Search results

This chapter provides a new theory for organizational leadership in which an organization's leadership, authority, management, power, and environments (LAMPE) are made coherent and integrated. Organizations work best if their LAMPE is coherent, integrated, and operational. The chapter begins by introducing basic concepts, such as structures, processes, process frameworks, task–role matrices, interdependence uncertainty, and virtual-like organizational arrangements. The LAMPE theory is then built upon this base. Leadership is defined as the processes of initiating, enabling, implementing, and sustaining change in an organization. Authority is defined as the legal right to preempt the outcome of a decision or a process. Management is defined in term of its major processes. Power is the control of interdependence uncertainty. When 29 leadership practices are introduced, it is possible to link them to all five of LAMPE's constructs. A number of conclusions are derived, in the form of 36 propositions: 5 dealing with leadership, 5 focusing on leadership requirements matching, 4 relating to leadership effectiveness, 5 dealing with leadership capacity, 4 concerning the benefits of distributed leadership, and 13 linking LAMPE to the theory of the organizational hologram.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between perceived power and transformational leadership in the public sector.

The authors investigate this topic empirically in the context of German police forces using a between-groups design, manipulating power and statistically analyzing the results on the multifactor leadership questionnaire.

Police officers with a high perception of power achieve significantly lower scores on transformational leadership compared to their low power counterparts.

The study contributes to advancing public leadership theory by showing that transformational leadership, which is considered as particularly useful in public organizations, is likely to be adversely affected by leaders’ power. Furthermore, it also extends on the literature on power by providing first empirical evidence that power has a significant impact not only on factors such as the pursuit of a goal, social behavior, or affect, but also on leadership.

The results suggest either to control power accumulation in leadership positions of public organizations, for instance by implementing flat hierarchies, or to come to terms with more authoritative leadership styles in top management.

To the best of knowledge, the authors provide the first study that investigates the impact of power on transformational leadership in the public sector using an experimental design and quantitative empirical data.

The chapters in Volume 15 of Advances in Global Leadership provide a comprehensive examination of the state of our field in its lenses on and through power. In this chapter, we synthesize the volume's insights around two main conclusions. First, global leadership research tends to draw on the same lenses and approaches to the study of power as the mainstream leadership research does. This is helpful for comparison and extension across contexts, but the research suggests that important insights – especially around the nature of power dynamics in highly complex environments – may be missed by limiting the perspective. Second, recent research on how global leaders work is beginning to show a pattern illuminating the importance of dynamic and shared power adaptation in global leadership. There are exciting possibilities in these directions, and this chapter concludes with a discussion on ideas for future research.

The study of power is essential to any study of leadership, as power is fundamental to human organization and is understood to be a driving force of leadership. Power is typically thought of in terms of having dominance over others from a hierarchically higher position. In this chapter, we explore how power is typically defined in the literature and propose that mutualism represents an expanded definition of power and one that more closely aligns with the concept of inclusive leadership. We make a case for viewing power as a capacity that can be developed in others rather than a commodity that can be obtained, horded, or doled out. With this in mind, we explore how these two phenomena intersect from the perspectives of powerdistance, hierarchy, and empowerment. We argue that power expressed as dominance creates distance between leaders and employees, while mutualistic expressions reduce such distance, and that hierarchy and power have been erroneously conflated and when disaggregated can serve a useful purpose in a low-power-distance culture. Finally, through empowerment, we consider approaches to the development of power in others, which is a topic that is rarely considered in the leadership literature. Inclusive leadership offers an important pathway for moving organizations and society toward justice through the creation of cultures characterized by cooperation, unity, and diversity where greater numbers of people step into their capacity for power and begin to address the challenges facing humanity. This is realizable in cultures that promote mutualistic power.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of inclusive leadership on team climate. Drawing on the social exchange theory (SET), this study proposes a theoretical model in which (1) inclusive leadership enhances team climate, (2) the moderating effect of team power distance and trust in leadership in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team climate.

A quantitative research method was applied, with a survey of 247 Nigerian employees nested in 59 teams in multiple small manufacturing firms across diverse industries widely distributed into textile, furniture, bakery and palm oil production firms. The partial least square structural equation modelling was used to test the study's proposed hypotheses.

The results revealed that inclusive leadership has a positive and direct effect on team climate. Also, this study found that (1) team power distance positively influences the relationship between inclusive leadership and team climate; and (2) trust in leadership positively influences the relationship between inclusive leadership and team climate.

