The Development of Effective Leadership: Investigating the Antecedents …… · · 2011-06-28The...

The Development of Effective Leadership:

Investigating the Antecedents of Charismatic and

Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behaviors

DISSERTATION

of the University of St. Gallen,

Graduate School of Business Administration,

Economics, Law, and Social Sciences (HSG)

to obtain the title of

Doctor Oeconomiae

submitted by

Frank Walter

from

Germany

Approved on the application of

Prof. Dr. Heike Bruch

and

Prof. Dr. Andreas Herrmann

Dissertation no. 3415

Difo-Druck GmbH, Bamberg, 2007

The University of St. Gallen, Graduate School of Business Administration,

Economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG) hereby consents to the printing of the

present dissertation, without hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein

expressed.

St. Gallen, October 15, 2007

The President:

Prof. Ernst Mohr, PhD

Acknowledgments

There are numerous people who played important roles in the development of this

dissertation, and I am very grateful to them. First of all, I would like to thank my

doctoral supervisor, Prof. Dr. Heike Bruch, who enabled this dissertation during my

time as a research associate at the Institute for Leadership and Human Resource

Management. She has been an important source of support and has provided me with

great opportunities for cooperation in many fascinating research projects. Thanks also

to Prof. Dr. Andreas Herrmann for serving as the co-supervisor on my dissertation

committee.

Very special thanks go to Prof. Dr. Michael S. Cole for his invaluable support and

advice not only with regard to my dissertation research, but with regard to all aspects

of my academic work during the last years. I benefited hugely from Michael's

constructive, open feedback, from his willingness to share his methodological

expertise and research skills, and from countless academic discussions.

I would also like to thank Silja Drack and Jochen Menges for their great help in data

collection. Further, I gratefully acknowledge the support of Stephan Bhm, Florian

Kunze, and Dr. Bernd Vogel, who provided constructive comments and helped me

sharpen critical arguments. Thanks also to my sister, Judith Walter, who spent a lot of

time and effort thoroughly proof-reading the whole manuscript.

I am deeply indebted to my parents, Marion and Otto Walter, whose encouragement

and support I could always count on in every phase of my academic education.

Finally, I am especially grateful to my wife, Michaela Walter. Her emotional support,

her incredible patience and understanding, and her deep affection were invaluable

during the ups and downs of my dissertation project. Without her, this dissertation

would not have been possible.

St. Gallen, October 2007 Frank Walter

Overview of Contents

I

Overview of Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background of the Dissertation 1

1.2 Literature Review and Development of Specific Research Questions 6

1.3 Target Groups and Value of the Dissertation 23

1.4 Outline of the Dissertation 24

2 Study 1 - The Role of Leaders' Mood and Emotional Intelligence 31

2.1 Introduction and Intended Contributions 31

2.2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 33

2.3 Description of Study Methods 50

2.4 Results 61

2.5 Discussion of Study 1 Findings 68

3 Study 2 - The Role of Organizational Structure 78


3.2 Conceptual Issues and Definitions 80



3.5 Results 108


4 Study 3 - Theoretical Integration and Extension of Prior Work 123


4.2 Charismatic Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical Integration 124

4.3 Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical Extension 148

4.4 Overall Conclusions from Study 3 170

5 Overall Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions 172

5.1 Overview of the Research Problem and Key Research Questions 172

5.2 Summary of Dissertation Findings 175

5.3 Main Contributions to the Literature 180

5.4 Overall Limitations and Directions for Future Research 184

5.5 Key Practical Implications 189

5.6 Overall Conclusions and Outlook 194

References 196

Curriculum Vitae 236

II Table of Contents

Table of Contents

List of Figures VII

List of Tables VIII

List of Abbreviations IX

Abstract X

Zusammenfassung XI

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background of the Dissertation 1

