion leadership in three towns in Minnesota, both opinion leaders and opinion followers showed a willingness to trust others, but opinion isolates were less likely to trust. Rosenberg (1956) suggested that persons with low interpersonal trust would have difficulty establishing close friendships. As leaders, they would be less likely to permit freedom of action in their subordinates. Willingness to trust others increases the likelihood of self-disclosure and the likelihood of obtaining valid feedback from them if the trust is mutual (Rusaw, 2000).
It may be that risk-taking, trusting leaders are able to maintain longer time spans for reaching decisions in contrast to those who press for quick solutions and immediate feedback (Frain & DuBrin, 1981). Clearly, willingness to risk and to trust others are required for meaningful delegation. More delegation should be seen in those leaders who are greater risk takers and are more willing to trust others. Conversely, the Machiavellian authoritarian, who expects others to share the same tendencies toward deception and surprise, is less likely to take chances on others.
Particularly salient in determining the proclivity to take risks is one’s self-confidence. Both Clausen (1965) and Burnstein (1969) inferred that high risk takers tended to score high in self-confidence, which, in turn, led them to attempt and to succeed in influencing groups to follow their leadership. But many other aspects of one’s self-concept enter into the emergence and success of a leader.
“The leader’s orientation toward self and others must be taken into account in order to understand fully the leadership dynamic” (Carey, 1992). How leaders think about themselves and what mental representations they form of their own roles and behaviors as leaders are underre-searched (Murphy, 2002). Apart from what has been said so far, how people think, feel, and act about themselves affects their tendencies to lead. Thus, in contrast to others, transformational leaders value their capacity to learn from others and from their environment and believe they can learn more about themselves in doing so (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Top business leaders, according to Levin-son and Rosenthal (1984), have strong self-images and ego ideals. From a meta-analysis of the relationship of self-concepts to job satisfaction and performance, Judge and Bono (2001) concluded that these self-concepts (self-esteem, self-efficacy, and locus of control) were some of the best predictors of job satisfaction and job performance. Estimated true correlations ranged from .22 to .45. Kark and Shamir (2002) noted that transformational leaders may appeal to their followers’ relational self derived from the interpersonal connections between followers and individual others. Or the transformational leaders may appeal to their followers’ collective self derived from larger work teams or organizations. The transformational leader’s individualized consideration primes the interpersonal connections of the followers’ relational self and self-identity. By linking the individual to the group’s shared values and key role identitities, the leader primes the collective self.
Maslow (1954) conceived of self-actualization—the desire to become what one is capable of becoming—as a higher level of maturity than the need for achievement. Compared with nonleaders, leaders tend to self-actualize more. They are more likely to perform up to their capacities and to develop themselves accordingly. This motivation was at the top of Maslow’s (1954) needs hierarchy. Maslow (1965) believed that the attainment of self-actualization was revealed in characteristics of psychological health and well-being such as perceiving reality efficiently, accepting oneself, tolerating uncertainty, being problem-centered rather than self-centered, and identifying one’s defenses with the courage to give them up. For Burns (1978), self-actualizers were potential transformational leaders because of their flexibility and their capacity for growth. Through their drive toward self-actualization, they could continually be one step ahead of their followers and help their followers rise as disciples behind them, as measured by their upward movement on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, from concern for safety and security toward concern for achievement and self-actualization.
Measurement. The Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) measures 12 interrelated aspects of self-actualization (Shostrom, 1974). POI assesses such self-concepts and values as self-directedness versus other-directedness, self-regard, self-acceptance, self-actualizing, responsiveness to one’s own feelings and needs, capacity for intimate contact, and the extent to which one has a constructive view of humanity. In a survey of 58 executives in a high-technology firm, Gibbons (1986) found many strong correlations between subordinates’ descriptions of the transformational leadership behavior (charismatic, individually considerate, intellectually stimulating, and inspirational) of their superiors and the superiors’ self-descriptions on the POI. Among these attributes, self-acceptance correlated .41 with being described as a charismatic and inspirational leader. The superiors’ self-rated inner direction, self-regard, self-acceptance, and capacity for intimate contact all correlated above .40 with the subordinates’ ratings of their superiors’ individual consideration as a leader. Inner direction and self-acceptance also correlated above .40 with displaying contingent reward. Gaston (1983), too, found evidence that those managers who were identified in POI interviews and by their colleagues as self-actualized tended to perform well as leaders even in less than optimum organizational systems.
Some of Maslow’s elements of self-actualization have to be reconsidered as contributions to the performance of leaders. For example, Gibbons (1986) found that spontaneity generally was closer to zero in correlation with various leadership factors. This finding seems to be consistent with McClelland’s argument that the motivation to lead includes a need for inhibiting power; and, as will be discussed later, the emergence and success of a leader calls for a high degree of self-monitoring.
Ways of Achieving Self-Actualization. People differ in what they consider self-actualization to be. Politicians may see it as the attainment of power; business executives may see it as the attainment of organizational leadership; technologists, as the attainment of expertise; and entrepreneurs, as the attainment of wealth. Similarly, Maslow’s social needs can be satisfied within the family and among friends through affection, on the job through service, and in the organization or community through duty. Wainer and Rubin’s (1969) study of entrepreneurs who had started their own companies found that their strong need for achievement and their moderate need for power were associated with their companies’ success. Ghiselli’s (1986b) analysis of middle managers and hourly workers found that successful managers had less desire for security and financial rewards than did unsuccessful ones. However, Henderson (1977) failed to find support for expectations that self-actualization would influence choice of leadership style. Harrell and Alpert (1979) concluded that to maximize success and satisfaction, the need for autonomy should be strong among business entrepreneurs, moderate among tenured professors, and weak among bureaucrats. Appelbaum (1977) obtained data from 75 suburban supervisors in governments that strongly supported Harrell and Alpert’s conclusion about bureaucrats.
Although rated as being most important in themselves, self-actualization and autonomy were the least satisfied managerial needs (L. W. Porter, 1961b).6 Job security was less important and more readily satisfied (Centers, 1948).7 This pattern changed in the 1980s with the increased concern for security. With the “downsizing” of management in the 1980s, and again during the recession of 2001, job security has become a more potent issue for lower and middle managers (McCormick & Powell, 1988).
Among 3,082 mostly middle managers from 12 countries, as noted before, Bass, Burger, et al. (1979) found that the managers had a clear set of preferences when they were asked to rank their life goals. The most important goals were self-realization (self-actualization) and independence (autonomy). Security was ranked much lower. Goals having to do with assertiveness and accomplishment were emphasized more often by fast-track managers, whereas goals associated with comfort tended to be favored by slow-track managers. Similarly, Hall and Donnell (1979) found that in comparing 190 slow-track, 442 average-track, and 32 fast-track managers, the fast advancers stressed the need for self-actualization, belonging, and esteem in motivating their subordinates. They paid only average attention to the need for safety and security. The slow-track managers emphasized mainly the need for safety and security. This was consistent with Porter and Lawler’s (1968) finding that differences in successful managerial performance were more highly related to the need for self-actualization and autonomy than to the need for security, belonging, and esteem.
