Научная Петербургская Академия

Курсовая: The Value Based Leadership Theory

Курсовая: The Value Based Leadership Theory

Managers do things right

Leaders do the right things.

Value Based Leadership Theory

Moscow 1999

“Leaders are dealers in hope” Bonaparte Napoleon

“We will build a winning tradition” Vince Lombardi to the Green Bay Packers

Consider the above quotations. These statements of leaders reflect commitment to

a value position. In this paper I am going to describe a brand new theory of

leadership, developed by Professor House - the Value Based Leadership

Theory. I will also present a preliminary test of several hypotheses

derived from Value Based Theory. The tests of hypotheses are based on data

descriptive of 25 relationships between chief executives and their immediate

subordinates. As a concrete example, I am going to present the results of the

real interviews, which took plase in Russia in 1999 among the CEOs. In the

process of testing these hypotheses I replicate the study of charismatic

leadership in the U. S. presidency conducted by House, Spangler & Woycke

(1991) using a sample of chief executive officers and different measurement

methods. What I am trying to prove in this paper is the following: It was

considered to think that managers are always the leadres in the organization.

This opinion was proved to be wrong. According to the first research which

appaered in press in the end of 70-s: manager is the position, and leader is

the person who leads others to the desired result. According to the personal

trends and characteristics, managers should be leaders, and they are, but

not always. The question of leadership is a very interesting topic for me,

personally.

I am deeply interested in the question of leadership, and I do think, that

this question and the existing theories have a long life to live. Leadership

is a real fact, which has already been proved. You can be a born leader, but

you also can create the leader in yourself. You can manage to influence,

motivate and enable others. You can succeed, because there is nothing

impossible for a human being. Especially, if he is intelligent on the one

hand and really wishes to achieve something on the other.

A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW

During the period between the mid-seventies and the present time a number of

theories have been introduced into the leadership literature. These new

theories and the empirical research findings constitute a paradigm shift in the

study of leadership. The theories to which I refer are the 1976 Theory of

Charismatic Leadership (House, 1977), the Attributional Theory of

Charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), and the Transformational Theory

(Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985), and Visionary Theories of Leadership (Bennis

& Nanus, 1985; Sashkin, 1988; Kousnes & Posner, 1987).

I believe these theories are all of a common genre. They attempt to explain

how leaders are able to lead organizations to attain outstanding

accomplishments such as the founding and growing of successful

entrepreneurial firms, corporate turnarounds in the face of overwhelming

competition, military victories in the face of superior forces, leadership of

successful social movements and movements for independence from colonial rule

or political tyranny. They also attempt to explain how certain leaders are

able to achieve extraordinary levels of follower motivation, admiration,

respect, trust, commitment, dedication, loyalty, and performance.

The dependent variables of earlier theories are follower expectations,

satisfaction, and normal levels of performance. The dependent variables of

the more recent theories include a number of affective consequences such as

followers’ emotional attachment to leaders; followers’ emotional and

motivational arousal, and thus enhancement of follower valences and values

with respect to the missions articulated by leaders; followers’ trust and

confidence in leaders; and values that are of major importance to the

followers. These more recent theories also address the effect of leaders on

several follower conditions not addressed in earlier theories, such as

followers' self-worth and self-efficacy perceptions, and identification with

the leader’s vision.

Earlier theories describe leader behavior that are theoretically instrumental to

follower performance and satisfy follower needs for support, generally referred

to as task-and person-oriented leader behaviors (Fleishman & Harris, 1962;

Katz & Kahn, 1952; Likert, 1961; Feidler, 1967; House, 1971, House, 1996).

In contrast, the more recent theories stress the infusion of values into

organizations and work through leader behaviors that are symbolic,

inspirational and emotion arousing.

Earlier theories take follower attitudes, values, desires, and preferences as

given. The more recent theory claim that leaders can have substantial, if

not profound effects on these affective and cognitive states of followers.

Accordingly, leaders are claimed to transform both individuals and total

organizations by infusing them with moral purpose, thus appealing to

ideological values and emotions of organizational members, rather than by

offering material incentives and the threat of punishment, or by appealing to

pragmatic or instrumental values.

Also, McClelland (1975) introduced a theory intended to explain leader

effectiveness as a function of a specific combination of motives referred to

as the Leader Motive Profile (LMP). As will be shown below, this theory

complements the newer theories referred to above.

Since the early 1980s, more than fifty empirical studies have been conducted

to test the validity of the more recent theories of leadership. Empirical

evidence is discussed in more detail below. First, however, the valued based

leadership theory will be described.

VALUE BASED LEADERSHIP THEORY

The theory is intended to integrate the newer theories and the empirical

evidence alluded to above. Value based leadership is defined as a relationship

between an individual (leader) and one or more followers based on shared

strongly internalized ideological values espoused by the leader and strong

follwower identification with these values. Ideological values are values

concerning what is morally right and wrong. Such values are expressed in

terms of personal moral responsibility, altruism, making significant social

contributions to others, concern for honesty, fairness, and meeting obligations

to others such as followers, customers, or organizational stakeholders.

Value based leadership is asserted to result in: a) exceptionally

strong identification of followers with the leader, the collective vision

espoused by the leader, and the collective; b) internalized commitment

to the vision of the leader and to the collective; c) arousal of

follower motives that are relevant to the accomplishment of the collective

vision; and d) follower willingness to make substantial self sacrifices

and extend effort above and beyond the call of duty.

