Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership, Team Goal Fulfillment, and Follower Work Satisfaction-The Moderating Ef
260Similarity in Leadership DyadsHans-Joachim WolframKingston University London,United KingdomGisela MohrUniversity of Leipzig,GermanyThe impact of deep-level similarity between managers (N 1= 117) and followers (N 2= 403) on the interrelations between transformational leadership and outcomes was analyzed. The authors accounted for similarity in subjective meaning of work,occupational self-efficacy,and emotional irritation. Unexpectedly,the authors found a negative interrelation between transformational leadership and team goal fulfillment when followers scored higher than their managers on subjective meaning of work and when followers were more emotionally irritated than their managers.Thus,to increase transformational leadership’s positive effects,managers should show appreciation of work values,and their followers’level of exhaustion should be kept to a minimum.Keywords:deep-level similarity; transformational leadership; goal fulfillment; work satisfactionIn leadership research,similarity between leaders and followers has predominantly been analyzed as a predictor of leader-member exchange (e.g.,Deluga,1998; Dose,1999). Similarity has also been exam-ined in terms of value congruence as a mediator of transformational leadership (e.g.,Jung & Avolio,2000). Over the past few decades,transformational leadership has increasingly been seen as an effective leadership style. However,Yukl (1999) has criticized researchers for not paying sufficient attention to mediating and moderating variables of transforma-tional leadership. Identifying facilitating and limiting conditions for transformational leadership’s effec-tiveness is of practical importance (e.g.,for leader-ship training). This is particularly relevant as there might be conditions under which transformational leadership is even detrimental (Yukl,1999,p. 291).This field study aimed at identifying facilitating conditions that are related to deep-level similarity between managers and followers. We investigated whether the interrelation between transformational leadership and outcomes is moderated by deep-level similarity between managers and followers. Evidenceexists that both attitudinal variables,such as follower work satisfaction (Podsakoff,MacKenzie,& Bommer,1996),and group performance (Lowe,Kroeck,&Sivasubramaniam,1996) are positively related to transformational leadership (V andenberghe,Stordeur,& D’hoore,2002). In their meta-analysis,Judge and Piccolo (2004) reported substantial correlations between transformational leadership and follower work satisfaction (r = .58) as well as between trans-formational leadership and group performance (r = .23).In our study,we chose these common variables:We assessed work satisfaction rated by the followers themselves and managers’ratings of their respective working group’s performance. Our choice of out-comes also meets Yukl’s (2002,p. 8) proposition that multiple criteria from different sources should be considered in leadership research.Authors’Note:We thank Anja Gründling for her help in earlier stages of this research. Moreover,we thank Birgit Schyns,Jörg Felfe,and E nda Hannon for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. The data reported here were collected within a research project that was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG),Grant No. MO 440/4-1 (2).Wolfram,Mohr / Transformational Leadership,Team Goal Fulfillment,and Follower Work Satisfaction261We focused on different fields of deep-level simi-larity to attain a comprehensive picture of similarity’s effects. We chose three work-relevant personal attrib-utes:subjective meaning of work,occupational self-efficacy,and emotional irritation. E mpirical studies showed that these variables were of relevance for trans-formational leadership. Similarity in work values between leaders and followers has been found to medi-ate between leadership and leadership effectiveness (Jung & Avolio,2000),whereas there is evidence that high occupational self-efficacy on the followers’side positively influences the interrelation between leader-ship and leadership effectiveness (Walumbwa,Lawler, Avolio,Wang,& Shi,2005). Finally,another study found that leadership positively affects followers’emo-tional state (Seltzer,Numerof,& Bass,1989). Transformational Leadership and Outcomes Transformational leadership (Bass,1985) involves leadership behaviors that can elicit extraordinary per-formance on the part of followers (Felfe & Schyns, 2004). According to Jung and Avolio (2000),trans-formational leaders “engage the emotional involve-ment of their followers to build higher levels of trust in the leader and his or her mission”(p. 950). Obviously,this definition of transformational leader-ship merges behaviors and the effects of these behav-iors (Yukl,1999). This lack of differentiation between behaviors and effects continues when we take a look at other behavioral dimensions that con-stitute transformational leadership:Among others, transformational leaders are said to inspire and intel-lectually stimulate their followers (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; Bass & Avolio,1995).In spite of this often criticized lack of clarity in its definition and its underlying processes (Felfe,2006a; Goodwin,Wofford,& Whittington,2001; Judge, Woolf,Hurst,& Livingston,2006),transformational leadership has been shown to impact on different out-come measures (Felfe,2006a; Fuller,Patterson, Hester,& Stringer,1996; Judge & Piccolo,2004; Judge et al.,2006; Lowe et al.,1996). In general, transformational leadership appears to have stronger effects on follower attitudes than on performance measures (Judge & Piccolo,2004).Whereas the main effects of transformational lead-ership are well documented,other research findings suggest that these effects are often moderated and mediated by a variety of factors. On one hand,the positive effects of transformational leadership on per-formance and follower attitudes can be fostered by contextual factors,such as unstable surroundings (Podsakoff et al.,1996) and comparatively high levels of organizational hierarchy (Lowe et al.,1996),as well as follower characteristics such as empowerment (Fuller,Morrison,Jones,Bridger,& Brown,1999). On the other hand,the interrelation between transfor-mational leadership and outcomes is mediated by fol-lower characteristics such as organizational citizenship behavior (Boerner,E isenbeiss,& Griesser,2007), empowerment (Avolio,Zhu,Koh,& Bhatia,2004), collective self-efficacy (Walumbwa,Peng,Lawler,& Kan,2004),and group cohesiveness (Jung & Sosik, 2002). Felfe (2006a) summarized that changes in fol-lower characteristics,such as increased identification and purpose,seem to explain the effects of transfor-mational leadership,whereas contextual factors,such as complexity and uncertainty,increase the interrela-tion between transformational leadership and out-comes (p. 168).The aforementioned studies meet Yukl’s (1999) suggestion that moderating and mediating variables should be investigated for a clearer picture of how transformational leadership leads to positive out-comes. In this context,similarity between leaders and followers may be another moderating variable. Kinds of SimilarityWhen discussing similarity,the following distinc-tions have to be made. First,one should distinguish between surface-level and deep-level similarity (Hiller & Day,2003). Surface-level similarity refers to demographic characteristics such as gender,age, and ethnic background (social category diversity; Jehn,Northcraft,& Neale,1999). Deep-level similar-ity is based on more psychological characteristics such as values,personality,and attitudes (Harrison, Price,& Bell,1998). Whereas indicators of surface-level similarity are salient and,consequently,likely to be perceived very quickly,indicators of deep-level similarity have to be derived from observed behaviors and/or interaction and communication.A second differentiation concerns perceived and actual similarity. Perceived similarity refers to sub-jective ratings of similarity with respect to another person:For example,followers rate themselves and their leaders with regard to certain characteristics, and differences between these two ratings are com-puted (Felfe & Schyns,2004). Another way of assess-ing perceived similarity is to directly ask participants how similar they feel to another person:For example, followers can indicate how far they see things in the262Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studiessame way as their leaders (Murphy & Ensher,1999). It is not surprising that research often focuses on per-ceived similarity,because a given similarity must be perceived before it can show effects. When assessing actual similarities,researchers usually focus on surface-level similarities (e.g.,belonging to the same gender group). It is nevertheless possible to assess actual deep-level similarities by using ratings from independent data sources (e.g.,followers and leaders rate themselves with regard to certain deep-level characteristics). Consequently,deep-level similarity scores can be calculated by taking the absolute values of the differences between these ratings (Ashkanasy & O’Connor,1997).Using difference values as indicators of deep-level similarity allows a third distinction:degree of simi-larity versus nature of dissimilarity. Degree of simi-larity refers to the aforementioned absolute value of difference between two persons’ratings,whereas nature of dissimilarity refers to the direction of the difference between these ratings. Both degree of sim-ilarity (regardless of a difference’s direction) and nature of dissimilarity (regardless of a difference’s absolute value) may be important. It may be interest-ing to know whether the difference between followers and leaders is rather low (i.e.,similarity) or rather high (i.e.,dissimilarity). With regard to the nature of difference,it could be relevant whether followers or leaders score higher on a certain variable.We used difference scores for this study to capture actual deep-level similarity. The advantage is that both degree of similarity as well as nature of dissimilarity are reflected in one measure simultaneously. Follow-up analyses with degree and nature separately allow examining which aspect of similarity and dissimilarity, respectively,is more relevant. E ffects of similarity between leaders and followers have been examined in prior research. The variables under consideration were surface-level similarity (e.g.,belonging to the same gender group) and perceived deep-level similarity (e.g.,supposed similarity in work values). We only report research about deep-level similarity in the fol-lowing,because this is the focus of our study.Deep-Level Similarity and Leadership: Direct and Mediating EffectsE ffects of deep-level similarity have been dis-cussed in different psychological fields. In social psy-chology,the impact of attitudinal similarity on attraction was examined (similarity attraction; Byrne,Clore,& Smeaton,1986). Perceived similarity fos-tered “positive affective reactions”that were reflected in positive judgments about a target person (Ah Yun, 1997,p. 20; 1999).Deep-level similarity between leaders and follow-ers has also been a topic in leadership research (e.g., effects on leader-member exchange; Graen & Uhl-Bien,1995). Empirical studies provided evidence that similarity in different fields may lead to a higher rela-tionship quality between leaders and followers: Deluga (1998) reported that similarity in conscien-tiousness had positive effects on productivity and led to high-quality leader-member exchange. In another study,Dose (1999) found that similarity in work values was positively related to leader-member exchange. With regard to transformational leadership,similarity in work values has been studied as a mediating vari-able. Among