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