Yair Berson

Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.

How do leadership ratings collected from units operating under stable conditions predict subsequent performance of those units operating under high stress and uncertainty? To examine this question, the authors calculated the predictive relationships for the transformational and transactional leadership of 72 light infantry rifle platoon leaders for ratings of unit potency, cohesion, and performance for U.S. Army platoons participating in combat simulation exercises. Both transformational and transactional contingent reward leadership ratings of platoon leaders and sergeants positively predicted unit performance. The relationship of platoon leadership to performance was partially mediated through the units level of potency and cohesion. Implications, limitations, and future directions for leadership research are discussed.

The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context ☆

Abstract This investigation examined the relationship between leadership style and the content of vision tapes produced in a comprehensive leadership workshop with community leaders. The transformational leadership style of 141 leaders positively predicted the inspirational “strength” of their vision statements, as reflected in the level of optimism expressed in the videotaped presentation of their visions. Organizational size was related to vision strength and moderated the relationship between passive leadership style and vision strength.

The Mainstream Is Not Electable: When Vision Triumphs Over Representativeness in Leader Emergence and Effectiveness

Theories of visionary leadership propose that groups bestow leadership on exceptional group members. In contrast, social identity perspectives claim that leadership arises, in part, from a person’s ability to be seen as representative of the group. Integrating these perspectives, the authors propose that effective leaders often share group members’ perspectives concerning the present, yet offer a unique and compelling vision for the group’s future. In addition, although intergroup contexts may increase the value of representativeness, the authors predict that vision dominates representativeness in single-group situations characterized by high levels of collective stress (e.g., a natural disaster). Five studies demonstrated that visionary leaders (those who offer novel solutions to their group’s predicament) attract more followers, promote group identification and intrinsic motivation, mobilize collective action, and effectively regulate group members’ emotions and reactions to crises compared to representative leaders. The authors discuss when, why, and how vision triumphs over representativeness in leader emergence and effectiveness.

Hierarchy, leadership, and construal fit

Three studies tested the hypothesis, derived from construal-level theory, that hierarchical distance between leaders and followers moderates the effectiveness of leader behaviors such that abstract behaviors produce more positive outcomes when enacted across large hierarchical distances, whereas concrete behaviors produce more positive outcomes when enacted across small hierarchical distances. In Study 1 (N = 2,206 employees of a telecommunication organization), job satisfaction was higher when direct supervisors provided employees with concrete feedback and hierarchically distant leaders shared with them their abstract vision rather than vice versa. Study 2 orthogonally crossed hierarchical distances with communication type, operationalized as articulating abstract values versus sharing a detailed story exemplifying the same values; construal misfit mediated the interactive effects of hierarchical distance and communication type on organizational commitment and social bonding. Study 3 similarly manipulated hierarchical distances and communication type, operationalized as concrete versus abstract calls for action in the context of a severe professional crisis. Group commitment and participation in collective action were higher when a hierarchically proximate leader communicated a concrete call for action and a hierarchically distant leader communicated an abstract call for action rather than vice versa. These findings highlight construal fits positive consequences for individuals and organizations.

Leadership style and quality climate perceptions: contrasting project vs. process environments

This study considers differences in leadership style for establishing a climate for quality improvement on project vs. process environments. A total of 1,050 employees, working for a high-tech organisation (511 in high volume assembly line manufacturing environments and 539 in R&D environments) rated the transformational and transactional leadership of their unit managers as well as a company survey measure of quality management practices of their units. Contrary to our expectations, transactional leadership was not positively associated with quality climate perceptions in process settings. The implications to quality management research is also considered.

LEVEL SPECIFICATION: USING TRIANGULATION IN A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH TO CONSTRUCT VALIDATION

We argue in this chapter that quantitative techniques alone cannot enable appropriate verification of the levels in which a construct should be defined and validated. We propose a process model that takes advantage of qualitative and quantitative methods when specifying and measuring the level(s) of analysis in construct development. The model implies that operationalizing a construct and its measurement should involve both qualitative and quantitative methods. Level specification begins with induction of constructs and continues with qualitative or quantitative operationalizations that are verified through the convergence of using triangulation and aggregation tests. Construct development continues until the level of analysis is accurately specified. We provide a theoretical example of construct development from the leadership literature and an empirical example to represent the verification process.

Enhancing our understanding of vision in organizations Toward an integration of leader and follower processes

We put forth a theoretical model that considers alternative paths toward the formation of vision in collectives. We view vision as being shaped by a combination of hierarchical leader vision and shared leadership processes involving followers. As such, these paths balance leader- and follower-centric approaches to understand the formation of vision. A feature of our approach is that we emphasize some key processes and moderators; specifically, the role of the content of the vision of the leader, leader deontic fairness, and collective identification among members of the collective. We consider research implications including the measurement of shared vision, as well as practical implications pertaining to its relevance for such important outcomes as organizational learning.

An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D environments

The relationship between leadership style of all managers and the establishment of a quality environment in an R&D setting is considered in this empirical study of 511 engineers. It is found that both transformational leadership and transactional contingent-reward leadership are related to the establishment of a quality environment in the R&D part of a telecommunications firm. However, the impact of transactional contingent-reward leadership ceases to be significant once both leadership styles are considered simultaneously using structural equations. A transformational leadership style is also found to be related to employee satisfaction.

GOING DEEPER INTO BUILDING A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH: FROM VERIFICATION TO DISCOVERY

The quantitative literature on levels of analysis emphasizes identifying the level of a construct as a confirmation rather than a discovery process. Based on the comments we received from Parry and Gephart we integrate some of their ideas regarding discovery in our earlier model to augment the verification process associated with construct validation. However, we also emphasize the need to use structure even with qualitative methods, given the nature of the level verification process. We begin by discussing their specific comments as well as our reactions to these comments. We then discuss the ideas of theoretical sampling, discovery and levels of abstraction, and include an example to demonstrate the utility of using a “discovery”-oriented approach to level specification for construct validation. Finally, we provide a brief conclusion for our reply.