The title Value Based Leadership Theory has been chosen to reflect the

essence of the genre of leadership described by the theory. The 1976 theory

of charismatic leadership is a precursor to the value based leadership

theory. The title “charismatic leadership” has been chosen because of its

cavalier popular connotation. The term charisma is often taken in the

colloquial sense, rather than the somewhat technical sense conceived by Max

Weber. The word charisma commonly invokes impressions of a person who is

charming, attractive, and sometimes macho, flamboyant, and sexually

appealing. In contrast, Value Based Leadership is intended to convey the

notion of a leader who arouses follower latent values or causes followers to

internalize new values. Such value communication can be enacted in a quiet,

non-emotionally expressive manner or in a more emotionally expressive manner.

Examples of leaders who have communicated values to followers in an

emotionally expressive manner are Winston Churchill, Lee Iacocca, Martin

Luther King, and John F. Kennedy. Examples of leaders who have communicated

values to followers in a less emotionally expressive manner are Mother

Teresa, Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela.

A second reason for abandoning the term charisma is that in current usage it

implies that the collectivities led by charismatic leaders are highly

leader-centered and that the leader is the source of all, or almost all,

organizational strategy and inspiration of followers. One popular conception

of charismatic leadership is that it is necessarily highly directive and

disempowering of followers (Lindholm, 1990). In this paper, I hope to

demonstrate the huge potential for value based leadership to be empowering and

effective.

The Process and Effects of Value Based Leadership

In this section, an overview of what Value Based leadership is and how it works

is presented. There is both theory and empirical evidence to suggest that value

based leadership has a substantial effect on organizational performance.

Waldman and his associates reported two studies of value based leader behavior

as an antecedent to organizational profitability (Waldman, Ramirez & House,

1996; Waldman, Atwater & House, 1996). In these studies value based

leadership accounted for between fifteen and twenty five percent of firm

profitability over the three years following the time at which value based

leadership was assessed. The design of these studies controlled for executive

tenure, firm size, environmental turbulence, and prior firm profitability.

The theoretical process by which value-based leadership functions is

described in the following paragraphs. Evidence for this process is presented

in more detail in later sections in which the specific theories contributing

to value based leadership theory is discussed.

Value based leaders infuse collectives, organizations, and work with ideological

values by articulating an ideological vision, a vision of a better future to

which followers are claimed to have a moral right. By claiming that

followers have this right, the values articulated in the vision are rendered

ideological - expressions of what is morally right and good. Ideological values

are usually, if not always, end values which are intrinsically satisfying in

their own right. In contrast to pragmatic values such as material gain, pay,

and status, end values cannot be exchanged for other values. Examples of end

values are independence, dignity, equality, the right to education and

self-determination, beauty, and a world of peace and order. Ideological values

theoretically resonate with the deeply held values and emotions of followers.

Acccording to value based leadership theory the visions articulated by this

genre of leaders are consistent with the collective identity of the

followers, and are emotionally and motivationally arousing. Emotional and

motivational arousal induces follower identification with the collective

vision and with the collective, results in enhncement of follower self-

efficacy and self-worth, and have powerful motivtional effects on followers

and on overall orgnizational performance.

Leaders of industrial and government organizations often articulate visions

for their organizations. Such visions need not be grandiose. Visions of

outstanding leaders in the normal work world can embrace such ideological

values as a challenging and rewarding work environment; professional

development opportunities; freedom from highly controlling rules and

supervision; a fair return to major constituencies; fairness, craftsmanship

and integrity; high quality services or products; or respect for

organizational members, clients or customers and for the environment in which

the organization functions. Whether conceived solely by the leader, by prior

members of the collective, or jointly with followers, the articulation of a

collective ideological vision by leaders theoretically results in self-

sacrifice and effort, above and beyond the call of duty, by organizational

members and exceptional synergy among members of the collective.

Follower respect, trust, and self-sacrifice are stimulated by identification

with the values inherent in the leader's vision and the leader's

demonstration of courage, determination and self-sacrifice in the interest of

the organization and the vision. According to this perspective, value based

leaders use follower value identifiction, and the respect and trust they earn

to motivate high performance and a sense of mission in quest of the

collective vision, and to introduce major organizational change. For some

individuals, latent values are brought to consciousness as a result of the

vision articulated by value based leaders. Also, some individuals change

their values to be consistent with those of the leader.

Visions articulated by value based leaders need not be formulated exclusively

by a single leader. The collective vision may have been initially conceived

by leaders and members of the collective who preceded the current leader. In

this case, the leader is one who perpetuates the vision by continuing to

communicate it and institutionalizing it through the establishment and

maintenance of institutional means such as strategies, policies, norms,

rituals, ceremonies, and symbols. Alternatively, organizational visions can

be formulated by leaders in conjunction with organizational members.

The effects of the articulation of and emphasis on ideological values are

rather profound. Organizational members become aware of ideological values

that they share with the leader and as a collective. Members identify with

the collective vision and with the organization--thus a high level of

collective cohesion is developed. Collaborative interactions among

organizational members is enhanced. Individuals experience a sense of

collective efficacy and a heightened sense of self-esteem as a result of

their cohesion and the leader's expressions of confidence in their ability to

attain the vision. Further, motives relevant to the accomplishment of the

vision are aroused and organizational members come to judge their self-worth

in terms of their contribution to the collective and the attainment of the

vision.

