Strength in Numbers - APA PsycNET - American Psychological

Original Article

Strength in Numbers How Employees’ Acts of Followership Can Influence Their Manager’s Charismatic Leadership Behavior This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Laurent M. Lapierre,1 Nicholas L. Bremner,2 and Alicia D. McMullan1 1

Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada Abstract. In this theoretical paper, we explain how employees’ passive and proactive followership behavior can influence the extent to which their managers display socialized or personalized charismatic leadership. We argue that followership behaviors influence managers’ positive affect and psychological empowerment, which in turn drive the degree to which managers manifest their particular charismatic leadership inclination. However, these effects would depend on the strength of managers’ predisposition for one type of charismatic leadership or the other. Implications for charismatic leadership theory and future research are discussed. Keywords: followership behavior, leadership behavior, charismatic leadership

Charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987) is a form of outstanding leadership that can have a profound impact on the leader’s followers, organization, and in some cases society at large (House & Howell, 1992; Ligon, Hunter, & Mumford, 2008; Strange & Mumford, 2002; Waldman & Javidan, 2009). Charisma is the common focal point of several theories of leadership, including those describing transformational (Bass, 1985, 1990), visionary (Sashkin, 1988), and inspirational leadership (Nanus, 1992). Charismatic leaders ‘‘raise followers’ aspirations and activate their higher-order values such that followers identify with the leader and his or her mission/vision, feel better about their work, and perform beyond expectations’’ (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009, p. 766). Central to charismatic leadership is the development and articulation of a vision depicting a more desirable future state for the group (Bass, 1990; House, 1977; House & Howell, 1992). While much attention has been given to the positive nature and beneficial aspects of charismatic leadership, some have recognized the possible destructive nature of such leadership (Deluga, 2001; House & Howell, 1992; Ligon et al., 2008; O’Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995; Waldman & Javidan, 2009; Weierter, 1997). The positive manifestation of charismatic leadership has been termed socialized charismatic leadership (SCL), while its negative manifestation has been labeled personalized charismatic leadership (PCL). Socialized charismatic leaders are collectively oriented, egalitarian, and nonexploitative, while personalized charismatic leaders are self-aggrandizing, non-egalitarian, and exploitative (House & Howell, 1992). PCL may not necessarily be destructive, particularly if the leader’s personal interests are consistent with those of others influenced by his/her actions (Deluga, 2001). However, Ó 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

compared to SCL, PCL is much more likely to lead to negative consequences given the tendency for people exemplifying this leadership to disregard the interests of others. Scholars have strived to identify factors explaining the emergence of SCL and PCL. Some of this work has focused on personality variables in an effort to identify traits that would predispose individuals to enact one type of charismatic leadership or the other (Deluga, 2001; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; O’Connor et al., 1995; Popper, 2002). In addition to this trait-based approach, others have worked on explaining the role of followers in the emergence of either SCL or PCL (e.g., Atik, 1994; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Shalit, Popper, & Zakay, 2010; Weierter, 1997). This dovetails with the growing view that followers are not necessarily passive recipients of the leader’s influence, but can play an active role in the emergence of leadership (e.g., Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008; Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien & Pillai, 2007). Scholarly interest in followers’ influence on charismatic leadership has concentrated largely on their individual differences (e.g., relational vs. collective self-concept, self-concept clarity, secure vs. avoidant attachment style; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Shalit et al., 2010) and on whether they perceive a fit between their needs, beliefs, and/or values, and their leader’s characteristics (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Kanungo & Conger, 1992; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). What have yet to be discussed are the specific behaviors that followers display when interacting with their leader. This gap in the literature is critical to bridge if we are to better understand and suggest ways to manage the leadership process. Recent research has revealed that the types of followership behavior can vary considerably. Some employees display followership that is quite passive in nature, while others display followership that Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(4):251–261 DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000119

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

252

L. M. Lapierre et al.: Followership Behavior’s Influence on Leadership Behavior

is more proactive (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010). What influence can these two different types of followership have on the emergence of SCL and PCL? This question was the impetus for our article. We focus our text on organizational contexts in which employees formally report to a manager. Much of the leadership literature has used the terms ‘‘employee’’ and ‘‘follower’’ interchangeably, and has similarly considered ‘‘leader’’ and ‘‘manager’’ as being equivalent terms. As we explain below, one’s formal status as an employee (or subordinate) does not necessarily imply that one engages in followership behavior. Similarly, one’s formal status as manager does not imply that one exemplifies leadership. In this article, we explain how variation in employees’ display of followership behaviors can influence the degree to which their managers engage in charismatic leadership behaviors. We do not pretend to assume that our arguments and conclusions equally apply to other contexts, such as the political arena. The set of theoretical arguments we make is consistent with House and Howell’s (1992) view that situational variables and individuals’ personal characteristics interact in influencing their motivation to enact SCL or PCL. We consider employees’ followership behaviors (passive and proactive) as situational variables that can influence the degree to which their manager displays a particular type of charismatic leadership. However, we argue that the influence of each type of followership on the emergence of either SCL or PCL depends on the strength of the manager’s predisposition for one type of charismatic leadership or the other. Also, we argue that this influence occurs by impacting the manager’s psychological empowerment and positive affect. As such, instead of focusing on subordinates’ reactions to leadership (which has been the focus of most of the leadership literature), we explain how different managers would react to the manner in which their subordinates display followership.

