Search results

The executives, just below the chief executive officers represent an important but rarely investigated senior executives. The purpose of this paper is to investigate their need for social acceptance and the impact of culture on the perceived use of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.

A cross-sectional, multi-instrument design was used to investigate 439 Australian executives at the apex of their organization.

The results suggest that these executives identified a prominent need to self-deceive themselves when assessing their perceived use of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. In addition, the cultural dimensions, such as supportiveness and performance orientation, were identified as influencing specific leadership behaviors, in order to produce competitive advantages. However, the cultural dimension of emphasis on rewards uniquely decreased the perceived use of several leadership behaviors (i.e. articulates vision, fosters the acceptance of group goals, and provides an appropriate role model).

The study provides further evidence of how the social context impacts on leadership behaviors and thinking

The development of executive requires insights into how their personal need for social acceptance and culture alter their use of leadership.

Social desirability and specific culture dimensions do not uniformly influence the perceived use of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.

This chapter attempts to overcome the lack of theory development in the human side of mergers and acquisitions by synthesising key climate, knowledge generation and leadership frameworks. The chapter aims to identify the key roles that climate plays during M&A and how leadership can positively influence climate in order to improve M&A organisational outcomes. The chapter establishes that climate could be a key ‘systems variable’ during different M&A stages and influences the generation and transfer of actionable integration knowledge among individuals. The role of leadership and its relationship to climate's impact on M&A are developed. The chapter uses the concept or vision of ‘making fire’ or ‘kindling the flame of fire’ to assist leaders to conceptualise their role and the underlying processes at play. Finally, propositions have been developed to assist future research.

This paper aims to examine the validity of contingent reward and its relationship to extra effort and to further advance understanding of the leader/follower performance reward relationship.

The concept of contingent reward has largely remained unchanged since 1985. Consequently, the items of contingent reward were examined in terms of their content validity that was guided by transactional leadership theory, re‐formulated path‐goal theory of leadership, and negotiation theory. Three new contingent reward factors were identified (i.e. framing, clarifying, and rewarding). These were examined using one‐factor congeneric measurement models. Valid factors were identified using a high‐order confirmatory factor analysis to further confirm the structural validity of the three new factors of contingent reward. Finally, structural equation models were calculated to examine the relationships among contingent reward factors and extra effort.

Three distinct factors of contingent reward were identified and their relationships with extra effort was consistent with the integrative negotiation strategies where each factor formed part of a negotiation process. Contingent reward (framing) initiates the negotiation process and directly loads on contingent reward (rewarding and clarifying); contingent reward (framing) did not directly load on to extra effort. Contingent reward (rewarding) supports the negotiation process by loading directly on contingent reward (clarifying). The negotiation process is completed with contingent reward (clarifying) directly loading on extra effort. These three contingent reward factors form a simple negotiation process that highlights several important aspect of the leader/follower reward performance relationship.

This study uses a cross‐sectional design that means that its findings may not be generalisable to other populations. However, the findings of this study should encourage researchers to appreciate that common leadership behaviour, like contingent reward, may have more complex interrelationships with outcome factors such as extra effort than previously expected.

Leaders should view their use of contingent reward behaviours in terms of a process rather than simply exhibiting a single clarifying contingent reward type behaviour. In other words, leaders need to establish the boundaries (i.e. framing), acknowledge involvement (i.e. rewarding), and then elucidate mutual outcomes (i.e. clarifying). This process should enable leaders to negotiate greater flexibilities and create more momentum within their leader/follower performance reward relationships.

This paper challenges the foundation ideas and empirical pedigree of contingent reward and incorporates advances in theories such as the reformulated path‐goal theory and interpret the behaviours in a broader multi‐disciplinary context, i.e. integrative negotiation strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically the effect of cultural and social acceptance on CEO leadership.

Several instruments were used to capture key concepts (i.e. Organisational Culture Profile, Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale, Transformational Leadership Inventory, and Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire), which were examined using confirmatory factor analysis. Data were collected from 635 Australian CEOs.

The results of hierarchical multi‐regression analysis clarified the importance of self‐deception and impression management as influential context factors, and how both operate at the pinnacle of organisations. The study also identifies that transformational and transactional leadership behaviours were uniquely influenced by specific cultural dimensions, and suggests that CEOs use combinations of these behaviours to respond to four cultural dimensions (i.e. emphasis on rewards, performance orientation, innovation, and stability) in order to produce competitive advantages.

