An Attempt at a Consetience Regarding Formal Leadership

7/29/2019 An Attempt at a Consetience Regarding Formal Leadership

1/17

http://jlo.sagepub.com

StudiesJournal of Leadership & Organizational

DOI: 10.1177/1071791902009002012002; 9; 2Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Jan P. Muczyk and Terry AdlerAn Attempt At A Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership

http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/2The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

2002 Baker College. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.by Tomislav Bunjevac on August 4, 2008http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.midwestacademy.org/http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.midwestacademy.org/


2/17

AnAttemptAtAConsentience Regarding Formal

Leadership

Jan P. Muczyk,Air Force Institute ofTechnology, Wright-PattersonAFB, OHDr. TerryAdler, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM

Given the importance of leadership in

organizations, an attempt to integrate the manydisparate concepts and constructs related to this

topic is long overdue. With that goal in mind,an integrative framework was created that

focuses on three distinct levels of abstraction -big leadership, mid-range leadership, and small

leadership. Within this tripartite taxonomy, an

attempt was made to reconcile some vexingissues that have been frustrating academics and

practitioners alike.

Big leadership is viewed as

transformational in nature, requiring acharismatic visionary being in the rightplace atthe right time. Both mid-range and small

leadership, however, are transactional innature, but small leadership is so to a fault.

Our approach to mid-range leadershiptheory attempts to identify the importantdimensions of transactional leadership,differentiate the normative from the situationalones, and specify the conditions under which thesituational leadership factors apply.

In our framework, small leadership consists

of the myriad ofquotidian interactions betweenthe leader and subordinates that are easy to

overlook but have an important cumulative

effect on the social compact between leader andsubordinates that is so essential to gainingsubordinate compliance.

Lastly, whenever appropriate,contingencies are specified at all three levels,and substitutes for leadership identified. Whilenot a mega-theory, our leadership framework is

integrative and, thus, useful to managers wholead organizations, teams, and individuals.

If the copious leadership literature revealsa consistent theme, it is the lack of effort toward

integration. While generalized definitions and

disparate theories abound, it is difficult to find auseful operational definition and an integrativeframework of leadership. Furthermore, even

though most leadership authorities acknowledgea distinction between managership and

leadership, a consensus is lacking regarding theirrelationship to one another. Some authorities,such as Gardner (1987), subsume managershipunder leadership; while others, led by Mintzberg(1973), consider leadership to be just one of the

many managerial roles. This state of affairs is

quite inexplicable in light of the importance ofthe topic.

Some Vexing Issues

To present a coherent and unified schemaof leadership, several vexing issues need to beaddressed. First, leadership has been discussedat various levels of abstraction, from the &dquo;GreatMan/Womaif approach to micro leaderbehaviors, and every level in between. Second,some leadership theories are of a normative

variety (one best leadership approach for all

situations) while others are of a situational or

contingency character (leadership stylesfashioned to suit the attributes of the leader,characteristics of subordinates, and

circumstances of the situation). These

ostensibly conflicting approaches are in need of

syncretization. Third, the leadership constructhas been disaggregated into different constituent

components by different theorists, and areconciliation would be most welcome. Fourth,the whole controversy of whether or not leaders

are bom versus made needs to be confronted.

Fifth, what are the substitutes for leadership, and

http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


3/17

when is leadership important? Sixth, just howmuch of the leadership construct overlaps other

organizational behavior constructs, and what todo about it?Agood case in point is the Vroom,Yetton, Jago leadership model (Vroom &Yetton,1973; Vroom & Yago, 1988). In sometextbooks it is included under leadership, while

in others under decision making.Last but not least, many leadership studieshave been conducted on ad hoc groups. It maybe that results from these studies should not be

generalized to leadership in actual organizations,where leaders hold their positions for much

longer and the consequences of leader behaviorare much more serious. No better example canbe offered than the &dquo;Iowa Leadership Studies,&dquo;which were conducted on young boys in a

laboratory setting, and were originallyunintended for application to &dquo;real world&dquo; work

settings (Lewinet

al, 1939). Perhaps &dquo;benignneglect&dquo; ofthese studies is in order.

The Parable of the Blind Men Describingthe Leadership Elephant

Synonymizing leadership with itscomponents. Various camps are concerned with

important but entirely different aspects of

leadership. Each camp, however, represents thedimension of leadership with which it is

preoccupied as a complete leadership theory.Such a practice leads to superficialcontradictions in the same way that one blind

mans description of the trunk of the elephantdiffers from another blind mans description ofan elephants belly.

Leadership and cultural norms. In additionto a preoccupation with the parts of the

leadership construct rather than the whole, thetactile senses of the blind men have been

distorted by a pervasive cultural predisposition.Unqualified support for democratic leadershipand individual autonomy has been the cultural

norm ofU.S. society since the end ofWorld WarII.After all, Germany and Japan, two autocraticnations that visited indescribable horror on their

neighbors, were defeated by democraticsocieties (with the exception of the USSR),though only after more than 50 million liveswere lost. Afterward, the &dquo;Cold War&dquo; that set inwas played out largely between democratic andautocratic societies (Muczyk & Steel, 1998).The predilection toward democracy is

strengthened by the tendency for certain wordssuch as &dquo;autocratic&dquo; and &dquo;directive&dquo; to take on

pejorative connotation irrespective of thedenotation.

Age of &dquo;soft&dquo; power in industrializcountries. The popularity of democrat

leadership is merely a single manifestation

what has been referred to as the age of &dquopower&dquo; -- that is, the reliance on knowledge an

information, shared values, ideas, ainternational law rather than on military mighformal authority, and wealth (Ikeda, 1991). Thnotion of &dquo;soft power,&dquo; based on leadershmodels that are non-positional, team based,empowerment centered, is embodied innumber of recent leadership articles with titsuch as: &dquo;Leading From the Grass Roots,&d&dquo;Creating Organizations with Many Leaders,&dq&dquo;The Power of Partnering,&dquo; &dquo;Self-Leadership,&dqand &dquo;The Leader Who Serves&dquo;

(McGillSlocum, 1998; Vecchio, 1997), and &dquo;Flightthe Buffalo (Balasco & Staver, 1993).&dquo; Rael

(1987) sheds light on this age in his insightarticle, &dquo;The 60s Kids in the Corporation: Mothan Just Daydream Believers.&dquo;

Leadership in developing nations. Mostthe post WWII leadership literature has be

generated byAmerican scholars. Consequentlthe democratic predispositions found in the Uculture were assimilated into the leadersliterature consciously or otherwisFurthermore, since most of the scholars wealso academics with strong predispositiotoward the collegial model of governance, it winevitable that democratic/permissapproaches would prevail ovautocratic/directive ones.