SCL Versus PCL On the basis of McClelland’s (1975) work, Howell and colleagues (House & Howell, 1992; Howell, 1988) distinguished SCL from PCL. They define SCL as leadership that is based on egalitarian behavior, serves collective interests, and develops and empowers others. In contrast, they define PCL as leadership that is based on personal dominance and authoritarian behavior, serves the leader’s personal interests, and is exploitative of others. As noted earlier, a core element of charismatic leadership is the development and articulation of a vision. The vision of any charismatic leader represents an idealized future state, although the values, ideals, and identities that it articulates can vary greatly (Strange & Mumford, 2002). Whereas the socialized charismatic leader wishes to collaborate and participate with followers in an effort to integrate their needs into a vision representing shared interests, the personalized charismatic leader is driven to create a vision that fundamen-

Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(4):251–261

tally reflects his/her own private motives and intentions (Atik, 1994; Howell, 1988; Waldman & Javidan, 2009; Weierter, 1997). While the content of a charismatic leader’s vision is of central importance, a leader’s personal charisma is also significant. Weierter (1997) refers to personal charisma as ‘‘the expressive nature of charismatic display’’ (p. 178) and considers vision content (the charismatic message) and the leader’s personal charisma as both contributing to the successful emergence of either SCL or PCL. Personal charisma has been said to manifest itself through the expression of emotions such as ecstasy and intense excitement, and through the projection of self-confidence (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980; Weber, 1947). Empirical research has revealed that individuals’ variation on certain personality traits can predispose them to display behaviors typifying either PCL or SCL. Underlying the display of SCL as well as PCL is an unusually strong need for power (e.g., House & Howell, 1992; House et al., 1991; McClelland, 1985; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; O’Connor et al., 1995; Winter, 1973, 1987), which is defined as being concerned with strong, vigorous action that affects others, action that has an emotional impact on others, and with reputation and status (Winter, 1973). However, people with a stronger predisposition for SCL, compared to those with a stronger predisposition for PCL, would be higher on the trait of activity inhibition (House et al., 1991; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Winter, 1987; Winter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1982) and lower on that of narcissism (Popper, 2002; Post, 1986; Raskin & Terry, 1988; Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984). Activity inhibition refers to the motive to satisfy one’s need for power in a socially desirable way, for the benefit of the collective rather than for personal gain (McClelland, 1985). Narcissism involves an inflated sense of self-importance and uniqueness, a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited power, success, status, prestige, and superiority, an expectation to receive special favors without reciprocation, the seeking of admiration and attention of others, the exploitation of others, a lack of empathy, an intolerance of criticism, and relationships that alternate between extremes of overidealization and devaluation (Raskin & Hall, 1979). In sum, there is empirical evidence implying that a stronger need for power coupled with higher activity inhibition and lower narcissism would predispose a person to exhibit behaviors associated with SCL. However, a higher need for power combined with weaker activity inhibition and stronger narcissism would predispose a person to exhibit PCL behaviors. Although other individual difference variables may distinguish people with a stronger predisposition for SCL from those with a stronger predisposition for PCL, those discussed above have received the most attention in the empirical research literature. As noted by others (Deluga, 2001; House & Howell, 1992), SCL and PCL are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a person to display behavior that reflects both tendencies. Thus, it is conceivable for someone to have similar predispositions for both SCL and PCL. However, previous

Ó 2012 Hogrefe Publishing



research has reported a negative relationship between a person’s need to exert power in a socialized manner and his/her need to exert it in personalized way (Magee & Langner, 2008). Thus, it is unlikely that people have very strong predispositions for both. In this paper, for the sake of clarity, we make theoretical predictions for cases where managers have a stronger predisposition for SCL and separate predictions for cases where managers have a stronger predisposition for PCL. Research on traits predictive of charismatic leadership has revealed some inconsistencies, raising doubt concerning the existence of a charismatic temperament or personality. These skeptics argue that charisma is the product of the social relationship between a leader and his/her followers (Shamir et al., 1993; Weierter, 1997). We believe that both approaches to the explanation of charismatic leadership are complementary. In our estimation, the strength of a manager’s predisposition to display a particular type of charismatic leadership is, on its own, insufficient to cause this manager to fully engage in behaviors consistent with his/ her inclination. In keeping with previous work (House & Howell, 1992; Magee & Langner, 2008; Mischel, 1977), we believe that the degree to which a manager experiences his/her situation as constraining or facilitating will govern the extent to which he/she manifests the type of charismatic leadership for which he/she is most strongly predisposed. The view that charismatic leadership is a product of the social relationship between leader and follower(s) implies that followers engage and interact with their leader in such a way that enables, to some extent, the emergence of charismatic leadership behaviors. However, we argue that it is the manager’s experience of the situation that plays the primary role, such that employees’ display of followership will constrain or enable charismatic leadership depending on how it is experienced by the manager.