1.1.1 Introducing charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership 1

1.1.2 Outlining the research problem 3

1.1.3 Practical relevance 5

1.2 Literature Review and Development of Specific Research Questions 6

1.2.1 Prior research on the antecedents of charismatic and prevention- oriented leadership 7

1.2.1.1 The role of leaders' personality 7

1.2.1.2 The role of leaders' attitudes and values 9

1.2.1.3 The role of leaders' cognition 10

1.2.1.4 The role of crisis situations 11

1.2.1.5 The role of the organizational context 12

1.2.1.6 Summary 13

1.2.2 The role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence 14

1.2.3 The role of organizational structure in charismatic and prevention- oriented leadership behavior emergence 17

1.2.4 Theoretical integration of prior work on charismatic leadership behavior emergence 20

1.2.5 Theoretical extension of prior work on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence 22

1.3 Target Groups and Value of the Dissertation 23

1.4 Outline of the Dissertation 24

1.4.1 Overall design 24

1.4.2 Methodological approach 27

1.4.3 Chapter structure 28

Table of Contents

III

2 Study 1 - The Role of Leaders' Mood and Emotional Intelligence 31



2.2.1 The role of leaders' mood 33

2.2.1.1 Theoretical background 33

2.2.1.2 Positive mood and charismatic leadership 36

2.2.1.3 Negative mood and prevention-oriented leadership 38

2.2.2 The role of leaders' emotional intelligence 41

2.2.2.1 Theoretical background 41

2.2.2.2 Emotional intelligence and charismatic leadership 42

2.2.2.3 Emotional intelligence and prevention-oriented leadership 44

2.2.3 Interactive effects of mood and emotional intelligence 46


2.3.1 Data collection and sample description 50

2.3.2 Measures 53

2.3.2.1 Leaders' positive and negative mood 53

2.3.2.2 Leaders' emotional intelligence 54

2.3.2.3 Charismatic leadership behaviors 55

2.3.2.4 Prevention-oriented leadership behaviors 57

2.3.2.5 Control variables 58

2.3.3 Data analyses 59

2.3.3.1 Aggregation analyses 59

2.3.3.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations 60

2.3.3.3 Hypotheses testing 60

2.4 Results 61

2.4.1 Aggregation statistics 61

2.4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations 62

2.4.3 Hypotheses testing for charismatic leadership 64

2.4.4 Hypotheses testing for prevention-oriented leadership 67


2.5.1 Summary and contributions: Charismatic leadership 68

2.5.2 Summary and contributions: Prevention-oriented leadership 69

2.5.3 Limitations 71

2.5.4 Directions for future research 73

2.5.5 Practical implications 75

2.5.6 Conclusion 77

IV Table of Contents

3 Study 2 - The Role of Organizational Structure 78


3.2 Conceptual Issues and Definitions 80

3.2.1 Organizations' charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate 80

3.2.2 Organizational centralization, formalization, and size 83


3.3.1 Theoretical background 84

3.3.2 Organizational structure and charismatic leadership climate 86

3.3.2.1 Centralization and charismatic leadership climate 86

3.3.2.2 Formalization and charismatic leadership climate 88

3.3.2.3 Organization size and charismatic leadership climate 90

3.3.3 Organizational structure and prevention-oriented leadership climate 92

3.3.3.1 Centralization and prevention-oriented leadership climate 92

3.3.3.2 Formalization and prevention-oriented leadership climate 94

3.3.3.3 Organization size and prevention-oriented leadership climate 96


3.4.1 Data collection and sample description 98

3.4.2 Measures 101

3.4.2.1 Centralization and formalization 101

3.4.2.2 Organization size 103

3.4.2.3 Charismatic leadership climate 103

3.4.2.4 Prevention-oriented leadership climate 105

3.4.2.5 Control variables 105

3.4.3 Data analyses 106

3.4.3.1 Aggregation analyses 106

3.4.3.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations 107

3.4.3.3 Hypotheses testing 107

3.5 Results 108

3.5.1 Aggregation statistics 108

3.5.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations 109

3.5.3 Hypotheses testing for charismatic leadership climate 111

3.5.4 Hypotheses testing for prevention-oriented leadership climate 112


3.6.1 Summary and contributions: Charismatic leadership climate 113

3.6.2 Summary and contributions: Prevention-oriented leadership climate 115

3.6.3 Limitations 116

3.6.4 Directions for future research 119

Table of Contents

V

3.6.5 Practical implications 120

3.6.6 Conclusion 121

4 Study 3 - Theoretical Integration and Extension of Prior Work 123


4.2 Charismatic Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical Integration 124

4.2.1 Theoretical background: Affective events theory 124

4.2.2 An AET-based framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence 128

4.2.2.1 Charismatic leadership as affect- and judgment-driven behavior 129

4.2.2.2 The dual moderating role of leaders' emotional intelligence 131

4.2.2.3 Incorporating the work environment: The role of organizational context 134

4.2.2.4 Incorporating dispositional factors: The role of leaders' personality 137

4.2.3 Discussion 142

4.2.3.1 Summary and contributions 142

4.2.3.2 Limitations and future research directions 143

4.2.3.3 Practical implications 146

4.3 Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical Extension 148

4.3.1 Theoretical background 148

4.3.1.1 The role of threat perceptions in managerial action 149

4.3.1.2 The relevance of stress theory 150

4.3.1.3 Incorporating the individual: Regulatory focus theory 151

4.3.2 A conceptual core model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence 153

4.3.2.1 The joint impacts of leaders' perceived threat intensity and controllability 154

4.3.2.2 Leaders' regulatory focus and perceived threat intensity 157

4.3.2.3 A three-way interaction of leaders' regulatory focus, perceived threat intensity, and perceived threat controllability 159

4.3.3 Discussion 164

4.3.3.1 Summary and contributions 164

4.3.3.2 Limitations and future research directions 166

4.3.3.3 Practical implications 168

4.4 Overall Conclusions from Study 3 170

VI Table of Contents

5 Overall Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions 172

5.1 Overview of the Research Problem and Key Research Questions 172

5.2 Summary of Dissertation Findings 175

5.2.1 The emergence of charismatic leadership behaviors 175

5.2.2 The emergence of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors 177

5.2.3 Comparing the emergence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors 179

5.3 Main Contributions to the Literature 180

5.3.1 Contributions to the charismatic leadership literature 181

5.3.2 Contributions to the prevention-oriented leadership literature 182

5.4 Overall Limitations and Directions for Future Research 184

5.4.1 Empirical limitations and research directions 185

5.4.2 Theoretical limitations and research directions 188

5.5 Key Practical Implications 189

5.5.1 Implications for leader selection and promotion 190

5.5.2 Implications for leadership training 191

5.5.3 Implications for the design of leaders' organizational context 192

5.5.4 Strategic development of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership 193

5.6 Overall Conclusions and Outlook 194

References 196

Curriculum Vitae 236

List of Figures

VII

List of Figures

FIGURE 1.1: OVERALL DESIGN OF THE DISSERTATION 27

FIGURE 2.1: POSITIVE MOOD EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE INTERACTION

ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP 66

FIGURE 4.1: BASIC TENETS OF AFFECTIVE EVENTS THEORY (FROM

WEISS & CROPANZANO, 1996, P. 12) 125

FIGURE 4.2: AN AET-BASED FRAMEWORK OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

BEHAVIOR EMERGENCE 128

FIGURE 4.3: A CORE MODEL OF PREVENTION-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP

BEHAVIOR EMERGENCE 154

FIGURE 4.4: PROPOSED THREE-WAY INTERACTION OF PERCEIVED THREAT

INTENSITY, PERCEIVED THREAT CONTROLLABILITY, AND

REGULATORY FOCUS ON PREVENTION-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 162

VIII List of Tables

List of Tables

TABLE 1.1: CHAPTER STRUCTURE 30

TABLE 2.1: SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS (STUDY 1) 52

TABLE 2.2: SURVEY ITEMS FOR POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE MOOD 53

TABLE 2.3: SURVEY ITEMS FOR EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 55

TABLE 2.4: SURVEY ITEMS FOR CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP (STUDY 1) 56

TABLE 2.5: SURVEY ITEMS FOR PREVENTION-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 57

TABLE 2.6: AGGREGATION STATISTICS (STUDY 1) 62

TABLE 2.7: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS (STUDY 1) 63

TABLE 2.8: MODERATED HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES (STUDY 1) 65

TABLE 3.1: PARTICIPANT ORGANIZATION SIZES AND WITHIN-

ORGANIZATION RESPONSE RATES (STUDY 2) 99

TABLE 3.2: SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS (STUDY 2, EMPLOYEE SAMPLE) 100

TABLE 3.3: SURVEY ITEMS FOR CENTRALIZATION AND FORMALIZATION 102

TABLE 3.4: SURVEY ITEMS FOR CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP CLIMATE

(STUDY 2) 104

TABLE 3.5: AGGREGATION STATISTICS (STUDY 2) 108

TABLE 3.6: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS (STUDY 2) 110

TABLE 3.7: HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES (STUDY 2) 112

List of Abbreviations

IX

List of Abbreviations

Beta-coefficient (Standardized regression weight)

Estimated meta-analytic population correlation

AET Affective Events Theory

AIM Affect Infusion Model

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

ASA Attraction-Selection-Attrition

cf. confer

Ed./Eds. Editor/Editors

e.g. for example

et al. et alii

HR Human Resources

ICC Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

i.e. that is

JAWS Job-related Affective Well-being Scale

MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

MSCEIT Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

n.s. not significant

p level of significance

p. page

r Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

rwg Index of interrater agreement

VIF Variance Inflation Factor

vs. versus

WLEIS Wong-Law Emotional Intelligence Scale

X Abstract

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors. Prior research has demonstrated the beneficial consequences of

these types of leadership. The emergence of such leadership, by contrast, has received

less scholarly attention. Thus, academic knowledge has remained fragmented and

incomplete, and organizational decision-makers have been left with limited advice

from leadership research on how to facilitate the respective behaviors.

To address these issues, I examine the development of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership in three independent studies. In Study 1, based on a sample of 34

leaders and 165 direct followers, both leaders' positive mood and emotional

intelligence are shown to enhance their charismatic behaviors. Also, emotional

intelligence is found to diminish the relationship between positive mood and

charismatic leadership. Leaders' mood and emotional intelligence are shown to be

unrelated, however, to their prevention-oriented behaviors. Drawing on a sample of

16'144 employees from 125 organizations, Study 2 demonstrates organizational

centralization and size to be negatively and formalization to be positively associated

with the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors. Also, a marginally negative

relationship is found between organization size and prevention-oriented leadership,

while formalization is shown to be positively associated with the occurrence of such

behaviors. In the first part of Study 3, I develop a comprehensive, encompassing

theoretical framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence. This framework

promotes an integrative perspective on this issue to overcome the piecemeal approach

that has characterized this line of inquiry to date. And finally, in the second part of

Study 3, I present a theoretical core model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence, extending prior, more informal notions by outlining the complex interplay

of leaders' threat perceptions and regulatory focus.

In sum, this thesis provides empirical evidence for the role of affective and structural

factors in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. Also, it

builds new theory to further advance these areas of research. Thus, the dissertation

contributes to a better understanding of the development of effective leadership. It

indicates important directions for future research and outlines practical

recommendations on how to nurture charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors.

Zusammenfassung

XI

Zusammenfassung

Diese Dissertation untersucht die Entstehung charismatischer und prventionsorien-

tierter Fhrung. Die bestehende Forschung hat die positiven Konsequenzen dieser

Fhrungsstile gezeigt. Dagegen wurde der Entwicklung solchen Verhaltens nur wenig

Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Das derzeitige Wissen zu diesem Thema ist deshalb

fragmentiert und unvollstndig, und Entscheidungstrger in der Praxis knnen kaum

auf die Fhrungsforschung zurckgreifen, um solche Fhrungsstile zu frdern.