other characteristics,transformational leaders show inspirational motivation (Bass & Avolio,1995). These leaders have visions that they communicate to their followers. Followers may inter-nalize these visions or not. Jung and Avolio (2000) showed that congruence in work values (i.e.,follow-ers’internalization of their leader’s visions) was a mediator between transformational leadership and follower performance. In sum,deep-level similarity between leaders and followers has predominantly been analyzed as a predictor of leader-member exchange and as a mediating variable of transforma-tional leadership.Deep-Level Similarity andLeadership:Moderating EffectsIn a previous study,Gründling (2004) analyzed moderating effects of deep-level similarity on the interrelation between leadership and outcomes. Unexpectedly,she found that dissimilarity between leaders and followers can have a more positive impact than similarity. This surprising finding raised the question whether the nature of dissimilarity between leaders and followers (i.e.,direction of difference) was relevant.To our knowledge,there are no studies in which moderating effects of deep-level similarity on transfor-mational leadership’s effectiveness were analyzed. We decided to focus on the interrelations between trans-formational leadership and follower work satisfaction as well as between transformational leadership and team goal fulfillment. Deep-level similarities in sub-jective meaning of work,occupational self-efficacy,Wolfram,Mohr / Transformational Leadership,Team Goal Fulfillment,and Follower Work Satisfaction263and emotional irritation were considered as potential moderating variables. Our hypotheses focus on possi-ble effects of the nature of similarity.Subjective meaning of work is a personal value that is defined as the status of work in one’s personal life (Schaarschmidt & Fischer,1997). Similarity in work values has been shown to be a mediator between trans-formational leadership and follower performance (Jung & Avolio,2000). Besides this,work values have also been considered as particularly promising moder-ators of leadership effects (e.g.,Villa,Howell, Dorfman,& Daniel,2003). E mployees with high work values may have little need for supervision. Reviewing literature about substitutes for leadership, Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) concluded that when employees share their organization’s values,this could even replace the need for formal leaders. We assume that similarity between leaders and followers in work values might be a moderator of the interrela-tion between transformational leadership and out-comes. When followers appreciate work as a personal value more than their leaders,the interrelation between transformational leadership and outcomes is less likely to be affected. For these followers,the meaning of work is independent of their leaders’val-ues (Böckmann,1980). This may make followers less attentive to their leaders’behavior. Moreover,leaders with comparatively high subjective meaning of work may increase their attempts to show transformational behaviors (e.g.,stimulation and consideration). These leaders may also be able to communicate their ideas and visions in an authentic manner (relational authen-ticity; Eagly,2005). In doing so,these leaders can be positive role models. Consequently,the interrelation between transformational leadership and outcomes will be stronger than in dyads where leaders have a comparatively low subjective meaning of work. Thus, regarding the nature of similarity in subjective mean-ing of work,we expect the following:Hypothesis 1:The interrelation between transforma-tional leadership and outcomes (i.e.,team goal ful-fillment and follower work satisfaction) is strongerwhen leaders score higher than their followers onsubjective meaning of work.Occupational self-efficacy is a cognitive state that is defined as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over their level of functioning and over events that affect their lives”(Bandura,1991, p. 257). Self-efficacy is substantially interrelated with work outcomes (Stajkovic & Luthans,1998).Moreover,prior studies have shown that follower self-efficacy moderates the interrelation between transformational leadership and follower attitudes (Walumbwa et al.,2005). When follower self-efficacy was high,the positive interrelation between transfor-mational leadership and follower commitment as well as between transformational leadership and follower work satisfaction was particularly strong. Walumbwa et al. (2005) argued that followers scoring high on self-efficacy “are more susceptible to the impact of a transformational leader because such [a] cognitive state is congruent with transformational leadership behavior”(p. 3).Occupational self-efficacy is task- and situation-specific (Stajkovic & Luthans,1998) and refers to employees’conviction that they can successfully behave as required in their respective profession (Schyns & Collani,2002). We assume that when fol-lowers score higher than their leaders on occupational self-efficacy,the interrelation between transforma-tional leadership and outcomes is stronger. On the other hand,leaders scoring higher than their follow-ers on occupational self-efficacy may give them the feeling of being pushed too hard by high performance expectations. This may have a negative effect on the interrelation between transformational leadership and outcomes. Regarding the nature of similarity in occu-pational self-efficacy,we expect the following: Hypothesis 2:The interrelation between transforma-tional leadership and outcomes (i.e.,team goal ful-fillment and follower work satisfaction) is strongerwhen followers score higher than their leaders onoccupational self-efficacy.Emotional irritation is an emotional state that refers to consequences of psychological stress. E motional irritation describes a state of mental exhaustion (Mohr,Müller,Rigotti,Aycan,& Tschan,2006). The homonymous scale was developed in the context of occupational stress research (Mohr,1986). Stress effects,such as mental exhaustion and burnout,were discussed as potential negative outcomes of transfor-mational leadership (e.g.,Harrison,1987). However, Seltzer et al. (1989) found that transformational lead-ership had positive effects on followers’emotional state. Moreover,unstable surroundings,a potential source of stress,fostered the effectiveness of trans-formational leadership (Podsakoff et al.,1996). As far as we know,there are no studies analyzing whether stress effects are relevant for the interrelation between leadership and outcomes. We assume that264Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studiesfollowers who are more emotionally irritated than their leaders are immune to the communication of visions and aversive of further stimulation. Thus,the interrelation between transformational leadership and outcomes will be weak. When transformational leaders are more emotionally irritated than their fol-lowers,they may be perceived as particularly authen-tic and committed to their work task. Thus,the interrelation between transformational leadership and outcomes will be strong. Regarding the nature of sim-ilarity in emotional irritation,we expect the following: Hypothesis 3:The interrelation between transforma-tional leadership and outcomes (i.e.,team goal ful-fillment and follower work satisfaction) is weakerwhen followers score higher than their leaders onemotional irritation.MethodSample and ProcedureOur sample comprised N1= 403 followers and theirN2= 117 direct managers from 45 German organiza-tions. Several followers per team took part. On aver-age,the teams comprised 12.5 followers (SD= 10.4). All of the teams were regular working groups as opposed to short-term project teams. Followers were accountable to their respective manager,who in turn was accountable to her or his direct supervisor,usu-ally heads of departments. The teams were at no par-ticular stage in the work progress when the study was conducted as they were open-ended working groups. Twenty-five percent of the managers indicated that they had selected their followers themselves.Managers’average age was 41.5 (SD= 8.6). They had been managers for an average of 9.2 years (SD= 7.2). All managers were situated at low levels of the organizational hierarchy. Fifty-four managers were female (46.2%). The followers’average age was 38.0 (SD= 10.3). They had been working with their respective manager for an average of 3.4 years (SD= 3.5). Two-hundred sixty-eight followers were female (66.5%). Most of our respondents worked in banks and insurance companies (53.6% = 216 followers). The remaining participants were predominantly employed in engineering firms (18.9% = 76 follow-ers),in housing corporations (14.1% = 57 followers), and in the electrical industry (8.2% = 33 followers).Followers were surveyed during working time in small groups with up to 10 participants. Managers were given questionnaires with prepaid envelopes and were asked to send the questionnaires back to the researchers (response rate:79.7%). To find a sufficient number of participants,we had to shorten the question-naire during the course of the project. For this reason, data concerning occupational self-efficacy refer to a subsample only (292 followers and 81 managers). InstrumentsFor assessing transformational leadership(fol-lower ratings),we used 20 items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio,1995; German translation and modification:Felfe,2006b; Felfe,Tartler,& Liepmann,2004). These items refer to leadership behaviors such as intellectual stimula-tion,individualized consideration,and inspirational motivation. Answer categories range from 1 = never to 5 = frequently,if not always.Team goal fulfillment(manager ratings) was assessed with five items referring to the fulfillment of goals set in advance. A sample item is “We reach the goals set by the top management.”The scale ranges from 1 = definitely false to 5 = definitely true. Data for goal fulfillment had to be z-transformed for technical reasons (change of scale’s range during the study).F ollower work satisfactio n (follower ratings) was assessed with an instrument used by Baillod and Semmer (1994; E lfering,Semmer,& Kälin,2000), based on Oegerli (1985). The instrument comprises eight items. An example of one of these items is “In recent weeks,how often do you think:‘After days-off, I’m really happy to return to work?’”The scale ranges from 1 = virtually never to 7 = virtually always.We assessed subjective meaning of work with the homonymous subscale of the AVE M inventory (Arbeitsbezogene Verhaltens- und E rlebensmuster [Types of Work-Related Behavior and E xperience]; Schaarschmidt & Fischer,1997). This subscale com-prises four items,and its answer categories range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. A sample item is “Work is my main purpose in life.”For assessing occupational self-efficacy,we used a short form of the Occupational Self-E fficacy Scale (OCCS FF) by Schyns and Collani (2002). Respondents indicated to which extent they feel com-petent to fulfill the requirements of their job on eight items. A sample item is “No matter what comes my way in my job,I am usually able to handle it.”The answer categories range from 1 = does not apply at all to 6 = applies completely.Emotional irritation describes consequences of psychological stress (Mohr et al.,2006). Longitudinal data gathered by Grebner (2001) indicate that systolic blood pressure—an indicator of stress—is a predictorWolfram,Mohr / Transformational Leadership,Team Goal Fulfillment,and Follower Work Satisfaction265of emotional irritation. Moreover,emotional irritation is related to psychosomatic complaints (Garst,Frese, & Molenaar,2000). The scale measures a status of exhaustion in which short daily breaks are no longer sufficient for recovery,but recovery is still possible, for example by taking longer breaks,changing task