Followership What Is Followership and Why Is It Relevant to Charismatic Leadership? According to Uhl-Bien and Pillai (2007), in their recent work on the social construction of followership, ‘‘At its core, followership involves deferring to the directives, decisions, or desires of another, thereby giving another higher status and legitimacy in determining the course of events’’ (p. 196). It follows that prototypical followership behaviors involve some form of deference to the person considered as the leader. Uhl-Bien and Pillai (2007) further argue that without at least some semblance of deference, leadership cannot exist. Through acts of followership, employees express that they consider their manager as their legitimate leader, that they approve of him/her in a leader role, and that they are willing to be influenced by him/her in that capacity (Hernandez & Sitkin, 2011; Hollander & Julian, 1969;


253

Hollander & Webb, 1955). Research on employee behaviors aimed at thwarting the manager’s influence, such as ignoring or refusing to perform his/her requests or putting him/her down (Arnold, Dupre, Hershcovis, & Turner, 2011; Dupre & Barling, 2006; Tepper et al., 2006), shows that one’s status as an employee does not necessarily imply that one will display followership. This notion of non-followership is analogous to the view that some managers exemplify nonleadership or laissez-faire leadership by failing to actively influence subordinates (Avolio, 1999). The charismatic leader’s vision describes what he/she sees as a better future state for his/her group. It is for this reason that the visionary element of charismatic leadership has been described as group-focused leadership behavior (Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010). The leader can rarely realize this vision alone; he/she needs the group to make the vision a reality. An example would be the orchestra conductor. Without the efforts and unique talents of the orchestra members, it would be impossible for the conductor to realize his/ her musical vision. Similarly, a manager in a more typical organizational context is dependent, to some degree at least, on his/her employees’ efforts and talents if he/she is to exemplify the visionary nature of charismatic leadership. This echoes the view that gaining the consent of subordinates is a basic component of the leadership process (Atik, 1994; Handy, 1984). Since followership is the behavioral manifestation of employees’ endorsement of the manager as their leader, increased followership in the group should, in most cases, contribute to the emergence of charismatic leadership.

Proactive Versus Passive Followership Although all acts of followership reflect an employee’s support of the manager in the leader role, not all employees display followership in the same manner. Carsten and colleagues (2010) recently helped to elucidate the different conceptions that people have of effective followership (i.e., how followers should behave in relation to their leader). They found that some individuals expect followers to be very passive in the way they relate to their leader, while others expect them to be very proactive. Passive followership involves strict obedience and high deference to one’s leader, and refraining from questioning the leader’s ideas or directions. Such behaviors are consistent with the very traditional view of subordinates being less gifted than their managers and displaying loyalty by following their managers’ orders without question (Hecksher, 1994; Ravlin & Thomas, 2005). Proactive followership involves establishing a partner role vis-a`-vis the leader. Proactive followers voice their ideas and concerns to their leader without being asked, and constructively challenge their leader’s ideas or decisions if they are not consistent with the group’s mission. Proactive followers therefore display significantly less deference to their leader than passive followers do. However, as explained above, some deference is still necessary for such


254


+

Manager’s Predisposition for Socialized Charismatic Leadership

Figure 1. Model summary. + Manager’s Socialized Charismatic Leadership Behavior

Employees’ Proactive Followership Behavior Manager’s Psychological Empowerment and Positive Affect


Employees’ Passive Followership Behavior

Manager’s Personalized Charismatic Leadership Behavior

+

Manager’s Predisposition for Personalized Charismatic Leadership

+

behavior to be considered followership. Thus, an employee who regularly disagrees with and challenges the manager’s ideas or motives, and who is generally unable to find common ground with him/her is not displaying proactive followership, or any followership at all. The degree to which some employees in a group display one type of followership says little about whether the remaining employees display the other type. Proactive and passive followership should be considered as distinct modes of conduct. They should not be considered as opposites. It is conceivable for some employees in a group to be proactive followers, for others to be passive, and for others to display no followership at all. The representation of proactive followers, passive followers, and non-followers can vary from group to group. Vital to the argumentation we present in this article is the fact that employees’ acts of followership may not necessarily be aligned with their manager’s preferences. The enactment of followership, whether passive or proactive, is a function of several possible factors. One factor is what the employee believes to be effective followership. Carsten and Uhl-Bien (2009) found that employees’ beliefs concerning effective followership (proactive vs. passive) predicted the type of followership that they enacted. The particular type of followership displayed by an employee also seems to be influenced by whether the organizational context is hierarchical (bureaucratic) or empowering (flat). Hierarchical contexts would foster more passive followership while empowering contexts would foster more proactive followership (Carsten et al., 2010). Lastly, while a manager may try to influence the followership displayed by an employee, the employee may resist satisfying the manager’s wishes if the manager’s preferred type of followership is inconsistent with the employee’s personal beliefs (Carsten et al., 2010). This is consistent with the notion that employees enter into a relationship with their manager with preexisting needs, beliefs, and values (Atik, 1994; Bass et al., 1987; Kanungo & Conger, 1992; Shamir et al., 1993). In sum, employees’ particular display of followership may or may not be consis-


tent with what the manager expects or needs in terms of followership. This implies that the influence of followership on the emergence of charismatic leadership may depend on the alignment between the type of followership displayed by employees and the manager’s followership preferences.