The result is strongly internalized member commitment, and intrinsic

motivation to contribute to the organization and to the collective vision.

Members are more inclined to support changes in technology, structure and

strategies introduced by top management, which may result in an

organizational culture characterized by values oriented toward teamwork and

meeting customers', clients', constituents' and competitive needs. There

ensues a marked reduction in intra-organizational conflict and a high degree

of team effort and effectiveness. As noted above, members expend effort above

and beyond the call of duty, and sacrifice their self-interest in the

interest of the organization. As a result, individual motivation,

organizational culture, strategy and structure are likely to become aligned

with the collective vision.

A reinforcing process may also occur whereby organizational members increase

their respect for and confidence in the leader and each other based on the

resulting organizational success. As a result, their initial confidence and

motivation is further reinforced. Such effects are consistent with the notion

of romanticized leadership (Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985). The

resulting increased confidence in the leader in turn gives the leader more

influence and thus contributes to the leader's ability to further influence

organizational performance.

This is an “ideal type” theoretical scenario. Clearly all the aspects of

this scenario will not always come to fruition in response to value based

leadership. No such claim is made. Rather, it is argued that organizational

members will be motivated on the basis of shared internalized values and

identification with the leader and the collective, which are far more

motivational than alternative bases of motivation.

It is possible that value based leaders may introduce flawed strategies and

that the result may be organizational decline or failure rather than

improvement and success. It is also possible that the leader may stand for

socially undesirable values such as ethnocentrism, racism, persecution,

dishonesty, or unfair or illegal competitive practices (Lindholm 1990).

Regardless of the strategy or values expressed by the leader, it is argued

that a relationship based on value identification between leader and

organizational members will result in increased member commitment and

motivation, as well as increased organizational cohesion.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

There is extensive empirical evidence with respect to the effects of behaviors

specified by value based leadership theory. Charismatic, visionary, and

transformational theories of leadership are precursors of the leader behaviors

specified by value based leadership theory. Tests of these theories have been

based on various operationalizations that qualify as measures of value based

leadership including interviews (Howell & Higgins, 1990), laboratory

experimentation (Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996),

questionnaires (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1995), and quantified

archival data (House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991). In all of these tests, the

leader behavior measured consists of articulating an organizational vision and

behaving in ways that reinforce the values inherent in the vision, thus

qualifying as indirect evidence relevant to the effects of value based

leadership. Space limitations prevent a detailed review of the evidence.

However, Bass and Avolio (1993), House and Shamir (1993), Lowe et al,. (1995),

and Yukl (1994), present overviews of these studies. With surprising

consistency these empirical studies have demonstrated consistently that value

based leader behavior predicts unusual levels of leader effectiveness directed

toward enhancing organizational performance.

Support for the effects of value based leadership is illustrated by a recent

meta-analysis of the charisma subscale of the Bass and Avolio (1989)

Multifacet Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The MLQ charisma subscale

describes relationships between subordinates and superiors. Superiors who

receive high scores on this scale are described by subordinates as having an

exciting vision of the future for the organization they lead, and being

exceptionally motivational, trustworthy, and deserving of respect.

Support for the theoretical main effects of value based leader behavior has been

demonstrated at several levels of analysis including dyads, small informal

groups, major departments of complex organizations, overall performance of

educational and profit making organizations, and nation states. The evidence

is derived from a wide variety of samples including military officers,

educational administrators, middle managers, subjects in laboratory experiments

and management simulations, US presidents and chief executive officers of

Fortune 500 firms (Bass & Avolio, 1993; House & Shamir, 1993; Waldman,

Ramirez & House, 1996).

The evidence shows that the effects of value based leader behavior are rather

widely generalizable in the United States and that they may well generalize

across cultures. For instance, studies based on the charisma scale of the MLQ

have demonstrated similar findings in India (Periera, 1987), Singapore (Koh,

Terborg & Steers, 1991), The Netherlands (Koene, Pennings & Schreuder,

1991), China, Germany, and Japan (Bass, 1997).

In summary, the studies based on various operationalizations of value based

leadership clearly show that this genre of leadership results in a high level

of follower motivation and commitment and well-above-average organizational

performance, especially under conditions of crises or uncertainty (Pillai &

Meindl, 1991; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1995; Waldman, Ramirez &

House, 1996; Waldman, Atwater & House, 1996).

NEWLY INTEGRATED THEORIES

The value based theory of leadership integrates the precursor theories

discussed above with a number of assertions advanced in several psychological

theories of motivation and behavior. Following is a brief review of the

psychological theories that are integrated into the Value Based Leadership

Theory.

McClelland's Theories of Non-conscious Motivation

According to this theory, the motivational aspects of human beings can be

understood in terms of four non-conscious motives in various combinations

(McClelland, 1985). These motives are the achievement, power, affiliation,

and social responsibility motives. McClelland has developed a theory of

entrepreneural effectiveness based on the role of achievement motivation, and

a more general theory of leader effectiveness consisting of theoretical

assertions concerning the optimum combination of the above four motives for

effective leadership. This theory is entitled the Leader Motive Profile

Theory (LMP). In the following sections we discuss the four motives

discussed by McClelland and the LMP theory.