assignments,or changing deadlines. Dormann and Zapf (2002) showed that irritation is an indicator of strain and an early precursor of depressive reactions. The emotional irritation scale comprises five items, and its answer categories range from 1 = strongly dis-agree to 7 = strongly agree. A sample item is “I get grumpy when others approach me.”Control variables. Indicators of surface-level sim-ilarity were not in the focus of our investigation. Nevertheless,we controlled for the most common indicators of surface-level similarity (Hiller & Day, 2003) in all analyses. As our sample was ethnically homogeneous,these indicators were gender (dummy-coded:0 = same gender,1 = different gender) and age (difference score:followers’age minus leaders’age). AnalysisTo test our hypotheses,similarity scores for each leadership dyad were calculated first. As we subtracted managers’scores from followers’scores,positive differences indicate that followers scored higher on the respective similarity indicator, whereas negative scores indicate that managers scored higher. These similarity scores reflect both the degree of difference and the direction of differ-ence. We then used these difference scores in mod-erated regression analyses (i.e.,regression analyses contained the interaction term Transformational Leadership ×Similarity Score as an independent vari-able). The interaction term must show a significant relation with the dependent variable to qualify as a moderating variable (Baron & Kenny,1986). Variables involved were centered to the mean (Aiken & West,1991). Following a recommendation by Villa et al. (2003),a single moderating variable was tested in each moderated regression analysis. All in all,six regression analyses were conducted (three similarity scores,each with two dependent variables). In all analyses,similarity in gender and age was entered into regression equations in a first step. For all analyses,a two-tailed alpha of .05 was considered significant.ResultsPreliminary AnalysesCorrelations between follower and manager ratings were computed first. Followers’and managers’occu-pational self-efficacy (r= .10,p> .10) and emotional irritation (r= .01,p> .10) showed no significant interrelation. Nevertheless,there was a positive correla-tion between followers’and managers’subjective meaning of work (r= .16,p< .01). Table 1 summarizes the means,standard deviations,coefficient alphas,and correlations for the variables assessed in this study.Given that within-source correlations were higher than between-source correlations,we tested the scales’discriminative validity and analyzed whether our data were affected by same source bias. These analyses were conducted separately for managers (subjective meaning of work,occupational self-efficacy,Table 1Intercorrelations Between All VariablesVariable M SD1234567891. TL (f) 3.560.60.932. WS (f) 5.40.84.41**0.773. GF (m)——0.040.040.784. MW (f) 2.880.91.25**.22**0.050.815. MW (m) 3.110.840.05.17**.22**.16**0.826. SE (f) 4.510.71.19**.18**–.03.24**0.010.887. SE (m) 4.70.59.31**0.03.34**0.04.15*0.10.848. EI (f) 2.060.840.09.22**–.020.040.06–.30**0.010.789. EI (m) 2.240.870.070.05.24**0.20**0.1–.32**0.010.8 Notes:*p< .05,**p< .01 (two-tailed alpha of 0.05). TL = transformational leadership,WS = work satisfaction,GF = goal fulfilment, MW = subjective meaning of work,SE = occupational self-efficacy,EI = emotional irritation. f = follower ratings,m = manager ratings. For SE,the sample size is N= 292. For all other variables,the sample size is N= 403. For GF,mean value and standard deviation are not available,because the scores had to be z-transformed (change of scale's range during the study). Reliabilities are shown in the principal diagonal.。
领导力-Lesson12Leadership领导力 精品
The extent to which the leader shows respect, friendship, concern for followers’ well-being, comfort and mutual respect between leader and followers
Lesson 12
LEADERSHIP
1
Overview
Introduction: What is leadership? Why study leadership?
Historical Developments of Leadership Approaches
Traits Approaches
Personal factors that distinguish the leader, such
as intelligence and appearance.
Cont…
8
Traits Approach
Physical characteristics
This refers to the looks, appearance, grooming of the managers.
16
Participative
Leader allows and expects worker participation Leaders tend to:
Involve subordinates in decision-making through consultation
Asking them for their opinions Share information with subordinates
Learn to Lead 学习指南说明书
14 – TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP (CHAPTER 7)Overview Statement: Old school thinking of leadership evolved around following orders. A modern study of leadership focuses on the leader’s relationship with the followers. Does the leader transform and empower the team? If so, transformational leadership has begun.Connection to the Curriculum: Ties in with a central theme of chapter seven in Learn to Lead, Team Leadership.Estimated Time: 25-30 MinutesResources Required:Learn to Lead, Module Two; Whiteboard (or chalkboard, butcher paper or easel pad).Key Terms:Transformation –“A complete change, usually into something with an improved appearance or usefulness.” Encarta DictionaryLeadership – “The art of influencing and directing people to accomplish the mission.” Air Force Doctrine 1-1INTRODUCTIONAttention:Complete this phrase: “The early bird gets the ________.” {Worm}Motivation:How come we praise the early bird but nearly no one laments the early worm?Overview: Our studies of leadership theory have been more like the early bird, focused on accomplishing the mission. But as the early worm alludes to, there are two considerations to make. The Air Force’s definition of leadership talks about accomplishing the mission, but it also focuses on directing people. In today’s lesson we will discuss the concept of transformational leadership as a great way to direct and influence your team.Your role in this discussion is to be an active participant. You are free to share your views with each other. Please be involved and considerate of one another. My role will be to take notes on what you say, and I may occasionally ask a question or two. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions. I am simply interested in what you have to say.MAIN POINT: TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IS PEOPLE FOCUSEDA leader’s approach to leadership is likely to have a direct impact on his or her power. In other words, the leader’s effectiveness with transformational leadership will dictate how much ability the leader enjoys to influence change.Transformational leadership was developed in the 1970s by James McGregor Burns. Transformational leaders are able to raise their followers to a new level. In transformational leadership, leaders strive to help followers reach their full potential. Through inspiration and participation, the leader's appeal compels others to not only follow, but to follow well.There are four major leadership factors in the transformational model.{Write the following on the board:}Review:Idealized Influence ~ Leaders are effective role models for followers. They inspire followers so much that followers want to be like them. It's about being energetic and having a commanding presence. According to Northouse, leaders who practice idealized influence often display high levels of moral and ethical conduct and can be trusted to do “the right thing.”•Question: Think of a leader who is inspirational to you. In what ways did this leader inspire?{Write the answers on the board.}•Question: Why does a leader’s influence suffer when their ethical conduct is lacking? Inspirational Motivation ~ Leaders communicate high expectations to followers, inspiring them to become committed to and a part of the shared vision in an organization. Inspirational motivation promotes team spirit, which can lead to great teamwork and success.•Question: How can a leader motivate his or her team? {Write the answers on the board.}•Question: Is it enough to lead others with an inspiring speech? Defend your answer. Intellectual Stimulation ~ Leaders encourage teams to think differently. Such leaders have the ability to look at things in creative ways. Teams are encouraged to challenge assumptions, even their own. Followers are given the latitude to figure things out by themselves while solving problems carefully.•Question: Describe a time when the team came up with a great solution. Why did the team succeed? {Write the answers on the board.}•Question: Why is it hard for some leaders to give up control?Individualized Consideration ~ Leaders pay attention to the individuals on the team and help each to become better. Such leaders are supportive and listen closely to individual needs. This type of leader cares for each follower in a unique way that is appropriate to the individual's situation. Because everyone is different, everyone brings their unique talents to the team. The transformational leader knows how to tap into these differences to create the best possible outcome.•Question: Think about a person who successfully challenged you to excel. How did this person do that? {Write the answers on the board.}•Question: Can a team be successful if one or more individuals are not operating at their full potential? Defend your answer. How would you encourage such team members? CONCLUSIONSummary:Transformational leadership is powerful. You can work to change your followers, improve their confidence and skills, and make a huge difference in their lives. I encourage you to research “Transformational Leadership” on your own to gain further insights and practical skills. Remotivation: Small team leadership is not about you, it’s all about your team.Closure: Lead well!SUGGESTED ACTIVITIESNote to the instructor: Every informal discussion should be followed by one or more hands-on activities that reinforce one or more of the concepts being discussed. These activities should last 25-30 minutes, giving about one hour total block of time for the leadership session at a typical CAP meeting (25-30 minutes for the informal discussion, plus 25-30 minutes for the activities).Along with any questions found in the activities themselves, you should be sure to ask, “How does this activity tie in with our discussion?”CAP recommends activities from the Learn to Lead Activity Guide by Rob Smith (published by the Civil Air Patrol). You are free to substitute another activity, or create your own, as long as you tie in with one or more concepts of the informal discussion.Main concepts for this lesson: Empowerment; teams; affecting change.。
leadership模型
leadership模型Leadership模型是指一种用于分析和描述领导者行为及其对组织或团队的影响的理论框架。
它是针对领导力的一种研究方法，并试图用一些标准或模型来对领导者的行为做出评价。
在现代组织管理中，leadership模型扮演着重要的角色，可以帮助组织更好地理解领导者的角色与行为，并通过有效的领导来实现组织的目标。
在leadership模型中，有很多种类型。
下面我们将为您介绍其中几种经典的leadership模型。
1. 块：行动、靠谱和自信（Action, Reliability, Confidence）这是一种通过“行动、靠谱和自信”来衡量领导力的模型。
基本上是衡量领导者的能力和资历，以及他们能够做出可靠的决策的能力。
在过去，这个模型被广泛应用于管理和销售行业。
2. 变革领导力（Transformational Leadership）变革领导力是集中于领导者如何激励和激发其团队成员的一种leadership模型。
这种领导力强调了领导者的热情、鼓励和支持团队成员的机会，以共同实现目标。
发展了这种领导力的领导者会不断给团队成员提供沟通和互动的机会，以激发个人的潜力和创造出更多有利于团队发展的环境。
3. 服务领导力（Servant Leadership）服务型领导力被视为一种非常有创新性和建设性的领导模型。
这种模型强调领导者将服务放在首位，通过倾听和响应员工的需求来实现目标。
这种领导模型与特立独行团队意识型领导模型有所不同，它关注的是领导者如何激发团队成员对自己的潜力和责任感来共同实现目标。
4. 转型领导力（Transactional Leadership）转型领导力是集中于领导者如何奖励和惩罚其团队成员的一种leadership模型。
这种领导力强调领导者必须用奖励和惩罚的形式来管理和激发团队成员的工作动力，以实现目标。
这个模型已被广泛应用于领导人员对方式和风格的研究上。
5. 情境领导力（Situational Leadership）情境领导力是一种过程性的、基于每一个独立情境来识别领导者行为及其优势的leadership模型。
管理心理学领导理论
二、领导风格理论 心理学家勒温提出----专制、民主与放任自流型风格
实行多数裁定的原则
专制 （权力定位于领导者）
家长式
民主 （权力定位于群体）
没有领导的讨论
放任自流 （权力定位于个人）
图---领导风格理论模式
专制作风的领导者以（权）力服人，即
靠权力和强制命令让人服从。 特点：发号施令，要求他人依从，为人教 条且独断，主要依靠行政命令、纪律约 束、训斥和惩罚，偶尔也有奖励。有人 统计，具有专制作风的领导者和别人谈 话时，有60%左右采取命令和指示的口吻。
1．方针制订者（确定组织目标，制订方针策略）；
2．计划者（规划实现目标的手段与步骤）； 3．执行者（调整组织活动，监督决定的执行）； 4．专家（即信息情报专家、专业技术专家与组织 管理专家）； 5．对外的代表者（代表组织和团体同外单位交 涉）； 6．内部关系的协调与控制者； 7．赏罚权限的执行与控制者； 8．组织与团体内部纠纷的调整者、仲裁者； 9．具体行动的示范与榜样者； 10．组织与团体的象征（即团体统一的中心与精 神支柱）； 11．替身作用（替团体担负责任）； 12．团体规范的提倡者； 13．理想者（众望所归者）； 14．牺牲者(团体失误时是职工发泄不满的对象与 领导===F（领导者 ·被领导者 ·环境） 狮子与羊 领导者与被领导者----人与人之间权利与影响力的不均等 分配的一种关系。实质是两者在心理上或经济上的发展 -------取得平衡才有利于目标的实现。 三、领导者的权力与影响力