Daher beleuchtet diese Arbeit die Entwicklung charismatischer und prventionsorien-

tierter Fhrung im Rahmen dreier unabhngiger Studien. Studie 1 zeigt in einem Sam-

ple von 34 Fhrungskrften und 165 Untergebenen, dass charismatische Fhrung

durch die positive Stimmung von Fhrungskrften und durch ihre emotionale Intelli-

genz verstrkt wird. Auerdem reduziert emotionale Intelligenz den Zusammenhang

zwischen positiver Stimmung und charismatischer Fhrung. Im Gegensatz dazu wir-

ken sich Stimmungen und emotionale Intelligenz nicht auf prventionsorientierte Fh-

rung aus. Studie 2 zeigt in einem Sample von 16'144 Mitarbeitern aus 125 Organisa-

tionen, dass Zentralisierung und Organisationsgre das Auftreten charismatischer

Fhrung vermindern, whrend sich Formalisierung positiv auswirkt. Ebenso reduziert

die Organisationsgre (marginal) das Auftreten prventionsorientierter Fhrung,

whrend Formalisierung auch hier positive Effekte hat. Der erste Teil von Studie 3

entwickelt einen umfassenden theoretischen Rahmen fr die Entstehung charismati-

scher Fhrung. Dieser integrative Ansatz trgt dazu bei, den bruchstckhaften For-

schungsstand zu diesem Thema zu berwinden. Schlielich entwickelt der zweite Teil

von Studie 3 ein theoretisches Kernmodell der Entstehung prventionsorientierter Fh-

rung. Aufbauend auf bestehenden, informelleren Ideen wird das komplexe Zusammen-

spiel der Bedrohungswahrnehmung und des Regulationsfokus von Fhrungskrften

dargestellt.

Insgesamt liefert diese Arbeit empirische Hinweise auf die Rolle affektiver und struk-

tureller Faktoren bei der Entstehung charismatischer und prventionsorientierter Fh-

rung. Auerdem entwickelt sie neue theoretische Anstze, um diese Forschungsfelder

weiter voranzutreiben. Sie trgt damit zu einem besseren Verstndnis der Entwicklung

effektiver Fhrung bei und weist auf zuknftige Forschungsrichtungen hin. Schlielich

werden praktische Empfehlungen zur Frderung charismatischer und prventions-

orientierter Fhrung aufgezeigt.

Introduction

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the Dissertation

1.1.1 Introducing charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

In today's work environment, employees constitute an important resource for

organizations and a key determinant of corporate success, with employees' creativity,

motivation, and energy driving company performance (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; Cross,

Baker, & Parker, 2003; Lawler, 2003; Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999; Van de Ven, 1986). It is

critical, therefore, to harness these employee potentials for the pursuit of company

goals. Effective leadership has been suggested to constitute one of the most relevant

success factors in this respect (Northouse, 1997; Yukl, 2002). Thus, developing such

effective leadership behaviors may be crucial for organizations.

Since the early 1980s, "New Leadership" approaches have drawn considerable

attention in organizational research (Bass, 1999; Bryman, 1996; Hunt, 1999),

including closely related concepts such as charismatic (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1987;

House, 1977), transformational (e.g., Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Tichy & Ulrich, 1984),

and visionary leadership (e.g., Sashkin, 1988). Scholars have argued that even though

these differing approaches specify somewhat different leadership behaviors, they are

nevertheless complementary to a great extent and exhibit significant overlap. As

House and Shamir (1993) noted, for instance, all of these approaches either explicitly

or implicitly feature leaders' charisma as a central concept (see also House & Aditya,

1997). I therefore chose to refer to this type of leadership behaviors as "charismatic

leadership". Specifically, charismatic leadership behaviors include leaders acting as

role models for their followers, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and

motivating followers to contribute to the achievement of common aspirations (Bass,

1985; House, 1977; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Shamir, House,

& Arthur, 1993). Charismatic leaders display a sense of power and confidence and

make bold, unconventional, and counternormative decisions (Avolio & Bass, 1988;

Conger & Kanungo, 1987; 1994; Shamir et al., 1993). They develop an intriguing,

ideological vision of the future and present it in an emotionally captivating manner,

expressing their confidence that common aspirations can be achieved through

collective efforts (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987;

House, 1977; Sashkin, 1988; Shamir et al., 1993). Research has accumulated

2 Introduction

impressive empirical evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of charismatic

leadership behaviors, as indicated in several meta-analyses (Dumdum, Lowe, &

Avolio, 2002; Fuller & Patterson, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Charismatic and transformational leaders have been shown,

for instance, to strengthen followers' satisfaction (Hater & Bass, 1988), motivation,

trust, and identification (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998), contributing to

followers' performance (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Howell & Frost, 1989;

McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002) and to their organizations' financial success

(Waldman, Javidan & Varella, 2004; Waldman, Ramrez, House, & Puranam, 2001).

Recently, scholars have suggested that an additional leadership style labeled

prevention-oriented leadership may complement the beneficial effects of charismatic

leadership behaviors (Bruch, Shamir, & Cole, 2005; Bruch, Shamir, & Eilam-Shamir,

2007). Such prevention-oriented leadership has been defined as "leader behavior that

focuses on threats, dangers, and possible negative consequences" (Bruch et al., 2007,

p. 135). Specifically, prevention-oriented leaders direct followers' motivation towards

the avoidance of negative outcomes by deliberately framing issues as threats (cf.

Dutton & Jackson, 1987) and by emphasizing those threats towards followers in a

vivid, emotionally captivating manner (Bruch & Vogel, 2006; Bruch et al., 2005).

Also, prevention-oriented leaders clearly outline the steps necessary to resolve such

threats, and they acknowledge progress towards this goal, thus building followers'

confidence in their ability to eventually succeed in avoiding negative consequences

(Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2007). Importantly, prevention-oriented

leadership is not based on coercion or personal punishment. Rather, "it empowers

[followers] and highlights the importance of their effort in order to prevent potential

negative consequences for the collective (group, unit, or organization)" (Bruch et al.,

2007, p. 135). Although prevention-oriented leadership has only recently been

introduced to leadership research and has received scant scholarly attention to date, the

existing literature generally points to the positive implications of such leadership.

Howell (1997, p. 25) theorized, for instance, that "leaders who label changing

environmental conditions as a 'threat' may elicit more rapid and radical organization

changes" than leaders who focus on environmental opportunities (see also Perlitz &

Lbler, 1985). Supporting this notion, both anecdotal and qualitative evidence has

suggested prevention-oriented leadership behaviors to motivate followers to

Introduction

3

acknowledge and act upon environmental threats and to proactively engage in far-

reaching changes to overcome such threats (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Bruch &

Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2007; Grove, 1996; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997; Jansen, 2004;

Kotter, 1995; Schein, 1990). And finally, prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

have been shown in two independent, quantitative studies to enhance followers' goal

commitment and to reduce followers' complacency, contributing to positive group

outcomes over and above the effects of charismatic leadership (Bruch et al., 2005).

1.1.2 Outlining the research problem

Interestingly, even though scholars have learned a lot about the beneficial impacts of

charismatic leadership and have started to investigate the consequences of prevention-

oriented leadership, relatively little is known about the development of these

leadership behaviors (Bruch, Vogel, & Krummaker, 2006). With charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership having typically been treated as predictors for various

outcome variables (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996),

both theorizing and research have generally neglected the antecedents and

prerequisites of such leadership (Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Conger, 1999; Yukl, 1999).

This is not to say that no scholarly work has been done with regard to the development

of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors; however, the existing

literature on these issues exhibits substantial gaps and has remained limited,

incomplete, and fragmented to date (cf. Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004; Bruch et

al., 2006; see chapter 1.2). In other words, the nomological nets around these

leadership behaviors have not been fully developed, leaving scholars with limited

conceptual and empirical evidence to answer theoretically and practically important

questions such as: Why are some individuals more likely to exhibit charismatic and/or

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors than others? Under what conditions are

individuals more or less likely to exhibit such leadership behaviors?

