Discussion: View Thread

----- Original Message -----

From: Romie Littrell

To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:03 AM

Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Contingency Theory: Re: Leadership Claims

I've been engaged in a research project since 1997 studying preferred leader behaviour across various categories of cultures and within organisations in China, and I am becoming increasingly convinced that preferred and effective leader behaviour is for the most part highly influenced by contingencies, e.g., personalities, culture, gender, ethnicity, the situation, etc. I believe Fielder had the correct name for a theory of leadership, though some of the details may be problematic. Another issue is are the relevant contingent variables constant across various situations, cultures, organisational sizes (kind of a self-contradictory and circular question)?

 

My problem as a researcher in leadership is finding a small enough set of contingent variables to be useful and understandable but not overwhelming in number.

 

The GLOBE study proposes charismatic leadership as general, but then break it down into several aspects of charisma. And the GLOBE Australia & New Zealand article, from my point of view, calls the generality of effectiveness of charismatic leadership into question.

 

Rgds,

Romie Littrell

 

Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG> wrote:

Whew!

 

You might try

http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml;jsessionid=WRS30DW3452PQAKRGWCB5VQBKE0YOISW?id=R0110B

 

If you accept that leadership starts with you (oneself) then, explicitly, the behavior can be applied broadly throughout an organization, the behavior will improve the leader's effectiveness (as viewed by those he/she serves), and/or that the behavior will improve organizational functioning. 

 

Then all you have to do is designate which of the umpteen theories describe such behavior.  Of course, one must be aware of the duality of the situation, e.g., Was Jim Jones a leader when he took his followers to Guyana?  Did he improve organizational functioning?

 

Perhaps it is necessary to situate leadership in order to judge its outcomes.  Freedom may be the key situation factor, and 'freedom to ----' as contrasted to 'freedom from ---.'

 

cheers,

Jack Ring

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Larry Pate

To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:57 PM

Subject: Re: Leadership Claims

Let me try this differently.

 

Years ago, Chet Schriesheim wrote a scathing review in ASQ of Fiedler's "Leader Match."  At the end of the review, Chet suggested that a sticker should be affixed to the cover of every copy of Fiedler's book saying something like, "Warning:  Use of 'Leader Match' Could Be Hazardous to Your Leadership Effectiveness."  It was by no means the first attack on Fiedler, but it cleverly drove home the point that the theory did not live up to its claims.  Implicit in most leadership theories are claims that the theory can be applied broadly throughout an organization (i.e., that the value of the theory is not limited by factors such as number of subordinates or number of organizational levels), that the use of the theory will improve the leader's effectiveness, and/or that the use of the theory will improve organizational functioning.  But how many times have those implicit claims been made explicit?

 

I realize that there is evidence for each of these claims in the published literature.  For example, in an ASQ article, John Kimberly and Warren Nielsen proposed a "diffusion" model of change, wherein interventions conducted with a group of 160 supervisors were hypothesized to have an impact on the behaviors of 2600 hourly workers.  They reasoned that if they were effective in changing the supervisors' behaviors (1st order change), then evidence of that change should be found in the work conducted by the supervisors' subordinates (2nd order change).  There are, of course, many other examples I could give that support such claims.

 

What I'm looking for are references that explicitly state (1) that a particular leadership theory can be broadly applied, (2) that the use of the theory will improve the effectiveness of the individual user, and/or (3) that the use of the theory will improve organizational performance.  I'm not looking for rocks to look under; we already have over 7,500 sources in the 1990 edition of Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership.  The more recent review that Alan Filley and I published in 2002 puts the number of leadership writings at 15,000, and I'm confident that new ones are being added every week.  However, I am finding that very few of these sources explicitly state the claims mentioned above, and I'm hoping that some of you can identify any sources I've missed.