Self-awareness is assessed by comparing a leader’s self-ratings of behavior and the ratings of behavior observed by superiors, peers, subordinates, or others (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). Often the congruence is lower than expected. To improve their self-awareness, leaders need to be more introspective and to pay more attention to feedback from others (Ulmer, 1996).
Those leaders who underrate themselves receive higher performance appraisals. For instance, Wexley, Alexander, Greenawalt, et al. (1980) studied manager-subordinate dyads and obtained a significant correlation between a subordinate’s satisfaction with supervision and the congruence between the manager’s self-description and the subordinate’s description of the manager.8 Those who overrate themselves tend to be less effective leaders (Bass & Yammarino, 1991), possibly because they may be highly self-confident and ignore failures and criticism (Atwater & Yammarino, 1997). As Edwards and Parry (1993) and Edwards (2001) have noted, when a correlation is calculated between the criterion of performance (Y) and the difference between the self-rater (S) and the rater (R) score, not only is it the resulting difference between the simple correlation between rSY and rRY; it is dependent also on S2 1 R2 — 2RS and requires a quadratic correlation model. Accordingly, a richer examination of self-awareness was provided by Tekleab, Yun, Tesluk, et al. (2001) using polynomial regression analysis. It showed for 49 leaders and their 222 followers, effectiveness was highest for transformational leaders whose self-reports were congruent with those of their followers; underestimating leaders were next most effective; and overestimators of their transformational leadership were least effective. Leaders who were in agreement with their followers (accurate estimators) were more effective than leaders who were inaccurate estimators. Any change in accuracy from perfect agreement with followers was linked to a reduction in effectiveness. The decline was greater for overestimators than underestimators. Generally similar but not as clear-cut results occurred for the leaders with self-awareness of empowering leadership and its impact on followers’ self-leadership. A leader’s lack of self-awareness may reveal a lack of listening, a lack of response to followers’ demands, and a lack of attention to criticism and failures—a misdiagnosis of the leader’s strengths and weaknesses (Tekleab, Yun, Tesluk, et al., 2001). Sosik and Megerian (1999) found that overestimators and underestimators were lower in transformational leadership, performance, and emotional intelligence than those who were more in agreement with their subordinates about their ratings. The results supported earlier findings by Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, et al. (1998).
“Know thyself,” a favorite piece of wisdom to classical Greek philosophers, continues to be important advice for leaders today. In most surveys, leaders tend to give themselves an inflated evaluation in contrast to their colleagues’ descriptions of their performance (Bass & Yammarino, 1989). They believe they have more important jobs than their superiors think they have. Modesty is not usually a trait of managers. But self-understanding is essential even for the most successful leaders. As was already noted, the interpersonally competent manager is open to receiving feedback, the approach most likely to promote and maintain a manager’s accurate self-understanding. Supported by the Gallup Organization’s worldwide individual survey feedback and consulting efforts, Clifton (1992) counseled that managers should find out what they do well and do more of it. They should also find out what they do poorly and stop doing it. “Focus on strengths and manage the weaknesses” (p. 18). Nonetheless,
Executives need to be able to handle their own success. They can be derailed when … success goes to their heads. After being told how good they are for so long, some simply lose their humility and become cold and arrogant. … People no longer wish to work with them (or continue to provide feedback). (McCall & Lombardo, 1983, p. 11)
Concepts of the self can be at variance with the outside world and affect a leader’s performance. For instance, Ziegenhagen (1964) subjected 15 world political leaders’ autobiographies to content analysis and found that the leaders’ ethnocentric behavior, conformity to in-group norms, and hostility to out-groups correlated highly with inconsistencies in the leaders’ self-conceptions. These inconsistencies were assessed by a lack of agreement between the leaders’ self-concept and the concept that the individual leaders thought others had of them. Interest has grown in helping managers to more accurately differentiate themselves from others, to recognize that they don’t necessarily think like others, and to realize that they should not expect others to react in the same way as they do in situations (Chee, 2002).
Other self-concepts related to leadership that have been of particular interest include self-schemas, self-monitoring, locus of control, field independence, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-esteem.
Self-schema (also called self-schemata) are “cognitive generalizations about the self, derived from past experience, that organize and guide the processing of self-related information” (Markus, Smith & Moreland, 1977, p. 64). People with leadership self-schemas are likely to think about becoming leaders and to engage in leadership activities. Thus W. G. Smith, Brown, Lord, et al. (1996) found that high school students with leadership self-schemas were more likely to take leadership positions. They were also more likely to emerge as leaders in groups (Makiney, Marchioro & Hall, 1999).
Grosch, Salter, and Smith (2000) asked 74 managers in a manufacturing division of a multinational firm to complete a modified self-schema questionnaire developed by W. G. Smith, Brown, Lord, et al. (1996). Using five-point Likert scales to measure the self-schemas, the managers rated the self-descriptiveness and importance to their self-evaluation of each of 40 attributes. Twenty-four of the attributes were prototypical leadership traits according to Offerman, Kennedy, and Wirtz (1994). The reliability of the self-schemas was .94. As hypothesized, the leadership self-schemas correlated .50 with the managers’ self-ratings of their own leadership ability. Such self-confidence was expected by Grosch, Salter, and Smith. Using shorter but similar measures of two leadership self-schemas, dedication, and social influence, along with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1991), Saucier’s (1994) short version of the NEOAC “Big Five” Personality Inventory, and peer rankings and impressions, Makiney, Marchioro, and Hall (1999) found with 95 undergaduate students (75% female) that leadership self-schemas of dedication (goal-oriented, determined, organized) and social influence (persuasive, decisive, directing) both correlated .44 with transformational leadership in small groups as judged by peers over six time periods during a semester. The self-schema of dedication correlated .28 with agreeableness; the self-schema of social influence correlated .28 with extroversion and .24 with openness. Stepwise regression analysis showed that the schemas added to the MLQ and NEOAC in accounting for variance in peers’ leadership rankings and peers’ general impressions of the participants’ leadership in the small groups.
Self-Monitoring and Leadership. Snyder (1974, 1979) suggested that individuals differ in the extent to which they monitor and control presentations of themselves in social situations. As measured by a revised self-report inventory, self-monitoring involves at least two independent components: sensitivity to others’ behavior and the ability to modify one’s behavior accordingly (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984). Self-monitors are sensitive to cues about the appropriateness of various types of behavior (Snyder & Mason, 1975) and use these cues to guide their interpersonal behavior. Inhibition of activity is likely to be revealed in self-monitoring. Circumstances and their interpretation will determine whether high self-monitors display more or less leadership behavior than low self-monitors (Cader, Eby, Noble, et al., 1999).
Abilities associated with self-monitoring cut across the factors of sensitivity and control and contribute to a leader’s effectiveness. Self-monitoring is concerned with social appropriateness, attention to social-comparison information, the ability to control and modify self-presentation, and the flexible use of this ability in particular situations (Snyder, 1974, p. 529). The elements of self-monitoring correlate with the ability to be a good actor and to give impromptu speeches (Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980). Those who score low in self-monitoring are controlled by their own consistent attitudes and are not molded to the demands of the situation.
Snyder (1979) suggested that high self-monitoring individuals may be more likely to emerge as the leaders of groups because of their ability to regulate the interpersonal relationships in group interactions. Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) further proposed that experienced leaders became sensitive to differences in group situations and patterned their approaches accordingly. These leaders developed acuity in foreseeing the needs of their followers and altered their own behaviors to respond more effectively to those needs. Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (1991) demonstrated this in their experiment rotating participants through four tasks. Compared with low self-monitors, high self-monitors perceived the changes in task demands and showed somewhat more flexibility in their styles of leadership, according to their peers. Also contributing to the link between self-monitoring and leadership was the fact that high self-monitors present themselves in a socially desirable manner (Snyder, 1979) and construct an image of the ideal type of person for the situation they face. Using this ideal, the high self-monitors act according to the demands of this role (Snyder & Cantor, 1980).
When high self-monitors attempt to lead in a particular situation, they have several advantages over low self-monitors. Ickes and Barnes (1977) found that high self-monitors tend to speak first in an interaction and to initiate more conversational sequences than do low self-monitors. They also are perceived to be more friendly, outgoing, and extroverted than low self-monitors (Lippa, 1978). They are more successful as boundary spanners, a role that requires greater adaptability to situational requirements (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982).
Garland and Beard (1979) tested whether the effects of self-monitoring on emergent leadership would depend on the nature of the task confronting a group: a high self-monitor was expected to emerge as a leader when a task emphasized discussion and when task competence was difficult to assess. Such effects occurred in all-female groups but not in all-male groups. In an unpublished field study of natural groups, Mendenhall (1983) reported that high self-monitors were more likely to emerge as leaders of initially leaderless groups if they perceived themselves to be leaders rather than being perceived as leaders only by their peers. Nevertheless, peer-rated leadership of male students in semester-long mixed-sex study groups correlated .41 with the Lennox and Wolfe (1984) Revised Self-Monitoring scales, .26 with sensitivity to others’ behavior, and .40 with the ability to modify one’s behavior accordingly. But the correlations were lower for female participants, in reverse of Garland and Beard’s (1979) results for all-male and all-female groups. A generation ago, females in mixed groups seemed more reluctant to assert leadership in the presence of males. This effect is likely to have disappeared since then.
Foti and Cohen (undated) involved three-person same-sex groups of students—one high, one moderate, and one low self-monitor—in a manufacturing exercise. The emer gent leader was highly self-monitoring in 41 of the 58 groups, moderate in 11 of the groups, and low in self-monitoring in only 6 of the groups. High self-monitors, as expected, adapted their leadership style to the situation. They exhibited more initiation of structure when instructions emphasized the importance of the task rather than relationships, and more consideration when instructions emphasized developing good interpersonal relationships. Groups led by high self-monitors were somewhat more productive if the task was emphasized.
Self-Regulation. Self-regulation functions to enact and revise behavior as well as to change the environment. It involves how we set goals, how we plan or rehearse, and how we monitor progress toward goal attaiment (Murphy, 2002). The self-regulatory process begins with self-awareness of our thoughts and feelings. Then we estimate our self-efficacy—our judged capabilities (see below). Finally, with thoughts, motives, and feelings about what to do, we act accordingly (Bandura, 1986). Self-regulation is important to charismatic leaders (Murphy, 2002). Privately, charismatic leaders, compared with noncharismatic leaders, are more self-conscious, self-monitoring, and more purposeful in their behavior (Sosik & Dworakivsky, 1998). Along with self-schemas, self-esteem, and self-monitoring, they use a dramaturgical perspective to regulate the impressions of their identities they make on others (Gardner & Avolio, 1998).
In his popular book The Lonely Crowd, Riesman (1950) suggested that the post–World War II generation, compared with its predecessors, was more outer-directed than inner-directed. Members of the postwar generation were controlled more by others and circumstances than by themselves. Locus of control (LOC), internal or external, was widely studied in the mid-1960s as a personal antecedent of consequence to a leader’s behavior when the LOC measure of individual differences became available. Rotter (1966) developed and evaluated a self-report assessment instrument of LOC, the I-E Scale, which discriminates between persons who are controlled by internal forces (persons for whom outcomes are contingent on themselves) and persons who are controlled by outside influences (persons for whom outcomes are due to such forces as luck, fate, and powerful others whom they do not and cannot control). Respondents choose between pairs of statements such as “Without the right breaks, one cannot be an effective leader” or “Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities.”
Carey (1992, p. 217) noted that “the leader’s orientation toward self and others must be taken into account to understand fully the leadership dynamic.” Neverthless, DeBolt, Liska, and Weng (1976) concluded from a review of the literature that internal control, as measured by LOC, failed to relate consistently to the display of leadership in small groups of students. Also, Nystrom (1986) failed to detect much association between LOC and the performance of managers. Anderson and Schneier (1978) disagreed. It was differences in the approach to leadership that LOC predicted. Thus Durand and Nord (1976) found that the internal LOC of supervisors was linked to which their subordinates thought them to be considerate. In a simulated industrial setting, Goodstadt and Hielle (1973) found that supervisors with an external LOC were more likely to rely on persuasion and those with an internal LOC were more likely to rely on personal power. Mitchell, Smyser, and Weed (1975) obtained similar results. They noted that supervisors with an external LOC were more likely to use coercion and legitimate authority, whereas those with an internal LOC used rewards, respect, and expert power. Pryer and Distefano (1971) confirmed that nursing supervisors with an internal LOC were more considerate than those with an external LOC. In a study of 89 supervisors and their 345 subordinates, Johnson, Luthans, and Hennessey (1984) found that the leaders’ LOC affected their influence on their subordinates’ productivity and satisfaction with them as leaders. Supervisors who rated themselves as internally controlled were rated by their subordinates as significantly higher in persuasiveness and in their influence on higher authority.
Confounds. Some of the relationship between LOC and the performance of managers may be accounted for by the finding that internally controlled managers are more task oriented (Anderson, Hellriegel, & Slocum, 1977). This finding is consistent with those of several other studies, that found that managers with an internal LOC individually put forth more task-centered effort and performed better than did those with an external LOC (Anderson, 1977). There are other confounding elements. Managers with an internal LOC have higher activity levels than those with an external LOC (Brockhaus, 1975; Durand & Shea, 1974), appear more realistic about their aspirations (Phares, 1973), and perceive less stress under the same conditions (Anderson, 1977). The ambiguity of their roles did not seem to bother managers with a stronger internal LOC as much as it disturbed managers with a stronger external LOC (Abdel-Halim, 1980). Those with a higher internal LOC were less dogmatic, more trustful, and less suspicious of others (Joe, 1971). Not unexpectedly, Coates (1984) found a complex statistical interaction between the LOC and Mach scores of 79 managers, the number of contacts they reported with superiors and peers, and superiors’ rating of their influence.9
A cognitive trait that is linked to inner directiveness and inner control is field independence. This trait is measured by Witkin’s Rod and Frame Test, in which field-independent people judge that the field of a rod and frame is being reoriented, not that they themselves are. Paper-and-pencil correlates of field independence have also been found, for example, in people who can readily see incomplete figures as whole on the Group Embedded Figures Test. Field-independent Israeli managers with engineering backgrounds were more likely to be employee-centered than job-centered in their leadership styles (Erez, 1980). Results elsewhere have indicated that field-independent hospital managers preferred to use participative and delegative, rather than directive, leadership styles, although more managers as a whole were field-dependent than were field-independent on the Group Embedded Figures Test.