Achievement Motivation

Achievement motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for achieving

excellence in accomplishments through one's individual efforts

(McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958). Achievement motivated

individuals set challenging goals for themselves, assume personal

responsibility for goal accomplishment, are highly persistent in the pursuit of

goals, take calculated risks to achieve goals and actively collect and use

information for feedback purposes. Achievement motivation is theoretically

predicted to contribute to effective entrepreneurship (McClelland, 1985) and

effective leadership of small task oriented groups (House et al., 1991).

Litwin and Stringer (1968) demonstrated experimentally that small groups led

by managers who enacted achievement oriented and arousing behaviors were more

effective than groups with managers who did not.

In management positions at higher levels in organizations, and particularly

in organizational settings where technical requirements are few and impact on

others is of fundamental importance, managerial effectiveness depends on the

extent to which managers delegate effectively and motivate and co-ordinate

others. Theoretically, high achievement motivated managers are strongly

inclined to be personally involved in performing the work of their

organization and are reluctant to delegate authority and responsibility.

Therefore, high achievement motivation is expected to predict poor

performance of high-level executives in large organizations. House et al.

(1991) found that achievement motivation of U.S. presidents was significantly

inversely related to archival measures of U.S. presidential effectiveness.

Affiliative Motivation

Affiliative motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for

establishing, maintaining, and restoring close personal relationships with

others. Individuals with high affiliative motivation tend to be non-

assertive, submissive, and dependent on others (McClelland, 1985).

Theoretically, highly affiliative motivated managers are reluctant to monitor

the behavior of subordinates, to convey negative feedback to subordinates

even when required, or to discipline subordinates for ethical transgressions

or violations of organizational policies. Highly affiliative motivated

managers are also theoretically expected to manage on the basis of personal

relationships with subordinates and therefore show favoritism toward some.

House et al. (1991) found that the affiliative motive was significantly

negatively correlated with U.S. presidential charismatic leadership and

archival measures of U.S. presidential effectiveness.

Power Motivation

Power motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for acquiring status

and having an impact on others. Individuals with high power motivation tend

to enjoy asserting social influence, being persuasive, drawing attention to

themselves, and having an impact on their immediate environment including the

people with whom they interact. Theoretically, if enacted in a socially

constructive manner, high power motivation should result in effective

managerial performance in high level positions (McClelland, 1975; 1985).

However, unless constrained by a responsibility disposition, power motivated

managers will exercise power in an impetuously aggressive manner for self

aggrandizing purposes to the detriment of their subordinates and

organizations.

High power motivation induces highly competitive behavior. Therefore, when

unconstrained by moral inhibition, power motivation is theoretically

predictive of leader effectiveness when the role demands of leaders require

strong individual competitiveness, aggressiveness, manipulative exploitive

behavior, or the exercise of substantial political influence. The power

motive was found by House et al. (1991) to significantly predict presidential

charismatic behavior and archival measures of presidential effectiveness.

Responsibility Disposition

According to McClelland, individuals who have a high concern for the moral

exercise of power will use power in an altruistic and collectively-oriented

manner. Indicators of high concern for responsibility are expressions of

concern about meeting moral standards and obligations to others, concern for

others, concern about consequences of one’s own action, and critical self

judgment.

Winter and Barenbaum (1985) developed and validated a measure of concern for

moral responsibility, which they label the responsibility disposition1

. The measure is based on quantitative content analysis of narrative text

material. Winter (1991) demonstrated that the responsibility disposition, in

combination with high power and low affiliative motivation, was predictive of

managerial success over a sixteen-year interval.

The responsibility motive should be predictive of leader integrity and

leaders' concern for the consequences of their own actions on others. Leaders

with high responsibility disposition are expected to stress the importance of

keeping one's word, honesty, fairness, and socially responsible behavior.

Thus, we expect the responsibility disposition to be associated with value

based leader behavior, supportive leader behavior, fairness, follower trust

and respect for the leader and commitment to the leader’s vision, and

consequently organizational effectiveness.

Leader Motive Profile Theory

McClelland (1975) argued that the following combination of non-conscious

motives are generic to, and predictive of, leader effectiveness: high power

motivation, moderate achievement motivation, high concern for the moral

exercise of power, and power motivation greater than affiliative motivation.

This combination of motives is referred to by McClelland (1975) as the Leader

Motive Profile (LMP).

According to LMP theory, the power motive is necessary for leaders to be

effective because it induces them to engage in social influence behavior, and

such behavior is required for effective leadership. Further, when the power

motive is higher than the affiliative motive, individuals do not engage in

the dysfunctional behaviors usually associated with high affiliation

motivation - favoritism, submissiveness, and reluctance to monitor and

discipline subordinates. Finally, when high power motivation is coupled with

a high concern for moral responsibility, individuals are predicted to engage

in the exercise of power in an effective and socially desirable manner.

Earlier research, also reviewed by McClelland (1985), suggests that the

achievement motive is a better predictor of leader effectiveness and success

in entrepreneurial organizations than LMP.