（一） 领导者的权力 1、领导者是权力的拥有者。 2、权力是构成组织的必要条件。 3、地位决定权力，运用权力是领导艺术。
第一节 领导概述
一、领导与领导者的概念 （一）对领导概念的不同理解 不同的人有不同的理解和提法： 艺术 行为 影响力 能力 引导和影响个人或组织，在一定的条件下实现目标的 行动过程。 卡特莱特（D.Cartight）四种社会影响模式（P159） 领导是一种复杂的社会影响过程
什么是领导力 如何提高领导力英语作文
什么是领导力如何提高领导力英语作文全文共3篇示例，供读者参考篇1What is Leadership and How to Improve LeadershipIntroductionLeadership is a crucial skill in today's fast-paced and competitive world. It is the ability to guide, motivate, and influence others towards achieving common goals. Effective leadership can inspire teams to work together cohesively, maximize their potential, and drive success in any organization. In this essay, we will explore the concept of leadership and discuss various strategies to enhance leadership skills.What is Leadership?Leadership is not just about holding a title or position of authority. It is about inspiring and influencing others to achieve a common objective. A leader is someone who can effectively communicate their vision, motivate their team members, make tough decisions, and lead by example. Leadership involves traits such as empathy, integrity, decisiveness, and emotional intelligence.Types of Leadership StylesThere are various leadership styles that leaders can adopt, depending on the situation and the nature of the team. Some common leadership styles include:1. Autocratic Leadership: In this style, the leader makes decisions without consultation with the team members. They have absolute control over the team and are responsible for all decision-making.2. Democratic Leadership: Leaders in this style involve team members in decision-making processes and value their input. This style promotes collaboration and teamwork.3. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leaders inspire and motivate their team members to achieve excellence. They constantly challenge their team to grow and innovate.4. Laissez-Faire Leadership: In this style, leaders provide minimal guidance to their team members and allow them to make their own decisions. This style works well in highly skilled and self-motivated teams.How to Improve Leadership SkillsEnhancing leadership skills is a continuous process that requires self-awareness, learning, and practice. Here are some strategies to improve leadership skills:1. Self-Reflection: Take time to reflect on your strengths and weaknesses as a leader. Identify areas for improvement and set goals to work on them.2. Continuous Learning: Stay updated on the latest trends in leadership and management. Attend workshops, seminars, and courses to enhance your knowledge and skills.3. Build Relationships: Develop strong relationships with your team members, colleagues, and stakeholders. Effective communication and relationship-building are key to successful leadership.4. Delegate Tasks: Learn to delegate tasks to team members based on their strengths and capabilities. Trust your team to deliver results and provide support when needed.5. Lead by Example: Demonstrate the values and behaviors you expect from your team members. Be ethical, honest, and consistent in your actions.6. Empower Others: Encourage your team members to take initiative, make decisions, and contribute their ideas. Provide opportunities for growth and development.7. Adaptability: Be flexible and adaptable in your leadership style to meet the changing needs of your team and organization. Embrace challenges as opportunities for growth.ConclusionLeadership is a vital skill that can drive success and growth in any organization. By understanding the concept of leadership, adopting appropriate leadership styles, and continuously improving leadership skills, individuals can become effective leaders who inspire and empower their teams to achieve greatness. Leadership is not a destination but a journey ofself-discovery and growth.篇2What is Leadership and How to Improve Leadership SkillsIntroductionLeadership is a crucial skill in both personal and professional life. It is the ability to guide, influence, and inspire others towards a common goal. Effective leadership is essential for success inany organization, as it helps in the growth and development of individuals and teams. In this article, we will discuss what leadership is, the qualities of a good leader, and how to improve leadership skills.What is Leadership?Leadership is the ability to motivate and inspire others to achieve a common goal. A leader is someone who has a clear vision, communicates effectively, and is able to guide and support others in the pursuit of that vision. Leadership involves making decisions, solving problems, and taking risks. A good leader is someone who can bring out the best in others and create an environment where everyone can thrive.Qualities of a Good LeaderThere are several qualities that make a good leader. These include:1. Communication: A good leader is an effective communicator who can clearly convey their ideas and vision to others.2. Vision: A good leader has a clear vision of where they want to go and inspires others to follow that vision.3. Integrity: A good leader is honest, ethical, and trustworthy. They lead by example and inspire trust in others.4. Empathy: A good leader is empathetic and understands the needs and feelings of others. They are able to connect with people on a personal level.5. Problem-solving: A good leader is able to think critically, analyze situations, and come up with effective solutions to problems.6. Resilience: A good leader is resilient and able to bounce back from setbacks and challenges.How to Improve Leadership SkillsThere are several ways to improve leadership skills. Some of these include:1. Continuous learning: Leadership is a skill that can be developed and improved over time. It is important to constantly learn and grow as a leader by reading books, attending workshops, and seeking feedback from others.2. Building relationships: A good leader builds strong relationships with their team members, colleagues, and stakeholders. Building trust and rapport with others is essential for effective leadership.3. Emotional intelligence: Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize and manage your own emotions and the emotions of others. Developing emotional intelligence can help you understand and connect with others on a deeper level.4. Delegating tasks: A good leader knows how to delegate tasks and empower others to take on responsibilities. Delegating tasks can help develop the skills and confidence of team members.5. Setting goals: A good leader sets clear goals and expectations for themselves and their team. Setting goals can help focus efforts and motivate others towards a common objective.6. Seeking feedback: Feedback is essential for growth and improvement as a leader. Seek feedback from colleagues, mentors, and team members to learn how you can improve and develop as a leader.ConclusionLeadership is a key skill that can make a significant difference in both personal and professional life. By developing qualities such as communication, vision, integrity, empathy, problem-solving, and resilience, you can become an effectiveleader. It is important to continuously learn and grow as a leader, build strong relationships, develop emotional intelligence, delegate tasks, set goals, and seek feedback in order to improve your leadership skills. By doing so, you can inspire and motivate others towards success and growth.篇3What is Leadership and How to Improve LeadershipIntroductionLeadership is a critical skill in all aspects of life, whether it's in the workplace, at school, or in personal relationships. A strong leader can inspire and motivate others, drive positive change, and achieve goals. In this essay, we will explore the concept of leadership, its key characteristics, and strategies for improving leadership skills.What is Leadership?Leadership can be defined as the ability to influence and guide others to achieve common goals. It involves setting a clear vision, motivating and inspiring others, making tough decisions, and creating a supportive and inclusive environment. Effective leaders possess a combination of personal qualities, such as communication, empathy, integrity, and resilience.Key Characteristics of Leadership1. Vision: A strong leader has a clear vision of where they want to go and can communicate this vision to others.2. Communication: Effective communication skills are essential for a leader to convey their ideas, listen to others, and provide feedback.3. Empathy: A good leader understands the needs and feelings of others and shows empathy and compassion.4. Integrity: Leaders must act with honesty, fairness, and ethical behavior to earn the trust and respect of their team.5. Resilience: Leaders face challenges and setbacks but must remain resilient and adaptable in the face of adversity.Strategies for Improving Leadership1. Seek Feedback: Ask for feedback from colleagues, mentors, and team members to identify strengths and areas for improvement.2. Develop Emotional Intelligence: Emotional intelligence involves understanding and managing emotions, building relationships, and making smart decisions. It is a key skill for effective leadership.3. Build Relationships: Invest time in building relationships with team members, colleagues, and stakeholders to create trust and loyalty.4. Lead by Example: Demonstrate the qualities you want to see in others, such as hard work, professionalism, and integrity.5. Continuously Learn and Adapt: Stay abreast of new developments in your field, seek out learning opportunities, and be open to feedback and change.ConclusionLeadership is a valuable skill that can be developed and improved over time. By cultivating key characteristics, seeking feedback, building relationships, and continuously learning, individuals can enhance their leadership capabilities and inspire others to achieve greatness. Leadership is not about power or authority, but about positively influencing and guiding others towards a common goal. By embodying the principles of leadership, individuals can make a lasting impact in their organizations, communities, and beyond.。
5_Theories of Leadership
Theories of leadership
Learning objectives
Explain the development of leadership theory Identify and explain the significant theories and models of leadership Understand how leadership theory assists leaders to explain their relationships with their followers Develop and critique your own personal theory of leadership
Work team members feeling of freedom
Team members do not feel at all free to discuss things about the job with manager Does not seek ideas and opinions of team members in solving job problems
Causal variables Intervening variables End-result variables
12
Likert’s systems of leadership
Leadership variable Confidence and trust in work team members System 1 Autocratic Shows no confidence and no trust in team members System 2 Benevolent Demonstrates confidence and trust but as master to servant System 3 Participative Demonstrates confidence and trust; still keeps control of decisions System 4 Democratic Demonstrates confidence and trust in all actions towards team members Team members feel free to discuss job/job problems with manager
transformational leadership的特点
transformational leadership的特点
变革型领导（Transformational Leadership）是一种领导风格，其特点包括：
1. 愿景和使命感：变革型领导能够为组织或团队创造一个清晰的愿景和使命感，激励员工为实现共同目标而努力。
2. 激励和鼓舞：变革型领导能够激励和鼓舞员工，使他们超越自我，发挥出最大的潜力。
3. 智力激发：变革型领导能够激发员工的创造力和创新精神，鼓励他们提出新的想法和解决方案。
4. 个性化关怀：变革型领导能够关注员工的个人需求和发展，为他们提供支持和指导。
5. 榜样作用：变革型领导以身作则，通过自己的行为和态度为员工树立榜样。
6. 建立信任：变革型领导能够与员工建立起信任关系，使员工愿意跟随他们的领导。
7. 推动变革：变革型领导能够识别并推动组织或团队中的变革，使其适应外部环境的变化。
8. 团队合作：变革型领导能够促进团队合作，培养团队精神，提高团队的凝聚力和绩效。
总之，变革型领导具有强大的影响力和领导力，能够激发员工的潜力，推动组织或团队的变革和发展。
变革型、交易型领导以及创新性行为：心理授权的调节作用
Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior:The moderating role of psychological Empowerment变革型领导与交易型领导与创新行为:心理授权的中介作用Innovative behavior is increasingly important for organizations’survival.Transformational leadership,in contrast to transactional leadership,has been argued to be particularly effective in engendering follower innovative behavior.However,empirical evidence for this relation-ship is scarce and inconsistent.Addressing this issue,we propose that follower psychological empowerment moderates the relationship of transformational and transactional leadership with follower innovative behavior.In a field study with230employees of a government agency in the Netherlands combining multisource ratings,we show that transformational leadership is positively related to innovative behavior only when psychological empowerment is high,where as transactional leadership has a negative relationship with innovative behavior only under these conditions.创新行为对组织的生存越来越重要。
人力与组织管理Outcome3(new)
Likert’s Management Systems Model
• Four styles
剥削式集权领导(Exploitive authoritative )：决策 在领导，执行在下属，严格监督，以恐吓为主。 仁慈式集权领导(Benevolent authoritative)：奖惩 加恐吓。 协商式民主领导(Consultative) ：采用协商方式。 参与式的民主领导(Participative) ：授权分权相结 合。
比较沟通 报酬和极偶然的 惩罚 重大决策上层制
上下左右意见完 全沟通 优厚的报酬启发 自觉 下层 Nhomakorabea与做决策，
2.2 John Adair's ActionActionCentered Leadership Model
John Adair’s model指出：一个领导者 指出： 指出 在实施领导的过程中需要满足三种需要： 在实施领导的过程中需要满足三种需要： task needs、team needs 、 individual 、 needs ，领导者需根据不同的情况作出分 析判断，确定priority. 析判断，确定 1. 任务需要 任务需要——把工作做好。 把工作做好。 把工作做好 2. 群体需要 群体需要——建立和维护团队精神。 建立和维护团队精神。 建立和维护团队精神 3. 个人需要 个人需要——使个人的需要与任务和群体 使个人的需要与任务和群体 的需要相和谐。 的需要相和谐。 •
Characteristics of Four Styles
Style 1 组织变 数 信任 程度 Style 2 Style 3 Style 4
服务性领导英文文献
International Journal of Leadership Studies , Vol. 2 Iss. 1, 2006, pp. 36-51Servant versus Self-Sacrificial Leadership: A Behavioral Comparison of Two Follow-Oriented Leadership TheoriesJeffrey A. MattesonRegent UniversityJustin A. Irving Bethel UniversitySince Greenleaf (1977), research pertaining to servant leadership has carved a unique place in the leadership literature. The last decade has produced focused theory development including instrument development and empirical studies. Similarly, since Burns (1978), this era witnessed increased theoretical and empirical attention on the role of leader self-sacrifice. Recently, Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2004) and Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko (2004) examined the similarities and differences of servant and transformational leadership. This paper employs analogous methods to examine servant and self-sacrificial leadership. The authors suggest that although servant and self-sacrificial leadership share many common characteristics, they differ in several behavioral dimensions. R esearch pertaining to leadership has been dominated over the last quarter century by the study of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978, 2003). This theory represents an important step toward balancing the needs of both leaders and followers as they work toward fulfilling organizational goals. Meanwhile, this same era has produced several other leadership theories which represent a general movement toward follower-oriented models. Two of these models are servant leadership and self-sacrificial leadership.As the original architect behind the contemporary study of servant leadership, Robert K. Greenleaf (1977) captured the essence of servant leadership for a modern audience. Posing the question “Who is the servant-leader?” in his writing, Greenleaf answered by stating:The servant-leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first . Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first. (p. 27)Since Greenleaf’s initial insistence that a leader should be a servant first, several theories of servant leadership have gradually taken shape, most over the past 15 years. One of the central features of servant leadership which has been clarified in its recent history is that servantleadership is essentially focused on placing the needs of followers before the personal interests of the leader and intentionally working toward raising additional servants. The development of this © 2006 School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 37 view of leadership has several ramifications for organizations, leaders, and followers; not the least of which are the accompanying characteristics, attributes, practices, and outcomes of this behavior (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003, 2004; Russell & Stone, 2002; Spears & Lawrence, 2002).Self-sacrificial leadership occurs when a leader forfeits one or more professional or personal advantages for the sake of followers, the organization, or a mission. One key aim of self-sacrificial leadership is to encourage follower reciprocity (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, 1999). However, this modeling behavior has the added benefit of potentially moving followers toward an organizational goal; modifying their behavior; or simply persuading them to attribute legitimacy to the leader, thus allowing the leader to gain influence (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, 1999; De Cremer, 2002; De Cremer, van Djike, & Bos, 2004; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Halverson, Holladay, Kazama, & Quinones, 2004; Javidan & Waldman, 2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005; Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999).In general, leadership theories such as these provide a description of a set of behaviors exhibited by leaders a majority of the time. For example, transformational leaders may still engage in transactional leadership activities in their daily routines. Given this reality, there is often a theoretical overlap of propositions associated with certain leadership models. Additionally, the average experience of organizational followers as they interact with a particular leadership type may vary due to their unique perspective on organizational life. The authors suggest that there is likely a theoretical overlap between servant and self-sacrificial leadership but that a close examination of these theories will reveal several distinct qualities. To date, no theoretical or empirical study has compared these two theories. Therefore, a study is needed that will crystallize our understanding of convergent and divergent aspects of servant and self-sacrificial leadership. Ultimately, this may afford future researchers the opportunity to share a common language of servant and self-sacrificial leadership and lead to useful empirical testing.The purpose of this paper is to describe the chief components of servant and self- sacrificial leadership and to examine the commonalities and distinctions of the two conceptualizations. This study begins by suggesting an integrated model of servant leadership. Subsequent to the delineation of the associated frameworks, the characteristics and attributes of each theory will be laid side by side in an effort to compare the concepts. It is proposed that these two follower-oriented theories share some common characteristics and attributes but differ in significant areas. As a result, a scaffold will be proposed to provide the structure for highlighting the theoretical distinctives of servant and self-sacrificial leadership.Servant LeadershipGreenleaf’s (1977) seminal work on servant leadership—the work attributed with bringing the concept of servant leadership to public discourse in the mid 1970s—has led to a growing body of literature surrounding the construct since the early 1990s. The literature surrounding servant leadership can generally be categorized into two main areas: theoretical and empirical. A majority of the works are theoretical in nature: Blanchard (1998); Buchen (1998); Cerff (2004); Farling et al. (1999); Graham (1991); Hale (2004); Irving and McIntosh (2006), Jennings and Stahl-Wert (2003); Laub (2004); Ndoria (2004); Page (2004); Parolini (2004); Patterson (2003); Patterson and Stone (2004); Quay (1997); Rude (2003); Russell (2001, 2003); Russell and Stone (2002); Sendjaya and Sarros (2002); Smith et al. (2004); Spears (1995, 1998); Spears and Lawrence (2002); Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2003, 2004); Wolford-UlrichINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 38 (2004); Winston (2003); Winston and Hartsfield (2004); and Wong and Page (2003). An increasing number of empirical studies such as Dennis (2004), Dennis and Winston (2003), Drury (2004), Hebert (2003, 2004), Helland (2004), Irving (2004, 2005a, 2005b), Irving and Longbotham (2006), Laub (1999, 2003), Ledbetter (2003), Sendjaya (2003), and Winston (2004) have emerged as well.As the construct of servant leadership has developed over the last 15 years, it has been operationalized in several different forms. For instance, discussion has focused on the inspirational and moral dimensions of servant leadership (Graham, 1991); the dimensions of self-identity, capacity for reciprocity, relationship building, and a preoccupation with the future (Buchen, 1998); vision, influence, credibility, trust, and service (Farling et al., 1999); along with Russell’s (2001) discussion which focused on vision, credibility, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. Of the theoretical discussions of servant leadership that have become dominant in the field, Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) have been frequently cited. The model of servant leadership that is advanced in this paper is constructed largely as a composite of these three theoretical approaches and is aimed at providing framework for further research in servant leadership studies.Because the model of servant leadership advanced in this paper fuses the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) conceptualizations of servant leadership; it is important to begin our examination of servant leadership by briefly highlighting each at this time. Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics of servant leadership have been identified as an outgrowth of Greenleaf’s (1977) discussion of servant leadership. Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics of servant leadership are (a) listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e) persuasion, (f) conceptualization, (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commitment, and (j) community building. Spears (1998) argued that servant leadership is tied to the character exhibited by leaders in their essential traits. Spears’ (1998) focus on the character of the leader will be an important consideration as we consider an integrated model of servant leadership. Essential to the formation of servant leaders, Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics provide a practical starting point for leaders interested in developing as servant leaders.Laub (1999) provided the second core conceptualization of servant leadership that will be utilized in this paper. Laub (1999) defined the essence of servant leadership in this manner: “Servant leadership is an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader” (p. 81). But, in what manner do servant leaders place “the good of those led over” themselves? For Laub (1999), this is answered by the results of his Delphi study. In the Delphi process, 60 characteristics of servant leaders were identified and eventually clustered into six key areas: (a) valuing people, (b) developing people, (c) building community, (d) displaying authenticity, (e) providing leadership, and (f) sharing leadership. For Laub (1999), these are the essential behaviors that characterize what servant leaders do and are the answer to how servant leaders place the good of those led over their own self-interest.The final base conceptualization of servant leadership is offered by Patterson (2003). As a theory-building dissertation, Patterson (2003) presented servant leadership theory as an extension of transformational leadership theory. This extension was based primarily on Patterson’s (2003) observation that transformational theory was not addressing the phenomena of love, humility, altruism, and casting vision for followers. Because of this, Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership includes the following dimensions as the essential characteristics of servant leadership: (a) agapáo love, (b) humility, (c) altruism, (d) vision, (e) trust, (f) empowerment, and (g) service. While Spears’ (1998) model of servant leadership focusesMatteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 39 primarily on the character exhibited by servant leaders and Laub’s (1999) model focuses primarily on the behaviors of servant leaders, Patterson’s (2003) model provides a bridge between the dimensions of character and behavior.Though each of these models provides significant insight into servant leadership, the divergent emphases in each of these models point to the need to consider an integrative model. Toward this end, we propose the following three-fold framework for conceptualizing an integrative model that is inclusive of the wide range of theoretical factors contained in the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) models: (a) being—the servant leader’s ontological character traits; (b) thinking—the servant leader’s attitudinal mindset; and (c) doing—the servant leader’s behavioral actions. Table 1 provides an overview of these three dimensions of servant leadership and the associated factors in the integrative model. This proposed three-fold framework provides a logical approach to assimilating the range of factors in the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) models as well both a linear and circular approach to conceptualizing servant leadership.In the linear approach, we argue that one’s ontological character provides the basis for the attitudinal mindset with which a leader approaches leadership scenarios out of their cognitive-affective framework. Furthermore, we argue that one’s attitudinal mindset provides the basis for servant leadership behaviors (see Figure 1). Thus, this three-fold model may be conceptualized as a linear progression from leader being, to leader thinking, to leader doing; or, to put it in other terms, it is a progression from the ontological, to the attitudinal, to the behavioral.Understood as a circular approach, leader ontology, attitude, and behavior may be seen as regularly reinforcing one another in a circular or spiraling process in which a servant leader’s being (ontological) reinforces servant-oriented thinking (attitudinal) which reinforces servant leadership doing (behavioral) which reinforces servant leader being (ontological); and, the circular reinforcement continues (see Figure 2). Though the notion of circular or spiraling models in servant leadership studies is not new (i.e., Farling et al., 1999), understanding this circular process in light of servant leader ontology, attitude, and behavior is an important addition to the literature.Self-Sacrificial LeadershipThe contemporary origins of the study of self-sacrificial leadership are found in the writings of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). These transformational leadership theorists suggested that leader self-sacrifice is a tool which great leaders use to motivate followers. Following their lead, current charismatic leadership theorists have perceived self-sacrifice in leadership to be a tactic which a leader could employ to influence follower attributions of charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House & Shamir, 1993; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Out of this movement, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1998) proposed a model of follower responses to self-sacrificial leadership. From these theoretical underpinnings, empirical studies have been undertaken to test the validity of this model along with a variety of additional variables which may be associated with self-sacrificial leadership.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 40Table 1The Three Dimensions of Servant LeadershipDimensions Servant Leadership Factors LoveHumility Authenticity Self-AwarenessOntological Dimensions of Servant Leadership Self-Differentiation LoveOther-CenterednessOriented toward altruismValuing peopleCommitment to the growth of peopleVisionary Orientation toward trust Orientation toward listeningOrientation toward empathyLeadership mindsetOrientation toward persuasionCapacity for conceptualizationAttitudinal Dimensions of Servant Leadership Foresight LoveListeningEmpathyHealingStewardship Developing people Building communityProviding leadershipSharing leadershipEmpowering followersBehavioral Dimensions of Servant Leadership Serving followersNote. As the foundation of servant leadership (Patterson, 2003), love may be categorized in each of the dimensions of servant leadership.Figure 1. The three dimensions of servant leadership, a linear model.Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 41Figure 2. The three dimensions of servant leadership, a circular model.The empirical studies associated with self-sacrificial leadership have focused primarily on the outcomes of the sacrificial behavior on the perceptions of followers. Several of these studies found that self-sacrificing leaders were attributed charisma by followers and were perceived to be more influential, legitimate, and effective (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De Cremer, 2002; De Cremer et al., 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005; Yorges et al., 1999). Follower attributions of charisma were particularly pronounced during a period of organizational crisis or when the organization faced a social dilemma which required cooperation (De Cremer, 2002; Halverson et al., 2004).Self-sacrificial leadership has produced additional responses from followers beyond cooperative effort. Followers of self-sacrificial leaders intended to reciprocate the self-sacrificing behaviors (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999), were more committed to their organization (De Cremer et al., 2004), and performed at a higher level (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The main effects of self-sacrificial leadership have been found to be moderated by leader self-confidence, the leader’s group-orientedness, distributive justice, and when leaders were not pushing their opinions on subordinates (De Cremer, 2006; De Cremer et al., 2004; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The results of these initial empirical tests hint at a phenomenon, which encompasses a much larger portion of leadership theory than initially proposed. In fact, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) suggested that self-sacrificial leadership plays a role in all three organizational processes of production, distribution, and consumption.The proposition of a broad influence of leader self-sacrifice led Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) to define self-sacrificial leadership as “the total/partial abandonment, and/or permanent/temporary postponement of personal interests, privileges, and welfare in the (a) division of labor, (b) distribution of rewards, and/or (c) exercise of power” (p. 399). The authors explained that self-sacrifice in the division of labor “involves volunteering for more risky and/orINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 42arduous actions, tasks, turns, or segments of work” (p. 399). They proffer that self-sacrifice in the distribution of rewards “involves giving up or postponing one’s fair and legitimate share of organizational rewards” (p. 399). Self-sacrifice in the exercise of power is described in their research as “voluntarily giving up or refraining from exercising or using the position power, privileges, and/or personal resources one already has in his/her hand” (p. 399). Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) drew a distinction between self-sacrifice in the distribution of rewards and in the exercise of power by noting that the former involves giving up claiming privileges and the latter involves consuming the privileges.The economic aspects of leader self-sacrifice, while supported both theoretically andempirically, should not be considered the final boundaries of the self-sacrificial leadership construct. Other theorists have noted that leader self-sacrifice includes the loss of status, credibility, and promotion (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Javidan & Waldman, 2003). This is a small glimpse at the motivational aspects that lay the foundation of self-sacrificial behavior, which may have origins beyond the simple desire to influence followers. After all, if a leader loses his or her status or credibility or is demoted rather than promoted, it would be difficult to impossible to influence followers. Alternatively, leaders may sacrifice to demonstrate courage and conviction in the mission while serving as a role model (Shamir et al., 1993); maintainpersonal beliefs and values (Yorges et al., 1999); and exhibit commitment to the cause (Avolio & Locke, 2002) or, simply, for the good of the company (Halverson et al., 2004). Therefore, it can be stated that the motivational foundation for self-sacrificial leadership may be directly related to the outcome of the behavior.To date, the published theoretical models of self-sacrificial leadership do not address all three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavior. Instead, current models present the impact of sacrificing behavior on followers along with various moderating variables (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De Cremer, 2006; Yorges et al., 1999). While a gap in the literature regarding self-sacrificial leader ontology and attitude exists, enough research exists to present behaviors associated with self-sacrificial leaders. Table 2 offers a preliminary look at these self-sacrificial leadership behaviors.Table 2The Behavioral Dimensions of Self-Sacrificial LeadershipDimension Self-Sacrificial Leadership Factors AltruismTakes initiativeEmpathyRole modelingProvides justiceDeveloping peopleBuilding communityProviding leadershipLinks followers to shared visionEmpowering followersServing followersBehavioral Dimensions of Self-Sacrificial Leadership Yields status, privileges, powerMatteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 43Theoretical ComparisonWhile we propose the three-fold circular model of ontology, attitude, and behavior as an integrative answer to the divergent approaches to conceptualizing servant leadership, for the purpose of our comparison with self-sacrificial leadership, we will limit our analysis to the behavioral level. As identified in the literature review surrounding self-sacrificial leadership, the rationale for this is largely due to the relatively focused literature surrounding self-sacrificial leadership on the consequence of the behavior rather than its motivational origins. Certain attitudinal aspects of self-sacrificial leadership can be inferred from the research, but the authors do not support drawing conclusions from these secondary assumptions. While we recommend future explorations into the ontological and attitudinal dimensions of self-sacrificial leadership, the current agenda solely offers self-sacrificial research focused on the behavioral dimension.This section of the paper highlights the similarities and differences of servant and self-sacrificial leadership. In keeping with two previous attempts to compare servant leadership with another leadership theory, the authors have created a matrix to compare the two theories. Stone et al. (2004) and Smith et al. (2004) previously compared servant and transformational leadership, and their graphic representations informed this current effort. In addition to Spears’ (1998) and Laub’s (1999) lists of characteristics which were included in these prior analyses, this paper extends the servant leadership