As noted elsewhere, individuals who see themselves as masters of their own fate, rather than at the mercy of luck, fate, or powerful other people, tend to cope better with stress, and generally make more effective and satisfying leaders. Such leaders are also likely to see themselves as more self-efficacious. Bandura (1982, p. 122) defined self-efficacy as a judgment of “how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations.” Self-efficacy is a broad set of expectations associated with beliefs about one’s adaptability, ingenuity, and ability to work under stress, regardless of the case or the difficulty of the goals (Locke, Motowidlo, & Bobko, 1986). Expectations of efficacy change with new information and experiences of personal attainment, vicarious modeling, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Those high in self-efficacy treat the same experiences differently from those low in self-efficacy. Although both see success as due to their abilities, self-efficacious people attribute failure to lack of effort or bad luck rather than to their lack of ability (Silver, Mitchell & Gist, 1991).
Bennis and Nanus (1985) saw the transforming leader as one who has a strong, positive self-regard and who employs the “Wallenda factor” (Wallenda is the name of the family of high-wire walkers)—that is, one who focuses on success with the risky task rather than being preoccupied with the possibility of failure. Self-efficacy “is critical to the leadership process” because it affects the motivation, development, and execution of a leader’s strategies and goals (McCormack, 2001). Thus Savard and Rogers (1992) found that self-efficacy predicted a leader’s persistence in trying to persuade others despite resistance. Wood and Bandura (1989) manipulated the belief in self-efficacy of business graduate students assigned to play roles in a simulated business. Beforehand, one set of students experienced a process that diminished their self-efficacy; the other set had an experience that increased their self-efficacy. The former set became increasingly discouraged as decision makers. Their analytical strategies declined in quality, as did their aspirations and success in attaining organizational performance goals. The self-efficacious set created and met challenging goals for themselves and produced effective analytical strategies that yielded maximum performance. Self-efficacy is closely allied with self-confidence.
Self-confidence was positively associated with leadership in the reviews reported in Chapters 4 and 5. Bass (1985a) and Zaleznik (1977) found that it is particularly strong in transformational leaders. Mowday (1979) found that the leadership of 65 elementary school principals in dealing with four decisions was related to their self-confidence, and that the principals were more likely to be persuasive if they were self-confident. Conversely, Kipnis and Lane (1962) reported that supervisors who lacked confidence in their leadership ability were significantly less willing than self-confident supervisors to hold face-to-face discussions with subordinates. More often, they attempted to solve supervisory and development problems by using administrative rules or by referring the subordinates to a superior for a decision. According to Kaplan (1986), self-confidence weighed heavily in distinguishing between general managers who performed effectively and those who did not. The “effectives” were seen as personally secure, communicating their confidence and decisiveness to others; the “ineffectives” were characterized by incidents displaying their personal insecurity, their lack of “guts,” and their unwillingness to make tough decisions or risk making enemies. The self-confidence of supervisors affected what they did to influence others. Those who felt confident in their ability to influence others were likely to use rewards and promises of rewards; those who lacked self-confidence were more likely to use coercion (Goodstadt & Kipnis, 1970; Kipnis & Lane, 1962).
Nonetheless, self-confidence can also result in an unrealistic, inflated evaluation of oneself. When such a self-evaluation is coupled with extremely low self-esteem, the performance of a leader is likely to be socially counterproductive (Reykowski, 1982). Self-confidence can also give rise to the stubbornness and obstinacy that Willner (1968, p. 65) described in charismatic world leaders “whose … determination … would not permit them to lose sight of their goals or swerve from a particular tactic they had decided upon, no matter how remote from achievement the goals may have appeared to others or how unwise the tactic.” Moved by some intuition or an “inner voice,” and undiscouraged by the obstacles that seemed insuperable to those around them, they pursued the course they had set themselves. Handy (1987) agreed that successful leaders have to believe in themselves in order to influence people and events. If they don’t believe in themselves, neither will the others they seek to influence believe in them. At the same time, leaders must guard against arrogance and unwillingness to hear what others have to say.
Self-esteem differs from self-efficacy in that self-esteem deals with a generalized evaluation of the self and feelings of self-worth across most situations whereas self-efficacy is a belief in one’s abilities to cope with specific situations—say, learning a new computer program (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). As was noted in Chapter 4, 17 pre-1948 studies found self-esteem to be higher in leaders than in their followers. Additional support came from subsequent investigations that found a positive relationship between self-esteem and leadership. Market research studies concluded that a majority of opinion leaders in fashion and personal grooming are high in self-esteem. Hemphill and Pepinsky (1955) found attempted leadership to be higher among participants who felt personally accepted or esteemed. Andrews (1984) found that among 64 undergraduates, those with high self-esteem were more likely to emerge as the leaders of their groups and were more likely to be rated as displaying such leadership behaviors as offering problem-relevant information, giving sound opinions, and making procedural suggestions. In Finland, Kalma, Visser, and Peeters (1993) found a correlation of .32 between self-esteem and social dominance.
Burns (1978) noted that the most potent sources of political leadership are unfulfilled needs for esteem and self-esteem. Erikson (1964) believed that great leaders become leaders because they have personally experienced, in a way that is representative of their people, the identity struggle for a particular niche in society compatible with their self-respect and expectations. But Barber (1965) thought that deciding to become a candidate for political office is indicative of either very high or very low self-esteem.
Bass (1960) postulated that those with high self-esteem would be more likely to attempt leadership. Bennis and Nanus (1985) concluded, from 90 interviews with top-level leaders, that such self-esteem was likely to be transferred to their subordinates. The leaders then could operate without having to resort to criticism or negative reinforcement. Higher performance expectations and confidence were generated in subordinates as a consequence. Defensiveness was lower if self-esteem was high. Self-esteem in leaders appears to be related to an ability to accept people as they are rather than as one would like them to be, to focus on the present rather than on the past, to be as courteous to close colleagues as to strangers, to trust others, and to do without constant approval and recognition.
According to Brandon (1998), self-esteem has become increasingly important in the information age because it takes self-esteem for information workers and leaders to initiate, innovate, and be self-reliant, trusting, and accepting of personal responsibility. Leaders need to create an environment that supports knowledge workers’ self-esteem. The command and control system of the factory and office must be replaced by a system that promotes trust in the ability to think, to change, and to take on new ideas as new conditions arise. Intellectual capital is prized. Knowledge workers may know more about their work than their leaders do. But the leaders will need high self-esteem to inspire and support the workers. Leaders with low self-esteem will be insecure and likely to generate conflict with their subordinates.