Yet the leadership construct should not b

peculiarlyAmerican one. Rather, it should buniversal. And that is only possible if it

presented in a contingency/situatioframework. This realization was brought hoto the senior author at a visceral level when

was in the Middle East for two years as dean

a college of commerce and economics. Tfaculty was very international, mostly eth

Arabs and individuals from the Ind

subcontinent, with only a few America

represented. The collegial model, as we knoin the U.S., just did not work. Many of

faculty viewed collegiality not only asweakness, but also as an invitation to pur

2002 Baker College. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Tomislav Bunjevac on August 4, 2008http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from


4/17

4

personal agendas, including vendettas, with

impunity. The senior author, who had amodicum of success in two U.S. universities as

dean relying on the collegial model, was forcedto change his leadership style or face anunacceptable level of disruption. In short, if oneviews leadership as an international construct, itwould be difficult to abandon autocratic anddirective elements.

A reconciliation caveat. Since not all terms

have been used identically by different

leadership theorists, the authors had to make achoice out of necessity. Consideration is a casein point, and this issue has been addressed in a

subsequent part of the paper. The mid-rangeleadership theory adopted in this paper has beeninfluenced by the efforts of House (1971),Fiedler (1967), Hersey and Blanchard (1982),and Blake and Mouton (1964). But that is in thenature of reconciliation or syncretization, as

opposed to completely original work.

Definition Of Formal Leadership

The position adopted here regarding the

relationship of leadership to managership is thatof Mintzberg (1973) -- that the leadership role isone of ten managerial roles, although probablythe most important one. The other nine

managerial roles are: 1) Figurehead, 2) liaison,

3) monitor, 4) disseminator, 5) spokesman, 6)entrepreneur, 7) disturbance handler, 8) resourceallocator, and 9) negotiator. To subsume

managership under leadership would inviteconfusionbetween leadership and the means thata leader employs to obtain compliance fromsubordinates, and which take up an entire

management and/or organizational behaviortextbook, save the leadership chapter. To wit,Gardner (1987) includes the following topics inhis discussion of basic leadership tasks: 1)envisioning goals, 2) affirming values, 3)

motivating, 4) managing, 5) achieving aworkable level ofunity, 6) explaining, 7) servingas a symbol, 8) representing the groupexternally, and 9) renewing . Because so manyhave confused leadership with the means for

obtaining compliance, some serious scholarshave suggested that the leadership construct isredundant (Pfeffer, 1978). For instance, leadersshould be good communicators. Is leadership

the same as communication? In like manner,leaders need to be good motivators. Is

leadership then the same as motivation?

Clearly, leaders must influence not onlysubordinates, but superiors and peers as well.Communication skills, motivational techniques,and influence strategies are the means to

leadership success, and not leadership itself(Yukl & Fable, 1990).

Kotter (1995) complicates matters further

by asserting that leadership and management aretwo distinctive, albeit complementary systems ofaction. Management is about coping withcomplexity while leadership is about copingwith change. Kotter (1995) may very well havestumbled across a distinction without a

difference. First of all, change can be quitecomplex. Furthermore, Kotter (1995) proposesthat managers

planwhile leaders provide

direction.Aplan, however, is a blueprint for thefuture arrived at in a systematic fashion.And ifthat is not providing direction, what is? ,

Yet Kotter (1995) is decidedly on targetwhen it comes to the prepotency of change asthe principal driving force of contemporary andfuture organizations and the necessity of leadersto respond appropriately to the radical changesthat are buffeting organizations and willcontinue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Reardon et. al. (1998) offer an interesting, if nota

very practical,schema for

meetingthe above

challenge. It matches the five phases of change(planning, enabling, launching, catalyzing, and

maintaining) with four leadership styles(commanding, logical, inspirational, and

supportive). Unfortunately, this schemaassumes either a very versatile leader or

appointing a different leader for each phase of

change -- two assumptions that are questionableat best. Fiedlers (1967) construct is subject tothe same criticism.

In a general sense, leadership is the process

whereby one individual influences other groupmembers toward the attainment of defined groupor organizational goals (Yukl, 1998). Ideally, asPresident Dwight Eisenhower put it:

&dquo;Leadership is the art of getting someone else todo something that you want done because hewants to do it.&dquo; In other words, the leadershiprole describes the relationship between the

manager and subordinates that results in the

satisfactory execution of subordinates



5/17

assignments and, thereby, the attainment of the

important goals of the organizational unit forwhich the leader is responsible and isinstrumental in setting. At the very minimum,leadership requires providing direction and

impetus for subordinates to act in the desireddirection. Having said all that, the general

defmition is not very useful in terms ofproviding managers day-to-day guidance with

respect to their leadership role. This paper,therefore, not only attempts to provide an

operational framework of leadership, but

prescribes as well when and where differentelements of the leadership construct are

applicable.

Desirable LeadershipAttributes

Certainly, possessing the &dquo;passion to lead&dquo;or

&dquo;will to manage&dquo; is important (Yukl, 1998;Miner & Smith, 1982). In addition, a largereservoir of energy (physical and psychic),organizing abilities, a mature personality(freedom from dysfunctional neuroses), arequisite amount of intelligence, task-relevant

knowledge, confidence, adaptability, and

integrity all contribute to effective leadership.A

high energy level is necessary, since a formalleader is also a manager. And, as Mintzberg(1973) points out, managers have much to do inorder to carry out all ten managerial roles .

Adaptability,which

presupposesa modicum of

stress tolerance, is essential because a leadermust deal with many publics, diversity in the

workplace, and accelerating rate of changebrought about largely by unprecedentedinnovation and intense global competition.Intelligence and task-relevant job knowledge are

important, since subordinates approach theleader with job-related questions and problemson a continuing basis (Kirpatrick & Locke,1991).

To the extent that some or all of the above-

mentioned traits have a genetic component,leaders, it could be said, are bom. However,how leaders behave in a given situation alsoaccounts for leadership success. Therefore, itcould also be said that leaders are made, sincebehaviors can be taught. Certainly, the traits one

brings into a leadership role predispose a personto certain kinds of behaviors, and that can make

the leaders job easier or more difficult. But,the final analysis, traits are not the determinifactor when it comes to leadership success.

Two faces of management. The manageriface consists of two very different sides - t

glamorous and the ugly. Eliminatiorganizational units, terminating employee

withholding pay increases from the undeservinproviding subordinates with candid performanappraisals, and telling superiors what they neto but do not wish to hear are part of the lattand require considerable courage.

Unfortunately, courage appears to be trarest of the necessary leadership qualitiesevidenced by the performance appraisal inflati

problem. Some managerial decisions can onbe explained by the desire of the managerdiscourage litigation. It is quite likely that inleast some instances managers relydemocratic

processesas a means of

avoiditotal credit for the truly difficult decisions.other words, leaders resort at times

democratic leadership as a cop-out. In still othinstances, leaders appoint assistants or deputiand delegate to them the unpopular tasks or tassistants willingly assume the unpleasant dutiof leadership. In either case, the popularitythe boss is preserved.

A moral dimension. Clearly there ismoral dimension to leadership, which can

captured by one word - integrity. Moreovecourage is a pre-condition for integrity. Athose managers who possess integrity in all thdo earn not only the respect and trust

subordinates, but the benefit of the doubt

well; thereby making it easier to gacompliance from subordinates, especially wi

regard to the difficult decisions that managemust make from time-to-time and in ambiguosituations. Treating people, especiasubordinates, with courtesy, dignity, and respis an integral part of the moral dimension

leadership, and will receive special attention i

subsequent section of the article.