In advancing extant knowledge on charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership,

attending to these questions seems crucial (cf. Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bruch et al.,

2006). The present dissertation, therefore, addresses these issues. It focuses on the

antecedents and prerequisites of leaders' charismatic and prevention-oriented

behaviors, adopting various different theoretical and empirical perspectives to outline

conditions which may either enhance or diminish the development of such leadership.

Thus, the dissertation aims at complementing the nomological nets surrounding these

4 Introduction

leadership styles, allowing for a more precise depiction of the individual and

contextual factors which drive charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence. It contributes to a more solid knowledge basis on the

development of effective leadership behaviors in organizations, enabling scholars to

better understand the key mechanisms underlying such processes.

I chose to simultaneously investigate the emergence of both charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, because these constructs have been

suggested to represent fundamentally different, yet complementary types of leadership

(Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). Charismatic leaders motivate followers for the pursuit of

visionary aspirations (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993), while

prevention-oriented leaders, by contrast, motivate followers to avoid negative

outcomes (Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). In spite of these differences, however, both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leaders emphasize the relevance of collective

efforts in order to successfully deal with challenges posed by the organizational

environment (Bruch et al., 2007; Shamir et al., 1993). In fact, prevention-oriented

leadership has been suggested to supplement visionary, charismatic leadership

behaviors, particularly in situations of acute, external threats (Bruch et al., 2005; 2006;

2007). In sum, then, charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership utilize differing,

yet complementary routes towards follower motivation. Thus, by simultaneously

studying both types of leadership, it may be possible to reveal theoretically interesting

commonalities and differences. This may enable a better understanding of antecedent

factors that do not only promote charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership, but that

strengthen both types of leadership behaviors and, therefore, strongly contribute to the

development of effective leadership in organizations.

Besides, investigating the antecedents of both charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership offers the opportunity to contribute to two very different fields of research,

with the former representing an established construct (Conger, 1999; Hunt, 1999) and

the latter having only recently been introduced to the leadership literature (Bruch et al.,

2005; 2007). Thus, the dissertation may broaden existing knowledge in the relatively

mature field of charismatic leadership, while simultaneously exploring new areas of

inquiry by contributing to the emerging knowledge on prevention-oriented leadership.

Introduction

5

1.1.3 Practical relevance

From a practical perspective, the present lack of knowledge on the antecedents of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership seems troublesome, because

organizations aiming to stimulate charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors in

their leaders are left with little guidance and evidence from leadership research (cf.

Bommer et al., 2004; Bruch et al., 2006).

As indicated before, both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership may

constitute important drivers of organizational success, strengthening followers'

willingness to contribute to the achievement of organizational visions and aspirations,

to work towards overcoming imminent threats in the organizational environment, and

to perform beyond expectations (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bruch et al., 2005; 2007; Judge &

Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). Organizations may, therefore, find it critical to

nurture the performance of these behaviors in their leaders, for instance by selecting

individuals for leadership positions in an appropriate manner, by engaging in

leadership development and training programs, and by offering favorable contextual

boundary conditions for the occurrence of such leadership (cf. Bass & Avolio, 1990;

Bruch et al., 2006; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Seebacher & Klaus, 2004).

Leadership research may substantially enhance the effectiveness of such efforts by

outlining the key levers companies may utilize in order to strengthen their leaders'

charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors (cf. Bass & Riggio, 2006). Thus, such

research has the potential to contribute to organizational performance in important

ways. Given the lack of antecedent-oriented research on charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors, however, this opportunity is lost to a large extent,

limiting the usefulness and the practical applicability of the existing literature on these

types of leadership.

The present thesis addresses this issue by systematically investigating the emergence

of both of these leadership styles. It deliberately focuses on antecedent variables which

are malleable through organizational interventions, pointing organizational decision-

makers to viable opportunities for nurturing leaders' charismatic and prevention-

oriented behaviors. Also, based on the dissertation findings, I will explicitly outline

practical recommendations for facilitating charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership through different measures, including leader selection and promotion,

6 Introduction

leadership training, and the design of leaders' work context, hopefully contributing to

the effectiveness and the success of organizational efforts in this regard.

1.2 Literature Review and Development of Specific Research

Questions

In order to be able to appropriately address the research problem indicated above, it is

necessary to narrow down this general topic into more specific research questions.

These questions should refer to concrete, clearly defined aspects of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. Also, they should address

research areas that are promising and relevant both from an academic and from a

practitioner perspective. And finally, given that the dissertation aims, among other

things, at uncovering commonalities and differences in the development of charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (see chapter 1.1.2), its specific research

questions should focus on the same potential antecedent variables for both types of

leadership whenever this is theoretically sound.

Given these premises, I decided to concentrate on the following specific research

areas:

The role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence;

The role of organizational structure in charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behavior emergence;

Theoretical integration of prior work on charismatic leadership behavior

emergence through the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework;

Theoretical extension of prior work on prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence through the development of a conceptual core model.

As I will show in this chapter, these research areas are particularly interesting, because

they address gaps in the existing literature which profoundly limit our understanding

of the development of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors and

because they offer the potential for important practical recommendations. To further

outline these arguments, the following sections will first provide a review of the

Introduction

7

literature on the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership in

general.1 Then I will focus on the specific research areas to be addressed in the

dissertation in more detail, outlining the importance of these topics, depicting relevant

research gaps, and, eventually, formulating specific research questions in this regard.

1.2.1 Prior research on the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership

As indicated before, charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership research differ

pronouncedly in their respective stages of development. The former has been widely

discussed in the academic leadership literature for more than two decades (Bass, 1999;

Bryman, 1999; Hunt, 1999), while the latter has only recently been introduced (Bruch

et al., 2005; 2007). This difference is mirrored in research on the antecedents of such

leadership. In spite of substantial gaps, scholars have gained interesting insights with

regard to charismatic leadership behavior emergence. Research on the development of

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, by contrast, has been limited to date and has

often relied on qualitative and/or anecdotal evidence. The following review of the

extant literature on specific antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership quite clearly outlines these differing stages of development.

1.2.1.1 The role of leaders' personality

Leaders' stable personality dispositions have, for instance, been argued to play a key

role both in theoretical and in empirical research on charismatic leadership behavior

emergence (Bommer et al., 2004); however, such personality characteristics have not

been discussed with regard to prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence to

date.

In the charismatic leadership literature, theorists have considered a wide array of

dispositional leader characteristics as potential antecedent variables.2 House and

1 The literature reviewed here only includes studies directly pertaining to the emergence of charismatic or

prevention-oriented leadership. Studies focusing on the development of other leadership behaviors (e.g., Judge,

Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002) or on the antecedents of leadership effectiveness (e.g., Judge, Colbert, & Ilies,

2004) are excluded to allow for a concise depiction of the state of research and of relevant gaps directly

pertaining to the research problem of interest in this thesis. 2 Besides personality characteristics, some researchers have also considered the impact of leaders' gender. A

meta-analysis by Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and Engen (2003), for instance, revealed that women are generally

more likely to exhibit charismatic leadership behaviors than men (even though it should be noted that the

respective effect sizes were relatively small).