Theoretically the leader motive profile is predictive of managerial

effectiveness under conditions where leaders need to exercise social

influence in the process of making decisions and motivating others to accept

and implement decisions. In formal organizations these conditions are found

at higher levels and in non-technical functions. By contrast, in smaller

technologically based organizations, group leaders can rely on direct contact

with subordinates (rather than delegation through multiple organizational

levels), and technological knowledge to make decisions. Thus LMP theory is

limited to the boundary conditions of moderate to large non-technologically

oriented organizations (McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1978; 1991), and to

managers who are separated from the work of the organization by at least one

organizational level.

Several studies have demonstrated support for the LMP theory. Winter (1978)

found that LMP was predictive of the career success of entry level managers in

non-technical positions in the US Navy over an eight-year interval. Both

McClelland and Boyatzis (1982), and Winter (1991), in separate analyses of the

same data but with different operationalizations of LMP, found similar results

at AT&T over a sixteen-year interval. McClelland and Burnham (1976) found

high-LMP managers had more supportive and rewarding organizational climates,

and higher performing sales groups than low-LMP managers did in a large sales

organization. House, et al. (1991) found that the motive components of the LMP

predicted US presidential charisma and presidential performance effectiveness.

Since high LMP leaders have greater power than affiliative motivation it is

expected that they will be assertive and at least moderately directive.

Further, since they have high responsibility motivation it is expected that

thay will have highly internalized idological values - values concerning what

is morally right and wrong - and that they will thus stress ideological value

orientation, integrity, and fairness, as explained above, both verbally and

through personal example.

The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

The essence of path-goal theory is that leader behaviors will be effective when

such behaviors complement formal organizational practices and the informal

social system by providing direction, clarification, support and motivational

incentives to subordinates, which are not otherwise provided (House, 1971;

House & Mitchell, 1974; House, 1996). According to the 1996 version of

path-goal theory, leaders who give approval and recognition of subordinates,

contingent on performance and in a fair manner, will clarify expectancies of

subordinates concerning work goals and rewards, and will effectively motivate

subordinates. This theory also predicts that leader consideration toward

subordinates provides the psychological support subordinates require,

especially in times of stress and frustration.

Path-goal theory suggests that either participative or directive leader behavior

can provide psychological structure and direction and therefore clarify

subordinates' role demands. Theoretically, directive leader behavior will be

dysfunctional and participative leader behavior will be functional when

subordinates are highly involved in their work, perceive themselves as having a

high level of task related knowledge, and/or prefer a high level of autonomy.

Meta-analyses of 135 relationships tested in prior studies provide support for

these assertions (Wofford & Liska, 1993).

Dissonance Theory and Competing Values

According to cognitive dissonance theory, individuals experience

anxiety-inducing cognitive dissonance when their self-evaluative cognitions,

feelings and behavior are in conflict with each other (Festinger, 1980). Under

such conditions, individuals are strongly motivated to reduce the dissonance by

changing one or more of the dissonant components--either their behavior, their

cognitions, or their feelings. It follows from dissonance theory that when

leaders appeal to ideological values of followers and also administer extrinsic

material rewards strictly contingent on follower performance, they will

induce cognitive dissonance in followers. Offering strong extrinsic incentives

for doing what is claimed to be morally correct will theoretically induce

dissonance, and is likely to undermine the effects of leaders' appeals to

ideological values. From dissonance theory, we would expect that with the

exception of social rewards such as approval and recognition, contingent reward

behavior on the part of leaders will undermine the effects of value based

leader behavior.

Equity Theory

Equity theory asserts that when individuals perceive the ratio of their

contributions to their rewards (intrinsic or extrinsic) to be equal to the

ratio of contributions to rewards of others, they will believe that they are

treated fairly (Adams, 1963). We expect that under conditions of perceived

unfairness followers will feel resentment, be demotivated, will not support

and may even resist attempts by leaders to influence them.

Situational Strength

Mischel (1973) has argued that the psychological strength of situations

influences the degree to which individual dispositions such as motives or

personality traits are expressed behaviorally. Strong situations are

situations in which there are strong behavioral norms, strong incentives for

specific types of behaviors, and clear expectations concerning what behaviors

are rewarded. According to this argument, in strong situations, motivational

or personality tendencies are constrained and there will be little behavioral

expression of individual dispositions. Thus, in organizations that are

highly formalized and governed by well-established role expectations, norms,

rules, policies and procedures, there is less opportunity for organizational

members to behaviorally express their dispositional tendencies.

Theoretically, in strong psychological situations, leader motives have less

influence on leader behavior, and leader behavior has less influence on

subordinates and on organizational outcomes than in weak psychological

situations. Studies by Monson, Healy and Chernick (1982), Lee, Ashford, and

Bobko (1990), and Barrick and Mount (1993) have demonstrated support for

Mischel's situational strength argument.

THE VALUE BASED LEADERSHIP THEORY

This theory consists of six axioms and twenty-seven propositions that relate

leader behavior, leader motives, and situational variables to leader

effectiveness.

The Parsimonious Meta–Proposition of Value Based Leadership

Value based leadership theory is based on the meta–proposition that non-

conscious motives and motivation based on strongly internalized values is

stronger, more pervasive, and more enduring than motivation based on

instrumental calculations of anticipated rewards or motivation based on

threat and avoidance of punishment. The axioms and propositions that follow

are derived from and can all be explained in terms of this parsimonious

meta-proposition.