The study highlights how CEOs are still vulnerable to conforming to the social norms of their organisation and also how CEOs use a repertoire of leadership behaviours, in response to the importance of different cultural dimensions.

The paper contributes to the leadership literature by directly addressing how context impacts on CEO leadership in three specific areas: social acceptance needs, demographics and culture. Further, the study investigates CEO transformational and transactional leadership behaviours rather than global constructs, and directly addresses the common method variance issue.

This chapter investigated how pre-existing ideas (i.e., prototypes and antiprototypes) and what the eyes fixate on (i.e., eye fixations) influence followers' identification with leaders from another race. A sample of 55 Southeast Asian female participants assessed their ideal leader in terms of prototypes and antiprototype and then viewed a 27-second video of an engaging Caucasian female leader as their eye fixations were tracked. Participants evaluated the videoed leader using the Identity Leadership Inventory, in terms of four leader identities (i.e., prototypicality, advancement, entrepreneurship, and impresarioship). A series of multiregression models identified participants' age as a negative predictor for all the leader identities. At the same time, the antiprototype of masculinity, the prototypes of sensitivity and dynamism, and the duration of fixations on the right eye predicted at least one leader identity. Such findings build on aspects of intercultural communication relating to the evaluation of global leaders.

This paper examines the leadership of police officers in the top levels or ranks of an Australian police organization. The sample consisted of 480 senior police who recorded the frequency of leadership behaviors of the person they directly report to via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Multi‐regression was used to identify predictors of the leadership outcomes of leader effectiveness and extra effort. The study found that each rank of senior officers had unique sets of leadership behaviors that influence the perception of leader effectiveness and motivation to exert extra effort. The Stratified System Theory was used to explore why each rank had unique combinations of predictors. Finally, the paper discusses the multilevel issues of leadership and the importance of considering rank in relation to leadership at the senior levels of police organizations.

This study investigated the validity of inspirational motivation as measured by the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ). Two new factors were identified, namely image‐based and concept‐based inspirational motivation, and their relationships with the leadership outcome of extra effort were investigated. Implications for research and practice are presented.

Examines the relevance of critical reflection practices in leadership development. The article provides suggestions for incorporating critical reflective practices in a leadership development program. A constructivist approach is adopted from educational literature which advocates using critical lenses to enable students to build on previous experiences of leadership and to incorporate new learning. Reflective processes encourage multiple perspectives to be generated that challenge teachers and future leaders to excel in complex and uncertain environments. Consequently, leadership development and good teaching practices depend on reflection‐in‐action.

The purpose of this paper is to use Motivating Language Theory (MLT) as a framework in determining leader use of different language styles during times of dynamic change.

This exploratory study of executive members of the Australian Institute of Management examined how MLT may provide a mechanism for analyzing what leaders say in the context of a work setting. Written transcripts of interview data were analyzed to determine leaders’ use of three language styles: meaning-making (locutionary), direction giving (perlocutionary), and empathetic (illocutionary) language. The software program NVivo was used to help aggregate themes emerging from written and interview data into discrete modules to enable more robust and comprehensive analysis of the data.

A range of issues pertinent to the way executives lead and manage their businesses, both in private and not-for-profit organizations, was identified in this study. Direction giving language was most prominent in management activities and leadership that was strategic or people related, followed by meaning-making and empathetic language. The findings suggest that business leaders could develop a repertoire of language approaches in order to achieve organizational outcomes.

More research of the language of leadership and its implications for organizational outcomes is warranted. For instance, the strategic integration of motivating language with a compatible set of leader behaviors, organizational objectives, and cultures may reveal mechanisms as yet unknown for achieving outcomes. Research is needed to determine the content and construct of these behaviors, objectives, and cultures. Some questions also remain regarding the appropriateness of using the Motivating Language Scale to examine the types of language used by managers and leaders in the work place. The authors recommend further application of MLT through the Motivating Language Scale in order to help clarify these queries.

This paper used MLT as a framework for identifying leader use of different language styles during times of dynamic change. MLT has been used to identify the speech patterns of leaders during verbal communication exchanges with staff and work colleagues, but this study is the first example of the use of MLT when examining leader responses to interviews and in their written responses to survey questions.