Strategic Leadership Moving Beyond the Leader-follower Dyad

279 HESTER DUURSEMA Strategic Leadership Moving Beyond the Leader-follower Dyad Strategic Leadership Moving beyond the leader-follower dyad Strategic Leadership Moving beyond the leader-follower dyad Strategisch leiderschap voorbij de leider-volger dyade THESIS to obtain the degree of Doctor from the Erasmus University Rotterdam by command of the Rector Magnificus Prof.dr. H.G. Schmidt and in accordance with the decision of the Doctorate Board The public defense shall be held on Friday 15 March 2013 at 9:30 hrs. by Hester Duursema born in Alphen aan de Rijn Doctoral Committee Promoter: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder Other members: Prof.dr. D. van Knippenberg Prof.dr. J.J.P. Jansen Prof.dr. L.C.P.M. Meijs Co-promoter: Dr. D. van Dierendonck Erasmus Research Institute of Management – ERIM The joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at the Erasmus University Rotterdam Internet: http://www.erim.eur.nl ERIM Electronic Series Portal: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1 ERIM PhD Series in Research in Management, 279 ERIM reference number: EPS-2013-279-ORG ISBN 978-90-5892-324-0 © 2013, Duursema, H. Design: B&T Ontwerp en advies www.b-en-t.nl This publication (cover and interior) is printed by haveka.nl on recycled paper, Revive®. The ink used is produced from renewable resources and alcohol free fountain solution. Certifications for the paper and the printing production process: Recycle, EU Flower, FSC, ISO14001. More info: http://www.haveka.nl/greening All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants” -Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)1- No dissertation can result from sole individual effort. Certainly, mine did not. While my biography acknowledges those, whose ideas I have borrowed and built upon, here it is my privilege to thank the people who have contributed to this dissertation in obvious and less obvious ways. These words are simply shorthand for my feelings of gratitude. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors Rob van Tulder and Dirk van Dierendonck. Although I have not made it easy for them to supervise me, being very stubborn in my deliberation, they have guided me along the way. They asked diverging questions where they figured the reasoning and evidence was too narrow and posing converging questions, where they saw many interesting pieces of knowledge connected, yet no distillation of the essence thereof. The combination of their qualities, Rob asking how the topic of my research was embedded in the broader context and Dirk making sure the empirics were sound and solid, has been very contributive to the PhD process in itself and to the final product. Second, but most important, I would like to mention the love of my life, Marcel van Gils, who has supported and encouraged me, even though working on my PhD did not make me the most inspiring person to be with. Amidst his own unrelentless drive, he has always been there for me, providing sound quality checks from a OD\SHUVRQ¶V SHUVSHFWLYH. His rock solid character has kept me on track, preventing me from becoming a ³working PDFKLQH´E\FRQWLQXRXVO\UHDFKLQJRXWIRUP\KHDUWLove you mgl! Furthermore, my lovely parents Roelf and Geertje Duursema. I am more than grateful for the opportunities they have provided me with, but even more so, I am thankful for their unconditional love and their wisdom for allowing me to make my own mistakes. I feel very privileged to have such loving parents who are able to challenge me and at the same time make me feel that I can conquer the world. In fact, the whole idea of shared leadership originates from the relationship that my parents have, being complementary in their personalities and their approach to life. I would also like to express words of gratitude to my dear brothers Jos and Egbert Duursema. You guys are the EHVW7KH\ VD\ \RX FDQQRW FKRRVH \RXU IDPLO\ EXW , ZRXOG KDYH³FKRVHQ´ \RX :H PD\ QRW VHHHDFK RWKHU often, but I know you are always there for me. The same holds for my sister-in-law Jolijn Heine, who has been 1 Sir Isaac Newton (1642 ±1727) was an English physicist. v an inspiration to me by being such an attentive and caring person. Even with the busy life she has, she will always express a token of appreciation or warmth at any occasion. In this regard, I would also like to mention my best friend Flor Avelino, who is one of my paranymphs. Next to WKHIDFWWKDWZHKDYHVSHQWPDQ\HYHQLQJVGD\VDQGZHHNHQGVWRJHWKHUZRUNLQJRQRXUUHVSHFWLYH3K'¶V,DP utterly grateful for having her as my close friend. Her curiosity, authenticity, warmth and passion are just a few things I love about her. Consider for instance the following: at one point in time, she made me a PhD discovery box, with all kinds of treats inside ± be it chocolate, bathing oil, Groupon tickets for a Japanese restaurant. These things have kept me going , when the going got rough. Many more friends have supported me, inspiring me by being such great personalities and friends. You know who you are, and I hope you realize how grateful I am for having each one of you in my life. The same holds for family members of myself and Marcel whom I have not mentioned. Thank you very much for giving me space to work on my PhD (even during family gatherings) and supporting me along the way. This PhD endeavor actually started out as part of my job as a consultant at Strategy Works/Strategy Academy. My former colleagues have inspired me to set off on this route and introduced me to the notion of paradoxical thinking in strategic management. I would especially like to mention Wolter Lemstra, who worked closely with Strategy Works/Strategy Academy. I came to know him as a person with utter integrity. Without asking anything in return he stood by me out of pure interest and out of the wish to help his younger colleagues. He is the manifestation of what it means to be human-kind! I would also like to thank my current employer, Rebel. I have started to work for Rebel in June 2010. Although the job switch was somewhat unlucky in terms of the phase of the PhD trajectory I was in, the environment and the people have been most inspiring and refreshing. Working with such a bunch of entrepreneurial and intrinsically motivated Rebels brings joy to every day of work. Next to that, they have supported me and offered a very flexible environment which was essential in order to finish this dissertation. And lastly, many other organizations and individuals have supported me in gathering more data or referring me to the right person to talk to. Thank you all very much! And yet, a reflection on myself. People sometimes ask me, ³in hindsight would you do it all over again?