How Followership Influences Charismatic Leadership Previous work suggests that experiencing more positive affect at work and having a strong sense of empowerment each contribute to whether a person displays more charismatic leadership (e.g., Gardner & Avolio, 1998; House, 1977; Seo & Shapiro, 2008; Walter & Bruch, 2009). There are reasons to believe that employees’ acts of followership would influence the degree to which the manager experiences positive affect and empowerment. As we explain later on, we expect this influence to depend on the type of followership displayed by employees and the strength of a manager’s predisposition for either SCL or PCL. Our view is that managers’ psychological empowerment and positive affect would mediate (explain) the effect of employees’ followership on managers’ display of PCL and of SCL. Figure 1 provides a graphic summary of our model. We recognize that other psychological variables have been studied as antecedents of charismatic leadership, such as personality (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004) and emotional intelligence (Hur, Van den Berg, & Wilderom, 2011). However, such individual difference variables are relatively stable and unlikely to be susceptible to followers’ influence, at least to the degree that psychological empowerment and positive affect would be. Below we explain why employees’ acts of followership would affect managers’ psychological empowerment and positive affect. We then explain why these two psychological constructs would contribute to managers’ display of PCL and SCL. Ó 2012 Hogrefe Publishing


The Impact of Followership Type on Managers’ Positive Affect


The Importance of Managers’ Implicit Followership Theories As noted above, people vary in their beliefs regarding effective followership (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2009; Carsten et al., 2010). Beliefs concerning the traits and behaviors of followers have been referred to as implicit followership theories or IFTs (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2009; Sy, 2010). IFTs likely form at an early age (Hunt, Boal, & Sorenson, 1990) through socialization processes and continue to develop as people gain experience with followers and the follower role (Lord & Maher, 1993). There is a parallel to be drawn between the development of a person’s IFTs and of his/her predisposition for either SCL or PCL – both are shaped by life events (Ligon et al., 2008). IFTs would serve a sense-making function (Engle & Lord, 1997; Weick, 1995) that aids people in interpreting the behaviors of those in a follower role (Poole, Gioia, & Gray, 1989). People in leadership positions likely use their beliefs to structure information about the complex, ambiguous situations and events they face in organizations (Wright & Mischel, 1987). Managers may therefore use their IFTs as a benchmark against which to form impressions of their employees (Lord & Maher, 1993). The process of categorizing people according to preexisting beliefs would be so fundamental that it occurs automatically and very quickly by the mere presence of a stimulus target (Boldenhausen & McCrae, 1998). Managers would compare an employee’s actions to their IFT and, based on the degree of congruence, would form an impression of that employee. The impression made would likely elicit an affective reaction (Sy, 2010) which could be more or less positive depending on the type of impression made. We expect managers to react more positively to followership when it is more consistent with what they view as effective followership (i.e., more consistent with their IFT). Because life events would play a role in shaping one’s IFTs as well as one’s inclination for either SCL or PCL, we would expect the nature of managers’ IFTs to be generally consistent with their predisposition for either SCL or PCL. We explain this inference in more detail below. The Affective Reactions of Managers With a Stronger Predisposition for SCL Those managers more inclined for SCL have a strong need to use their power to satisfy the shared needs of the collective that they represent (e.g., the unit, group, department, or organization). To do so, they need followers who express their personal needs, preferences, and values, and who partner with them in shaping and realizing a shared vision. Similarly, Wofford and Goodwin (1994) proposed that managers displaying transformational leadership (which has been considered a socialized form of charismatic leadership; House & Howell, 1992) expect their followers to display Ó 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

255

self-reliance, innovativeness, and initiative. These behaviors are more consistent with proactive followership than with passive followership. Passive followership does not reflect a desire to partner with the leader in identifying common interests, but rather a determination to conform oneself to the leader’s wishes. Thus, we expect managers with a stronger predisposition for SCL to have an IFT that is much more proactive than passive in nature. As a result, such managers are more likely to react positively when interacting with proactive followers than with passive followers. Proposition 1: Because of their more proactive IFT, managers with a stronger predisposition for SCL will experience more positive affect when their employees display more proactive followership than when they display more passive followership.