8 Introduction

Howell (1992), for instance, theorized charismatic leaders to be characterized "by

several personality traits including: cognitive achievement orientation; strong

tendencies to be creative, innovative, visionary, and inspirational; high levels of work

involvement, energy, and enthusiasm; a strong propensity to take risks; self-

confidence; a high need for social influence coupled with a strong concern for the

moral and nonexploitive use of power in a socially desirable manner; willingness to

exercise influence but not to be dominant, tough, forceful, aggressive, or critical;

strong inclinations to be confident in, and encouraging toward, followers and to show

a developmental orientation towards followers; and tendencies to be nurturant, socially

sensitive, and sensitive to and considerate of follower needs" (p. 90; see also Bass,

1988; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Zaccaro & Banks, 2001). Empirical research has found

significant associations between a similarly broad array of personality traits and

charismatic leadership behaviors, including leaders' intelligence (Atwater &

Yammarino, 1993); proactivity (Crant & Bateman, 2000; Deluga, 1998); activity

inhibition and need for achievement, power, and affiliation (De Hoogh, Den Hartog,

Koopman, Thierry, Van den Berg, Van der Weide, & Wilderom, 2005a; House,

Spangler, & Woycke, 1991); locus of control (Howell & Avolio, 1993); risk-taking

and innovativeness (Howell & Higgins, 1990); self-confidence, pragmatism,

nurturance, criticalness and aggression (Ross & Offermann, 1997); trait positive

affectivity (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005); and postconventional moral reasoning

(Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002).

Recently, scholars have started to integrate this wide variety of personality-centered

research on the antecedents of charismatic leadership by focusing on the Big Five

personality traits, i.e., on leaders' extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, and neuroticism (e.g., De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2005b;

Judge & Bono, 2000; Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001). With

these Big Five traits representing broad constructs that incorporate many other

personality dispositions (John & Srivastava, 1999), this framework seems useful for

systematically cumulating prior research findings. Accordingly, Bono and Judge

(2004) meta-analyzed 26 independent studies on the personality antecedents of

charismatic leadership, utilizing the Big Five framework to organize prior results.

Together, the Big Five were found to explain a total of 12% of the variance in

charismatic leadership behaviors, with a significant positive effect for extraversion (

Introduction

9

= .22) and a significant negative effect for neuroticism ( = -.17; Bono & Judge,

2004).3

In sum, while leaders' personality dispositions have not been considered in research on

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, they have been prominently

featured in antecedent-oriented charismatic leadership research, with theoretical and

empirical work strongly pointing to the relevance of such factors. It should be noted,

however, that the respective linkages generally seem to exhibit relatively moderate

effect sizes (Bono & Judge, 2004).

1.2.1.2 The role of leaders' attitudes and values

Various authors have discussed leaders' attitudes and values as charismatic leadership

antecedents, even though this line of inquiry has received considerably less research

attention than the personality-based approaches discussed above. In the prevention-

oriented leadership literature, by contrast, leaders' attitudes and values have not been

considered to date.

Theorizing on charismatic leadership behavior emergence has, for instance, pointed to

the potential role of leaders' positive work, leadership, and spiritual values (e.g.,

protestant work ethic, accountability, and trust; Klenke, 2005). Similarly, empirical

work on this issue has shown leaders' traditional, collectivistic, self-transcendent, and

self-enhancement values to strengthen their charismatic leadership behaviors, with this

set of values contributing about 10% to the variance explained in charismatic

leadership (Sosik, 2005). Further, scholars have empirically demonstrated leaders'

perceived psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, de Janasz, & Quinn, 1999) and

leaders' positive assessments of their followers' capabilities (Richardson &

Vandenberg, 2005) to enhance their inspirational and transformational leadership. And

finally, Bommer et al. (2004) found an inverse relationship between leaders' negative

change-oriented attitudes (i.e., their cynicism about organizational change) and their

performance of transformational leadership behaviors.

3 In contrast, conscientiousness was not significantly related to charismatic leadership ( = .05; Bono & Judge,

2004). Further, the effects for agreeableness and openness to experience were positive and comparable in size to

those for extraversion and neuroticism (s = .22). The 80% credibility intervals for these variables included zero,

however, indicating that they were inconsistently related to charismatic leadership in prior studies (Bono &

Judge, 2004).

10 Introduction

In sum, research on leaders' attitudes and values as prevention-oriented leadership

antecedents has not been conducted to date. Even in the case of charismatic leadership,

however, such research has been relatively scant. Extant theoretical notions and

empirical results suggest that leaders' charismatic behaviors may hinge on their

positive values and attitudes regarding their organizations, their work, and their

followers to some extent.

1.2.1.3 The role of leaders' cognition

Leaders' style of thinking and cognitive abilities have been considered both as

charismatic and as prevention-oriented leadership antecedents. First, with regard to

charismatic leadership, a small, but nevertheless interesting line of inquiry has started

to develop which explicitly interprets the emergence of such behaviors from a

cognitive perspective. Wofford and Goodwin (1994), for instance, have theorized

transformational leadership to depend, among other things, on leaders' cognitive goal

structures and self- and follower-schemata, on the abstractness of leaders' cognitive

scripts, and on their cognitive-attentional resource capacity. Partial support for these

notions has been provided by Wofford, Goodwin, and Whittington (1998), who

demonstrated leaders' cognitive structures to differ between transformational leaders

on the one hand and transactional leaders on the other hand. Particularly, leaders'

idealization of the organizational vision and leaders' cognitive transformational

motivation scripts were found to strengthen leaders' transformational leadership

cognitions, which, in turn, were positively related to their performance of

transformational leadership behaviors (see also Goodwin, Wofford, & Boyd, 2000).

With regard to prevention-oriented leadership, scholars have pointed towards leaders'

threat-related cognitive capabilities as potential influencing factors. It should be noted,

however, that the respective studies were mainly concerned with the consequences

rather than the antecedents of such leadership. The suggested relationship are,

therefore, based on relatively informal reasoning and have not been empirically tested

to date. Bruch and colleagues (2005, p. 31) noted, for instance, that the "ability to

credibly sensitize followers for dangers, possible threats, and potential losses" may

constitute a key prerequisite for the performance of prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors. This ability, in turn, has been suggested to depend on leaders' correct

perception and understanding of environmental threats (Bruch & Vogel, 2005).

Specifically, as Bruch and Vogel (2005) argued, effectively utilizing external threats in

Introduction

11

a prevention-oriented manner should only be possible if leaders clearly recognize and

fully grasp such threats, if they understand the threats' short- and medium-term

implications, and if they can develop viable approaches to overcome the respective

threats.

In sum, initial theoretical and (in the case of charismatic leadership) empirical work

has been conducted on the cognitive antecedents of both types of leadership behaviors

of interest in the present dissertation. While focusing on a variety of cognitive aspects

with respect to charismatic leadership, scholars' preliminary notions have mainly

concentrated on leaders' cognitive ability to perceive and understand external threats

from the organizational environment in prevention-oriented leadership research.

1.2.1.4 The role of crisis situations

Beyond the leader characteristics discussed above, research has also considered the

presence of crisis situations as an antecedent of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership. With respect to charismatic leadership behavior emergence, two opposing

theoretical perspectives on this issue have been advanced (Pillai & Meindl, 1998): On

the one hand, crises may provide leaders with the opportunity to engage in the bold,

powerful, and innovative actions that characterize charismatic leadership (see also

Boal & Bryson, 1988; Shamir & Howell, 1999). On the other hand, however,

followers might blame their leaders for the crisis situation, thus reducing leaders'

charismatic appeal and their opportunities to engage in charismatic behaviors.

Empirical studies have been inconclusive, offering support for both of these

perspectives. House et al. (1991), for instance, showed that higher behavioral charisma

was ascribed to U.S. presidents who faced substantial external crises during their

presidencies. Similarly, Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004a) found president George W.

Bush's rhetorical language to contain more charismatic elements in the aftermath of the

crisis induced by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In contrast, Bligh, Kohles,

and Pillai (2004b) reported charismatic leadership ratings for California's then

governor Gray Davis to be negatively related to raters' perceptions of a state of crisis

in California; and Pillai and Meindl (1998) found followers to rate their direct leaders

as exhibiting less charismatic behaviors the more their work groups experienced crisis

situations.