´ And I would say: ³yes, definitely´ Writing a PhD is such a multifaceted challenge, that it provides a stretch in all kinds of different directions. At many points in time you are confronted with your own personality. In a sense, writing this PhD has allowed me deep insights in my own behavior and thoughts. Not only insights, but writing this PhD has contributed to the very acceptance of myself. It allowed me to become more and more myself. As you may realize writing this PhD has been quite a memorable experience for me. I hope you will enjoy it! vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ V TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ VII LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... IX LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... X INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 2 SHARED LEADERSHIP FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 THE 21ST CENTURY CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 RESEARCH CONTEXT...................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 THE CONTEMPORARY NEED FOR SHARED LEADERSHIP ............................................................................................... 10 1.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 IN SEARCH FOR STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP .............................................................................................................. 15 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 2.2 LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUPERVISORY AND STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ......................................................................... 19 2.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS & RESEARCH STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................... 21 PART I: CONCEPTUALIZATION .............................................................................................. 25 3 4 5 LEADERSHIP AT DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS.................................................................................. 27 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 3.2 LEADERSHIP DIFFERENCES ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS .................................................................................. 29 3.3 DISCONTINUITY PERSPECTIVE ...................................................................................................................................... 33 3.4 CONTINUITY PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................................................................................... 35 3.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 35 EVOLUTION OF LEADERSHIP THEORY ..................................................................................................................... 37 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 37 4.2 CLASSIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES .................................................................................................................................. 37 4.3 NEW LEADERSHIP THEORIES ........................................................................................................................................ 40 4.4 CONTEMPORARY LEADERSHIP THEORIES ..................................................................................................................... 43 4.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 44 REINVENTING STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ................................................................................................................. 45 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 45 5.2 THE CONCEPT OF STRATEGY ........................................................................................................................................ 47 5.3 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 50 5.4 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP CONCEPTUAL MODEL ........................................................................................................... 57 5.5 RELATEDNESS WITH OTHER MODELS .......................................................................................................................... 63 5.6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 66 PART II: OPERATIONALIZATION & VALIDATION ................................................................ 69 6 OPERATIONALIZING STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP .................................................................................................... 71 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 71 6.2 METHOD....................................................................................................................................................................... 71 6.3 RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................................... 73 6.4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................................. 79 vii 7 VALIDATION OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MEASUREMENT ............................................................................. 81 7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 81 7.2 METHOD....................................................................................................................................................................... 83 7.3 RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................................... 87 7.4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................................. 95 PART III: APPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................... 99 8 IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP ON SUBORDINATE’ JOB SATISFACTION ................................................................ 101 8.1 9 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 101 8.2 ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL AS A MODERATING VARIABLE .......................................................................................... 104 8.3 METHOD..................................................................................................................................................................... 109 8.4 RESULTS..................................................................................................................................................................... 112 8.5 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 116 IMPACT OF SHARED STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS............................................... 119 9.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 119 9.2 SHARED LEADERSHIP ................................................................................................................................................. 120 9.3 TEAM EFFECTIVENESS................................................................................................................................................ 124 9.4 METHOD..................................................................................................................................................................... 127 9.5 RESULTS..................................................................................................................................................................... 128 9.6 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 135 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 139 10 WRAPPING UP AND LOOKING FORWARD .............................................................................................................. 141 10.1 WRAPPING UP ............................................................................................................................................................ 141 10.2 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.................................................................................................................................. 146 10.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 148 10.4 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH....................................................................................... 150 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 153 APPENDIX I: STRATEGIC & TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP SCALE .......................... 191 APPENDIX II: PILOT STUDY INTO LEADERSHIP DICHOTOMIES........................................ 193 APPENDIX II.A: QUESTIONNAIRE OF PILOT STUDY ............................................................ 205 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 209 NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING (DUTCH SUMMARY) ....................................................... 217 ABOUT THE AUTHOR............................................................................................................ 227 viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1: THEORIES UNDERLYING THE THREE LEGS OF THE TRIPOD ............................................................................................................. 9 TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF EVOLVEMENT OF THINKING AROUND LEADERSHIP ............................................................................................. 12 TABLE 2-1: PRELIMINARY DELINEATION OF SUPERVISORY & STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ............................................................................ 20 TABLE 3-1: SUMMARY OF WORK AT THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS ......................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 5-1: LITERATURE REVIEW ON STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ......................................................................................................................... 50 TABLE 5-2: LITERATURE REVIEW ON STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ......................................................................................................................... 51 TABLE 5-3: ROLES AND BEHAVIORAL ITEMS OF COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK (QUINN, 1988) ........................................................ 64 TABLE 6-1: STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORAL ITEMS .................................................................................................................................. 73 TABLE 6-2: CORRELATION MATRIX OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ITEMS ......................................................................................................... 75 TABLE 6-3: PATTERN MATRIX WITH VARIMAX ROTATION OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ............................................................................ 77 TABLE 6-4: INTRACLASS CORRELATIONS AND INTERRATER AGREEMENT..................................................................................................... 78 TABLE 6-5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, CRONBACH ALPHA COEFFICIENTS AND INTERCORRELATIONS .................................................. 79 TABLE 7-1: COMPARISON OF FACTOR SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 87 TABLE 7-2: INTRACLASS CORRELATIONS AND INTERRATER AGREEMENT..................................................................................................... 88 TABLE 7-3: FACTOR SOLUTION OF STRATEGIC & TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ITEMS ................................................................... 90 TABLE 7-4: SECOND-ORDER FACTOR ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................... 91 TABLE 7-5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, CRONBACH ALPH$¶6$1',17(5&255(/$TIONS........................................................................... 92 TABLE 7-6: ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL AS ANTECEDENT FOR LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR ............................................................................... 94 TABLE 7-7: BONFERRONI POST HOC SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL .............................................................. 95 TABLE 8-1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTI&6&521%$&+$/3+$¶6 AND INTERCORRELATIONS......................................................................... 112 TABLE 8-2: REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON JOB SATISFACTION.............................................................................................................................. 113 TABLE 8-3: CORRELATIONS SUBO5',1$7(¶-2%6$7,6)$CTION & SUPERVISOR LEADERSHIP ............................................................... 114 TABLE 8-4: HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION MODEL JOB SATISFACTION............................................................................................................ 115 TABLE 8-5: REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP ON JOB SATISFACTION ...................................................................... 116 TABLE 9-1: REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON (SHARED) LEADERSHIP IN TEAMS ................................................................................... 122 TABLE 9-2: FURTHER STUDIES INTO SHARED LEADERSHIP ............................................................................................................................... 123 TABLE 9-,&&¶6$1',17(55$TER AGREEMENT SCORES FOR LEADERSHIP DIMENSIONS ..................................................................... 129 TABLE 9-,&&¶6$1',17(55$TER AGREEMENT SCORES FOR TEAM EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES ...................................................... 129 TABLE 9-5: CORRELATION MATRIX SHARED, VERTICAL LEADERSHIP AND TEAM OUTCOMES .............................................................. 130 TABLE 9-6: MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL AND SHARED LEADERSHIP ....................................................................... 132 TABLE 9-7: HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS VERTICAL AND SHARED LEADERSHIP ................................................................... 134 ix LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1: THREE WAVES OF ECONOMIC CHANGE ............................................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 1-2: LEADERSHIP TRIPOD ONTOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 2-1: LEVELS OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19 FIGURE 2-2: RESEARCH STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 5-1: ORGANIZATION ± ENVIRONMENT DICHOTOMY............................................................................................................................... 49 FIGURE 5-2: EXPLORATION - EXPLOITATION DICHOTOMY .................................................................................................................................. 52 FIGURE 5-3: STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP QUADRANTS .............................................................................................................................................. 58 FIGURE 5-4: COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK (QUINN, 1988) .......................................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 5-5: STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MODEL......................................................................................................................................................... 66 FIGURE 7-1: SAMPLE FOR VALIDATION STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MODEL ...................................................................................................... 85 FIGURE 8-1: ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL AS MODERATING VARIABLE ............................................................................................................. 104 FIGURE 8-2: NESTED STRUCTURE OF SAMPLE ....................................................................................................................................................... 109 FIGURE 9-1: TEAM EFFECTIVENESS RELATED TO STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MODEL .................................................................................. 126 FIGURE 9-2: PREDICTIVE MODEL OF VERTICAL AND SHARED LEADERSHIP ................................................................................................. 126 FIGURE 10-1: STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MODEL..................................................................................................................................................... 143 FIGURE 10-2: IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL ON LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR ....................................................................................... 145 x INTRODUCTION 1 2 1 SHARED LEADERSHIP FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 1.1 INTRODUCTION “We are in a knowledge economy […], but our managerial and governance systems are stuck in the Industrial Era. It is time for a whole new model” (Manville & Ober, 2003a, p.48). Osborn et al. (2002) argue that there is a need for ³D UDGLFDO FKDQJH LQ SHUVSHFWLYH´ EH\RQG the traditional way of looking at leadership because ³«WKH context in which leaders operate is both radically different and diverse. The world of traditional bureaucracy exists but is only one of many FRQWH[WV´ (p.798). The Western world has entered a post-capitalist society in which capitalists and proletarians are replaced by knowledge workers and service workers (Drucker, 1993). This change in contextual frame bears consequences for leadership theory and practice. While many researchers claim that the ³old´ model of leadership was intended to address a very different set of circumstances and is therefore of questionable relevance to the contemporary work environment (Davenport, 2001), there is not yet a clear alternative. Organizational expert Brook Manville, and Princeton political science professor Josiah Ober suggest that the model for building future organizations may lie deep in the past. These authors argue in their book, The Company of Citizens (2003b), that Athenian democracy (around 500 BC) was an ingenious solution to organizing human capital through the practice of citizenship. This idea of collective responsibility is an interesting concept to explore in the present-day context, the argument being that leadership in contemporary organizations can be conceptualized and operationalized as a collective capacity, where individuals share leadership functions. This dissertation takes up the challenge of formulating a leadership answer which fits the contemporary context, while building on past leadership knowledge and experience. First, this introductory chapter describes the context of the 21st century (section 1.2) and second, reviews the current research context (section 1.3). On that basis, the last section of this chapter (section 1.4) puts forward an alternative way to conceptualize leadership for the 21st century. 