 

Larry Pate

Redondo Beach, California

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Amanda Martin
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:45 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Leadership Claims

Hi Larry

 

Have you tried the work of Bruce Avolio and Jay Conger – they both do specific work – here are some other references from paper’s I’ve delivered

 

Anand V, Glick W H and Manz C C (2002) Thriving on the knowledge of outsiders: Tapping organizational social capital, Academy of Management Executive, February Vol 16, No 1, p 87

Argyris, C (1994) On organizational learning, Blackwell Publishers Ltd United Kingdom

Ashkenas R, Ulrich D, Jick T, Kerr S (2002) The boundaryless organization Jossey-Bass Inc, San Francisco USA

Avolio B J (1999) Full leadership development, Sage Publications, <st1:city w:st="on">London</st1:city> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region></st1:place>

Cohen D and Prusak L (2001) In good company: how social capital makes organizations work Harvard Business School Press, <st1:city w:st="on">Boston</st1:city> <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">USA</st1:place></st1:country-region>

Collins J (2001) Good to great Random House Limited Australia

Conger J A, Spreitzer G M, Lawler E E Eds (1999) Leader’s change handbook, Jossey-Bass Inc, San Francisco USA

Dubrin A J (1998) Leadership research findings practice and skills

Eisler R (1995) From domination to partnership: the hidden subtext for organisation change, Training and Development, 49 (2), 32-39

El Ansari W, Phillips C J and Hammick M (2001). Collaboration and partnerships: developing the evidence base. Health and Social Care in the Community, 9 (4), 215-227

Ghoshal S and Bartlett C A (1998) The individualised corporation William Heinemann, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region>

Heifetz R A and Linsky M (2002) Leadership on the line: staying alive through the dangers of leading Harvard Business School Press, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Boston</st1:city> <st1:state w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:state> <st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>

Huxham C and Vangen S (2000) Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: how things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 43 No 6 1159-1175

Kaser P A W and Miles R E (2001) Knowledge activists: the cultivation of motivation and trust, properties of knowledge sharing <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">relationships</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Academy</st1:placetype></st1:place> of Management Proceedings ODC:D1

Lawrence T B, Hardy C and Phillips N (2002) Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: the emergence of proto-institutions, Academy of

Lewin R and Regine B (1999) The soul at work, Orion Business, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region>

Limerick D, Cunnington B and Crowther F (1998) Managing the new organisation, Business and Professional Publishing, Warriewood NSW Australia

Parry K (1996) Transformational leadership, Pearson Professional (<st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>) Pty Ltd, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Melbourne</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Victoria</st1:state>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region></st1:place>

Pascale R T, Millemann M, and Gioja L (2000) Surfing the edge of chaos, Texere Publishing Limited, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">London</st1:city></st1:place>

Pfeffer, J (2001) Business and the spirit: management practices that sustain values, Research Paper Series, Stanford University Graduate School of Business

Schein E H (1992) 2nd Edition Organizational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass Inc USA

Weick, K E (1995) Sensemaking in organisations Sage Publications Inc California USA

Wheatley M J (1994) Leadership and the new science, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>

Yukl, G (1998) 4th Edition Leadership in organizations Prentice-Hall Inc, New Jersey USA

Zaccaro S J and Klimoski, R J (2001) The nature of organizational leadership Jossey-Bass, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>

 

---

From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Larry Pate
Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2007 9:09 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Leadership Claims

 

Thanks, <st1:place w:st="on">Tara</st1:place>.  But I'm not looking for another overview of leadership theory.  We already have several good ones, such as the Bass & Stogdill Handbook.  I'm looking for evidence that the implicit claims inherent to several theories of leadership have been explicitly stated -- that the theory can be applied anywhere in the organization, that such application will the user's performance, and/or that widespread use of the theory will improve organizational performance.  If you can suggest references that address these issues, then I would love to see them.  Thanks.

 

Larry Pate

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Redondo Beach</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">California</st1:state></st1:place>

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of tgcoste@ADELPHIA.NET
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:58 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Leadership Claims

Larry,

 

A good overview of leadership theory can be found in: 

Nahavandi, A. (2003). The art and science of leadership. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Upper Saddle River</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">NJ</st1:state></st1:place>: Prentice Hall.

<st1:place w:st="on">Tara</st1:place>

 

Tara Grey Coste, Ph.D.

Leadership and Organizational Studies Program

<st1:placename w:st="on">Lewiston-Auburn</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">College</st1:placetype>, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Southern Maine</st1:placename></st1:place>

<st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">51 Westminster St</st1:address></st1:street>.

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Lewiston</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">ME</st1:state>  <st1:postalcode w:st="on">04240</st1:postalcode></st1:place>

tcoste@usm.maine.edu (e-mail)

207/753-6596 (phone)

207/753-6555 (fax)

"International business is the general case; local business is the special case." - Peter J. Buckley
Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences

---

Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail.