You are on page 1of 45

DILEMMA MEETINGS

Mandatory to subscribe via SIN-Online:


Subscription: 11-September (today!) till 22-September 23.59

Attend all three meetings! Otherwise reduction of 3 points for each missed
meeting.

Attend all three meetings in the same group you subscribed for.
Thus, registering for group 4a, means you are present all three meetings in
group 4a. No exceptions are made! Be sure you check your agenda carefully so
you will not have any conflicting activities. Another lecture, a minor, an exam,
a bonus test, a wedding, activities of a committee etc. etc. are no excuse
to miss a dilemma meeting!

Please note it is not possible to retake the Dilemma Meetings. So if you already
participated in a previous year, you cannot subscribe this year.

Participation Dilemma Meeting = 25% of your final LSG grade


1


Leadership, Sustainability
and Governance
11 September 2013

Lecture 4:

Leadership - The leader as a person

Marius van Dijke
RSM Erasmus University
mvandijke@rsm.nl



LEADERSHIP THEME
Theme Level of analysis
The leader as a person Micro (intra- / interpersonal)
Team leadership Micro / Meso
Organizational
leadership
Micro / Meso


TODAYS LEARNING FOCUS
What is leadership and why is it relevant for sustainability?

General leader dispositions: intelligence and the Big Five.
Specific leader dispositions.

Learning goal: Name and discuss leader characteristics that
contribute to effective and sustainable organizations
4



5


December 13th 2010 Beyond disciplining managers

6

WHAT IS
LEADERSHIP?



LEADERSHIP DEFINITION


A process
whereby an individual influences
a group of individuals
to achieve a common goal.
7


LEADERSHIP AND COMMONS DILEMMA


8


LEADERSHIP
A process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal.

Definition says nothing about how influence process works. Thats the
topic of the following three lectures.

Leadership effectiveness ultimately measured as achievement of
common goal. Not whether leader looks charismatice or has a great
career.

9


December 13th 2010 Beyond disciplining managers

10

DISPOSITIONAL
PERSPECTIVE



DISPOSITIONAL PERSPECTIVE

11


SOLVING PROBLEMS WITH DISPOSITIONAL PERSPECTIVE
(ZACCARO, 2007)
Better theory

Better measures

Better methods

Better statistics

Emerging consensus: Leaders DO possess qualities that set them apart from
other people.
12


DISPOSITIONAL PERSPECTIVE: INTELLIGENCE
(JUDGE, COLBERT, & ILIES, 2004)
Leadership is difficult!

Meta analysis: Integrating results from different studies with different
measures (e.g., of intelligence and leader effectiveness).

leader intelligence correlates with:

Perceived leader emergence (r = .25)
Perceived group performance (r = .22)
Perceived individual effectiveness (r = .18)
Objective effectiveness, i.e., collective performance (r = .33)

13


WHY DO SOME HIGHLY INTELLIGENT LEADERS FAIL MISERABLY?
Experience - Stress

When stress is high, people fall back on experience. When unexperienced,
high intelligence is of little help. When experienced, even low intelligence
may not be big problem.

Implication:
Monitor and regulate stress.
14


DISPOSITIONAL PERSPECTIVE: TIPI
I see myself as (1 = disagree strongly; 7 = agree strongly):

1. Extraverted, enthusiastic.
2. Critical, quarrelsome.
3. Dependable, self-disciplined.
4. Anxious, easily upset.
5. Open to new experiences, complex.
6. Reserved, quiet.
7. Sympathetic, warm.
8. Disorganized, careless.
9. Calm, emotionally stable.
10. Conventional, uncreative.
15


DISPOSITIONAL PERSPECTIVE: TIPI
(1 = disagree strongly; 7 = agree strongly):
1. Extraverted, enthusiastic.
2. Critical, quarrelsome.
3. Dependable, self-disciplined.
4. Anxious, easily upset.
5. Open to new experiences, complex.
6. Reserved, quiet.
7. Sympathetic, warm.
8. Disorganized, careless.
9. Calm, emotionally stable.
10. Conventional, uncreative.

Extraversion: 1 + 6R (Mean: 8.88)
Agreeableness: 2R + 7 (Mean: 10.46)
Conscientiousness: 3 + 8R (Mean: 10.80)
Neuroticism: 4 + 9R (Mean: 4.34)
Openness to Experiences: 5 + 10R (Mean: 10.76)
16


DISPOSITIONAL PERSPECTIVE: BIG FIVE
(MCRAE & COSTA, 1985).
Neuroticism: poor emotional adjustment, and negative affect (e.g.,
anxiety, insecurity, hostility).

Extraversion: sociable, assertive, active, and positive affect (e.g., energy
and zeal).

Openness to Experience: imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional,
autonomous.

Agreeableness: trusting, compliant, caring, and gentle.

Conscientiousness: achievement and dependability.
17


BIG FIVE AND LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS
(JUDGE, BONO, ILIES, & GERHARDT, 2002).
Relations with leadership effectiveness:

Neuroticism (r = -.22)
Extraversion (r= .24)
Openness to experience (r = .24)
Agreeableness (r = .21)
Conscientiousness (r = .16)
18


BIG FIVE AND LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS
(JUDGE, BONO, ILIES, & GERHARDT, 2002).
Business

Neuroticism (r = -.15
Extraversion (r = .25)
Openness to Experience (r = .23)
Agreeableness (r = -.04)
Conscientiousness (r = .05)
19
Government

Neuroticism (r = -.23)
Extraversion (r = .16)
Openness to Experience (r = .06)
Agreeableness (r = -.04)
Conscientiousness (r = .17)


DOES CEO PERSONALITY AFFECT ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS? (PETERSON ET AL., 2003)


DOES CEO PERSONALITY AFFECT ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS?
(PETERSON ET AL., 2003)


DOES CEO PERSONALITY AFFECT ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS?
(PETERSON ET AL., 2003)
Relationship of income growth with:

Neuroticism: -
Extraversion: //

Openness to Experience: +
Agreeableness: +
Conscientiousness: +
22


December 13th 2010 Beyond disciplining managers

23

WHAT ABOUT
ETHICAL
LEADERSHIP?