Leading by example, as opposed to &dquo;do asay and not as I do,&dquo; is part and parcel ofmoral dimension of leadership. Since thereno &dquo;leadership&dquo; schools as such, potential a

newly appointed leaders out of necessity le

leadership behaviors by observing th

superiors, as well as other leaders. Thereforeis vital for current leaders to behave



6/17

6

exemplary role models. It is also very importantfor those aspiring to leadership positions to

identify those persons in their organizations whoare regarded as the fmest leaders, and to emulatetheir leadership style.

Big LeadershipAccording to Bass (1985), transformational

leadership occurs when leaders alter theirfollowers in three significant ways. They: 1)increase subordinates awareness of the

importance of their tasks and performing themwell; 2) make subordinates aware of their needsfor personal growth, development, and

accomplishment; and 3) motivate subordinatesto strive for the good of the whole as opposed to

pursuing their personal agendas. Long beforethe

conceptof transformational

leadershipemerged, these attributes have been associatedwith successful leadership by numerous

investigators. In other words, this definitiondoes not differentiate in a meaningful waytransformational leaders from any other kind;and, if one accepts the aforementioned

defmition, then transformational leadership canbe found at all levels of the organization(Conger and Kanungo, 1988a & 1988b; Conger,1989).

For our purposes transformational

leadership is &dquo;big leadership,&dquo; and anoperational definition of a transformationalleader includes four ingredients -- inspirationalvision, dynamic personality (charisma), crisis

situation, and dramatic acts to bring about thetransformation. Clearly, transformational

leadership is the stuff of which &dquo;greatman/woman&dquo; leadership theory is made. Overthe years there has been the debate framed bythe following question: Does the man make thetimes or vice versa? Given the definition of

transformational leadership, being in the right

place at the right time is practicallyindispensable, since most organizations are notin need of overnight transformation and do not

provide the opportunity for great deeds.Nonetheless, the great man/woman seizes the

day when it presents itself.The daunting nature of organizational

transformation probably explains whytransformational leaders are conspicuous by

their absence in the real world. When examined

closely, leaders typically make progress in anincremental fashion rather than through a

mystical transmutation. Lee Iacocca has attimes been described as a transformational

leader. But when one considers how long it tookLee Iacocca to resurrect Chrysler - with the

appreciable assistance of the federal governmentat that - it would be more appropriate todescribe him as an incremental leader.

While the preponderance of successfulleaders build incrementally over time rather than

transforming organizations overnight, a

dysfunctional leader can throw an organizationinto turmoil surprisingly quickly. In other

words, the likelihood of a &dquo;regressivetransformation&dquo; resulting from ineffective

leadership is far greater than a positivetransformation

ensuingfrom the acts of an

exceptional leader; and organizations shouldtake greater care avoiding a bad leader than

looking for a transformational one.The importance of vision.As opposed to a

long-term business plan crafted through an

analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,and threats (SWOT), a vision can be defmed asan inspired, long-run strategy that is not obviousto managers and executives until it is revealed

by the transformational leader (Campbell &Alexander, 1997). George M. C. Fisher (1997),

Chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak, speaksfor the unqualified advocates of vision,including Jack Welch of GE:

CEOs must have a vision: it is the veryessence of leadership. CEOs mustarticulate their goals, their strategy for

accomplishing those goals, and acoherent plan to measure success alongthe way.At the same time, they must be

socially responsible by striving toreduce workplace anxiety.

Hence, it comes as a surprise that a number

of respected leaders eschew &dquo;vision.&dquo; Robert J.Eaton, CEO of Chrysler Corp., states:

&dquo;Internally, we dont use the word vision.&dquo; He

goes on to say: &dquo;I believe in quantifiable short-term results - things we can all relate to - as

opposed to some esoteric thing no one can

quantify.&dquo; When Louis V. Gerstner took over asCEO of IBM, he was asked about his recipe foran IBM comeback. His response was: &dquo;The last

thing IBM needs right now is a vision.&dquo;

2002 Baker College All rights reserved Not for commercial use or unauthorized distributionby Tomislav Bunjevac on August 4, 2008http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from


7/17

Interestingly enough there are those whoconsider Gerstner a transformational leader.

Even a genuine visionary, William Gates, CEOof Microsoft Corp., takes a dim view of vision,as evidenced by his quote: &dquo;Being a visionary istrivial&dquo; (Lavin, 1993).

How do we reconcile the infatuation with

visionary leaders and the positions of theaforementioned executives? Perhaps, semanticsare one cause of the problem. Might Mr. Fisher

(1997) be talking about a business plan that is

effectively communicated to organizationalmembers and not &dquo;vision&dquo; as defmed above? It

has been suggested in the past that if peoplewould defme their terms the same way, most of

the disagreements would never havematerialized in the first place. We are concernedthat this is especially true with respect to

leadership literature.When it comes to the

importanceof

vision,it is necessary to look at industry-by-industry--even company-by-company. For a firm that has

aligned its core competencies with the

opportunities afforded by the marketplace, it isthe execution (the fundamentals of running the

business) that makes the difference. Or to

paraphrase Vince Lombardi: You win gameswith blocking and tackling. Executives in thenascent high-tech businesses, such as computer,communications, and information industries,certainly need a sense of the future, if not an

inspiredvision, in order to prosper. However,

for executives in mature industries, such as

automotive, steel, food processing, container,etc., sound business planning should suffice;since success in these industries is largely afunction of deft execution. Even the success of

a computer company such as Dell, once it hasdiscovered its market niche, depends largely onexecution. Napoleon Bonaparte went so far asto say: &dquo;The art ofwar is simple; everything is amatter of execution&dquo; (Bevin, 1993).

Former General Motors CEO, Jack Smith,advocated the transformation of General Motors

for the new economy through fundamentalrethinking of the business -- whatever thatmeans. Perhaps, the initial phase of this kind of

rethinking resulted in the purchase of HughesElectronics and Electronic Data Systems. Butthese marriages with non-core businesses did notresult in General Motors revival. Instead, GMcontinued losing market share. General Motors

is now focusing on the basics of its cbusiness. It elevated Mr. Wagoner,manufacturing guru, to improve quality areduce manufacturing costs, so that most cwould remain within the price range of moconsumers. He, in turn, hired Mr. Lutz,

proven design man, to restore General Motor

styling traditions. Prior to coming outretirement, Mr. Lutz described GM productsresembling &dquo;angry kitchen appliances.&dquo; Bomen have pledged to reduce the time it takes

bring attractive, competitively priced, qualproducts to dealers showrooms (Gibney2002). Furthermore, GM with its strategic aFiat, is in the process of trying to purchDaewoo Motors; so that it may gain entry ithe Korean and Chinese automotive markeand obtain a low cost parts supplier. We subthat GM is not in the midst of trying to reinv

itself,but is

concentratingon the

implementator execution phase of its long-standing missio

Clearly, organizations face thfundamental challenges: 1) Developarticulate exactly what the company is tryingaccomplish; 2) create an environment in wh

employees can figure out what needs to be dand then do it well; and 3) make a compellcase for why each employee should get exciabout working for her or his organization (Hu1994). But in many situations therealternative methods to vision and charisma

accomplishingthese vital tasks.