This study affirms the explanatory power of SET to investigate inclusive leadership and team climate at the team level. Also, the study utilised the SET to confirm the significance and value of team power distance and trust in leadership in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team climate at the team level in the Nigerian context.

The paper examined the relationship between inclusive leadership and team climate with team power distance and trust in leadership as moderators. The findings suggest that inclusive leadership play a paramount role in understanding team climate among small manufacturing firms. Moreover, the findings can be applied in organisations by creating different assessment mechanisms, e.g. webinars and training sessions, to encourage effective inclusive leadership behaviours in fostering a team climate for creativity and innovation.

The main contribution of this current research to knowledge is on the examination of the distinctive leadership style that influences team climate. The study indicates that when team members are allowed to fully contribute to the team, inclusion is promoted among group members, and trust in leadership is strengthened, which increases their perception of team climate within organisations.

The relationships between moral leadership, transformational, transactional, and laissez‐faire leaderships, and certain outcomes were studied using a sample of 116 managers of a large manufacturing organization in eastern India. Results reveal that transformational leadership partially mediates moral leadership’s relationship with follower’s extra effort and satisfaction, and leader’s effectiveness, and it fully mediates moral leadership’s relationship with leader’s power. Based on whether leader’s self‐rating was more than, same as, or less than follower’s rating of leader’s transformational leadership, leader‐follower dyads were classified into three categories – overestimation, agreement, and underestimation. Findings show that moral leadership is lower in overestimation than in agreement, and is lower in agreement than in underestimation. Correlation between moral leadership and power is also the highest in the case of underestimation. Leader’s power, however, does not differ across categories.

The purpose of this paper is to explore theoretical connections between the cognitive consequences of power on self-perception and the behaviours of leaders.

A systematic literature review was carried out to investigate the psychological consequences of power in terms of self-perception, perspective taking abilities, emotions and behaviours. The literature reviewed is further integrated in a theoretical model, and a series of propositions suggesting a relation between power, perspective taking, self-construal and leadership are introduced.

This paper argues that power creates both temporary and enduring cognitive changes that transform the way individuals assimilate and differentiate their self from others. This transforms the way individuals in power behave as leaders, as well as followers. Individuals’ self-construal and perspective taking seem to play a mediating role in determining the behaviours of powerful and powerless individuals. This relation is moderated by organizational culture and structure, as well as personality traits.

Further research is needed to test these propositions, including the existence of cross-cultural differences in the power – self-construal relation, and the consequences of holding different types of power on an individual's self-construal. For employees and consultants working in organizational development and organizational change, understanding the potential consequences of power in terms of self-perception will improve the understanding of promoting individuals to higher positions. The present research also bears implications for scholars interested in understanding cross-cultural and gender differences in leadership.

This conceptualization of self-construal as an interface between power and leadership reconcile the individual dynamics of trait theories of leadership and the environmental positions of situational theories of leadership. The paper discusses elements considered critical for design of leadership programs in the workplace, professional development and programs to shape the design of leadership.

Drawing on power approach-inhibition theory, this study develops a conditional indirect effect model to explore how team vertical leader position and expert power indirectly impact members’ shared leadership through vertical leader’s empowering behaviors.

Multi-source data was collected using a field survey research design. The final sample includes 944 employees in 164 teams from 14 companies in China.

This study found that the interaction of team vertical leader position power and expert power was positively related to their empowering behaviors, which in turn were positively associated with shared leadership. Moreover, our post hoc-analysis revealed the moderating effect of team power distance orientation on the relationship between vertical leader empowering behaviors and shared leadership.

This study sheds light on shared leadership literature by examining vertical leader position and expert power as antecedents. We also offer new directions for exploring how power functions by discussing leadership through the lens of power approach-inhibition theory.

Despite its central role in the influence process, power has largely been overlooked by scholars seeking to understand global leaders' influence over their constituents. As a consequence, we currently have limited understanding of the varieties of power that global leaders hold, how power is exercised in global contexts, and what impact exercising power has in global organizations. The intended purpose of this chapter is to mobilize research on this important topic through systematic review. The review is organized around the following guiding questions: (i) how is power defined in global leadership research? (ii) what power bases do global leaders possess? (iii) how do global leaders exercise power? (iv) what factors influence global leaders' exercise of power? and (v) what are the outcomes of global leaders' exercise of power? Based on a synthesis of extant insights, this chapter develops a foundation for future research on power in global leadership by mapping critical knowledge gaps and outlining paths for further inquiry.