The Affective Reactions of Managers With a Stronger Predisposition for PCL Managers with a stronger inclination for PCL are driven to use their power for achieving their personalized goals through domination over others and would therefore prefer employees who are easily dominated. Accordingly, we would expect these managers to have a more passive IFT that involves blind obedience than a proactive IFT that involves questioning the leader’s ideas if they seem to stray from the group’s interests. Indeed, managers who are strongly inclined toward PCL would be quite intolerant of employees who challenge them (Strange & Mumford, 2002); most likely a result of their narcissistic nature (Raskin & Hall, 1979). Therefore, such managers would react more favorably when interacting with passive followers than with proactive followers. Proposition 2: Because of their more passive IFT, managers with a stronger predisposition for PCL will experience more positive affect when their employees display more passive followership than when they display more proactive followership.

The Impact of Followership Type on Managers’ Psychological Empowerment Howell and Shamir (2005) argued that by showing their acceptance and approval, and by providing their leader with their personal resources, followers have the potential to boost his/her sense of empowerment. Such endorsement will in turn motivate the leader to display charismatic leadership behaviors, such as displaying self-confidence and presenting a challenging vision (Howell & Shamir, 2005). We share this view, although we posit that the potential for endorsement (i.e., followership) to boost a manager’s feeling of empowerment depends on the fit between the type of followership displayed and the manager’s predisposition to exhibit SCL or PCL. Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(4):251–261


256


As described by Spreitzer (1995), psychological empowerment in the workplace is a motivational construct depicting a person’s active orientation toward his/her work role. Psychological empowerment, as a form of intrinsic motivation, is comprised of four cognitions: Meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Meaning is the value a person gives to their work goal or purpose, judged in relation to his/her own ideals. It involves a perceived fit between what the person views as the requirements of a work role and his/ her beliefs and values. Competence (self-efficacy) denotes a person’s belief in his/her capability to skillfully perform role-relevant activities. Self-determination is one’s sense of having choice in initiating and regulating actions relevant to one’s work role. Finally, impact refers to the extent to which a person believes he or she can influence outcomes at work (Ashforth, 1989). Spreitzer (1995) argued that all four cognitions combine additively to create an overall construct of psychological empowerment, implying that the lack of any one of these elements would hamper, though not completely eliminate, a manager’s feeling of being empowered in a leadership role. The particular type of leadership role most attractive to a manager would be a function of his/her inclination toward either PCL or SCL. Managers with a stronger predisposition for PCL would be more attracted by a leadership role enabling them to exemplify PCL, while those inclined toward SCL would be more naturally enticed by a leadership role enabling them to exemplify SCL (Magee & Langner, 2008). In the following paragraphs, we explain how proactive and passive followership would influence a manager’s feeling of empowerment to enact the charismatic leadership role he/she is most attracted to. The Empowerment of Managers With a Stronger Predisposition for SCL Meaning Role theory and relational models of leadership imply that the manner in which employees enact the follower role influences how their manager conceptualizes his/her corresponding leader role (Blumer, 1969; Hosking, Dachler, & Gergen, 1995; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Stryker & Statham, 1985). Acts of followership can cue the manager on the requirements of his/her leadership role. Employees displaying passive followership would inform the manager that he/ she is expected (or at least permitted) to impose his/her views on them. On the other hand, those enacting proactive followership inform the manager that they expect him/her to let them express their opinions, to respect their ideas, and to be open to adjusting his/her opinions based on their feedback. The manager with a stronger inclination for SCL will likely judge his/her leadership role as being more meaningful when employees display more proactive followership because the leadership role requirements implied by this type of followership would be consistent with the manager’s subscription to the use of socialized power. However, if the same manager’s employees tend to display more passive


followership, he/she may perceive a lack of fit between leadership role requirements communicated by employees and his/her personal ideals. In such a situation, the manager would consider the leadership role has being less personally meaningful. Competence A competent socialized charismatic leader influences others such that they feel empowered and as a result take a more proactive role in helping to develop and realize the group’s goals. When interacting with proactive followers, a manager more with an inclination for SCL may be more easily convinced of his/her competence in his/her preferred leadership role. However, employees who display passive followership despite the manager’s efforts to empower them and get them to share their personal views might cause the manager to doubt his/her ability as a socialized charismatic leader. Thus, we would expect a manager with a stronger predisposition for SCL to feel more competent when his/her employees display more proactive followership than when they display more passive followership. Self-Determination For a manager with a stronger predisposition for SCL, feeling self-determined would involve having the choice to initiate and regulate actions that are consistent with SCL. Employees’ display of proactive followership implies that they would approve of this manager’s efforts to involve them in setting direction for the group, thus giving him/ her a sense of freedom to continue displaying socialized charismatic behaviors. While passive followers might resist displaying the degree of proactivity and self-assuredness that such a manager would prefer, they are unlikely to show significant discontent as a result of his/her influence attempts. Doing so would show a lack of deference to their leader. By definition, passive followership involves giving the leader great latitude in choosing how he/she wishes to behave. Thus, we would not expect passive followership to significantly weaken this particular manager’s sense of self-determination in initiating behaviors that typify SCL. Impact For a manager with a stronger inclination toward SCL, having impact would entail being able to realize a shared vision, meaning a vision that represents the shared needs and interests of the group he/she represents. By having proactive followers, such a manager would feel more confident in his/her ability to realize such a vision because of the belief that his/ her followers will provide the necessary input to ensure the vision is truly shared. However, passive followers’ reluctance to voice personal opinions could weaken the manager’s belief that he/she will be able to realize a vision that truly reflects shared needs or interests in the group.