The significance of charisma. Well,vision isnt always necessary, how abou

dynamic personality? Suffice it to saycharisma is not widely distributed in the genepopulation. Many outstanding leaders get alquite well without charisma by focusing onfundamentals of management -- the blockand the tackling. For the past two decades orexecutives who created lean and nim

organizations through redefining the rolesize of staff departments, de-layehierarchies, continually improving processespractices through re-engineering, employnetwork organizations where appropriempowering employees, establishing a stconnection between performance and rewarand placing customers first produced impressbottom-line results, even under conditionsintense competition. And none ofaforementioned actions requires chari



8/17

8

(Muczyk & Reimann, 1987; Muczyk & Steel,1998). Unlike transformational leadership,which is typically found at the top, charismaticindividuals can be found anywhere in the

organization.Since there can only be one vision for the

organization, ipso facto transformational

leadership is more likely to apply to leadershipat the top than elsewhere in the organization. Intransformational leadership, the influence oversubordinates is exerted through inspirationcreated by the interaction of vision and charismaand enabled by position power. In alllikelihood, charismatic leaders are bom ratherthan made. Fortunately, such is not the casewith respect to the rest of the leadershipconstruct.

The power ofperseverance. Jim Collins

(2001) in his book &dquo;Good to Great,&dquo; identifies

eleven companies that were elevated by theirleaders from good to great and sustained their

lofty positions for at least fifteen years. One ofthe common characteristics of these leaders was

perseverance. Once the CEOs surrounded

themselves with quality people and developedwhat they considered to be the appropriatebusiness model, they persisted in their strategywith the tenacity of a bulldog. Part and parcel of

perseverance is the discipline to confront

unpleasant tasks and difficult situations, and to

persist in developing solutions without losingfaith.

Mid-Range Leadership

While transformational leadership is neededat the top and then only in some organizations,which is why there are few, if any, substitutesfor transformational leaders; leadership in otherforms is essential practically everywhere. Most

mid-range leadership theories can be construed,at least in some measure, as transactional in

nature,since

theyare

predicatedeither

explicitlyor implicitly on the idea of a &dquo;social compact&dquo;between the leader and subordinates. That is,leaders construct an agenda and subordinates

comply with it because there is something in itfor both parties. Big leadership theories,however, tend to focus on the leader and ignorethe many instances when subordinates exert

upward influence (Porter et al, 1981 ).

One well-known leadership model wheresubordinates exert influence is Leader-Member

Exchange (LMX). Yukl (1989) describes howleaders use their positional power(organizational resources) to develop different

exchange relationships with differentsubordinates. However, a more in-depth

analysis of the concept reveals something deeperthan a simple exchange approach. The LMXmodel has identified ways in which effective

leadership processes can be attained as a by-product of role making by organizationalparticipants. Thus, matching leadership styleswith appropriate subordinate roles is a keyaspect of the theory. Leadership in this senseinvolves both downward and upward influences.

Two challenges, however, need addressingin order to make mid-range leadership theoriesmore useful, especially to practitioners --

identifying the constituent components ofleadership and resolving the normative vs.situational controversy. At best any reasonable

attempt to consolidate the sundry mid-rangeleadership theories, while preserving the largeressentials, will sacrifice the lesser elements ofeach theory out of necessity. But losing thenuances of specific mid-range theories in

exchange for intellectual control and practicalutility is a desirable tradeoff. The reconciliationof normative and situational leadership theorieson the other hand can be accomplished if weassume, and probably correctly, that mid-rangeleadership theorists have been concerned with

important, but entirely different, aspects of

leadership - some normative while otherssituational.

The Muczyk/Reimanns (1987) mid-rangeleadership theory comes closest to meeting theaforementioned conditions, and encompassesfive crucial leadership dimensions:

1. Consideration (concern for people; goodhuman relations; treating subordinateswith

dignity, courtesy,and

respect).2. Concern for production (emphasis on

challenging goals; achievement

orientation; high standards).3. Incentive for performance (the strongest

performance-reward connection that

organizational constraints will permit).4. Participation or democratic leadership

(the degree to which employees areinvolved in significant day-to-day,



9/17

work-related decisions, including goalsetting).

5. Direction (the amount of follow-up ordirective behavior associated with the

execution of a decision once it has been

made, or the attainment of a goal once ithas been set).

The distinction betweenparticipation

and

direction. Although some writers have impliedthat direction is the opposite of participation,that is unlikely to be the case. Directivenessshould be regarded as a separate dimension of

leadership style in its own right -- one that

complements, but does not negate, participativemanagement. To appreciate how direction bothdiffers from and complements participation, theact of making a decision needs to be separatedfrom the process of executing it. Participation isassociated with making a decision, whiledirection is concerned with

executinga decision

once it has been made. Democratic or

participative leadership is typically defined interms of the degree to which employees areinvolved in significant day-to-day, work-relateddecisions. Directive behavior, however, is afunction of the way the leader delegates thetasks associated with the execution of a decision,once it is made. Apermissive leader holdsfollowers responsible for results, but leaves themfree to execute their tasks in any way theychoose.Adirective leader, on the other hand,specifies how subordinates are to accomplishtheir assignments and then follows up closely onall phases of the actual execution, as well asend results.

To be effective, managers should score

high on the first three dimensions, regardless ofthe situation. Most assuredly, well-run firmsplace a premium on sound human relations, highperformance expectations, and rewards tied to

accomplishment. Research evidence supportsthe efficacy of these practices as well.Therefore, the prescription for these threedimensions is a normative one. They are

universal and their exercise does not depend onthe situation. They not only raise morale andmaintain it at a satisfactory level, but they also

support goal attainment and decision-execution

efforts. Creating the strongest nexus betwe

performance and desired rewards is vital ininstrumental culture such as the one found in t

United States (Muczyk, 1988).Consideration, as it is used here,

consistent with the way it has been used in wh

has become known as the behavioral approac

pioneeredat Ohio State

Universityand at t

University of Michigan, and popularizedBlake and Mouton (1964). It is not used in tsense that Fiedler uses it. No one is quite su

just what the Least Preferred Coworker scal

actually measure (Fleishman, 1953; Fiedle1967). While it is true that consideration in t

past was not nearly as important as it is now, athat it is far less important in the developicountries than in the developed ones,strongly believe that in the future consideratioas we have defmed it, will become even mo

importantthan it is now.

However, high scores on these three factare not enough for the most effective exercise

leadership. In keeping with the views

contingency theorists, these three dimensioneed to be augmented by the proper displayparticipative and directive leader behaviors,dictated by different situations. In other wordthe appropriate use by the manager of eitsubordinate participation or directive behav

depends on the situation in which leadershipto be exercised. These latter two factors are

universals, but are wholly dependent oncircumstances in which the leader behav

occurs. Theory, research, and experienceindicate rather convincingly that effectleaders, perforce, adapt their behavior to

requirements, constraints, and opportunitpresented by internal and external environmenNotions of adaptive behavior have long becornerstones of &dquo;contingency&dquo; theories

management, whereas the idea of responsivento situations was the main impetus&dquo;situational&dquo; theories of leadership. Combinithe extreme points of the two situatio

dimensions, participation and directigenerates four important leadership tycaptured by exhibit 1.