portion by including Patterson’s (2003) attributes in the comparison with self-sacrificial leadership. Recall that in this study, these three theories are presented as an integrated model of servant leadership.In Table 3, the integrated servant leadership behavioral characteristics of Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) are listed next to the self-sacrificial leadership factors. The three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavioral characteristics are listed for servant leadership in an effort to comprehensively present the integrated model. Self-sacrificial leadership attitudinal factors are listed in gray to signify their role as inferred characteristics which will not be used for drawing conclusions. The behavioral factors associated with self-sacrificial leaders as they compare to servant leadership are the primary focus of this study.It is immediately evident that servant and self-sacrificial leadership share several characteristics. The characteristics of empathy, developing people, building community, providing leadership, empowering followers, and serving followers represent overlapping categories. Empathy appears in the self-sacrificial leadership literature through its connection with altruism (De Cremer, 2002). The assumption of an empathy-altruism link, and its support in 25 empirical studies (Batson, Ahmad, Lishner, & Tsang, 2002), sustains this correlation between servant and self-sacrificial leadership. The modeling behaviors found in the self-sacrificial leadership literature shore up the additional characteristics found in both leadership theories. By sacrificing their power, self-sacrificial leaders empower followers. However, this empowerment is likely a product of sacrificing behavior. The shared commitment to service may be explained when self-sacrifice is understood as an extreme act of service. This comparison would evidently indicate that servant and self-sacrificial leaders may view followers in a similar fashion but may choose to interact with them in a slightly different manner.In general terms, it may be stated that both servant and self-sacrificial leaders hold followers in very high esteem but deviate in several core behaviors. First, there is little concrete theoretical or empirical research pertaining to leader self-sacrifice which supports the thought that self-sacrificial leaders share power. Second, it could be argued that the role modeling and altruistic behaviors of self-sacrificial leaders are loving acts and, thus, would compare favorablyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 44with servant leadership. However, there are other motivations associated with role modeling and altruistic activities which may have very little to do with love (Avolio & Locke, 2002).Table 3The Three Dimensional Comparisons of Servant and Self-Sacrificial LeadershipDimensions Servant Leadership Factors Self-Sacrificial Leadership Factors LoveHumility Authenticity Self-AwarenessOntological Dimensions Self-Differentiation LoveOther-Centeredness Other-CenterednessOriented toward altruism Orientation toward altruismValuing people Valuing peopleCommitment to the growth of people Commitment to the growth ofpeopleVisionary Visionary Orientation toward trustOrientation toward listeningOrientation toward empathy Orientation toward empathyLeadership mindsetOrientation toward persuasion Self-ConfidentCapacity for conceptualization NonautocraticAttitudinalDimensions Foresight Foresight Love AltruismListening Takes initiativeEmpathy EmpathyHealing Role modelingStewardship Provides justiceDeveloping people Developing people Building community Building communityProviding leadership Providing leadershipSharing leadership Links followers to shared visionEmpowering followers Empowering followersServing followers Serving followersBehavioralDimensions Yields status, privileges, powerListening, healing, and stewardship are currently missing from the self-sacrificialleadership literature. The case can be made that listening is a necessary feature of empathy and that healing is closely aligned with providing justice. Yet, these are unsupported assumptions.Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 45 Stewardship is a different matter. In a sense, some self-sacrificial leaders are poor stewards of resources; since by definition, this type of leader may intentionally dispose of resources in orderto achieve an overall goal. Since self-sacrificial leadership theory development is still in relative infancy, the authors feel much more confident in the shared characteristic list and remaincautious in drawing firm conclusions on all of the dissimilar factors. That being said, viewingthese follower-oriented theories through the three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavior can further delineate both phenomena.Although these two leadership theories share several characteristics, the provisional conclusions stated lead to the understanding that servant and self-sacrificial leadership aresimilar but distinct theories. Since the examination of the behavioral characteristics of these two theories is not capable of revealing a comprehensive understanding of this difference, the authors propose a broader look at servant and self-sacrificial leadership. This effort may bring furtherclarity to this evaluation. An opportunity for an expanded investigation may originate in the previously mentioned work of Stone et al. (2004) and Smith et al. (2004) who offered details regarding the focus, motivation, context, and outcomes of servant and transformational leadership. These four overarching categories can be employed to scrutinize servant and self-sacrificial leadership with the goal of founding an additional baseline for future scholarly discussion. The authors present this brief theoretical comparison in an attempt to launch such a conversation. Table 4 places servant and self-sacrificial leadership in the four categoriesdiscussed in the previous leadership theory comparison. The determination of the focus, motivation, context, and outcome of self-sacrificial leadership is drawn from published research pertaining to this phenomenon. The authors have consulted existing research and selectedgeneral terms to describe each category as succinctly as possible. In other words, an attempt was made to get at the heart or direction of the research to date. For example, since earlier researchhas noted that self-sacrificial leaders may demonstrate courage and conviction in the missionwhile serving as a role model (Shamir et al., 1993), maintain personal beliefs and values (Yorgeset al., 1999), or exhibit commitment to the cause (Avolio & Locke, 2002); the authors haveplaced these activities under the umbrella of ethical self-transcendence in the broad category of focus. Additionally, since self-sacrificial leaders may be motivated by the greater good of the organization (Halverson et al., 2004), the ethical focus underpinning this motivation led theauthors to conclude that self-sacrificial leaders are provoked to serve the greater good.Table 4The Focus, Motivation, Context, and Outcome of Servant and Self-Sacrificial Leadership Focus Motivation ContextOutcomeSelf-sacrificial leadership Ethical self-transcendenceServing the greater good:doing what is morally andethically right, no matterthe sacrificeOrganizational orenvironmentalcrisisDynamicspiritualgenerativecultureServant leadership Followers Serving the good of thefollower: doing what isbest for the followersStableenvironmentSpiritualgenerativeculture。
Leadership 领导力(2)
• Global economy, marked by freed trade, free flow of capital & cheaper foreign labour markets • Sophisticated communications and transportation technologies and services • Mass migrations • Level of economic activity outgrown national markets • International agreements reducing the cost of doing business
– Predatory pricing and employee lawsuits Reference: /office/entrepreneurs/articles/115557.asp x
What makes a business a business?
5. Risk Aversion Pberg (Just Business: Business Ethics in Action, 2000)
Ethical Dilemmas
Ethics: Principles of right and wrong
that individuals, acting as free moral agents, use to make choices to guide their behaviors
1. Golden Rule
• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
领导力与变革管理英语作文
文章标题：Leadership and ChangeManagement in the Era of GlobalizationIn the dynamically evolving landscape of the 21st century, leadership and change management have emerged as crucial factors for organizational success. As businesses strive to adapt to the shifting tides of globalization, technological advancements, and market demands, the role of leaders in navigating these changes has become paramount. This essay delves into the intricacies of leadership and change management, exploring how effective leaders can spearhead transformational efforts within their organizations.Leadership is often described as the art of influencing and motivating individuals and teams to achieve common goals. In the context of change management, leaders play a pivotal role in shaping the organization's vision, strategy, and culture. They are the champions of innovation, challenging traditional norms and encouraging employees to embrace new ways of thinking and working. By fostering a culture of openness and inclusivity, leaders create anenvironment where ideas can freely flow and collaborations can flourish.Successful leaders possess a range of skills and attributes that are essential for effective change management. Firstly, they demonstrate strong communication skills, able to articulate the need for change and its potential benefits in a clear and convincing manner. This helps to gain the trust and support of employees, who are often skeptical of changes that may disrupt their work routines. Secondly, leaders exhibit resilience and adaptability, remaining calm and focused even in the faceof resistance or uncertainty. They are able to navigate through complex situations, making informed decisions that align with the organization's long-term goals.Moreover, leaders are masters of emotional intelligence, understanding the emotional needs of their team members and addressing them effectively. By empathizing with employees' concerns and fears, leaders can build strongerrelationships and foster a sense of belonging within the organization. This, in turn, enhances employees'willingness to embrace change and contribute to the organization's success.In addition to these personal attributes, leaders also need to adopt a strategic approach to change management. This involves identifying the key drivers of change, suchas technological advancements, market shifts, orcompetitive pressures, and developing a comprehensive planto address them. Leaders must also ensure that the change process is well-structured and implemented in a phased manner, minimizing disruption and maximizing employee engagement.Furthermore, leaders need to recognize that change management is not a one-time event but a continuous process. They must be prepared to monitor the progress of the changes, evaluate their impact, and make adjustments as needed. This requires a mindset of continuous learning and improvement, allowing leaders to stay ahead of the curveand anticipate future challenges.In conclusion, leadership and change management are intertwined concepts that are crucial for organizational success in the era of globalization. Effective leaders areable to navigate through the complexities of change, fostering a culture of innovation and collaboration within their organizations. By developing strong communication skills, resilience, emotional intelligence, and a strategic approach to change management, leaders can lead their organizations to new heights of success.**领导力与变革管理在全球化时代**在21世纪这个充满动态变化的时代，领导力和变革管理已成为组织成功的关键因素。
leadship汇总
In 1995,he founded China Pages, widely believed to be China’s first Internet-based company. With his charismatic leadership, he got it.