12 Introduction

In prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, crisis situations in general and

external threats from the organizational environment in particular have also been

assigned a central role. Bruch and colleagues' (2007) investigation of top managerial

prevention-oriented leadership, for instance, deliberately focused on such leadership in

times of crisis, because, as the authors argued, "prevention-oriented leadership []

may be especially relevant under such circumstances" (p. 136). As Bruch and Vogel

(2005) explained, the presence of an acute crisis or threat situation may enable leaders

to more easily and more convincingly incorporate information regarding such threats

in their communication with followers and to act upon such threats in a prevention-

oriented manner. In the absence of acute external threats, however, the performance of

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors may be more difficult and may, in many

cases, even appear inauthentic to followers (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; see also

Barnett & Pratt, 2000). Thus, crisis and threat situations may provide a fruitful and,

potentially, even a necessary context for prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence.

In sum, the literature suggests that crisis and threat situations may be important for the

emergence of both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. It is

noteworthy, however, that research findings on the specific effects of such conditions

on charismatic leadership have been contradictory. Also, extant work on this issue has

remained in an early developmental stage with regard to prevention-oriented

leadership, because, as indicated before, the respective studies mainly focused on the

outcomes of such leadership and have only peripherally touched upon its potential

antecedents.

1.2.1.5 The role of the organizational context

Finally, various organizational context characteristics have been suggested to influence

leaders' performance of charismatic behaviors, while such factors have not been

discussed as prevention-oriented leadership antecedents to date. Theorists such as Bass

and Avolio (1993a), Pawar and Eastman (1997), Shamir and Howell (1999), and

Waldman and Yammarino (1999), for example, have proposed a wide array of

contextual features to influence the development of charismatic leadership, suggesting

that such leadership behaviors are more likely to occur in higher rather then lower

positions of the organizational hierarchy (see also Rainey & Watson, 1996; Spreitzer

& Quinn, 1996), under a clan mode of governance rather than a market or bureaucratic

Introduction

13

mode, and in organizational cultures characterized by high levels of adaptiveness and

by a common sense of purpose, a feeling of family, and long-term commitments.

Empirical assessments of these purported relationships are scarce and have produced

ambiguous results. Bruch and Walter (in press), for example, found charismatic

leadership behaviors to be more pronounced among higher-level than among lower-

level leaders; however, contrary to the theorizing mentioned above, Lowe et al.'s

(1996) meta-analysis provided evidence for the reverse relationship. Also, Pillai and

Meindl (1998) found work groups' collectivistic culture to enhance group leaders'

performance of charismatic behaviors.

Further, some authors have investigated performance measures not only as outcomes,

but also antecedents of charismatic leadership, demonstrating that work groups'

(Keller, 1992) and organizations' (Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006)

performance may be positively related to subsequent ratings of charismatic leadership

behaviors. And yet a different line of inquiry has considered influences on leaders'

charismatic behaviors from the social context in the respective organizations,

demonstrating that focal leaders' charismatic behaviors may be more pronounced if

their superiors (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; see also Kuhnert & Lewis,

1987) or peers (Bommer et al., 2004) also exhibit such behaviors.

In sum, theorizing on charismatic (but not prevention-oriented) leadership behavior

emergence has pointed towards the relevance of several potential antecedents from the

organizational context. Empirical research is generally lacking behind in this

development, however, with only few studies investigating the purported relationships.

1.2.1.6 Summary

Research on leaders' personality, attitudes, values, and cognitions, on crisis situations,

and on various organizational context features as charismatic leadership antecedents

has provided interesting theoretical notions and important empirical results, even

though many of these areas of inquiry clearly exhibit substantial gaps. Research on

such factors as prevention-oriented leadership antecedents, on the other hand, has been

more limited and has remained in early stages of development, mainly pointing

towards the potential relevance of external threats and of leaders' ability to perceive,

understand, and communicate such threats. Obviously, future work on many of these

14 Introduction

issues might be interesting with regard to both charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behavior emergence.

I assert, however, that further empirical research, in particular, may more strongly

contribute to the leadership literature and more significantly advance our knowledge

on the antecedent conditions of both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership by

focusing on other areas. As indicated before, this refers to the role of leaders' mood

and emotional intelligence on the one hand and of organizational structure on the other

hand. In theoretical work, by contrast, it may be worthwhile to further address the

issues reviewed above, integrating prior research on the antecedents of charismatic

leadership and conceptually extending and refining previous, preliminary notions on

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. The present thesis, therefore, will

concentrate on these topics. In the following sections, I will discuss the relevance of

the respective lines of inquiry in more detail, reviewing prior work on these aspects

(where applicable) and specifying the research questions to be addressed in the

remainder of the dissertation.

1.2.2 The role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence

In recent years, leadership scholars have increasingly acknowledged the crucial role of

feelings, arguing that leadership inherently constitutes "an emotion-laden process"

(George, 2000, p. 1046; see also Ashkanasy, Hrtel, & Daus, 2002; Avolio, Gardner,

Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Humphrey, 2002; Pescosolido, 2002).

Accordingly, both charismatic (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Avolio & Bass,

1988; Howell & Frost, 1989; Shamir et al., 1993) and prevention-oriented leadership

research (e.g., Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Bruch & Vogel, 2005) have emphasized

the relevance of emotional aspects, pointing, for instance, towards the affective

consequences of such leadership (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005; McColl-Kennedy &

Anderson, 2002; Pirola-Merlo, Hrtel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002).

Surprisingly, however, leaders' own moods and emotions have been neglected in most

research considering the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership. In the charismatic leadership literature, for instance, theorists like

Ashkanasy and Tse (2000) have proposed such leaders to more frequently experience

positive rather than negative affect, allowing them to communicate visionary

Introduction

15

aspirations in a positive and emotionally captivating manner and to form positive

relationships with followers (see also George, 2000). Also, Gardner and Avolio (1998)

theorized charismatic leaders to deliberately display positive emotions in order to

evoke similarly positive reactions in followers, thus creating a charismatic image for

themselves (see also Schyns & Mohr, 2004). To the author's knowledge, however, the

only empirical study providing initial support for these assertions has recently been

conducted by Bono and Ilies (2006), who demonstrated the positive emotions

expressed in leaders' vision statements to enhance followers' ratings of charismatic

leadership.

In the prevention-oriented leadership literature, the relevance of leaders' moods and

emotions has been more implicitly addressed by suggesting that such leadership

hinges, among other things, on the emotionally captivating communication of external

threats towards followers (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; Bruch & Vogel, 2005). As Bruch

and Ghoshal (2004, p. 152) held, for instance, "[followers] must not only see the threat

but also experience it emotionally, in their gut". Negative moods and emotions have,

therefore, been suggested to be particularly relevant for prevention-oriented leadership

processes (Bruch & Vogel, 2005). Importantly, however, more explicit, formal

theorizing and empirical research on the role of leaders' mood in performing

prevention-oriented behaviors is lacking to date.

The related issue area of leaders' emotional intelligence (cf. Mayer, 2001) has received

a greater amount of both theoretical and empirical attention in antecedent-oriented

charismatic leadership research, while this topic has only been touched upon in

research on the development of prevention-oriented leadership. Early theorizing has

argued, for instance, that leaders' ability to recognize and influence followers'

emotions is a fundamental prerequisite for charismatic leadership (Wasiliewski, 1985).

Similarly, more current theorists have suggested emotionally intelligent leaders to be

in a particularly good position to perform charismatic leadership behaviors, because

they should be able to effectively address their followers on an emotional basis

(Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; George, 2000; Prati, Douglas,

Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003). Empirical findings have largely supported this

notion by demonstrating positive linkages between leaders' emotional intelligence on

the one hand and their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors on the other

hand (e.g., Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000; Gardner &

16 Introduction

Stough, 2002; Groves, 2005; Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003;

Middleton, 2005; Palmer, Walls, Burgees, & Stough, 2001; Rubin et al., 2005; Sosik

& Megerian, 1999). It should be noted, however, that due to the relatively early stage

of development of emotional intelligence research in general (cf. Brown & Moshavi,

2005; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005), many of these studies suffer from methodological

and/or conceptual shortcomings, such as common method variance (e.g., Mandell &

Pherwani, 2003; Palmer et al., 2001), lack of control variables (e.g., Gardner &

Stough, 2002; Sosik & Megerian, 1999), small sample sizes (e.g., Leban & Zulauf,

2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003), and ambiguous definitions of emotional

intelligence (e.g., Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Barling et al., 2000).