10/17

10

Adapted from Muczyk and Reimann, 1987

As much as we prefer democratic and

permissive leadership approaches, we mustcome to terms with the fact that most

organizational members simply are unlikely toembrace decisions and goals if their naked self-interest is at odds with those decisions and goals.This reality has been acknowledged mostrecently by Muczyk & Steel (1998), and prior tothat in the leadership constructs developed by

Vroom-Jago (1988),Tannenbaum and Schmidt

(1958), and Fiedler (1967). Consequently, undercertain conditions, large doses of autocratic anddirective behavior are called for in order to

insure the attainment of vital organizationalgoals and objectives. Nowhere is this moreevident than in the case of successful turnaround

or retrenchment executives (Muczyk & Steel,1998). Clearly, the Muczyk/Reimann (1987)schema also reflects notions advanced by House

(1971), Hersey & Blanchard (1982), and Blake& Mouton ( 1964).

The Truman doctrine. PresidentHarryTruman shared with us sage leadership advice,

which he borrowed from Ralph Waldo Emerson,and we would be wise to follow it. &dquo;You can

accomplish anything in life, provided you do notmind who gets the credit.&dquo; Generouslyapportioning credit to others for successes, and

looking in the mirror when apportioningresponsibility for failures is the hallmark of themost successful leaders (Collins, 2001). We

should keep this in mind when trying to createthe strongest possible connection between

performance and rewards.

Importance of courtesy, dignity, and

respect. Adirective autocrat who apparentlyfailed to realize that even under directive

leadership it is vital to treat subordinates with

courtesy, dignity, and respect is Paul Kazarian,former CEO of Sunbeam-Oster. Subordinates

allegedthat Kazarian publicly hazed, berated,

humiliated, and even physically intimidated his

employees. Thus, although he effected an

impressive turnaround for the firm, hisintolerable behavior led to a revolt that, in turn,

compelled the board to dismiss him

unceremoniously (Muczyk & Steel, 1998).So long as the bottom line and shareholder

value are impressive, even a tyrant can beconsidered an anti-hero for a time -- to wit,Al

Dunlap, another erstwhile CEO of Sunbeam

Corp. But once the bottom line and shareholdervalue

go south,the board of directors will

gladlyremove the individual, to the applause ofmost of

employees, present and former (Muczyk &Steel, 1998). Thus, while certain situations callfor autocratic and directive leader behaviors, nosituation warrants a tyrant.

Synchronizing management practices withleader behavior. The virtual stranglehold that

participative leadership has maintained over

popular belief systems is perhaps best illustrated



11/17

by the slavish tendency to wed this philosophyto every new approach to management thatserves as a vital complement to leadership, suchas Management by Objectives (MBO). As a

result, we frequently wind up with an

incongruence between leadership styles and

enabling practices. In the case of MBO, we

should make every attempt to match the basiccharacteristics of this management practice tothe prevailing leadership style and other

organizational realities. In other words, adirective autocrat would be more likely tosucceed with an autocratic and directive MBO

variant than with democratic and permissiveMBO (Muczyk & Reimann, 1989).

When each leadership style is

appropriate?The directive autocrat. We should not lose

sight of the fact that the directive autocrat in notsome misanthrope or ogre, but merely a personwho is paid to make the important decisions, setthe salient goals, and direct subordinates alongthe way - especially in a crisis, whensubordinates tend to rally around a decisiveleader. This kind of leader would suit situations

that require quick action, with no time forextensive employee participation. The directiveautocrat is particularly well suited to lead new,inexperienced, or under-qualified subordinates.This type of leader may also be required ifsubordinates are in an adversarial

relationshipto

management, and must be constantly coerced todo their work. However, the directive autocratmust be knowledgeable in all aspects of theunits mission and be comfortable in an

autocratic role.

Yet even a directive autocrat needs to treat

people with courtesy, dignity, and respect.Andif he/she does so, she/he will be better received

than many academics and practitioners willconcede. In the final analysis, it is not necessaryto be loved or admired, but it is imperative to be

respected. Because Volkswagen-werkAG wasin serious trouble and time was of essence,Rudolf Leiding appears to have acted as adirective autocrat. Leiding introduced

revolutionary change at Volswagen-werkAGbetween 1971 and 1973 reacting to unrelated

product models and a declining market share.He emphasized economies of scale through new

product line manufacturing strategies that

resulted in the lay-offs of many workers.

focusing on certain global markets, however,changed Volkswagens debt structure and

long-term viability of the organization. H

emphasis on training led to better mid-lemanagers and greatly improvinterdepartmental and interdivisio

collaborations (Miller & Friesen, 1984).Zhe permissive autocrat. This type

leader still makes decisions alone, but permfollowers a great deal of latitude

accomplishing their delegated tasks. T

permissive autocrat would also be well suitedsituations calling for quick responses. Howevethe tasks should be relatively simplestructured, or employees should h

appropriate experience, ability, and initiatSince autocratic leaders have to be sure that t

directives are followed, they will not

permissive unless they have access to substitufor personal direction.Awide variety of ssubstitutes can be found but some of the m

common ones include well-defmed or rout

tasks, explicit rules and procedures, technoloincentive systems, professional standards, o

strong corporate culture.Debbi Fields, founder of Mrs. Fie

Cookies, is a perfect example of a permissautocrat. She established her enterprise withintent of controlling operational aspects of evfranchised store. Typical of franch

operations,standards

identify specificaction

follow. Mrs. Fields Cookies, however, tthat philosophy one step further by using anstore expert information system to determwhen cookies should be baked and how sho

they best be sold. Her case is a perfect examof using information technology as a substifor leadership which, in turn, makes permisbehavior possible (Cash et al, 1992). Cash

(1992) explain that &dquo;even when she isnt thshes there in the standards built into

scheduling program, in the hourly goals, in

sampling and suggestive selling on the phoThus, information technology has allowed he

leverage her decision-making effectiveness.The directive democrat. This type of le

invites full participation from subordinatedecision making. However, he or she

supervises employees very closely to make

they carry out their democratically assitasks properly.Adirective democrat woul



12/17

12

called for when employee involvement is

important to the decision process, such as a verycomplex undertaking involving manyinterdependent activities -- a situation where a

timely response is less important than a

technically correct one. The extensive directionwould be needed here if employees lack either

experience and ability or reliability andinitiative.