The Value Based Leader Behavior Syndrome

Behaviors that characterize value based leadership include a) articulation of a

challenging vision of a better future to which followers are claimed to have a

moral right; b) unusual leader determination, persistence, and self-sacrifice

in the interest of the vision and the values inherent in the vision; c)

communication of high performance expectations of followers and confidence in

their ability to contribute to the collective; d) display of self-confidence,

confidence in followers, and confidence in the attainment of the vision; e)

display of integrity; f) expressions of concern for the interests of followers

and the collective; g) positive evaluation of followers and the collective; h)

instrumental and symbolic behaviors that emphasize and reinforce the values

inherent in the collective vision; i) role modelling behaviors that set a

personal example of the values inherent in the collective vision; j)

frame-alignment behaviors--behaviors intended to align followers' attitudes,

schemata, and frames with the values of the collective vision; and, k)

behaviors that arouse follower motives relevant to the pursuit of the vision.

We refer to these behaviors collectively as the value based leader

behavior syndrome.

This specification of value based leader behaviors integrates the behaviors

specified in prior extensions of the 1976 theory of charismatic leadership as

well as behaviors specified in other theories of charismatic,

transformational and visionary leadership. House and Shamir (1993) provide

the rationale for inclusion of the above behaviors in the theoretical leader

behavior syndrome.

Axioms

Axioms are statements, the validity of which are taken for granted, either

because the enjoy substantial empirical evidence or becuse they cannot be

tested. Axioms provide a foundation for more specific statements, such as

propositions. The axioms stated here provide the foundation for the

selection of leader behaviors from among all of the leader behaviors

specified in the various theories described above.

Axioms Concerning Human Motivation

1. Humans tend to be not only pragmatic and goal-oriented, but are also

self-expressive. It is assumed that behavior is not only instrumental-

calculative, but also expressive of feelings, aesthetic values and self-

concepts. We "do" things because of who we "are," because by doing them we

establish and affirm an identity for ourselves, at times even when our

behavior does not serve our materialistic or pragmatic self-interests.

2. People are motivated to maintain and enhance their generalized self-

efficacy and self-worth. Generalized self-efficacy is based on a sense of

competence, power, or ability to cope with and control one's environment.

Self-worth is based on a sense of virtue and moral worth and is grounded in

norms and values concerning conduct.

3. People are also motivated to retain and increase their sense of self-

consistency. Self-consistency refers to correspondence among components of

the self-concept at a given time, to continuity of the self-concept over

time, and to correspondence between the self-concept and behavior. People

derive a sense of "meaning" from continuity between the past, the present and

the projected future, and from the correspondence between their behavior and

self-concept.

4. Self-concepts are composed of values, perceptions of self-worth,

efficacy, and consistency, and also identities. Identities, sometimes

referred to as role-identities, link the self-concept to society. Social

identities locate the self in socially recognizable categories such as

nations, organizations and occupations, thus enabling people to derive

meaning from being linked to social collectives.

5. Humans can be strongly motivated by faith. When goals cannot be clearly

specified or the subjective probabilities of accomplishment and rewards are

not high, people may be motivated by faith because being hopeful in the sense

of having faith in a better future is an intrinsically satisfying condition.

6. When individual motives are aroused in the interest of the collective

effort, and when individual identify with the values inherent in the collective

vision, they will evaluate themselves on the basis of the degree to which they

contribute to the collective effort. Under conditions of motive arousal and

value identiication individuals experience intrinsic satisfaction from their

contribution to the collective effort and intrinsic dissatisfaction from

failure to contribute to collective efforts.

These axioms incorporate the extensions of the 1976 theory of charismatic

leadership offered by Shamir, House and Arthur (1993), and House and Shamir

(1995) and provide the integrative framework for the Value Based Theory of

Leadership.

PROPOSITIONS

The theory is expressed in the form of twenty-seven propositions which assert

specific ways in which leader motives and behaviors, in conjunction with

situational variables, affect follower motivation and performance and

organizational performance. These propositions are based on the leadership

and psychological theories reviewed above and reflect the extensions of the

1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership contributed by House et al. (1991),

Shamir et al. (1993), House and Shamir (1993), and Waldman, Ramirez and House

(1996).

Propositions Concerning Leader Behavior and Its Effects

1. The motivational effects of the behaviors of the value based leader behavior

syndrome described above will be heightened follower recognition of shared

values between leaders and followers, heightened arousal of follower motives,

heightened follower self-confidence, generalized self-efficacy and self-worth,

strong follower self-engagement in the pursuit of the collective vision and in

contributing to the collective, and strong follower identification with the

collective and the collective vision. We refer to these psychological reactions

of followers as the value based motive syndrome .

2. The behavioral effects of the value based motive syndrome will be heightened

commitment to the collective as manifested by follower willingness to exert

effort above and beyond normal position or role requirements, follower

self-sacrifice in the interest of the vision and the collective, and increased

collective social cohesion and organizational collaboration. We refer to these

effects as the value based follower commitment syndrome. While the

value based motive syndrome described in proposition one is not directly

observable, the behaviors of the value based follower commitment syndrome are.

Propositions Concerning Leader Attributes

3. Self-confidence and a strong conviction in the moral correctness of one's

beliefs will be predictive of proactive leadership. This proposition is a

slight modification of proposition three of the 1976 Theory of Charismatic

Leadership. This proposition has been supported by Smith (1982), House et

al. (1991), and Howell and Higgins (1991).

