Microsoft Word - Diss_final_4 - ZUM DRUCK_2.docInvestigating the Antecedents of Charismatic and
Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behaviors
Graduate School of Business Administration,
Economics, Law, and Social Sciences (HSG)
to obtain the title of
Doctor Oeconomiae
submitted by
Frank Walter
Prof. Dr. Heike Bruch
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.
The President:
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 Böhm, 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
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
3 Study 2 - The Role of Organizational Structure 78
3.1 Introduction and Intended Contributions 78
3.2 Conceptual Issues and Definitions 80
3.3 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 84
3.4 Description of Study Methods 98
3.5 Results 108
3.6 Discussion of Study 2 Findings 113
4 Study 3 - Theoretical Integration and Extension of Prior Work 123
4.1 Introduction and Intended Contributions 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
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
III
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
2.2.1 The role of leaders' mood 33
2.2.1.1 Theoretical background 33
2.2.2 The role of leaders' emotional intelligence 41
2.2.2.1 Theoretical background 41
2.2.3 Interactive effects of mood and emotional intelligence 46
2.3 Description of Study Methods 50
2.3.1 Data collection and sample description 50
2.3.2 Measures 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
2.3.3.3 Hypotheses testing 60
2.4.3 Hypotheses testing for charismatic leadership 64
2.4.4 Hypotheses testing for prevention-oriented leadership 67
2.5 Discussion of Study 1 Findings 68
2.5.1 Summary and contributions: Charismatic leadership 68
2.5.2 Summary and contributions: Prevention-oriented leadership 69
2.5.3 Limitations 71
2.5.5 Practical implications 75
3.1 Introduction and Intended Contributions 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 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 84
3.3.1 Theoretical background 84
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 Description of Study Methods 98
3.4.1 Data collection and sample description 98
3.4.2 Measures 101
3.4.2.2 Organization size 103
3.4.2.5 Control variables 105
3.4.3 Data analyses 106
3.4.3.1 Aggregation analyses 106
3.4.3.3 Hypotheses testing 107
3.5.3 Hypotheses testing for charismatic leadership climate 111
3.5.4 Hypotheses testing for prevention-oriented leadership climate 112
3.6 Discussion of Study 2 Findings 113
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
Table of Contents
3.6.6 Conclusion 121
4 Study 3 - Theoretical Integration and Extension of Prior Work 123
4.1 Introduction and Intended Contributions 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
4.2.3.2 Limitations and future research directions 143
4.2.3.3 Practical implications 146
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
4.3.2.3 A three-way interaction of leaders' regulatory focus, perceived threat
intensity, and perceived threat controllability 159
4.3.3 Discussion 164
4.3.3.2 Limitations and future research directions 166
4.3.3.3 Practical implications 168
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
FIGURE 2.1: POSITIVE MOOD – EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE INTERACTION
ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP 66
WEISS & CROPANZANO, 1996, P. 12) 125
FIGURE 4.2: AN AET-BASED FRAMEWORK OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
BEHAVIOR EMERGENCE 128
BEHAVIOR EMERGENCE 154
INTENSITY, PERCEIVED THREAT CONTROLLABILITY, AND
REGULATORY FOCUS ON PREVENTION-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 162
VIII List of Tables
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 3.6: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS (STUDY 2) 110
TABLE 3.7: HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES (STUDY 2) 112
List of Abbreviations
AET Affective Events Theory
AIM Affect Infusion Model
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
n.s. not significant
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
X 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
tierter Führung. Die bestehende Forschung hat die positiven Konsequenzen dieser
Führungsstile gezeigt. Dagegen wurde der Entwicklung solchen Verhaltens nur wenig
Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Das derzeitige Wissen zu diesem Thema ist deshalb
fragmentiert und unvollständig, und Entscheidungsträger in der Praxis können kaum
auf die Führungsforschung zurückgreifen, um solche Führungsstile zu fördern.
Daher beleuchtet diese Arbeit die Entwicklung charismatischer und präventionsorien-
tierter Führung im Rahmen dreier unabhängiger Studien. Studie 1 zeigt in einem Sam-
ple von 34 Führungskräften und 165 Untergebenen, dass charismatische Führung
durch die positive Stimmung von Führungskräften und durch ihre emotionale Intelli-
genz verstärkt wird. Außerdem reduziert emotionale Intelligenz den Zusammenhang
zwischen positiver Stimmung und charismatischer Führung. Im Gegensatz dazu wir-
ken sich Stimmungen und emotionale Intelligenz nicht auf präventionsorientierte Füh-
rung aus. Studie 2 zeigt in einem Sample von 16'144 Mitarbeitern aus 125 Organisa-
tionen, dass Zentralisierung und Organisationsgröße das Auftreten charismatischer
Führung vermindern, während sich Formalisierung positiv auswirkt. Ebenso reduziert
die Organisationsgröße (marginal) das Auftreten präventionsorientierter Führung,
während Formalisierung auch hier positive Effekte hat. Der erste Teil von Studie 3
entwickelt einen umfassenden theoretischen Rahmen für die Entstehung charismati-
scher Führung. Dieser integrative Ansatz trägt dazu bei, den bruchstückhaften For-
schungsstand zu diesem Thema zu überwinden. Schließlich entwickelt der zweite Teil
von Studie 3 ein theoretisches Kernmodell der Entstehung präventionsorientierter Füh-
rung. Aufbauend auf bestehenden, informelleren Ideen wird das komplexe Zusammen-
spiel der Bedrohungswahrnehmung und des Regulationsfokus von Führungskräften
dargestellt.