At Marshall Industries, one of the four

largest NorthAmerican distributors of industrialelectronic components, leadership assumes

many roles. Gordon Marshall, founder and chiefexecutive officer, became a directive democratin the mid-1980s when he read Dr. Edwards

Demmings quality principles. Instead of

leadership occurring at the top of the

organization, managers were encouraged tomake decisions anytime a group or team was

formed (Ivancevich et al, 1997). One of GordonMarshalls goals was to change his role fromvisionary to a balance of visionary and

implementor. Mr. Marshall now views

removing organizational barriers to successful

implementation, based on manager feedback, as

important to meeting demands in the future.Thepermissive democrat. In a sense, this is

the ideal type of leader, since employees get to

participate in decision making as well as enjoy a

high degree of autonomy in executing thedecision. The

permissivedemocrat is suitable

for any organization where employeeinvolvement has both informational and

motivational benefits. However, this type ofleader behavior requires highly qualifiedemployees, some effective substitute (s) for

personal direction and enough time to reachconsensus. In addition, the leader must value

the democratic process and have trust in

subordinates capabilities, judgment, andmotives. This kind of leader is exemplified bythe popular slogan at Texas Instruments: &dquo;Everyemployee a manager.&dquo;

Ted Turner, creator of Turner BroadcastingSystem (TBS), has been able to assemble a very

capable set of managers to work under him.Turner has delegated authority readily and hasnot supervised them closely. Mr. Turnersinterference is minimized so long as things seemto progress satisfactorily at TBS, and they have.Aconfidant and friend stated that &dquo;he is alwayswinning, never losing, and he gives that same

feeling to people either sailing or working forhim (Thompson & Strictland, 1993).

The leadership cycleThe fundamental changes that most

organizations undergo as they grow raises thequestion of whether any given leadership styleor approach can be suitable for an organizationthroughout its lifetime.Anumber of researchershave studied the evolution of organizationsthrough various stages of development andconcluded that the appropriate leadership styletends to change as well (Muczyk & Reimann,1987; Quinn & Cameron, 1983; Greiner, 1972;Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Business Week,1981).

The addition of the direction dimension

opens up two intermediate and less risky pathsfrom &dquo;pure&dquo; autocratic and directive behaviortoward the democratic and permissive leadershipusually found in more mature and sophisticatedorganizations. These paths are illustrated inExhibit 2.

Exhibit 2

The Leadership Cycle

2002 B k C ll All i h d N f i l h i d di ib iby Tomislav Bunjevac on August 4, 2008http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from


13/17

Although at times a directive autocrat was

successively replaced by a democratic and

permissive leader, this abrupt type of transitionis the exception rather than the rule. In the more

typical case, the directive autocrat can try tobecome either more participative or lessdirective before turning into a permissive

democrat. The key to an effective transition inleadership behaviors may be to change only onedimension at a time.

An excellent example would be the IBM

Corporation in its early days. Its founder,Thomas J. Watson, Sr., has been referred to as adictator. Not only did he make all the importantdecisions and set the important goals, but he washands-on as well with respect to most aspects ofthe decision execution and goal attainment

processes. We would call him a directive

autocrat. His son and successor, Thomas

Watson, Jr., also made all the key decisions andset the salient goals but allowed subordinatesconsiderable latitude regarding the execution ofthe decisions and the attainment of goals. Wewould call him a permissive autocrat ( Muczyk& Reimann, 1987).A successful evolution of leadership

behaviors would most frequently take the upperpath in Exhibit 2. If, however, a firm with

predominantly autocratic and directive leaderssucceeds in attracting, developing, and keepingemployees that are both capable and

independent, its leaders may well be effective bybeing more permissive. In this case, theevolution toward democratic and permissiveleadership may take the lower path in Exhibit 2.This evolution would be the exception ratherthan the rule, since directive autocrats generallydo not do well in attracting, developing, or

keeping capable subordinates with highmotivation and initiative.

The leadership cycle shown in Exhibit 2tends to proceed from left to right, that is, fromthe directive autocrat toward the permissivedemocrat. To illustrate the need for a different

kind of leader when the strategic mission

changes from one of urgency to one of stabilityor growth, consider the case of General Electric.Its CEO, Jack Welch -- once nicknamed&dquo;Neutron Jack&dquo; -- was widely regarded as one ofthe worlds most ruthless managers. He had to

make difficult decisions, including purging tensof thousands of employees, entire levels of

management, and numerous divisions. Now t

General Electric is restructured, refocused, a

running smoothly again, the same Mr. Welhas let it be known that there is no room at G

for autocrats (Muczyk & Steel, 1998).However, the reverse is not unlikely eith

Afairly common case is that of the democrat

and permissive leader whose organization gitself in trouble - financially, legally,otherwise. The experience of BankAmericonstitutes an example of an organization in dstraits turning to a directive autocratsalvation. Former CEOA. W. &dquo;Tom&dquo; Clausea man so unwilling to listen to others that he w

routinely described as &dquo;the dictator,&dquo; was rehias CEO to save the organization when it becathe target of a hostile takeover, and he succeed

admirably (Muczyk & Reimann, 1987).Frequently, the turnaround executive nee

a vision for reversing the fortunes oforganization, since the extant strategic plan athe people responsible for it have not been upthe task. Equally important is a cadre of kpeople who buy into that vision, even thoughleader makes the key decisions and s

important goals quickly and, when necessaunilaterally. Organizational members needreason worthy of their commitment, and it cabe the CEOs vision alone.

Yet some organizations, even though thave found suitable market niches, get iserious

trouble through poor execution-slopblocking and tackling, so to speak. In th

instances, there is no need for vision, but

improved execution.

Small Leadership

The paralyzing effect of the

&dquo;overwhelming&dquo; taskThe concept of an &dquo;overwhelming task&dquo;

been around for quite some time. Simply pmany people when confronted with a daunttask are so overwhelmed that a

paralysisens

with respect to goal-directed behavior. KWeick (1984) provides insight into

psychological process by which this inacttakes place.

When the magnitude of problemsscaled upward in the interest

mobilizing action, the quality of thou



14/17

14

and action declines, because processessuch as frustration, arousal and

helplessness are activated... People oftendefme social problems in ways thatoverwhelm their ability to do anythingabout them

McGill and Slocum (1998) observe that

when the leadership role is cast in terms ofawesome challenges then a tendency toward tworeactions occurs: (1) &dquo;The leadership challengeis so important and its magnitude so dauntingthat there is no way we can act upon it.&dquo;And (2)&dquo;Whatever action we can take is so insignificantas to have no appreciable impact on resolvingthe issues facing my organization.&dquo;Consequently, leaders, especially middle

managers and supervisors, need to think in termsof small wins. Weick (1984) goes on to say:

&dquo;Callinga situation a mere

problemthat

necessitates a small win moderates arousal,improves diagnosis, preserves gains, and

encourages innovation.&dquo; Moreover, rewardingsmall successes along the way toward an

overarching goal sustains momentum soessential to getting large tasks accomplished in a

satisfactory manner by reinforcing commitmentand boosting motivation. Kotter (1995) in

prescribing steps for leading change alsorecommends &dquo;planning for and creating short-term wins.&dquo; He continues: &dquo;Without short-term

wins too many people give up or actively jointhe ranks of those people who have been

resisting change.&dquo; We submit that there are&dquo;little&dquo; analogs of charisma as well to short-termwins -- persistence with respect to solvingproblems and attaining important objectives,unflagging enthusiasm for the job, an air of

optimism, caring about people and their

problems, and treating everyone in a fair andevenhanded manner.