Bennis and Nanus (1985) suggested that the 90 leaders in their study were effective if they used their strengths as known to them and avoided using their weaknesses. They learned from and reflected on their own experiences. They were experimental, made comparisons with other leaders and organizations, and monitored the effects of environmental change on themselves. They asked their followers to do the same. According to Kets de Vries (1989), leaders gain influence through the transference and projection of the followers’ hopes, desires, and fears onto the leader. The leaders fail if they are unable to live up to the followers’ expectations of them. If leaders are narcissistic and have an inflated image of themselves, they become destructive.
One of the most consistent findings in behavioral science is the positive correlation between one’s status—the worth and importance of one’s position in an organizational or social hierarchy—and one’s satisfaction with it. Relying on early survey evidence, G. B. Watson (1942) was convinced that managers and supervisors were more satisfied with their work than were rank-and-file employees. Furthermore, top managers were generally more satisfied than managers at lower levels (Bass, 1960). The results of many studies supported the contention that the higher the level of individuals’ positions in the organization, the greater was their job satisfaction. For instance, supervisors of municipal employees were much more satisfied with their jobs than were nonsupervisory employees. The supervisors also exhibited much less dissatisfaction (Jurkiewicz & Massey, 1997). And the reasons are not hard to find. Compensation is greater, and the need for self-actualization and autonomy is better satisfied at higher echelons of an organization (L. W. Porter, 1963a). Nevertheless, there are alternative or additional plausible explanations in some organizations in which status is unrelated to power and influence—for instance, organizations in which the top leaders are puppets or figureheads. Thus Ritchie and Miles (1970) studied 330 managers at five organizational levels. They found that satisfaction differed not as a consequence of the level of a position, but according to the amount of participation in decision making.
T. R. Mitchell (1970a, 1970b) studied line and staff officers of different military ranks and in different commands abroad. Not only did satisfaction rise with rank, but line officers of all ranks were better satisfied than were those in staff positions (staff positions are usually accorded less importance than line positions); however, this feeling varied greatly from one situation to another. Porter and Lawler (1965) confirmed these findings in a review of the empirical literature. Line managers were somewhat more satisfied than staff members and perceived more fulfillment of their need for self-actualization (Porter, 1963b). But satisfaction was unrelated to a manager’s span of control.
In an experiment, Guetzkow (1954) found that key persons in a communication network saw themselves as most important and were more satisfied than members with less important positions. Bass, Pryer, Gaier, and Flint (1958) found that satisfaction was greater in a member who had been assigned more power, compared with four others with much less power. The attractiveness of a group was significantly lower for the average member when members were assigned control differentially, in contrast to groups in which all members were equal.
Clarity about Status and Role. It would seem obvious that a leader’s satisfaction is strongly associated with the clarity of the position held and agreement about its importance, its power, and what is required for satisfactory performance. This idea was corroborated by Gross, Mason, and McEachern (1958), who conducted an extensive study of perceptions of role interactions between school board members and superintendents. The results indicated that the greater the consensus among board members, the higher the board members rated the superintendent, the higher he rated the board, and the greater the superintendent’s job satisfaction. The board’s rating of the superintendent was unrelated to his measured personality traits or to his agreement with the board. Within both samples, the degree of consensus in expectations of a position was related to the extent to which the role demands of the position had been formally or legally codified.
Status and Compensation. One obvious reason why those of higher status in an organization are more satisfied than their subordinates is that they ordinarily earn more pay. But this is not always true. Deans may earn less than professors, and supervisors may earn less than skilled subordinates. However, satisfaction with earnings is relative. One feels relatively deprived, depending on whom one compares oneself with. In a highly inflationary economy, dissatisfaction with pay is seen as being due primarily to inflation, governmental policy, and OPEC, not necessarily to one’s employer. In a depression, relatively modest compensation may be highly satisfying. Furthermore, the greater the congruence between managers’ feeling about how pay should be determined and their perception of how it is determined, the greater their satisfaction with their pay (Lawler, 1966c, 1967b).
Penzer (1969) found that status-based expectations regarding external opportunities were major determinants of managers’ satisfaction with their pay. Those who attended college brought different expectations with them than did those who did not attend college. Those expectations, when compared with external reference groups, partially determined their satisfaction with their compensation. Among the internal factors, commendations, rapid advancement, salary increases, and the like tended to inflate expectations. Thus managers’ satisfaction with their pay is obviously related to how much they earn in an absolute sense, as well as to the correspondence between expected pay and actual pay. Managers prefer pay that is based on performance and merit, but they tend to define merit in terms of traits that they perceive themselves to possess.
More effective managers tend to feel more satisfied with their pay (Lawler & Porter, 1966; Porter & Lawler, 1968). Managers who score high in a preference for taking risks but not in achievement motivation prefer pay that is based on performance (Meyer & Walker, 1961). However, the more highly managers rate themselves in comparison with their peers on variables such as education, experience, productivity, effort, and skill, the more importance they attach to these variables as determinants of pay.
Further support was obtained by Klein and Maher (1966) for the relationship between the satisfaction of managers and the extent to which their level of pay corresponds with their status-based expectations for compensation. Middle managers overestimated the pay of subordinates and underestimated the pay of superiors. They believed that the difference between their pay and that of the persons above and below them was too small. The smaller the perceived difference between their pay and that of their subordinates, the less satisfied the managers were with their pay (Lawler, 1965, 1967b).
In a study of 919 low-to middle-level managers, Gorn and Kanungo (1980) isolated a job involvement factor (“For me, mornings at work really fly by; I’ll stay overtime to finish a job even if I’m not paid for it”). Ninety-three managers were identified as motivated most by their extrinsic need for adequate salary and security, and 124 as motivated most by their intrinsic need for interesting work, responsibility, and independence. Status was not involved, but involvement was as high among the extrinsically motivated as among the intrinsically motivated, if their respective needs were being met.
J. G. Mauer (1969) found that the job satisfaction of industrial supervisors was unrelated to their age, education, degree of involvement in work, or income, or to the size of their plant; but more often than not, these factors have been found by others to affect the satisfaction of managers.
Education and Managerial Satisfaction. Many studies have found that managers’ satisfaction with their leadership role depends on their level of education. Higher pay may be expected but not necessarily forthcoming for those with more education. For example, Andrews and Henry (1963) and Klein and Maher (1966, 1968) reported that managers with more education felt less satisfied with their pay. However, Stogdill (1965b) and Lawler and Porter (1966) reported studies in which no relation was found between the education of managers and their satisfaction with their pay. Better-educated managers may be dissatisfied for other reasons. Stogdill (1965a) studied 442 managers and supervisors in six departments of an aircraft plant. He found that the better-educated managers were less satisfied with the company and with their freedom on the job; however, their level of education was not consistently related to their attitudes about their pay. According to Friedlander (1963), less-well-educated supervisors tended to derive satisfaction from the social and technical rather than the self-actualizing aspects of their work.