3 1.2 THE 21ST CENTURY CONTEXT “Every few hundred years in Western history there occurs a sharp transformation…. Within a few short decades, society rearranges itself – its world view; its basic values; its social and political structure; its arts; its key institutions. Fifty years later there is a new world. And the people born then cannot even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born´ (Drucker, 1992, p.95). American futurist Alvin Toffler (1981) describes in his best-selling book The Third Wave, three periods of economic evolution: i) the Agricultural Wave, which lasted from 8000 B.C. to the mideighteenth century, ii) the Industrial Wave, which lasted until the late twentieth century, and finally iii) the Information Wave, which began in the 1960s and will last for many decades to come. These dates are approximate and overlapping. The first wave was driven by physical labor, the second wave by machines and blue-collar workers, and the third wave by information technology and knowledge workers. The transition periods between these three great waves of change have been anything but smooth. In Figure 1.1 each wave LV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ DQ ³6´ showing an early period of dislocation, followed by a long spell of maturity, and then its eventual demise as new technologies take over (Hope & Hope, 1997). Figure 1-1: Three waves of economic change 4 In the contemporary wave organizations face different kinds of challenges than during previous waves and as a result the requirements for leadership are different (Barkema et al., 2002; Schneider, 2002). In the industrial economy, the challenge was inside the firm (internal), i.e. coordinating the physical assets produced by employees. In other words, during the Industrial Wave those organizations that could optimize their physical production well were considered successful (Boisot, 1998; Schneider, 2002). In the 21st century, the landscape turned very competitive, due to trends of globalization, democratization and technology (Halal & Taylor, 1999), putting strain on the very boundaries and structures of organizations. The external environment drew more and more attention. This new landscape resulted in organizations organizing themselves horizontally LQ ³FRQVWHOODWLRQV´ (Bamford et al., 2003). At macro level, horizontally connecting organizations created what some have called the ³&RQQHFWLRQLVW(UD´(Halal & Crocker, 1998; Miles, 1998). Organizations face the need to exhibit speed, flexibility and adaptability (Eisenhardt, 1989). Sustainable superior performance requires faster learning (Child & McGrath, 2001). Many organizational theorists hence champion the ³learning organization´ (Senge, 1990), in which knowledge is the currency used. People in organizations have always sought, used, and valued knowledge, at least implicitly. However, explicitly recognizing knowledge as an organizational asset is relatively new, as is understanding the need to manage, lead and invest in knowledge with the same care paid to getting value from other, more tangible assets. ³The need to make the most of organizational knowledge, to get as much value as possible from it, is greater today than in the past´ (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p.12). Hence, this age has also been called the ³Knowledge Era´ (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Unlike previous factors of production such as land and labor that are subject to decreasing returns, knowledge is not bounded. Knowledge operates in terms of increasing returns. In other words, using knowledge generates more knowledge. Thus, the nature of knowledge suggests that knowledge should be shared and used in order to generate more knowledge. But how do organizations create such an environment that knowledge can be shared at low costs. A tentative answer is that organizations do not only rely on the intelligence of a few top-level leaders (Heckscher, 1994), but that they enable the intelligence distributed throughout the entire organization (Miles et al., 1999). As such, it is argued that in this Knowledge era, organizations rely on their corporate intelligence and capacity to learns rather than on their physical assets (McKelvey, 2001; Zohar, 1997). 5 The Center for Creative LeadersKLS¶V &&/ VWXG\(Martin et al., 2007), titled WKH³&KDQJLQJQDWXUHof OHDGHUVKLS´IRXQGWKDWWKHFKDOOHQJHVIDFLQJOHDGHUVWRGD\DUHEHFRPLQJVR complex and difficult to solve that collective leadership has become a necessity. Their study surveyed more than 350 middle to top-level managers across the world to explore the current and future state of leadership. 84% of the surveyed participants believed that the definition of effective leadership had changed in the five years preceding the study. And more than 60% agreed that leaders face challenges beyond their individual capabilities. The Center for Creative Leadership suggests that in order to meet the complex challenges being faced by organizatiRQV WRGD\ DQG LQWR WKH QHDU IXWXUH ³FRQQHFWHG OHDGHUVKLS´ (Martin et al., 2007, p.3) is increasingly important. A more collective approach to leadership is not only warranted given the pressures from outside the organization; internal pressures push in the same direction. A more highly educated workforce has greater knowledge to offer to the organization. Throughout history, leadership has been seen as the prerogative and dXW\RIWKHSULYLOHJHGDQGPLQRULW\HOLWH)RUWKHOLRQ¶VVKDUHRIKXPDQHYROXWLRQWKH vast majority was uneducated and explicably disenfranchised. Power and control were vested and remained in the privileged, who, in the best of times, ruled mercifully, if paternalistically. With widespread education and a swelling middle-FODVV VXFK JRYHUQDQFH EHFRPHV XQWHQDEOH 7RGD\¶V employees desire more from work than just a paycheck. They want to make a meaningful contribution (Lawler & Finegold, 2000), which is increasingly achieved through team-based knowledge work (Mohrman et al., 1995). With the shift towards team-based knowledge work, the traditional models and approaches to leadership have become less appropriate. While one typically thinks of leadership as one person projecting downward influence on followers ± which iVWHUPHG³YHUWLFDOOHDGHUVKLS´± an alternative could be that all knowledge workers contribute to the leadership process ± which is UHIHUUHGWRDV³Vhared leadership´ (Pearce & Conger, 2003a). 