4. Strong leader concern for the morally responsible exercise of power will

be predictive of constructive, collectively oriented exercise of social

influence by leaders and predictive of the value based motive and follower

commitment syndromes specified in propositions 1 and 2 above.

5. Power motivation coupled with a strong concern for the morally

responsible exercise of power will be predictive of the constructive,

collective-oriented exercise of social influence by leaders.

6. Power motivation, unconstrained by a strong concern for the moral

exercise of power, will be predictive of impetuously aggressive and self-

aggrandizing exercise of social influence.

7. Power motivation, in conjunction with a strong concern for the moral

exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the role

demands of leaders require substantial delegation of authority and

responsibility and the exercise of social influence.

8. Power motivation, unconstrained by a strong concern for the moral

exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the role

demands of leaders require strong individual competitiveness, aggressiveness,

manipulative and exploitive behavior, or the exercise of substantial

political influence.

9. Affiliative motivation will be predictive of non-assertive leadership,

close relationships with a small subgroup of followers, partiality toward

this subgroup, and ineffective leadership.

10. The leader motive profile will be predictive of proactive leadership and

leader effectiveness when the role demands of leaders require substantial

delegation of authority and responsibility and the exercise of social

influence.

11. Achievement motivation will be predictive of effective leader

performance in entrepreneurial contexts and for small task-oriented groups in

which members have direct interaction with the leader.

12. Achievement motivation will be predictive of ineffective leader

performance for the leadership of organizations in which the role demands of

leaders require substantial delegation of authority and responsibility and

the exercise of substantial social influence.

Propositions four through twelve are derived from the motivation theories

reviewed earlier.

Propositions Concerning Specific Leader Behaviors

13. Leader behaviors intended to enhance followers cognitive abilities will

increase follower and overall organizational performance when such behaviors

complement formal organizational practices and the informal social system by

providing direction, clarification, feedback, encouragement, support, and

motivational incentives to subordinates which are not otherwise provided.

14. When leader behaviors intended to enhance followers cognitive abilities

are redundant with formal organizational practices and the informal social

system they will be viewed as excessively controlling, will cause follower

dissatisfaction, and will be resented and resisted.

15. To be accepted by followers, it is necessary for leaders to be perceived

by followers as acting in the interest of the collective and the followers,

to be perceived as fair and trustworthy in their interactions with followers,

and to be perceived as not self-aggrandizing.

16. Leader support behavior will be predictive of low follower stress, trust

in by followers, and follower satisfaction with their relationships with

leaders.

17. Leader contingent recognition and approval will be predictive of

follower role clarity, follower perceptions of leaders as fair, and

heightened follower satisfaction and motivation.

18. Directive leader behavior will result in follower role clarification but

will be dysfunctional when followers prefer to exercise independent actions

and initiative, are highly involved in their work, and/or perceive themselves

as having requisite knowledge and skills for effective task performance.

19. Participative leader behavior will result in follower role clarification

and will be functional when followers prefer to exercise independent actions

and initiative, are highly involved in their work, and/or when followers

perceive themselves as having requisite knowledge and skills for effective

task performance.

20. Leader fairness behavior will be predictive of follower acceptance of

leaders, and the leader's vision and values.

21. Perceived lack of fairness will result in follower resentment and

resistance to the leaders vision and directions. These propositions are

based on equity theory of motivation.

Propositions 13 through 21 are based on the 1996 version of Path Goal Theory

of leadership (House, 1996).

22. Leaders arouse motives of followers by enacting specific motive arousal

behaviors relevant to each motive. For example, defining tasks and goals as

challenging arouses the achievement motive; invoking the image of a

threatening enemy, describing combative or highly competitive situations or

describing the exercise of power arouses the power motive; making acceptance

of the leader contingent on mutural acceptance of followers, or stressing the

importance of collaborative behavior arouses the affiliative motive.

23. Leaders who engage in selective behaviors that arouse motives

specifically relevant to the accomplishment of the collective vision will

have positive effects on followers' value based motive syndrome described in

Proposition 2.

24. The more leaders engage in the value based leader behavior syndrome the

more their followers will emulate (a) the values, preferences and

expectations of the leader, (b) the emotional responses of the leader to

work-related stimuli, and (c) the attitudes of the leader toward work and the

organization.

Propositions 22 through 24 are slight revisions of propositions advanced in

the 1976 Theory of Charismatic leadership (House, 1977).

25. The use of strong extrinsic material rewards contingent on performance

will conflict with appeals to ideological values and will thus undermine the

effects of the value based leader behavior syndrome. This proposition is

based on dissonance theory (Festinger, 1980) and supported by the findings of

Korman (1970), and Dubinsky and Spangler (1995) described above.

Propositions Concerning Social Context

26. Two necessary conditions for leaders to have the effects specified in

proposition two are that leaders have the opportunity to communicate the

collective vision to potential followers and that the role of followers be

definable in ideological terms that appeal to them. This is a modification

of one of the propositions originally advanced by House (1977).

27. The emergence and effectiveness of value based leaders will be

facilitated to the extent to which a) performance goals cannot be easily

specified and measured, b) extrinsic rewards cannot be made clearly

contingent on individual performance, c) there are few situational cues,

constraints and reinforcers to guide behavior and provide incentives for

specific performance, and d) exceptional effort, behavior and sacrifices are

required of both the leaders and followers. This proposition is based on the

earlier discussion of strength of situations and dissonance theory and is a

modest modification of one of the propositions originally advanced by Shamir

et al. (1993).