DOES PERSONALITY INFLUENCE ETHICAL LEADERSHIP?
(WALUMBWA & SCHAUBROECK, 2009).
Ethical leadership:

The demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through
personal actions and interpersonal relationships,
and the promotion of such conduct to followers
through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making
(Brown et al., 2005, p. 120).
24


DOES PERSONALITY INFLUENCE ETHICAL LEADERSHIP?
(WALUMBWA & SCHAUBROECK, 2009).
25
Leader
- Agreeableness
- Conscientiousness
- Neuroticism
Ethical
leadership
Employee
voice
behavior


DOES PERSONALITY INFLUENCE UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP?
(JOOSTEN, VAN HIEL, VAN DIJKE, & DE CREMER).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwV47ka5W1E

Abusive supervision:
Subordinatesperceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage
in the sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors,
excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000, p. 178).

Big issue:
10% of employees experience AS; 30% has experienced it.
26


DOES PERSONALITY INFLUENCE UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP?
(JOOSTEN, VAN HIEL, VAN DIJKE, & DE CREMER).
27
Leader
neuroticism
Abusive
supervision
Employee
deviance


A TEST..
This is the story of a young girl. At the funeral of her
mother, she met a young man she did not know. He
is fantastic, the man of her dreams However, she
was never asked a name or phone number

A few days later, the girl killed her own sister.

Question: for which reason did she kill her sister?


HOW ABOUT MORE PATHOLOGICAL
DIMENSIONS?


29


December 13th 2010 Beyond disciplining managers

30

SO WHAT
ABOUT
NARCISSM?



NARCISSISM SCALE (RASKIN & TERRY, 1988)


31
I see myself as
a good leader.
I rarely depend
on anyone
else to get
things done.
I like to be
complimented.
I will be a
success.
I insist upon
getting the
respect that
is due me.
I am more
capable than
other people.
I can read
people like a
book.
I think I am a
special
person.
I like to be the
center of
attention.
I like to start
new fads and
fashions.
I always know
what I am
doing.
Modesty
doesnt
become me.
I can live my
life in any way
I want to.
I have a
natural talent
for influencing
people.
I am going to
be a great
person.
I like to display
my body.

I am an
extraordinary
person.

Everybody
likes to hear
my stories.

I find it easy to
manipulate
people.

I like to look at
myself in the
mirror.



NARCISSISM AND LEADERSHIP

Narcissism:
An inflated self-view and at the same time preoccupied with
having those self-views continuously reinforced.

Others perceive narcissists as:
- arrogant
- egocentric
- dominant
- hostile

Narcissist higher leadership ratings, emerge as group leaders.

It is probably not an exaggeration to state that if individuals with
signicant narcissistic characteristics were stripped from the ranks of public
gures, the ranks would be perilously thinned. (Post, 1993, p.99)

32


NARCISSISM, LEADERSHIP AND THE BIG FIVE
(PAULHUS & WILLIAMS, 2002)

33


NARCISSISM AND PERFORMANCE FLUCTUATION
(CHATTERJEE & HAMBRICK, 2007).
Prominence CEO photograph in annual report.

CEO prominence in press releases.

CEO use of first-person singular pronouns in interviews.

CEO Compensation relative to second-highest-paid executive.
34


NARCISSISM AND PERFORMANCE FLUCTUATION
(CHATTERJEE & HAMBRICK, 2007).

35


NARCISSISM AND PERFORMANCE FLUCTUATION
(CHATTERJEE & HAMBRICK, 2007).

36


NARCISSISM AND IMPROVED PERFORMANCE
(NEVICKA ET AL., 2011).
37


NARCISSISM AND IMPROVED PERFORMANCE
(NEVICKA ET AL., 2011).
38


NARCISSISM AND DECREASED PERFORMANCE
(NEVICKA ET AL., 2011).

39


NARCISSISM AND PERCEIVED LEADER EFFECTIVENESS
(NEVICKA ET AL., 2011).
40
Leader
narcissism
Higher
authority
perceptions
Higher leader
effectiveness


NARCISSISM AND OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE
(NEVICKA ET AL., 2011).
41
Leader
narcissism
Reduced
information
exchange
Reduced
team
performance


LOOKING BACK AT DISPOSITIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON
LEADERSHIP
Leadership = focusing followers on collective goals.

Intelligence and personality predict leader effectiveness.
General (i.e., big five) and specific dimensions (e.g.,
narcisism) are relevant.

Support correlational.

Leader effectiveness depends on situation.

Bad apples can spoil the barrel!
(And good apples can improve the barrel!)
42


LITERATURE FOR NEXT WEEK
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership.
Chapter 8 (Leader-Member Exchange theory).

Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership.
Chapter 9 (Transformational leadership).

Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership.
Chapter 11 (Team leadership).
43


EXAMPLE MC QUESTION
What does the Commons dilemma refer to?

a) When it is nearly impossible for leaders to focus individuals on
the common goal because self-interest conflicts with collective
interest.

b) When effective and sustainable leadership are in conflict with
each other.

c) When it seems profitable to focus on short-term self-interest,
but this focus results in everyone being worse off.

d) When perceived leadership effectiveness conflicts with
contributions to the common goal.
44






Thank you for your attention!

You might also like