Proposition 3: Managers with a stronger predisposition for SCL will feel more empowered when their employees display more proactive followership than when they display more passive followership.

The Empowerment of Managers With a Stronger Predisposition for PCL


Meaning Managers with a stronger predisposition for PCL would perceive their leadership role as having stronger meaning when their employees display more passive followership than when they display more proactive followership. While passive followership would inform the manager that he/she can lead through domination and thus exhibit a personalized style of charismatic leadership, proactive followership would cue him/her that such an approach could be illreceived. Managers with a stronger inclination for PCL would therefore consider their leadership role more personally meaningful when dealing with passive followers than when dealing with proactive followers. Competence Compared to proactive followership, passive followership is more likely to strengthen a manager’s sense of competence when he/she is more inclined toward PCL. Through their passive followership, employees strengthen the manager’s belief that he/she is capable of influencing them to do his/ her bidding without question. In contrast, employees who display proactive followership, which can involve questioning or challenging the leader’s ideas or motives, would inform the manager that they will not blindly obey him/ her, thus weakening his/her sense of competence as an influential personalized charismatic leader. Self-Determination Passive followership is much more likely than proactive followership to boost a manager’s sense of self-determination when he/she is more drawn to a PCL role. Passive followership gives the manager very wide latitude in behaving as he/ she deems fit. However, proactive followership sends the manager the signal that employees expect to be involved in decisions that would affect them. Proactive followers would not easily condone unilateral decision-making by their leader, particularly when they feel that their input would have contributed to a better decision. This type of followership would thus limit the manager’s freedom to make self-serving decisions typical of PCL. Impact A manager with a stronger predisposition for PCL would be more confident in his/her capability to realize his/her personÓ 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

257

alized, self-serving vision when employees obey without question than when they try to infuse the vision with their own needs or interests. Thus, passive followership should be more helpful than proactive followership in bolstering such a manager’s sense of impact. Proposition 4: Managers with a stronger predisposition for PCL will feel more empowered when their employees display more passive followership than when they display more proactive followership.

The Effects of Managers’ Psychological Empowerment and Positive Affect on Their Display of Either PCL or SCL We believe that psychological empowerment and positive affect can influence SCL as well as PCL. Regardless of the manager’s particular charismatic inclination, he/she would have a strong need for power. It stands to reason that this need for power would be more satisfied to the extent that the manager feels more empowered in his/her leadership role. Moreover, the experience of more empowering cognitions would be instrumental in ensuring that the manager displays the high degree of self-confidence that characterizes charismatic leaders (Friedman et al., 1980; House, 1977; House & Howell, 1992) while also promoting a challenging vision for the future (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Thus, feeling more empowered would bolster the manager’s capacity to display personal charisma and to articulate a charismatic message (Weierter, 1997). This being said, we would expect psychological empowerment to motivate the demonstration of charismatic leadership that is consistent with the manager’s charismatic predisposition. For example, it would be surprising for a manager with a strong inclination for SCL, who has been psychologically empowered by employees’ proactive followership, to engage in more PCL rather than more SCL. Proposition 5: Managers with a stronger predisposition for SCL will display more SCL when they feel more psychologically empowered. Proposition 6: Managers with a stronger predisposition for PCL will display more PCL when they feel more psychologically empowered. Several scholars have argued that the experience of positive affect strengthens the display of charismatic leadership, and there is empirical evidence to support this position (Walter & Bruch, 2009). This argument is sound since charismatic leaders have been shown to convey more positive emotions in their vision statements (Bono & Ilies, 2006) and have been described with adjectives having positive emotional connotations such as ‘‘friendly’’ and ‘‘likeable’’ (e.g., Holladay & Coombs, 1993). As is the case with psychological empowerment, the experience of positive affect would seem salient to a manager’s display of personal charisma and to his/her expression of a charismatic vision. Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(4):251–261