2¶Ueilly at al. (2010) argued that it has become a necessity to view organizational performance as related to the aggregate effects of leadership at all organizational levels. Organizational members within the same organization no longer merely operate in parallel; instead their activities must be well-aligned, well-coordinated, and executed with reference to each other (Henderson & Fredrickson, 2001; O'Reilly et al., 2010). This argument gains in value given that vertical barriers in organizations are being eliminated, creating flat organizational structures (Czajkiewicz et al., 2008; Lewin & Stephens, 1993; Schein, 1996). Whereas, in a typical bureaucracy, bigger is better, the current context shows organizations in terms of smaller units (Czajkiewicz et al., 2008), which are thought to be more responsive to market requirements and better able to adapt rapidly to external changes. Traditional 6 departments are replaced by highly autonomous teams, organized around products, processes, clients or services. A presumption in the traditional bureaucracy is that the higher the organizational level, the more information the individual possesses and the better informed he or she is with respect to goal setting and decision making. In the new forms, hierarchical organization is seen to give way to RSHUDWLQJ ³KRUL]RQWDOO\´ 'ecisions are pushed downward to where relevant knowledge and information reside. Hence, the 21st century presents a context where there is an increased awareness of the need for shared leadership, going beyond the impact of the individual leader, in order to generate faster learning to be able to keep up with competition in a globalized economy. Related to this primary observation on the current context are several sub-observations, i.e. 1) the scope of leadership has increased, from focusing merely on internal functioning of the organization to including the external alignment of the firm with its environment, 2) the meaning and function of different organizational levels is changing and 3) smaller units are gaining in autonomy, functioning as small organizations. These subobservations are elaborated in subsequent chapters of this dissertation. 1.3 RESEARCH CONTEXT One may argue that the leadership research context lags behind the current timeframe. Mainstream leadership theories are (still) strongly embedded in the Industrial paradigm. These theories adopt a reductionistic, Newtonian worldview, that aim to understand the leadership phenomenon by studying its parts in isolation, focusing on individuals (i.e. leaders and followers) and their individual perceptions, intentions, behaviors and personalities (Hollander, 1978; Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). Mainstream leadership research builds on a taken-for-granted individualism. Traditional models of leadership are based on the assumption that the leadership role is played by a single individual (Pearce & Conger, 2003a) or by multiple individuals with separate responsibilities for different organizational units following the institutional arrangement in an organizational hierarchy. Burns (1978) formulated it well in his book, Leadership, and the quote has become famous ever since: ³7KHIXQGDPHQWDOFULVLV underlying mediocrity [of leadership and leaders] is intellectual. If we know all too much about our leaders, we know far too little about leadership […] Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on eartK´(pp. 1-2). In the same book, Burns (1978) lamented that there is no school of leadership. He repeated this claim in the 1980s, describing leadership theory as being highly diverse and lacking integration by quoting the observation of Stogdill (1974), which has been repeated subsequently by Bass (1990a) that, ³7KHUHDUHDOPRVWDVPDQ\GLIIHUHQW GHILQLWLRQVRIOHDGHUVKLSDV WKHUHDUHSHUVRQVZKRKDYHDWWHPSWHGWRGHILQHWKHFRQFHSW´(p.11). 7 Despite these claims, Rost (1991) suggested in his book, Leadership for the Twenty-first Century, that there is much more commonality in the study of leadership than was previously thought. He wrote: ³7KHUH KDV EHHQ D VFKRRO RI OHDGHUVKLS WKHUH DOO DORQJ EXW LW KDV QHYHU EHHQ DUWLFXODWHG ZHOO DV DQ LQWHJUDWHG IUDPHZRUN´ (p.10). He called this integrated frameZRUN WKH ³,QGXstrial paradigm of OHDGHUVKLS´The seeming diversity of past leadership theories and definitions is actually unified and embedded in an underlying ontology which remains largely implicit. Bennis (2007) articulated the ontology as follows: ³,QLWVVLPSOHVWIRUPOHDGHUVKLSLVDWULSRG± a leader, followers, and a common JRDO WKH\ ZDQW WR DFKLHYH´ (p.3). Underneath this definition lies a commitment towards those three elements which are considered essential to the majority of leadership theories, i.e. the leader, followers and common goals. The ontology of the tripod is paramount in the leadership literature, the difference between theories being the order of the legs and the emphasis given to each of the legs: ³/HDGHUVKLS LV D SURFHVV whereby an individual influences a group of indiYLGXDOVWRDFKLHYHDFRPPRQJRDO´(Northouse, 2004, p.3)³/HDGHUVKLSFDQEHGHILQHd as the nature of the influencing process ± and its resultant outcomes ± that occurs between a leader and followers and how this influencing process is explained by the OHDGHU¶V GLVSRVLWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EHKDYLRUV IROORZHU SHUFHSWLRQV DQG DWWULEXtions of the leader´ (Antonakis et al., 2004, p.5). Whether it is a charismatic, motivational exchange between the leader and the person led, or an agreed upon exchange of reward for task accomplishment, the Industrial Age approach views leadership as proceeding from the leader toward the follower. The follower, in turn, meets leadership with followership. Within this theoretical framework these theories make the implicit assumption that leadership belongs to institutionally recognized and formal individual managers (in authority positions). Figure 1.2 presents the tripod ontology schematically. Figure 1-2: Leadership tripod ontology 8 The three legs of the tripod grew steadily over the last few centuries. Each leg contributed to theory building and underwent empirical testing. The thought that leadership is equal to the action of individual is so deeply engrained in the leadership literature that few researchers questioned this notion 7KH ³OHDGHU´ OHJ RI WKH WULSRG includes ³*UHDW PDQ´ WKHRULHV (Woods, 1913), trait theories (Stogdill, 1948; Zaccaro, 2007; Zaccaro et al., 1991) and leader behavior theories (Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Subsequently, vertical dyad linking theory (Dansereau et al., 1975) and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) were introduced where the role of followers became more important. The leadership literature saw an increasing emphasis on ³IRlORZHUVKLS´their role and characteristics in the leadership