&dquo;Small&dquo; leadership as an antidote

Ohio State and Michigan LeadershipStudies. Just as vision becomes more importantas one approaches the apex of the organization,&dquo;small&dquo; leadership becomes more salient as one

gets closer to the bottom of the organization.After all, it is &dquo;small&dquo; leadership that is so vitalto the implementation of the larger leadershipdimensions. All the behaviors that have been

aggregated through factor analysis byStogdill and his Ohio State University

colleagues into &dquo;consideration&dquo; and &dquo;initiatingstructure&dquo; are acts of &dquo;small&dquo; leadership. Such isalso the case with respect to &dquo;job centered&dquo; and

&dquo;employee oriented&dquo; leader behaviors that havebeen identified by the University of Michiganresearchers (Yukl, 1989). And one should not

expect otherwise, since typically the subjects inboth the Ohio State and University of Michiganleadership studies were first and second-level

supervisors.The McGill/Slocum taxonomy. Since there

are countless &dquo;little&dquo; acts of leadership, the bestwe can do here is to present a usefulclassification with some examples. We haveselected a recent one developed by McGill andSlocum (1998), who propose four categories of&dquo;little&dquo; acts of leadership that create andmaintain the trust level between the leader and

subordinates sonecessary

to

forgeand

perpetuate the social compact between leaderand subordinates that facilitates highproductivity and morale.

1. Knowledge of the job. Colonel ThurmanH. Bane established in 1919 theAir

School of Application, theforerunner of theAir Force Institute of

Technology, based on the premise that:&dquo;No man can efficiently direct workabout which he knows nothing.&dquo;Leaders must train their

subordinates, answer technicalquestions, improve methods, practices,and processes, and insure

quality. These things cannot be donewithout thorough knowledge of thenature of the work. Or as

McGill and Slocum put it: &dquo;Leadershipat any level in any context demands that

you have a thoroughknowledge of your job, not only in thedetails of the task, but in a grasp of thetotal situation as it is and as it

may develop (McGill & Slocum,1998).&dquo;

2. Say and do. Leaders must be willing tobehave in ways that are consistent with

the publicized values of the

organization, thereby setting an examplefor others. In the militarythere is a saying: &dquo;You must walk thetalk.&dquo; For credibility to exist, actionsmust back up the words. If an

by Tomislav Bunjevac on August 4 2008http://jlo sagepub comDownloaded from


15/17

organization preaches performance,quality, and customer service,then they must be rewarded. If a

company advocates employeeinvolvement and openness, then it must

include employees in decision makingand goal setting as well as sharing

relevant information with them on atimely basis. Many executives state

glibly that people are their most

important asset. If such assertions are tobe believed, then executives, managers,and supervisors must become employee-centered by creating an environment inwhich employees feel free to bring theirwork-related and personal problems totheir supervisor (Muczyk et al, 1984).Also, little acts of consideration such as

hospital visits, attending weddings,

funerals, and other important occasions,having lunch with subordinates from-time-to-time, are appreciated and serveto build a reservoir ofgood will.

3. Foster listening. The essence of&dquo;small&dquo; leadership is good listening, oneof the most valuable of attributes in anyhuman endeavor. Unfortunately, mostfolks are much better talkers than

listeners. Anything that an organizationcan do to make its leaders into better

listeners, it should do. In addition,leaders should take it

uponthemselves

to improve their listening skills.

Practically all enterprises would be

appreciably better off if their employeeswere convinced that their leaders are

listening. And it goes without saying,that firms would be more successful if

their members listen to the customers.

Let us face it. Effective listening is a

precondition to appropriate action.4. Create a context of choice. We have

heard and read a great deal about

employee empowerment. Wehave learned a long time ago from theMichigan leadership studies that oncemotivated employees are trained generalsupervision works best in mostsituations. Managers who engage in

general supervision give directions in a

general way, with explanations and

suggestions, but leave details of method

and sequence to the worker.Agenersupervisor is more concerned with eresults than with the means by whiresults are obtained.

General supervision gives subordinathe opportunity to become self-reliaand prepares them for mo

responsibility, thereby permittingsupervisor to concentrate on

supervisory functions of the jFurthermore, general supervision mbe the least expensive form of jenrichment, since it does not requchanging technology or work metho

(Muczyk et al, 1984).

Leadership as a shared processIt is worthwhile noting that leadership is

process that can be shared between leader and

some

subordinates. For example, Bowers andSeashore (1966) proposed a four- factor theorof leadership.

1. Support - Behavior that enhancsomeone elses feeling of persoworth and importance.

2. Interaction facilitation - Behavior t

encourages members of the group

develop close, mutually satisfyrelationships.

3. Goal emphasis - Behavior tstimulates an enthusiasm for meeting

groups goalsor

achievingexcell

performance.4. Work facilitation - Behavior that he

achieve goal attainment by sactivities as scheduling, coordinatiplanning, and by providing resoursuch as tools, materials, and techni

knowledge.It is not necessary for the formal leader

perform all components of the leadersprocess, so long as all four get done. Again,closer we get to the level of &dquo;small&dquo; leadersthe more the leadership process can be shawith subordinates. Although, even at the topthe organization, executives define their jobsfocusing on what they consider importantlike to do while surrounding themselves w

persons who complement them by doingrest.



16/17

16

Conclusion

All of us can agree that first and foremost it

is necessary for leaders to surround themselves

with the best people the organization can hire.Yet there is much more to leadership. At this

evolutionary juncture of the leadershipconstruct, the blind men can best describe the

leadership elephant with a comprehensiveframework that includes the accepted leadershiptheories within its ambit. It would be far too

ambitious to call this framework a mega-theoryfor obvious reasons. Rather we think of it as a

coat hanger with the necessary garments neatlyarranged on it and available for the taking,depending on our position in the hierarchy, thetype of business the organization is in, and the

constantly changing organizational weather,some of it quite turbulent, that we encounter aswe negotiate our way on a daily basis throughthe complexities of organizational life. Our tri-level framework consists of &dquo;big leadership,&dquo;&dquo;mid-range leadership,&dquo; and &dquo;small leadership&dquo;to permit the incorporation into the frameworkof very different levels of abstraction.

We view &dquo;big leadership&dquo; astransformational in nature, requiring acharismatic visionary being in the right place atthe right time. Most organizations, however, arebuilt in an incremental fashion as

opposedto

being transformed. Simply put, most

organizations do not need transforming; and

fortunately so because transformational leadersare about as common as hens teeth. For the

preponderance of organizations, tenaciouslypursuing a properly formulated strategic planand suitable transactional leader behaviors are

more than adequate substitutes for vision andcharisma.

Both mid-range and small leadership aretransactional in nature, but small leadership is so

to a fault. Our approach to mid-range leadershiptheory attempts to identify the importantdimensions of transactional leadership,differentiate the normative from the situational

ones, and specify the conditions under which thesituational leadership factors apply. In addition,we take note of the substitutes for leadership andwhen they are appropriate.