Age and Managerial Satisfaction. Saleh and Otis (1964) asked 80 managers, aged 60 to 65, to think back over their careers and indicate the age at which they had derived the most satisfaction from their work. These managers said that their satisfaction increased until age 59, then showed a sharp decrease. Another sample, aged 50 to 59, also reported an increase in satisfaction until age 59, but then anticipated a decrease in satisfaction after age 60. The authors interpreted the reduced enjoyment after age 60 as due to a blockage of channels for further development and advancement.
Friedlander (1963) found that older supervisors tended to derive more satisfaction than younger supervisors from the social and technical aspects of their work, and less satisfaction from self-actualization. Results reported by England (1967a) indicated that older managers placed a higher value on social welfare and a lower value on organizational growth and leadership in the industry as goals of their organization. Gruenfeld (1962) found younger industrial supervisors to be more interested than older supervisors in high wages and fringe benefits. Older supervisors were more concerned about regular hours and freedom from stress.
Stogdill (1965a), in his study in an aircraft plant, found that with increasing age, managers tended to be more satisfied with the company but less satisfied with the recognition they received. But J. G. Mauer (1969) failed to find any relation between the age and the satisfaction of industrial supervisors. Some studies failed to find that managerial satisfaction was affected by the manager’s age or other factors.
Tenure and Managerial Satisfaction. In Stogdill’s (1965a) survey, the number of years a manager remained in the same position tended to contribute to all the aspects of dissatisfaction that were measured, but particularly to dissatisfaction with the failure to be promoted. However, Hall, Schneider, and Nygren (1970) reported that in the U.S. Forest Service, tenure, but not position, was related to identification with the organization and the satisfaction of needs.
Consistently, the evidence points to the fact that better-satisfied managers perform better. Lawler and Porter (1967b) found that the degree to which an individual’s needs are satisfied is related to his or her job performance, as evaluated by peers and superiors, and that this relationship is stronger for managers than for nonmanagers. Porter and Lawler (1968) reported that managers who were rated high in performance by themselves and their superiors expressed a higher degree of needs satisfaction than those who were rated low in performance. Managers who were rated high in effort also reported that they required a greater fulfillment of all their needs. Finally, Slocum, Miller, and Misshauk (1970) reported that high-producing supervisors were better satisfied than low-producing supervisors.
“A grain of sand in a man’s flesh, and empires totter and fall.” So wrote Émile Zola (1902), referring to Napoleon III’s incapacitation by stones in his bladder. A chronic disorder can have a continuing impact on a leader’s performance, and acute disorders can alter specific situations. Interpersonal relations, concentration on necessary details, energy level, and availability all depend on a leader’s physical stamina and mental health (L ’Etang, 1970). However, few controlled studies have been conducted to compare the performance of healthy and ill leaders. Quick, Gavin, Cooper, et al. (2000) defined executive health as including physical, mental, spiritual, and ethical well-being. Discussion of the last two of these aspects will be saved for Chapter 9. The researches attributed a leader’s good or poor health to inherited and acquired conditions such as the loneliness of command, an overload of work, crises, and failures.
While they were in office, Adolph Hitler suffered from Parkinson’s disease; François Mitterrand, the French premier, from prostate cancer; Lenin from renal disease; Woodrow Wilson from strokes; and the Japanese emperor Hirohito from pancreatic cancer (Accoce & Rentchnick, 1994 & 2003). The acute and chronic ailments of political and organizational leaders are common sources of concern, as are their health, diets, exercise regimens, medications, and lifestyles. Most important, their illnesses are likely to adversely affect their decisions. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was taking toxic analgesics for “blinding headaches” that affected his kidneys. Wilson’s stroke of April 1919 brought about a sharp change in his personality and materially reduced his effectiveness in trying to win support for the League of Nations. A stroke on September 3, 1919, resulted in his complete incapacitation; thereafter, his wife, his physician, and Joseph Tumulty ran his office until March of 1920. None of his objectives that required persuading a majority in the Senate could be met. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s high blood pressure and other debilitating ailments made questionable his suitability for the presidency when he ran for his fourth term in 1944. His physician noted signs of hardening cerebral arteries before Roosevelt went to meet Churchill and Stalin at the fateful Yalta Conference in February 1945. Nikita Khrushchev also had to deal with high blood pressure. Illness dogged Dwight Eisenhower, limiting his activities at important international conferences. His weak heart caused acute problems at meetings in higher altitudes. John F. Kennedy’s chronic back pain was well known to the public, but he was also a victim of Addison’s disease, which was treated with cortisone. This disease and its treatment caused extreme mood swings and emotional instability at a time when Kennedy was dealing with the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, which began to show up beginning sometime during his second term. Benito Mussolini’s judgment was impaired by syphilis. By 1938–1939, there was a noticeable deterioration in his intellectual capacity. In the four years before his downfall, he assisted Hitler at Munich, invaded Albania and Greece, and took Italy into a disasterous war with Britain. King George III’s porphyria first appeared during the first year of his 60-year reign. This genetic disorder periodically made him mentally deranged, at a time when the British monarch not only reigned but ruled if he could manage Parliament. Intermittently, George III could do neither, and Britain lost its American colonies.
Park (1988) noted that in leaders, advanced age may be accompanied by a deterioration in judgment and temperament. Paul von Hindenburg, Germany’s president, became decrepit during the last years of the Weimar Republic, making Hitler’s rise to power much easier. During the same years, Ramsay MacDonald, the British prime minister, was a victim of Alzheimer’s disease, which made his continued leadership of the Labour Party an embarrassment of ludicrous speeches and impaired judgment. Likewise, the premature aging of Poland’s post–World War I leader Józef Pilsudski contributed to his delusions about his nation’s military strength and status in its foreign relations with Germany and Russia. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the political leaders exercising real power in the People’s Republic of China were in their eighties (Fukuyama, 1997). Ronald Reagan’s advanced age led to a lot of confusion in his thinking about events in his movie roles and in reality. Park suggested that governments set up independent disability commissions to make judgments and recommendations about removing seriously mentally disabled leaders from office.
Many historical questions remain about how physical health influenced the leadership of generals, politicians, statesmen, and emperors. Was it lead poisoning that resulted in a sudden change for the worse in Caligula (lead was used by the Romans to seal wine bottles and for piping water)? How was John Foster Dulles’s last year in office as Secretary of State affected by his carcinoma of the bowel? What was the impact on the course of events of Prime Minister Anthony Eden’s acute obstructive colitis, which caused him to have a high fever during the Suez crisis of 1956? Can effective leaders successfully mask or compensate for their debilitating illnesses? How are they affected by the medications they take to treat their conditions? How much of the success or failure of businesses can be traced to the ill health of top executives? Long working hours, lengthy meetings, and long travel time, as well as stressful responsibility for people and their performance, can reach debilitating levels. The impact of the sudden death of a chief executive officer will be discussed in Chapter 30.
Illnesses and early death can sometimes be avoided with suitable exercise and diet. Neck and Cooper (2000) recommended a program of optimum exercise and diet to offset the effects of heavy occupational demands. These authors compiled survey evidence reported by Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, and other business publications. Two-thirds of executives exercise at least three times a week, and 90% of these do aerobic exercises. Endurance, strength, and flexibility need to be developed and maintained.