Implicitly pointing to the role of leaders' emotional intelligence, the prevention-

oriented leadership literature has portrayed such leadership as extremely challenging

for leaders' emotional capabilities, because leaders need to find appropriate ways to

address their followers through the emotionally captivating communication of threats

(Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Bruch et al., 2005). As Bruch et al. (2007) argued, for

instance, prevention-oriented leadership requires leaders to balance two seemingly

contradictory tasks, as they "need to calibrate the level of threat experienced by

organization members so that it is not so high that it paralyzes them [], and at the

same time is high enough to maintain organization members' prevention-oriented

motivational forces" (p. 136; see also Barnett & Pratt, 2000). Intuitively, leaders'

emotional intelligence seems to be relevant in this respect, even though this notion has

not been explicitly voiced or empirically tested to date.

Given the state of research described above, further theorizing and, more importantly,

further empirical work on the role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence seems urgently

required. Such research may contribute to a better understanding of the affective

mechanisms that make for the development of these types of leadership. The present

thesis, therefore, develops and tests hypotheses on leaders' mood and emotional

intelligence as charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership antecedents. Thus, I aim

at advancing charismatic leadership research, in particular, by refining, extending, and

empirically scrutinizing prior theory. Also, by addressing some of the shortcomings in

previous research on the emotional intelligence charismatic leadership linkage, I

hope to constructively replicate (cf. Eden, 2002) earlier findings, strengthening our

Introduction

17

confidence in the viability of this relationship. In addition, the dissertation may

contribute to prevention-oriented leadership research, in particular, by building upon

prior notions in developing and empirically testing theory on the role of leaders' mood

and emotional intelligence. Thus, it may take first, important steps towards outlining

the antecedent conditions of leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors in a more detailed

manner and towards more firmly anchoring affective factors in the respective

literature.

In sum, this thesis may extend prior work on the antecedents of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership by building more solid, empirically substantiated

knowledge on the role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence, supplementing the

personality, cognitive, attitude, and context-based approaches reviewed in chapter

1.2.1. Also, I hope to clarify differences and commonalities in the relevance of such

affective factors for leaders' charismatic behaviors on the one hand and their

prevention-oriented behaviors on the other hand, outlining the extent to which the

emergence mechanisms for these leadership styles overlap. And finally, I aim at

directing practitioners towards some viable levers for strengthening effective

leadership behaviors in their organizations, for instance by influencing leaders' mood

in an appropriate manner (cf. Brief & Weiss, 2002) or by strengthening leaders'

emotional intelligence (cf. Caruso & Wolfe, 2004). Hence, the dissertation will

address the following research question:

Research question 1: How are leaders' mood and emotional intelligence related

to their performance of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors?

1.2.3 The role of organizational structure in charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behavior emergence

As Porter and McLaughlin (2006) concluded from an intense review of the respective

literature, features of the organizational structure have been suggested to importantly

shape leadership processes within organizations. Interestingly, however, organizational

structure has only been a minor topic in most research on the antecedents of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership, in particular. This literature, therefore,

has largely neglected an important class of potential influencing factors, limiting

extant knowledge on the development of such leadership.

18 Introduction

In charismatic leadership research, for instance, theorizing on the role of

organizational structure is relatively advanced, while empirical research is in an early

stage of development. Numerous theorists have proposed structural features to

influence the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors, often focusing on the

distinction between organic versus mechanistic structures (cf. Burns & Stalker, 1994;

Tosi, 1991) in outlining this argument. As Shamir and Howell (1999, p. 269)

suggested, for example, charismatic leadership should occur more frequently in more

organic rather than mechanistic contexts, because organic organizations may "provide

both a greater need and a greater scope" for the respective leadership behaviors to

emerge (see also Bass & Riggio, 2006; Howell, 1997; Kark & Van-Dijk, 2007).

Similarly, House (1991) argued that leaders in organic organizations will rely on

charismatic sources of authority more frequently than leaders in mechanistic, highly

bureaucratic settings. And along the same lines, Pawar and Eastman (1997) proposed

transformational leadership behaviors to occur more frequently in organizations with

simple, adhocracy structures than in organizations with complex, machine-type

structures. Empirical work on the role of structural features in charismatic leadership

behavior emergence, however, has been rare, and it has mostly provided only indirect

evidence for these purported relationships. Rather than focusing on structural

influences from the organizational level, for instance, some studies have shown

charismatic leadership behaviors to occur more frequently in more organic than

mechanistic subunits of the organization (Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Shamir, Goldberg-

Weill, Breinin, Zakay, & Popper, 2000). Other researchers have focused on the

individual level of analysis, demonstrating individual employees' perceptions of the

organizational structure to significantly influence their transformational leadership

ratings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Sarros, Tanewski, Winter, Santora,

& Densten, 2002). Thus, in spite of interesting theoretical advances, there is little

empirically corroborated knowledge on the linkage between organizations' structural

setup and the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors within the respective

organizations. I, therefore, concur with Conger's (1999) and Yukl's (1999) evaluation

that our understanding of the role of structural context factors in charismatic leadership

behavior emergence remains poor, and I echo their call for more empirical work on

this issue.

Introduction

19

In the limited literature on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence,

organizational structure has not been discussed to date either in a theoretical or in an

empirical manner. Intuitively, however, prevention-oriented leadership should not to

be fully independent from the organizational context in which such behaviors take

place. After all, facets of the organizational structure have been suggested to strongly

shape employees' behaviors in general (e.g. Brass, 1981; Rousseau, 1978) and various

types of leadership behaviors in particular (e.g., Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). A

connection between organizational structure and the occurrence of prevention-oriented

leadership within the respective organization, therefore, seems likely. Thus, both

theorizing and research on the structural antecedents of leaders' prevention-oriented

behaviors seems required to put such intuitive notions on a more solid conceptual and

empirical fundament.

Further work on the role of organizational structure in the development of both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, therefore, seems

worthwhile. Such research may contribute to a better understanding of potential

macro-contextual influences on these types of leadership. Thus, the present

dissertation addresses recent calls for a more prominent representation of contextual

factors in leadership research (Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002; Porter & McLaughlin,

2006) by developing and testing hypotheses on organizations' structure as a

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership antecedent. It may advance the specific

literature on charismatic leadership behavior emergence by extending prior theorizing

and by putting such theory to an empirical test, complementing the predominantly

conceptual perspective which has characterized this line of inquiry to date. Also, the

thesis may contribute to the prevention-oriented leadership literature, in particular, by

developing initial theoretical notions on the role of organizational structure and by

empirically testing the resulting hypotheses. This constitutes the first attempt to more

firmly locate the development of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors within its

organizational context.

In sum, by investigating the structural antecedents of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership, this dissertation may allow for the explanation of systematic

differences in such leadership not only between individual leaders, but also between

organizations, potentially providing important insights as to why the respective

leadership behaviors are more likely to emerge in some organizations than in others

20 Introduction

(cf. Conger, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Also, I aim at illuminating differences and

commonalities in the relevance of structural factors for charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors, respectively, outlining distinctive and common features

in the development of such leadership. And finally, from a practical perspective, I

hope to create more reliable knowledge on specific organizational design interventions

that may contribute to the occurrence of effective leadership behaviors by offering a

supportive context. Given these considerations, the following research question will be

investigated:

Research question 2: How is organizational structure related to the occurrence

of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in organizations?