Visionary Leadership愿景型领 导
• leaders who guide or motivate their followers toward established goals by clarifying role and task requirement
• transformational leaders
• leaders who inspire followers to transcend • their own self-interests for the good of the • organization and are capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on followers
Example…
Skills of Visionary Leaders
• The ability to explain the vision to others.
• Make the vision clear in terms of required actions and aims through clear oral and written communication.
Types Of Trust
• Deterrence-based trust基于威吓 • Trust based on fear of reprisal if the trust is violated • Knowledge-based trust基于知识 • Trust based on the behavioral predictability that comes from a history of interaction • Identification-based trust基于认同 • Trust based on an emotional connection between the parties
变革型领导
复数
• individuals个人; 与众不同的人; 有个性的人; 某种类型的人; 古怪 的人; individual的复数
• organizations组织; 团体; 机构; 组织工作; 筹备工作; 安排; 配 置; 分配; organization的复数
• What is transformation?
什么是变革型
The concept of transformation can be applied to various entities: relationships, individuals, groups, teams, communities, or political systems
• teams队; 组，班; 一组牲畜，联畜; 使互相配合; 使协 作; 使合作; team的第三人称单数和复数
• communities社区; 社会; 团体; 社团; 界; 共享; 共 有; community的复数
Transformational Leadership 变革型领导
• What is transformation? Organizational Transformation 组织转型 Personal Transformation 个人转型 Relational Transformation 关系转型 Enterprise Transformation 企业转型
• Enterprise公司; 企业单位; 事业单位; 规划，事 业; 企业发展; 企业经营;
Transformational Leadership 变革型领导
Consciousness is essential in the transformation of process- consciousness of self, of relational entities, and of the body enterprise.
变革型领导量表（johnm.schaubroeck等,2016）
变革型领导量表（John M. Schaubroeck等，2016）（Transformational Leadership, TlS）简介变革型领导（Transformational Leadership）是指激发下属通过使他们能够完成具有挑战性的目标从而实现自身期望的一种领导方式。
John M. Schaubroeck等学者（2016）在探究不同的同级领导的领导风格对工作伙伴服务质量的影响时，借鉴了Podsakoff et al.(1990)编制的变革型领导测量的量表，编制了同级领导变革型领导测量量表，并使用该量表选择研究样本，分析同级领导中的变革型领导如何影响同事的服务质量。
信度与效度John M. Schaubroeck等学者（2016）从香港四家规模相似的跨国银行的中选取三家，通过量表，选取不同领导风格的领导者进行研究，共计调查了124名银行出纳员，在三家银行的问卷回复率分别为91%、90%、92%。
其中对小组A中的同级领导进行变革型领导力测量，内部一致性系数为0.98。
量表请您根据自己的实际感受和体会，用下面27项描述对您所在部门/团队的负责人进行评价和判断，并在最符合的数字上划○。
评价和判断的标准如下：非常不同意比较不同意不同意中立同意比较同意非常同意1 2 3 4 5 6 7计分方法对变革型领导量表共27道题，可以计算题目的总分或平均分。
量表出处John M. Schaubroeck, Simon S.K. Lam, Ann C. Peng (2016). Can peers’ ethical and t ransformational leadership improve coworkers’ service quality? A latent growth anizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 133（3）, 45–48.参考文献Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational le ader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.OBHRM（）整理，供学者在学术研究中使用，商业使用请与原作者联系。
变革型领导与员工工作态度_心理授权的中介作用
38卷
等 ;员工心理与行为包括员工满意度 、对领导的满意 度 、组织承诺 、离职意向 、组织公民行为等 。不管采 用什么样的领导有效性指标 ,大部分实证研究 ,包括 现场研究 [ 7～10 ] 、实验室研究 [ 11～13 ] 、现场实 验 [ 14 ] 和 元分析 [ 15 ] ,结果都表明变革型领导与领导有效性的 正向指标有正向的关系 ,而与负向指标有负向的关 系 。比如 , Judge等的研究结果表明 ,变革型领导对 员工对领导的满意度 、组织承诺 、工作动机与领导者 有效性均有显著的影响 ,其标准化回归系数分别为 : 0. 35; 0. 26; 0. 54; 0. 35[ 10 ] 。A volio 等采用阶层线性 模型 (H ierarchical L inear Models, HLM )考察了变革 型领导与组织承诺的关系 ,结果表明变革型领导对 组织承诺有显著的正向影响 。虽然变革型领导与领 导有效性之间的关系已经得到了证明 ,但是目前大 部分研 究 都 是 把 变 革 型 领 导 作 为 一 个 高 阶 构 念 (H igher O rder Construct)来考虑 ,而较少有研究考察 变革型领导不同维度对领导有效性的不同影响 。此 外 ,目前大部分变革型领导与领导有效性关系的研 究都是在西方进行 ,且采用的是 Bass等的 MLQ 问 卷 。李超平与时勘在国内发展了变革型领导理论 包括 :德行垂范 、愿景激励 、领导魅力与个性 化关怀 ,并开发了变革型领导问卷 ( Transformational Leadership Questionnaire, TLQ ) [ 16 ] 。因此 ,本研究拟 在国内这一特殊的文化背景下 ,采用李超平开发的 变革型领导问卷 ,以员工满意度与组织承诺作为衡 量领导有效性的指标 ,考察变革型领导每个维度与 领导有效性的关系 。 到目前为止 ,国外在变革型领导与领导有效性 之间关系研究方面已经取得了重大进展 ,但是 ,对于 变革型领导的作用机制 (即变革型领导为什么会影 响领导有效性 ,是如何影响领导有效性的 ?)的研究 还处于起步阶段 。变革型领导的提出者 Bass在对 变革型领导 20年的研究进行总结的基础上 ,曾呼吁 学者们开展变革型领导作用机制的研究 ,以揭开变 革型领导这一“黑箱 ”[ 17 ] 。V andenberghe在 B ass的 基础进一步提出 ,心理授权 ( Psychological Empower2 m en t)应该是揭示变革型领导作用机制的一个非常 重要的变量 ,也就是说心理授权极有可能是变革型 领导与 领 导 有 效 性 之 间 一 个 非 常 重 要 的 中 介 变 量 [ 18 ] 。 Thom as等指出 ,心理授权 ( Psychological Em2 powerment)是授权的个体体验的综合体 ,这个综合 体是四种认知的格式塔 :工作意义 (M eaning) ;自我 效能 ( Self Efficacy or Competence) ; 自主性 ( Self -
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Intellectual stimulation
Individual consideration
Common behaviors of transformational leadership
Transformational leaders articulate a clear and appealing vision, which is beneficial to the followers They communicate with vision through personal action, emotional appeals, and symbolic forms of communications. They delegate sigห้องสมุดไป่ตู้ificant authority and responsibility They encourage open sharing of ideas and concerns They encourage participation decision making They promote cooperation and teamwork
Case Study
——Transformational Lesdership
Commander D. Michael Abrashoff the U.S. Navy's Pacific fleet, the USS Benfold Achieved notable performance records the commitment and satisfaction of the crew is quite high
Conclusion From the case
Research on the relative effectiveness of transactional and transformational leadership is still in its early stages. Conclusion(apparent): 1. Leaders can be trained to exhibit transformational leadership behaviors. 2. Leaders can display both transactional and transformational leadership styles. 3. Both have linked to leadership effectiveness. 4. Compare transformational leadership: Stronger at group level than at the individual level . (effects) Better leaders by their followers, more likely to enhance the selfconcepts of followers(viewed)
Transactional leadership
A leadership style that is based on the exchange relati onship between subordinates and the leader. Transact ional leaders are characterized by displaying continge nt reward behavior and active management-byexception behavior.
Characteristics
1. They understand what their followers want to receive from th eir work, and they attempt to give the followers what they desire , if the followers' performance merits reward. 2. They clarify the links between performance and rewards. 3. They exchange rewards and promises of rewards for specified performance levels.
Characteristics
charisma
intellectual stimulation
-there is always a better way to do things
-demonstrates confidence
individual consideration
-meeting all new recruits
Leadership knowledge
Leadership：(3 particular elements) goal setting and achievement group activities (core power) influence upon behavior of others
adapt to change culture and environment ---develop Additional skills are needed, dynamics---specialized Ethnicity beliefs, values ---convinced equality , bestow equal opportunities---motivate Positive reinforcement
LEADERSHIP
Bessie Amy Nina Sharon
What is leadership?
Definition: Leadership is the process of providing direction and influencing individuals or groups to achieve goals.
4. They only respond to the interests of followers are performing satisfactorily.
Transformational Leadership
Definition
Motivate followers to do more than expected Continuously develop and grow Increase their level of self-confidence Place the interests of the team or organization before their own
Transformational leaders always do these:
They increase followers’ awareness of the necessity of achieving valued organizational outcomes, a vision, and the required strategy for realizing the vision and outcomes. They encourage followers to place the interests of the team, organization, or larger collective before their own personal interests. They raise the level of followers’ needs so that they continuously try to develop and improve themselves while striving for higher levels of accomplishment.
One of the most important tasks of transformational leadership and transactional leadership is to consider the individual need and value performance on one hand , whole co-operation and motoring on the other hand. Transformational leadership theory has been put out to use in the pursuit of more ethical behavior in organizations.
Three Characteristics
Charisma
Inspire emotion and passion in her followers Cause followers to identify with the leader Increase the followers’ focus on problems Develop new ways of addressing them Similar to the employee-centered
A leader can be formally designated by the organization (formal leader) or can provide leadership without such formal designation (informal leader).
This definition, I think, captures the leadership essentials of inspiration and preparation. Effective leadership is based upon ideas, but won't happen unless those ideas can be communicated to others in a way that engages them. Put even more simply, the leader is the inspiration and director of the action. He is the person in the group that possesses the combination of personality and leadership skills that makes others want to follow his direction.