Obesity, smoking, and alchohol addiction contribute to a variety of chronic diseases and early death. Neck and Cooper (2000) cite a survey of 3,000 executives who said they were careful about their diet. Only 10% of executives said they smoked, whereas almost a quarter of the U.S. population is still smoking. The need to reduce caloric intake as well as fat and cholesterol to recommended levels of nutritional standards is well-known. Vitamins, minerals, and high-fiber foods are encouraged. Fruits, vegetables, and whole-grain products should form a large portion of the healthy diet. Antioxidants and calcium are also important.
Empirical surveys have supported the argument for maintaining physical fitness and a proper diet. For instance, stockbrokers who took part in an aerobics training program earned greater sales commissions than those who did not participate. A study of 10,000 men and 3,000 women found that in a given period the physically unfit had twice the mortality rate of the fit. Physical fitness also affects mental activities. A study of 56 physically active college professors found that they processed data faster and experienced a slower decline in information-processing speed as they aged. Physical fitness contributed to higher energy levels and feelings of well-being.
A healthy self-concept contributes to a leader’s effectiveness. What does it mean for leaders to be in good mental health? Effective, mentally healthy leaders retain a balanced view of themselves and how to deal with their work. They are at peace with themselves (Cleveland, 1985). They avoid maladaptive responses to the conflicts arising from their moving up the organizational ladder. They help themselves to understand their own motivations by establishing a firm sense of their identity, by maintaining continuity and predictability in their relations with their colleagues, by being selective in their activities and relationships, and by living appropriately with their own daily rhythms. They can face disappointments realistically and do not hide or deny their occurrence. They remain the masters of their fate and can tolerate their feelings of loss. They know when to withdraw and when to reexamine their emotional investments in people and activities (Zaleznik, 1963). If they had unsupportive parents and a disadvantaged childhood, they have been resiliant. Neurotic and disordered beliefs about oneself, by contrast, are most likely to result in leadership that is fraught with problems for colleagues and for the organization.
Forms of mental maladjustment and ill health, including neuroses, psychoses, and personality disorders, are the opposite of emotional stability, self-efficacy, and mental well-being. Eysenck (1985) found neuroticism to be one of two dimensions of central importance in accounting for large amounts of variance in social and leadership behavior. The other was introversion-extroversion. In contrast to the general population, Eysenck noted, managers and administrators were likely to be low in neurotic tendencies and high in extroversion. This is consistent. Nevertheless, although pathological leaders are a minority, numerous links between pathological tendencies and leadership styles have been observed by clinical analysts. For example, Fernberg (1979) described frequently observed pathological character structures in administrators: schizoid, obsessive, narcissistic, and paranoid. Leonid Brezhnev, a leader of the Soviet Union, suffered from senile dementia. Habib Bourgiba, president of Tunisia, suffered from 25 years of depression. Kemal Atatürk, the founding leader of modern Turkey and George III of En gland, suffered from Korsakoff’s psychosis, in which victims fill in gaps in their memory with imaginary events.
Anxiety. Heuerman and Olson (1999) postulated that anxiety “engulfs” some people in positions of leadership. They feel “lost, scared, confused, and panicked,” in fear of obscure dangers. They repeatedly impose mindless “reorganizations, change programs, and superficial fixes.” They are blindsided by their disappointments. “They work futilely to avoid pain, gain control, and find security.” Nevertheless, they try to convey an impression of calm and confidence.
Feelings of Paranoid Persecution. Leaders may display additional neurotic or psychotic syndromes if their wishes are articulated in fantasies. The fantasies are “scenes in the private theatre of [the leader’s] subjective world” (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1984a, p. 8). The syndromes that dominate are the bases for specific styles of leadership. They may, in turn, become shared fantasies that can permeate all levels in a centralized organization, creating a specific organizational culture and determining decision making, strategy, and structure. On the basis of clinical observations of executives in four firms, five pathological leadership constellations were observed to emerge. Kets de Vries and Miller (1984a, 1986) identified them and provided generalizations about their different effects on the organization and on the leaders’ colleagues. These five constellations were: (1) feelings of paranoid persecution, (2) feelings of helplessness, (3) narcissim, (4) compulsiveness, and (5) schizoid detachment.
The dominant fantasy of leaders suffering from paranold persecution is that they cannot really trust anyone and that a menacing superior force is out to “get” them. Thus these leaders are quick to take offense and are always on guard. Along with their mistrust of others, they are suspicious, hypersensitive, and overconcerned with hidden motives and special meanings. They distort reality in an effort to confirm their suspicions. As Kets de Vries and Miller (1986, p. 269) stated:
The boss may feel hostile to those who report to him [or her] and may want to harm or attack others as a defensive reaction to his/her own feelings of persecution and mistrust. … The leader sees … subordinates either as malingerers and incompetents, or as people who are deliberately out to raise his/her ire. As a consequence, he/she is likely to gravitate towards two extremes. He/she might try to exert a tremendous amount of control through intensive personal supervision, formal controls and rules, and harsh punishments. … The second, less common, reaction of the hostile leader toward … subordinates may be one of overt aggression. He/she may be reluctant to provide emotional or material rewards, striving always to come out on the winning side of any ‘trades.’ … Subordinates hold back their contributions and concentrate mostly on protecting themselves from exploitation.
In organizations that are dominated by paranoid leaders, emphasis is on management controls and continuous vigilance. Power is centralized, and decision making is top-down although information is sought from below. The organization is conservative and reacts to threats rather than being proactive with regard to opportunities. Risk taking is low. There is an increased need for control rather than constant goals, strategic plans, or unifying themes and traditions (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984a).
Helplessness and Hopelessness. According to Kets de Vries and Miller (1986), the dominant fantasy here is that it is hopeless to change the course of events in life; one is just not good enough. This depressive neurosis gives rise to a lack of self-confidence and initiative, feelings of dependence, and low self-esteem (Jacobson, 1971). Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and inadequacy are exhibited in self-depreciation and feelings of inferiority. Feelings of learned hopelessness develop; the manager believes that the malaise will last forever and that it will affect everything he or she does (Trotter, 1987). Kernberg (1979) noted that such depressive managers avoid responsibility, procrastinate about major decisions, and become passive and laissez-faire in their leadership style. Only routines get done; their groups stagnate, and goals are not clarified.