Insgesamt liefert diese Arbeit empirische Hinweise auf die Rolle affektiver und struk-
tureller Faktoren bei der Entstehung charismatischer und präventionsorientierter Füh-
rung. Außerdem entwickelt sie neue theoretische Ansätze, um diese Forschungsfelder
weiter voranzutreiben. Sie trägt damit zu einem besseren Verständnis der Entwicklung
effektiver Führung bei und weist auf zukünftige Forschungsrichtungen hin. Schließlich
werden praktische Empfehlungen zur Förderung charismatischer und präventions-
orientierter Führung aufgezeigt.
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
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, Ramírez, 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 &
Löbler, 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;
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 (ρ
Introduction
9
= .22) and a significant negative effect for neuroticism (ρ = -.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 (ρ = .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 (ρs = .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.
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.
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, Härtel, & 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, Härtel, 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.
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
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:
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 leadership
behavior emergence.
1.4.1 Overall design
The research questions and aims to be addressed in this thesis (see chapter 1.2)
approach the central research problem (i.e., the emergence of charismatic and
prevention-oriented leadership behaviors) from a variety of pronouncedly differing
perspectives. These differences carry important implications in terms of the overall
design of the dissertation. Research questions 1 and 2, for instance, both take an
Introduction
25
empirical approach towards uncovering specific influencing factors of charismatic and
prevention-oriented leadership. Importantly, however, these questions refer to different
levels of analysis (cf. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rousseau, 1985). The focal level of
analysis in research question 1 is the individual leader, because leaders' mood and
emotional intelligence are investigated as antecedents of their charismatic and
prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. By contrast, research question 2 refers to the
organizational level of analysis, because it considers organizations' structural setup as
an antecedent of the occurrence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership
behaviors within the respective organizations. As Klein, Dansereau, and Hall (1994)
noted, such differences in the focal level of analysis need to be considered in study
design, and they need to be reflected in data collection and in the measurement of
study variables.
Specifically, research questions 1 and 2 pose differing data requirements which are
difficult to reconcile within a single study. Empirically addressing research question 1
requires data on multiple individual leaders' mood, emotional intelligence, and
leadership behaviors. Addressing research question 2, on the other hand, requires data
on multiple organizations' structure and on the occurrence of charismatic and
prevention-oriented leadership behaviors within these organizations. In order to meet
these differing requirements, the present thesis employs two separate empirical studies
to consecutively address research question 1 (i.e., Study 1) and research question 2
(i.e., Study 2). These studies utilize different samples and different strategies of data
collection in order to account for their different levels of analysis and to provide
suitable data to appropriately address their respective research questions. 4
Further, research questions 3 and 4 address the dissertation's research problem from a
conceptual perspective. They differ from the questions discussed above, because they
are directed towards theoretically integrating and extending prior work through the
development of theoretical frameworks for charismatic and prevention-oriented
leadership behavior emergence, rather than empirically investigating the role of
specific antecedent variables. These conceptual research questions are, therefore,
addressed in an additional, separate study (Study 3). This final study is further divided
into two parts, with the first part integrating extant research (including the results from
4 Details on the data collection procedures and the measures employed in Studies 1 and 2 are provided in
chapters 2.3 and 3.4, respectively.
26 Introduction
Studies 1 and 2) into a comprehensive framework for the emergence of charismatic
leadership behaviors (i.e., research question 3), and the second part extending previous
work by developing a theoretical core model of prevention-oriented leadership
behavior emergence (i.e., research question 4).
In sum, the present thesis consists of three separate studies, which adopt differing
perspectives on the underlying research problem, namely the emergence of charismatic
and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. Its overall design is graphically depicted
in Figure 1.1. While this approach is somewhat unusual for a dissertation, it provides
distinct advantages which justify its use in the present case (cf. Macus, 2002). First
and foremost, adopting multiple research perspectives towards the development of
charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors offers the opportunity to
illuminate different, diverse aspects of these complex phenomena. Rather than
focusing on a single set of influencing factors, multiple types of antecedent variables
can be considered in spite of differing data requirements, contributing to a more
encompassing view on the present research problem. Also, discussing such differing
types of antecedent variables in separate studies allows for greater parsimony, because
the individual studies' arguments and contributions can be outlined in a more focused
manner. And finally, by combining both empirical and conceptual approaches, the
dissertation has the chance to both test and refine prior theorizing and to extend such
theory towards new areas.
In addition, various steps are taken to interconnect the individual studies' results and to
provide for a solid integration of these separate studies. First, in spite of their differing
perspectives, the three studies all focus on the same, clearly defined issue area, as they
all share an interest in uncovering the antecedent conditions of charismatic and
prevention-oriented leadership. Second, when theoretically integrating and extending
prior work in Study 3, the dissertation incorporates some of the results derived from