process (Collinson, 2006). Another perspective that brought followers into the tripod focused on implicit leadership theories, i.e. the influence of follower expectations and prototypes with respect to leaders (Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Maher, 1993) as well as the effects RIWKHIROORZHU¶VVHOI-concept on perceived leadership effectiveness (Lord et al., 1999). The third leg of the tripod, common goals has not received the same amount of theoretical attention as the other two legs. The only theory which dealt the goals was the path-goal theory (House, 1971), in which the leader used various resources (rewards and expectations) to guide the followers towards preset goals. Yet, the focus in this theory was more on the behavior of the leader and its effect on followers than on the goals themselves. Table 1.1 provides an overview of some of the theories dealing with one of the three legs of the tripod ontology. The overview is by no means meant to be exhaustive and serves an illustrative purpose only. Table 1-1: Theories underlying the three legs of the tripod Table 1.1 shows the relative unbalance in the tripod ontology, in terms of research efforts. The observation that WKH³JRDOV´OHJKDVQRWEHHQVWXGLHGDVH[tensively is especially relevant in the light of the disconnected (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001) nature of the leadership research drawing on 9 different disciplines, where leadership serves as a means to different end goals. This topic is elaborated in the next chapter of this dissertation. 1.4 THE CONTEMPORARY NEED FOR SHARED LEADERSHIP In the Industrial Age, which favored centralized bureaucratic hierarchies, it was easier to maintain this idea that leadership emanates ³GRZQZDUGV´ from individual leaders. The age of relatively placid operating environments and economic expansion driven by mass production lent itself to organizational forms which reinforced thH SUHVXPSWLRQ WKDW ³OHDGHUVKLS ZDs provided by the top RIILFLDO V DQGWKDWOHDGHUVKLSLVZKDW³FRPHVRXW´RIOHDGHUV´(Krantz, 1990, p.5). Yet, during the late nineteen seventies and early nineteen eighties (Hunt & Osborn, 1982), a small minority of leadership researchers became concerned with organizational system approaches (also known as macro approaches), instead of the predominant micro focus (i.e. leader-follower interactions). Representative of these works were those by Khandwella (1977), Melcher (1977), Hunt and Osborn (1982), and Katz and Kahn (1978). The latter stated in their book, The Social Psychology of Organizations (Katz & Kahn, 1978), that the focus on leadership needed to migrate upwards from the (leader-follower) dyad to the organization as a ZKROH 7KH\ GHILQHG OHDGHUVKLS DV ³WKH H[HUFLVH RI LQIOXHQFH RQ organizationally relevant matters by any member of the oUJDQL]DWLRQ´(p.571), with the organization more likely to be effective when the leadership function was distributed or shared. Even though there have been some SUHFXUVRUFRQFHSWVIRUQHDUO\DFHQWXU\LQFOXGLQJ)ROOHWW¶VLGHDRI WKH³ODZRIWKHVLWXaWLRQ´(Follett, 1924) (i.e. a logic which dictates that one should look for guidance EDVHG RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO¶V NQRZOHGJH RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ DW KDQG  DQG %RZHUV DQG 6HDVKRUH¶V (1966) HPSLULFDO ZRUN RQ ³PXWXDO OHDGHUVKLS´ WKH OHDGHUVKLS ILHOG RQO\ UHFHQWO\ EHJan to take the idea of shared leadership seriously (Drath et al., 2008). Gardner (1990) noted that ³LWLVLQWHUHVWLQJWRUHIOHFW on why such a significant insight, expressed so clearly by several authoritative voices a generation DSDUWKDVEHHQVRQHJOHFWHGLQFRQWHPSRUDU\OHDGHUVKLSOLWHUDWXUH´(p.149). This neglect may be partly due to the abovementioned fact that throughout the 20th century there was no need for such a concept, given that most organizations were RSHUDWLQJZLWKLQWKH³,QGXVWULDOSDUDGLJPFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\VLQJOH leaders in formal positions wielding power and influence over multiple followers who had relatively little influence on top-OHYHOPDQDJHUV¶GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ´(Seers et al., 2003, p.77). Drath (1996) argued that there is not so much a lack of leadership, but instead an epistemological leadership crisis, that is a crisis in our way of knowing. The dominant thinking model says that leadership has to be provided by individuals. As the leadership guru Warren Bennis (1997) puts it, 10 ³2XU P\WKRORJ\ UHIXVHV WR FDWFK XS ZLWK XV $QG VR we cling to the myth of the Lone Ranger, the romantic idea that great things are usually accomplished by a larger-than-life individual working alone. Despite evidence to the contrary ± including the fact that Michelangelo worked with a group of 16 to paint the Sistine Chapel ± we still tend to think of achievement in terms of the Great Man or the *UHDW:RPDQLQVWHDGRIWKH*UHDW*URXS´(p.29). Another reason for the neglect may be related to the ontology of the tripod itself, which has been the primary perspective for leadership researchers, and the fact that the notion of shared leadership does not fit well with the ontology of individual leaders and followers. Moreover, the idea of shared OHDGHUVKLS³OD\GRUPDQW´(Gronn, 2000 , p.324) ± the likely reason being that new leadership theories, such as transformational and charismatic leadership with a focus on the hero leader have dominated the field (Bolden, 2011). The latter argument is elaborated in the next chapter of this dissertation. The ³FRQQHFWLRQLVW´ 21st century has triggered an awareness of the relevance of holding a system perspective, in which phenomena are explained by means of the interactions between elements (Friedman, 2005). In The World is Flat, Friedman (2005) suggested that the nature of relationships with one another has fundamentally changed, and that one is now being called to µrelate¶, and thus by implication, also being called to µlead¶, in ways that honor a new paradigm. This paradigm runs counter to hierarchical structure, embraces an ever growing interconnectedness, and acknowledges that leadership is not only the product of social interaction, but that it actually must be viewed in this way if one is to thrive in inFUHDVLQJO\³IODW´FRQWH[WV Originally, the idea of shared leadership was introduced by Gibb (1969) under the label of ³distributed leadership´. Gibb questioned the traditional assumption that leadership resides in a single leader and argued that such roles should be distributed across a team. In searching the literature for discussion on the very concept of shared leadership, one