Narcissism. Of 32 revolutionary leaders, 23 were described as egotistical, narcissistic, and searching for personal fame and glory (Rejai, 1980). Narcissists are dominated by the fantasy of getting attention and impressing others dramatically. Some are histrionic, expressing emotions excessively and incessantly drawing attention to themselves. They are likely to be superficial and to exaggerate their evaluations of others (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984a). Narcissists who reject the object-relations in their fantasy exhibit severe and frequent defensive reactions, are demanding taskmasters, and gather sycophant subordinates around themselves. Narcissists who deceive themselves are overly sensitive to criticism and privately harbor grudges against dissenters. As Kets de Vries and Miller (1985, pp. 16–17) stated:
Such leaders are hyperactive, impulsive, dramatically venturesome, and dangerously uninhibited. They live in a world of hunches and impressions rather than facts as they address a broad array of widely disparate projects, products, and markets in desultory fashion. The leaders’ flair for the dramatic leads them to centralize power, allowing them to initiate bold ventures independently. … Instead of reacting to the environment (when at the top of the organization) the leader, often an entrepreneur, attempts to enact his own environment … [placing a] sizable proportion of the firm’s capital … at risk. … Most of these … moves are made in the service of grandiosity. Unbridled growth is the goal. The organization’s strategy is a function of its leader’s considerable narcissistic needs—his desire for attention and visibility. … The top man wants to be at center stage, putting on a show. … He wants to finally “show the others over there” how great an executive he really is.
Some degree of self-concentration appears to be important for effective leadership. Charismatic leaders develop self-assuring internal images with which they have a dialogue and that form a basis for connections with their followers (Zaleznik, 1984). But concentration on the self may be a mixed blessing. Leaders may have highly inflated evaluations of themselves or severely negative self-images. As was noted earlier, in both instances of such self-concentration, prosocial leadership is unlikely to emerge (Reykowski, 1982).
Compulsiveness. This neurosis is fueled by the fantasy “I don’t want to be at the mercy of events. I have to master and control all the things affecting me.” The fantasy is articulated by behaving as a perfectionist. The compulsive person is preoccupied with trivial details and insists that others submit to his or her way of doing things. He or she sees relationships in terms of dominance and submission and is characterized by a lack of spontaneity, inability to relax, meticulousness, dogmatism, obstinacy, and a constant preoccupation with losing control. “Every last detail of operation is planned out in advance and carried on in a routinized and preprogrammed fashion. Thoroughness, completeness, and conformity with standard and established procedures are emphasized. … Surprises must be avoided” (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984a, p. 14).
Schizoid Detachment. The fantasy here is that “the world of reality does not offer any satisfaction to me. All of my interactions with others will eventually fail and cause harm so it is safer to remain distant” (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984a, p. 11). The manager with this problem is insecure, withdrawn, and noncommittal. He or she discourages interaction because of a fear of involvement. The world is an unhappy place, filled with frustrating colleagues. Most contacts will end painfully, this manager believes. To compensate for a lack of fulfillment, he or she daydreams. Again, the fantasy is articulated in ineffective, laissez-faire leadership.10 The manager is detached and feels estranged from others. A cold, unemotional appearance is matched by an indifference to praise or reproof.
Psychosomatic Syndromes—Type-A Personalities. The Type-A syndrome may include being hostile, driven, competitive, and time-conscious, Type-As may hurry the speech of others; become unduly irritated when forced to wait; exhibit explosive speech patterns or frequent use of obscenities; make a fetish of always being on time; have difficulty sitting and doing nothing; play nearly every game to win, even when playing with children; become impatient while watching others do things they think they can do better or faster. In addition to hard-driving competitiveness, these Type-A leaders’ sense of urgency, may be accompanied by restlessness, multiple activities against deadlines, and impatience with delays and with others. These leaders may be self-centered and poor in interpersonal relationships.
In general, type-A managers seem to have an overwhelming need to assert control over whatever happens. Nonetheless, when they lose control, they overreact, with signs of helplessness. Their reaction is either “all or nothing.” In the process, they waste energy and strain themselves needlessly. In a survey of 163 South African managers, type-A behavior was found to be correlated with a strong feeling of exhaustion, role conflict, absence of friendliness, and anxiety depression (reflecting joylessness). The behavior of these people as managers and leaders was affected accordingly, concomitant with effects on their hearts (Strumpfer, 1983).
Type-As are prone to heart disease, real and false (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). False angina (pain in the left arm) and high blood pressure may not be organic in origin but due to frustration. False angina occurs not because Type-As are workaholics but because they are frustrated by feeling of being blocked from full accomplishment. Nevertheless, relationship between Type-A behavior and real heart disease was demonstrated in a large number of studies (Jenkins, 1976, 1978). Men who were in the highest third in Type-A scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey had 1.79 times the incidence of new coronary heart disease as men who were in the bottom third of the distribution. When men who had had a single heart attack were compared with men who had had second heart attacks, Jenkins, Zyzanski, and Rosenman (1976) demonstrated that the Type-A score was the strongest single predictor of recurrent coronary heart disease. However, there are three important qualifications. First, as Strumpfer (1983) noted, the majority of people with Type-A behavior never develop heart disease. Second, it is difficult not to confound Type-A behavior with other risk factors such as smoking and obesity. Third, and most important, if it is a psychosomatic illness, the heart condition is a response to anger and frustration. The happy Type-A workaholic who enjoys his work and the challenges from it is not as likely to be at risk of heart disease. Also more likely to be free of heart disease may be Type-As who are emotionally expressive and genuinely confident in themselves, who laugh a lot, and who can be highly active (Hall, 1986). The entire Type-A syndrome of anger, impatience, aggravation, and irritation may not be the culprit but rather only one or more elements related to heart disease. For instance a cynical, mistrusting attitude or intense self-involvement may be the particular risk factor of consequence (Fischman, 1987).
Successful leaders share values with those they lead. What they and their followers regard as right, important, and good shapes their performance. These values depend on occupational and societal influences. But a majority are likely to see themselves as pragmatically balanced in outlook. Leaders differ in their values for many reasons, ranging from education to nationality. They may be selected by an organization because of their values or they may assimilate the organization’s values after joining. Their profession and locale also make for obvious differences. Furthermore, their performance depends on their concepts about themselves, their pragmatism, their preference for taking risks, and their valuing of short-term maximization or long-term gain. Motives may be conscious like task orientation and subconscious like a need for achievement. Compensation is a strong motivator, but its effects are relative. Identification with the organization is also a strong motivator, as are commitment to the organization’s goals and the managers’ location in the organization. Leaders will be affected by whether they identify with superiors, peers, or subordinates. Satisfaction with the role of leader correlates with earnings and status and their accompanying power and control. Role clarity is particularly important. Although exceptions can be found, the higher one’s status in an organization, the greater one’s job satifaction. Managers’ satisfaction with their role in the organization and with their compensation often depends on their education, age, and tenure and correlates with their effective performance.
Systematic differences in values separate radical from conservative political leaders and revolutionaries from loyalist leaders. Both the projected needs for achievement and task orientation contribute positively to the emergence of leaders. In turn, there is a link between such leadership and risk taking. Among the self-concepts that particularly affect the emergence and performance of leaders are: internal or external locus of control; a sense of self-efficacy, self-confidence, self-esteem; and valuing of self-actualization. Leadership research has been remiss in ignoring the importance of physical and mental health of leaders. Physical health can be essential to a leader’s performance, and mental health problems are seen in leaders who feel persecuted, helpless, narcissistic, compulsive, or schizoid. Leaders’ and managers’ self-concepts, motives, values, and health move them to lead. How much others value them and accord them esteem and status affect the leaders’ and managers’ efforts to lead.