Lastly, small leadership consists of the

myriad of quotidian interactions between the

leader and subordinates that are easy to overlook

but have an important cumulative effect on thesocial compact. It is with respect to small

leadership that self-management strategies havethe greatest potential (Sims & Lorenzi, 1992).

One of the major underpinnings of

managershipis the

capacityto

effectivelycarry

out his/her roles and responsibilities. And in

many instances, it is the leadership role thatmakes success possible. This role takes ondifferent responsibilities given the nature of thetask and the constraints imposed by internal andexternal environments. Without a clear

understanding ofthe many competing leadershipframeworks -- a daunting challenge, indeed --

managers are limited in adequately makingsense ofwhat to do and when to do it. Thus, ourframework ties together many of the disparate

theories and models competing for a managersattention in order to facilitate the leadershipsense-making process.

Obviously, this is not the last word so far asthe reconciliation ofleadership literature isconcerned. Hopefully, however, this effort willmake it easier for others to complete the task.

References

Balasco, J.A. & Staver, R. C. (1993). Flight ofthe Buffalo:Soaring toExcellence, Learning to Let

Employees Lead (New York: Warner Books).Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance BeyondExpectations (New York: Free Press).

Bevin,A. (1993). How Great Generals Win. (New York:

Norton).Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid.

(Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.).Bowers, D. G. & S. E. Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting

Organizational Effectiveness With Four-Factor Theoryof Leadership, Administrative Science Quarterly, 11,328-263.

Campbell,A. & Alexander, M. (1997, November/December).Whats Wrong with Strategy? Harvard Business

Review, 42-51.

Cash, J. I., McFarlan, F. W., McKenney, J. L. & Applegate,L. M.

(1992). Corporate Information SystemsManagement. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: Harper

Business.

Conger, J.A. & R. N. Kanungo, R. N. (1988a). "BehavioralDimensions of Charismatic Leadership," in CharismaticLeadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988b). The EmpowermentProcess: Integrating Theory and Practice.Academy ofManagement Review,13,471-483.

Conger, J.A. (1989). Leadership: TheArt of EmpoweringOthers.Academy of Management Executive, 11, 17-24.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967).A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.NewYork: Mc Graw-Hill.


17/17

Fisher, G. M. C. (1997, March).ANew Relationship With

Employees. CEO Series Issue No. 14, Center for the

Study ofAmerican Business, Washington University inSt. Louis, -7.

Fleishman, E.A. (1953). The Description of SupervisoryBehavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1-6.

Gardner, J. W. (1987, Spring). The Tasks of Leadership. New

Management, 9-14.

Gibney Jr, F. (2002, January 14). VrroooomAt The Top.

Time, 42-44.Greiner, L. E. (1972, July/August). Evolution and Revolution

as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review. 37-46.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management ofOrganizational Behavior, 4th ed., Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Hersey, P. and K.H. Blanchard, K.H. (1988). Management ofOrganizational Behavior, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

House, R. J. (1971). APath Goal Theory of LeaderEffectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16,324.

Huey, J. (1994, February 21). The New Post-Heroic

Leadership. Fortune, 42-45.

Ikeda, D. (1991, November). TheAge of "Soft Power" and

Inner-Motivated Philosophy. New Century, 9-15.Ivancevich, J. M., Lorenzi, P. & S. J. Skinner, S. J. (1997).

Managing Quality and Competiveness, 2nd ed., Chicago,IL: Irwin.

Kirpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991) Leadership: DoTraits Matter?Academy of Management Executive, 5(2),48-60.

Kotter, J. P. (1995, March/April). Leading Change: WhyTransformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review,59-67.

Lavin, D. (1993, October 4). Robert Eaton Thinks Vision IsOverrated And Hes Not Alone. The Wall Street

Journal,Al.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. & White, R. (1939, May). Patterns ofAggressive Behavior In Experimentally Created SocialClimates. Journal of Social Psychology, 271-299.

Matching Managers to a Companys Life Cycle. (1981,February 23). Business Week, 62.

McGill, M. & Slocum, J. W. (1988, Winter). ALittle

Leadership, Please. Organizational Dynamics.Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. (1984). Organizations A

Quantum View. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall,Inc.

Miner, J. B. & Smith, R. N. (1982). Decline and Stabilizationof Managerial Motivation Over a 20-year Period.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,297-305.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Muczyk, J. P., Schwartz, E. B. & Smith, E. P. (1984).Principles of Supervision: First - and Second - Level

Management. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill

PublishingCo.

Muczyk, J. P. & Reimann, B. C. (1987). The CaseDirective Leadership. TheAcademy of ManagemeExecutive, 1(3), 301-311.

Muczyk, J. P. (1988). The Strategic Role of CompensatioHuman Resource Planning, 11(3),225-239.

Muczyk, J. P. & B. C. Reimann, B. C. (1989). MBO a

Complement to Effective Leadership. TheAcademyManagement Executive,3(2),131-138.

Muczyk, J. P. & R. P. Steel, R. P. (1998, March-Apri

Leadership Style and the Turnaround ExecutivBusiness Horizions, 39-46.Pfeffer, J. (1978). "TheAmbiguity of Leadership," In M.

McCall, Jr., & M. M. Lombardo (eds.), LeadershiWhere Else Can We Go? Durham, N.C.: Du

University Press.

Porter, L. W.,Allen, R. W. & H. L.Angle, H. L. (198"The Politics of Upward Influence in Organizations,"L.L. Cummings and B. Staw, eds., Research

Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, (Geenwich, CT: JPress, 109-149.

Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational L

Cycles and Some Shifting Criteria of EffectiveneSome Preliminary Evidence. Management Science,51 ;

Raelin, A. (1987, February). The 60s Kids in

Corporation: More Than Just Daydream BelieveAcademy of Management Executive, 21-30.

Reardon, K. K., Reardon, K. J. & A. J. Rowe,A. J. (19Spring). Leadership Styles for the Five StagesRadical Change.Acquisition Review Quarterly, 129-1

Sims Jr., H. P. & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The New LeadershParadigm: Social Learning and CognitionOrganizations. Newbury Park, California: SaPublications, Inc.

Tannenbaum, R. & W. H. Schmidt, W. H. (1958, Marc

April). How to Choose a Leadership Pattern. HarvaBusiness Review, 95-101.

Thompson,A.A. & A. J. Strictland,A. J. (1993). StrateManagement Concepts and Cases. Homewood,Irwin.

Vecchio, R. P., ed. (1997). Leadership: UnderstandingDynamics of Power and Influence in OrganizatioNotre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press

Vroom, V. H. & Jago,A. G. (1988). The New LeadershManaging Participation in Organizations, EnglewoCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Vroom, V. H. & P. W. Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership aDecision Making. Pittsburgh: University of PittsbuPress.

Weick, K. (1984, January). Small Wins, Redefining the Scof Social Problems.American Psychologist, 40-49.

Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership In Organizations, 2ndeNew York:Academic Press.

Yukl, G.A. & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics

objectives in Upward, Downward, and Lateral Influe

Attempts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132-140

Documents

An Attempt at a Consetience Regarding Formal Leadership