The hypotheses were tested within the context of a latent structure casual

model, using Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS). This modelling procedure

requires that substantive hypotheses be modelled in the form of paths

connecting the hypothesized variables. The variables are latent constructs

composed of scores on manifest indicators. The The slopes of these

relationships are presented in Figure 3. This finding supports the

competitive hypothesis 5a which states that LMP will have greater effects in

non-entrepreneurial firms than in entrepreneurial firms, and will be

discussed below.

IMPLICATIONS

In this section we first discuss the implications of the findings with

respect to the value based leadership. Next we discuss the implications of

the findings for each of the five theories that were integrated in the models

tested. We then discuss the more general implications of the study for the

discipline of Organizational Behavior.

Value Based Leadership

Thomas (1988), House et al. (1991), and by Waldman, Ramirez and House (1996)

demonstrate longitudinally, and with adequate controls for spurious

relationships, that leaders have substantial effects on the performance of

the organizations they manage. However, there have been no studies, other

than the U.S. presidential study (House et al., 1991), that investigate the

leader motives and behavior that lead to such leader effects. Thus there has

been a "black box" concerning how leader processes influence overall

organizational performance that remains to be explained.

Collectively, the findings of the present study help to understand the

phenomena in the "black box." More specifically, the findings show, in some

detail, important relationships between chief executives' motives and

behavior and subordinates' motivation and commitment to their organization.

Having shown how the components function, it is now possible to test

linkages between leader behavior, subordinate responses, and organizational

effectiveness using longitudinal quasi experimental designs.

Implications for Specific Theories

In this section we discuss the implications of the study findings for each of

the theories that are integrated to form the Value Based Theory of

Leadership.

Achievement Motivation Theory

Achievement motivation has a more positive effect on CEMS and all leader

behaviors in entrepreneurial firms than in non-entrepreneurial firms. This

finding constitutes yet another confirmation of achievement motivation theory

concerning the specific conditions under which achievement motivation is

predicted to result in high performance.

Moral Responsibility Theory

The bivariate relationships between the moral responsibility disposition and

value based leader behavior, leader fairness and CEMS, and the moderating

effect of responsibility on the relationships between the power motive, and

CEMS, leader charisma, and support/reward behavior all provide support for

Moral Responsibility Theory. Moral responsibility motivation is clearly an

important disposition that deserves further investigation and attention.

Leader Motive Profile Theory

The positive relationships between LMP and executive value based leader

behavior, support/recognition behavior, and directiveness provide support for

LMP Theory. These two relationships are consistent with the interpretation

that because high LMP leaders have low affiliative motivation they enact

social influence in an impersonal and more proactive and assertive manner

than low LMP leaders.

The findings are consistent with the propositions that LMP affects leader

behavior, and leader behavior in turn has a positive effect on CEMS. These

findings suggest a re-specification of the boundary conditions for the role

of LMP in organizational functioning. Contrary to the initially specified

boundary conditions, LMP has negligible effects on leader behavior and CEMS

in non- entrepreneurial firms and positive effects in entrepreneurial firms.

These findings imply that LMP has its' major impact on organizational

outcomes through its' influence on leader behavior under weak psychological

conditions.

Path Goal Theory

As predicted by the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership (House, 1996), leader

contingent

recognition and supportive behaviors are predictive of CEMS, and leader

directiveness is more strongly negatively related to CEMS in entrepreneurial

firms. Thus Path-Goal theory is provided additional support in the present

study.

CONCLUSION

The major conclusions that can be drawn from the above findings and discussion

are: 1) the value based theory of leadership successfully integrates five

prominent theories of leadership (transformational, charismatic, visionary,

LMP, and path-goal theories) and assertions drawn broadly from established

psychological theories of motivation and behavior; 2) the components of the

value based theory of leadership are rather strongly and quite consistently

supported, although their exact combinations remain to be established; 3) the

psychological theories integrated within the value based theory are largely

supported; 4) the value based theory of leadership, with various kinds of

operationalizations, has rather broad generalizability; 5) the theory

supported by the U.S. presidential study holds for CEOs with respect to effects

of leader behaviors on subordinates' cognitions and affective responses; 6) a

re-specification of the boundary conditions of LMP should be further

investigated; and 7) the motives that are most appropriate for effective

leadership are contingent on the orientation of the collective being led.

Beginning with the 1976 theory of charismatic leadership (House, 1977), a new

leadership paradigm has emerged. This paradigm consists of several theories of

similar genre (House, 1977; Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo; 1987; Bennis

& Nanus, 1985; 1987; Sashkin, 1988) and concerns the determinants of

exceptionally effective or outstanding leadership. According to this paradigm,

value based leaders infuse organizations and work with ideological values which

are intrinsically and powerfully motivational. Value oriented motivation

is stronger, more pervasive, and more endurable than pragmatic oriented

motivation. The theories of the new paradigm are now integrated and

formalized as the Value Based Theory of Leadership. Hopefully, this theory and

the supporting research will stimulate further leadership research and further

development of leadership and organizational behavior theory.



(C) 2009