1.2.4 Theoretical integration of prior work on charismatic leadership behavior

emergence

When considering the antecedent-oriented literature on charismatic leadership

reviewed in this chapter, it is noteworthy that such research has generally proceeded in

a rather piecemeal, fragmented manner. Empirical studies on this issue have typically

focused on one single type of antecedent variables, specifically investigating, for

instance, the role of leaders' personality (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004), leaders' values

and attitudes (e.g., Sosik, 2005; Spreitzer et al., 1999), or of particular contextual

features (e.g., Bass et al., 1987). With few exceptions (Bommer et al., 2004; De Hoogh

et al., 2005b; Groves, 2005), such work has refrained from simultaneously testing the

impacts of different classes of variables (e.g., personality traits and contextual factors).

This approach is mirrored in research questions 1 and 2 of the present dissertation,

which separately focus on the role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence on the

one hand and on the role of organizational structure on the other hand in charismatic

leadership behavior emergence. Interestingly, prior conceptual work has exhibited a

similar orientation. Such theorizing has typically concentrated exclusively either on

specific leader characteristics (e.g., leaders' personality [House & Howell, 1992],

values [Klenke, 2005], or cognitions [Wofford & Goodwin, 1994]) or on specific

contextual characteristics (e.g., organizational structure and culture [Pawar &

Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999]) as charismatic leadership antecedents.

Broader, more comprehensive theoretical accounts of charismatic leadership behavior

emergence, simultaneously incorporating various types of antecedent variables, by

contrast, have not been proposed to date.

Introduction

21

Hence, extant theorizing and research on the antecedents of charismatic leadership is

clearly lacking an integrative, more inclusive perspective. Little is known about the

relative importance of different types of influencing factors in driving such leadership

behaviors. Also, while the impacts of single, specific variables may be relatively well

understood, it is difficult to comprehensively evaluate the joint role and the interplay

of various different antecedents. Further conceptual work, therefore, seems required to

create initial insights in this regard. Such work should incorporate various prior

approaches towards charismatic leadership behavior emergence (e.g., simultaneously

considering the role of personality dispositions, attitudes and values, affective factors,

and contextual characteristics), thereby contributing to a better understanding of the

complex and diverse mechanisms that may underlie the development of such

leadership behaviors in organizations (cf. Hunt, 1999).

The present dissertation addresses this issue by formulating an integrative theoretical

framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence and by developing research

propositions in this regard. It will comprehensively combine various leader- and

context-based antecedent variables discussed in prior research (including those

addressed in research questions 1 and 2) into one common, overarching conceptual

model. By building such theory, I hope to broaden extant knowledge on the

development of charismatic leadership behaviors, to contribute to a better

understanding of the relative impacts and the interrelationships between different types

of influencing factors, and to advance more coherent thinking about the antecedents of

such leadership. Also, I aim at stimulating further, more comprehensive research in

this area of inquiry, overcoming the fragmentation which characterizes the existing

literature. From a practical perspective, the theoretical model to be developed here

may help organizational decision-makers to more effectively nurture charismatic

leadership behaviors by combining different types of interventions in a

comprehensive, strategically integrated manner rather than relying on single, isolated

initiatives. Building on these considerations, I will address the following theoretical

research question:

Research question 3: How can the development of charismatic leadership

behaviors be explained within a comprehensive theoretical framework?

22 Introduction

1.2.5 Theoretical extensions of prior work on prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence

Finally, the literature on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence reviewed

here clearly reveals the early stage of development of this line of research. Empirical

studies have not been conducted to date, and even theoretical work has only started to

address the antecedents and prerequisites of leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors.

Preliminary notions in this regard have mainly pointed to the relevance of external

threats in the organizational environment and to the role of leaders' perception,

understanding, and communication of such threats (e.g., Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch

et al., 2005; 2007). As noted before, however, these suggested relationships have

remained somewhat speculative, because the respective studies were mostly concerned

with the outcomes rather than the antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership (see

chapter 1.2.1.3 and 1.2.1.4). Thus, our theoretical knowledge about the development of

this type of leadership behaviors has remained limited to date, and further conceptual

work on this issue seems urgently required. Such theorizing could build on the

preliminary considerations outlined above, extending such notions by explicating core

mechanisms of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence and outlining

crucial psychological prerequisites that may trigger such behaviors in leaders. It may

advance a more thorough understanding and contribute to overcoming the prevailing

lack of theory on the antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership.

The present dissertation addresses this issue by building a theoretical core model of

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence and by developing propositions for

future research. In line with Bruch and colleagues' initial ideas, the respective model

will center around leaders' perceptions of external threats as key drivers of prevention-

oriented leadership (cf. Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005). It will extend these

notions and put them on a more solid theoretical foundation. Importantly, unlike the

theoretical framework to be developed with regard to research question 3, this model is

not supposed to provide an integrative theoretical account of numerous potential

antecedents. Given the existing, limited knowledge on prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence, such an approach would seem premature. Rather, the present

model will theoretically link a small, clearly defined set of proximal antecedent

variables to leaders' performance of prevention-oriented behaviors, outlining crucial

mechanisms that may provide for a possible association between leaders' threat

Introduction

23

perceptions on the one hand and their prevention-oriented leadership behaviors on the

other hand. Also, it will try to account for the potential complexities underlying this

relationship and to identify possible boundary conditions.

In sum, through the present model, I aim at creating fundamental knowledge on key

processes of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence and at building basic

theory in this respect. This should advance the literature in important ways by placing

the antecedents (rather than the consequences) of prevention-oriented leadership in the

center of considerations. Also, I hope to trigger more research in this under-explored

area by providing a viable starting point both for further theory development and,

eventually, for future empirical investigations. And finally, I aim at outlining possible

intervention opportunities for practitioners trying to nurture prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors in their organizations by illustrating potential key levers in this

regard. In sum, the dissertation will address the following, final theoretical research

question:

Research question 4: How can the development of prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors be explained within a theoretical core model, using

leaders' threat perceptions as a key antecedent variable?

1.3 Target Groups and Value of the Dissertation

Given the research problem, the specific research questions, and the aims outlined

above, the present dissertation may be of interest for leadership scholars, but also for

decision-makers in organizational practice and for students in the area of management

and organizational behavior.

For leadership scholars, the thesis may contribute to a better understanding of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. It may, therefore,

supplement previous, outcome-focused research on these leadership styles. By

empirically scrutinizing and extending prior theorizing on the relevance of leaders'

mood, emotional intelligence, and organizational structure, for instance, the present

dissertation will build greater knowledge on the role of such antecedent variables.

Also, by developing further theory on the emergence of charismatic and prevention-

24 Introduction

oriented leadership behaviors, the thesis will promote a broader conceptual knowledge

base, and it will point towards important areas for future investigations.

Organizational decision-makers may also gain important insights into the antecedent

conditions of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership from the dissertation.

This may enable them to build their leadership development efforts on more solid,

theoretically and empirically well-founded knowledge. Based on the present results,

Human Resource professionals and top managers may, for instance, be able to

effectively incorporate affective factors in leader selection and leadership training

programs and to stimulate charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

through the appropriate design of their organizations' structural setup. Also, this

dissertation may afford organizational decision-makers the chance to facilitate such

leadership in a more comprehensive, strategically integrated, and, eventually, more

successful manner.

Finally, students of management and organizational behavior may benefit from this

thesis, because it complements the emphasis prior work has put on the consequences

of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. The literature review

presented above, for instance, should enable students to get a quick, comprehensive

overview of extant research on the emergence of such leadership. Also, by focusing on

affective and structural factors, the dissertation may afford students with a better

understanding of the role of different types of antecedent variables. And lastly, the

theorizing offered in this thesis may help students to gain greater, well-organized

knowledge on the mechanisms driving charismatic and prevention-oriented l

The Development of Effective Leadership: Investigating the Antecedents …… · · 2011-06-28The...

Documents

Transcript of The Development of Effective Leadership: Investigating the Antecedents …… · · 2011-06-28The...