258


Experiencing more positive affect should fuel the display of SCL as well as PCL. We base this position on research examining predictors of individuals’ proactive behavior. Such behavior is goal-directed and involves anticipating the future and actively taking charge of situations to bring about change (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Thus, charismatic leadership, whether personalized or socialized, involves proactive behavior. It has been proposed that situational variables can impact proactivity via different motivational paths, one of which is the affective experience that energizes or fuels individuals to engage in proactivity (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). In a recent study, Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, and Hagger-Johnson (2012) demonstrated that the more people experience high-activated positive mood (e.g., feeling enthusiastic, excited, inspired, joyful), the more they engage in behaviors representing proactive regulation, including envisioning (i.e., imagining a different future), planning (i.e., preparing to bring about the envisioned future by, e.g., imagining different scenarios), enacting (i.e., actually implementing the changes one wishes to bring about), and reflecting (i.e., efforts to understand the success, failure, or implications of one’s proactive actions). Most of these behaviors would be expected of charismatic leaders (particularly envisioning, planning, and enacting), whether they are personalized or socialized in their power motive. The above findings imply that the experience of intense positive mood is salient to the display of charismatic leadership, whether it is personalized or socialized in nature. However, as argued above when describing the effect of psychological empowerment on charismatic leadership behavior, we would still expect managers to behave in accordance with their particular charismatic predisposition. Accordingly: Proposition 7: Managers with a stronger predisposition for SCL will display more SCL when they experience more positive affect. Proposition 8: Managers with a stronger predisposition for PCL will display more PCL when they experience more positive affect.

The Impact of Followership Type on the Display of Charismatic Leadership Behaviors In the preceding paragraphs, we argued that the positive effect of a particular type of followership on managers’ positive affect and psychological empowerment would be stronger to the extent that this type of followership is consistent with managers’ predisposition for either PCL or SCL (Propositions 1 through 4). We then argued that managers’ positive affect and psychological empowerment would augment the degree to which they display behaviors consistent with the type of charismatic leadership they are most inclined to enact (Propositions 5 through 8). Taken together, these sets of arguments imply the following propositions: Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(4):251–261

Proposition 9: Managers with a stronger predisposition for PCL will display more PCL behavior when their employees display more passive followership than when they display more proactive followership. Proposition 10: Managers with a stronger predisposition for SCL will display more SCL behavior when their employees display more proactive followership than when they display more passive followership.

Implications for Theory and Future Research We have depicted followers as co-creators of charismatic leadership by explaining the influence of employees’ followership behaviors on managers’ display of personalized and socialized charismatic leadership behavior. We do not deny the dynamic (reciprocal) nature of leader-follower relationships. As argued by Howell and Shamir (2005), we expect that managers who display more charismatic leadership behavior are in a better position to be considered charismatic by their employees and thus have a charismatic influence on them. However, because of the dearth of work devoted to the influence of followers on their leaders, we focused on further elucidating this particular direction of influence within charismatic leader-follower relationships. Taken together, we posit that managers will more strongly display the form of charismatic leadership that they have the greatest predisposition for (personalized or socialized) when their group of employees predominantly displays the type of followership that is most consistent with their charismatic inclination. Followership would have such an influence by affecting managers’ positive affect and psychological empowerment. Our theoretical arguments are intended to complement, not compete with, previous work explaining how followers can influence the leadership process (Bass et al., 1987; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Kanungo & Conger, 1992; Shalit et al., 2010; Shamir et al., 1993). To the extent that our theoretical propositions receive empirical support, organizations may wish to select employees on the basis of individual differences predictive of their capacity to motivate their manager to manifest his/her inclination for SCL. Research would be needed to identify predictors of proactive followership. In addition to existing work drawing empirical links between employees’ IFT scores and the type of followership they enact (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2009), research may discover that other individual difference variables, such as those relating to employees’ self-concept and attachment style, explain incremental variance in their followership behavior. Another issue that we did not delve into is that some managers may have similar (though likely modest) tendencies for both SCL and PCL. It is conceivable that, as a result of this dual predisposition, these managers would be more adaptive in terms of their ability to regulate their expectations and behaviors depending on the followership displayed Ó 2012 Hogrefe Publishing



in their work group. For example, these leaders could potentially engage in more PCL when their group consists primarily of passive followers and engage in more SCL when the group consists mostly of proactive followers. These points highlight the importance of ensuring that employees’ followership helps to govern the emergence of the more desired type of charismatic leadership. It is also important to consider the possible consequences of managers feeling disempowered as a result of their employees’ actions. Previous work implies that, when faced with proactive followers or non-followers, managers who tend to engage in PCL will tend to use threats, punishment, or other coercive tactics in an attempt to maintain their influence (power) over these employees (House & Howell, 1992; O’Connor et al., 1995; Strange & Mumford, 2002). It follows that proactive followers and non-followers may be at considerable risk when their manager has a stronger tendency to engage in PCL. However, this risk may vary depending on employees’ social power (French & Raven, 1960). For example, a manager may think twice before trying to coerce employees who have significant referent power (i.e., who have won the admiration and respect of other important people in the organization). In addition, grouplevel variables may also make employees’ more or less subject to managerial coercion. For example, highly cohesive groups may be at a lower risk for this kind of coercive managerial behavior because of a greater willingness to collectively resist the leader. Finally, senior organizational leaders should consider whether their own actions (or lack thereof) allow or even encourage managers to be aggressive with their employees (Ashforth, 1994; O’Leary-Kelly, Griifin, & Glew, 1996). To conclude, our paper highlights the role that employees’ followership behaviors play in the display of SCL and PCL behavior among managers. Our paper incorporates extant theory and empirical evidence in presenting arguments for the effects of followership type (passive vs. proactive) on each form of charismatic leadership. In doing so, we have integrated trait-based and relational approaches to the study of charismatic leadership. It is our hope that our theoretical propositions will stimulate interest in further theory development and research that simultaneously consider the complementary roles of employees and managers in the emergence of charismatic leadership.

References Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Hershcovis, M., & Turner, N. (2011). Interpersonal targets and types of workplace aggression as a function of perpetrator sex. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23, 163–170. Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207–242. Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755–778. Atik, Y. (1994). The conductor and the orchestra: Interactive aspects of the leadership process. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 15, 22–28. Ó 2012 Hogrefe Publishing

259

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 764–784. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 26–40. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19–31. Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership: The falling dominos effect. Group and Organization Studies, 12, 73–87. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forwardthinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 134–150. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boldenhausen, G., & McCrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Stereotype activation and inhibition. Advances in social cognition (Vol. 11, pp. 1–52). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions, and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317– 334. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910. Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2009). Implicit followership theories (IFT): Developing and validating an IFT scale for the study of followership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management Association, Ashville, NC, USA. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543–562. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647. Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 339–363. Dupre, K. E., & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 13–26. Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, selfschemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 988–1010. French, J. P. R., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 607–623). New York, NY: Harper and Row. Friedman, H. S., Prince, L. M., Riggio, R. E., & DiMatteo, R. (1980). Understanding and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: The affective communication test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 333–351. Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32–58. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie 2012; Vol. 220(4):251–261


260


Handy, C. (1984). The Gods of management. New York, NY: Penguin. Hecksher, C. (1994). Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In C. Heckscher & A. Donnellon (Eds.), The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hernandez, M., & Sitkin, S. B. (2011). Who is leading the leader? Follower influence on leader ethicality. In D. DeCremer & A. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Behavioral business ethics: Ideas on an emerging field. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Communicating visions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 405–427. Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387–397. Hollander, E. P., & Webb, W. B. (1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 163– 167. Hosking, D. M., Dachler, H. P., & Gergen, K. J. (1995). Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism. Aldershot, UK: Avebury. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81–108. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364–396. Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213–236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112. Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Sorenson, R. L. (1990). Top management leadership: Inside the black box. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 41–65. Hur, Y., Van den Berg, P. T., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2011). Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 591–603. Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1992). Charisma: Exploring new dimensions of leadership behaviour. Psychology and Developing Societies, 4, 21–38. Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 312–334. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Magee, J. C., & Langner, C. A. (2008). How personalized and socialized power motivation facilitate antisocial and prosocial decision-making. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1547–1559. McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York, NY: Irvington. McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812– 825.


McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737–743. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. L., & Connelly, M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: An historiometric study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529– 555. O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griifin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225–253. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856. Poole, P. P., Gioia, D. A., & Gray, B. (1989). Influence modes, schema change, and organization transformation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25, 271–289. Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized charismatic leaders. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 797–809. Post, J. M. (1986). Narcissism and the charismatic leaderfollower relationship. Political Psychology, 7, 675–687. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 55–60. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902. Ravlin, E. C., & Thomas, D. C. (2005). Status and stratification in organizational life. Journal of Management, 31, 966– 987. Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 122–160). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Seo, M., & Shapiro, D. L. (2008). Do happy leaders lead better? Affective and attitudinal antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, USA. Shalit, A., Popper, M., & Zakay, D. (2010). Followers’ attachment styles and their preference for social or for personal charismatic leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 458–472. Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active coproducers: followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix–xxxix). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594. Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343–377.




Stryker, S., & Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interaction and role theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 311–378). New York, NY: Random House. Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 113, 73–84. Tepper, B. J., Uhl-Bien, M., Kohut, G. F., Rogelberg, S. G., Lockhart, D. E., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Subordinates’ resistance and managers’ evaluations of subordinates’ performance. Journal of Management, 32, 185–209. Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 187–209). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Waldman, D. A., & Javidan, M. (2009). Alternative forms of charismatic leadership in the integration of mergers and acquisitions. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 130–142. Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2009). An affective events model of charismatic leadership behavior: A review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35, 1428–1452. Watson, P. J., Grisham, S. O., Trotter, M. V., & Biderman, M. D. (1984). Narcissism and empathy: Validity evidence for the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 301–305. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York, NY: Free Press. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weierter, S. J. (1997). Who wants to play ‘‘follow the leader?’’ A theory of charismatic relationships based on routinized charisma and follower characteristics. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 171–193.


261

Winter, D. (1973). The power motive. New York, NY: Free Press. Winter, D. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motives profile of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 96–202. Winter, D., McClelland, D. C., & Stewart, A. (1982). A new defense of the liberal arts. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of transactional and transformational leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 161–186. Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1987). Conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1159–1177. Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 90–106.

Laurent M. Lapierre Telfer School of Management University of Ottawa 55 Laurier East Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Canada Tel. +1 613 562-5800 Fax +1 613 562-5164 E-mail [email protected]