runs into difficulties, as researchers tend to use different terms, or use the same term with different meanLQJV7HUPVVXFKDV ³GHPRFUDWLF´OHDGHUVKLS (Bass, 1990a) ³FROOHFWLYH´ OHDGHUVKLS (Burns, 1998), ³VKDUHG´ OHDGHUVKLS (Judge & Ryman, 2001), ³GLVSHUVHG´ OHDGHUVKLS (Bryman et al., 1996) ³GLVWULEXWLYH´ OHDGHUVKLS (Brown & Gioia, 2002) or ³GLVWULEXWHG´ OHDGHUVKLS (Brown, 1989; Brown & Hosking, 1986) are used. Although these terms differ in their particulars, the common element in all of them is that leadership is not concentrated in the hands of a single person, but is divided and performed by many if not all organizational members, simultaneously or sequentially (House & Aditya, 1997). Likewise, Yukl (1999a), noted that it, ³GRHV not require an individual who can perform all of the essential leadership functions, only a set of people 11 who can collectively perform them. Some leadership functions (e.g. making important decisions) may be shared by several members of a group, some leadership functions may be allocated to individual members, and a particular leadership function may be performed by different people at different times. The leadership actions of any individual leader are much less important than the collective leadership provided by members of thHRUJDQL]DWLRQ´(pp. 292-293). Another definition of shared leadership was WKDW LW ³is a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both. This influence process often involves peer, or lateral, influence and at other times involves upward or downward hierarchical influence´ (Pearce & Conger, 2003b, p.1). Table 1.2 provides a summary of the development of definitions and understanding of leadership over time. Table 1-2: Summary of evolvement of thinking around leadership As highlighted in the first (i.e. left) column in Table 1.2, academic understanding of leadership has increased in terms of complexity and sophistication, progressing from the most basic (least inclusive and complex) to the most advanced thinking on leadership today (greatest sophistication, complexity and inclusiveness). The second column shows the corresponding changes in definitions of leadership, progressing from exclusively position-based authority (most basic) to an influence process that may include ³LQGHSHQGHQW´ roles (mid-level complexity) to a shared property of a social system that 12 includes interdependencies of individuals, teams and organizations (most advanced). The two columns on the right specify the corresponding theories and the levels of analysis. The most basic level of analysis is the individual leader; a higher level includes direct interaction with followers (i.e. leaderfollower dyad) and the highest level considers the whole organizational system. Models of shared leadership (Nonaka & Nishiguchi, 2001; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Pearce & Conger, 2003a) reject understandings on leadership that rest solely upon the concept of top-down (vertical) leadership, and recognize that it will become increasingly important to acknowledge that leadership need not be tied to a particular individual in authority position (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). Schneider (2002) put forward that ³$V WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ LV SULPDULO\ RUJDQL]HG ODWHrally across a flexible value chain, and the generation of social capital is viewed as critical to knowledge creation and competitive position, its leaders are involved in a multitude of intra- and inter-organizational relationships. Accordingly, WKH RQWRORJLFDO EDVLV IRU WKH OHDGHU¶V UROH-set, historically WKH OHDGHU¶V KLHUDUFKLFDOSRVLWLRQVKRXOGEHFKDQJHG´(p.211). Attention should be paid to the importance of social dimensions, i.e. relationships that exist between people. In an organization with complex webs of interaction, people interact with each other up and down the chain of command, across intraorganizational boundaries. Exploring the value of shared leadership does not imply that vertical leadership is the way of the past, but rather that future thinking on leadership may need to encompass both vertical and shared facets in order to capture a fuller view of leadership outcomes (Day et al., 2004a; Pearce & Sims, 2002). There is considerable scrutiny over the evidence favoring the blanket replacement of old for new forms of organizing. Recent empirical studies indicated that, while innovative forms of organizing are emerging within organizations, hierarchy and other traditional organizational practices are not easily discarded (O'Reilly 3rd & Tushman, 2004; Palmer & Dunford, 2002; Raynor & Bower, 2001; Volberda, 1998). These studies suggest that high-performing organizations are adopting dual forms of organizing in which the controllability advantages, associated with hierarchical forms of organizing work, complement and support the responsiveness attributes of new forms of organizing (O'Reilly 3rd & Tushman, 2004; Pettigrew, 2003). It is argued that the team is the fastest growing organizational unit today (Pearce & Conger, 2003a, p.xi). 1.5 CONCLUSION There is a mismatch between the contemporary demand for collective leadership (i.e. the increased importance of developing and employing knowledge and the increased willingness of organizational 13 members to carry responsibility), and current theorizing on the topic of leadership, which is still largely embedded in the Industrial paradigm focusing on the individual leader (Gronn, 2002). At the heart of this understanding is a strong commitment to the unit of analysis of a solo or stand-alone leader. The ³,QGXVWULDO SDUDGLJP RI OHDGHUVKLS´ is based on the tripod ontology of 1) leader, 2) followers, and 3) goals. This ontology suited the hierarchical structures of organizations in the Industrial Era. Yet as organizations, in the face of a globalized, deregulated, highly competitive landscape, are more and more organized horizontally, there is a need to conceptualize leadership as a collective endeavor (on top of the traditional vertical leadership model. One of the primary objectives of this dissertation is to explore the added value of shared leadership in terms of predicting team effectiveness. What distinguishes teams from other traditional organizational forms is often the absence of hierarchical authority. Although a team may have a formally appointed leader, this individual is more commonly treated as a peer, opening the door to shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003a). Before being able to test this proposition, several pre-steps need to be taken. The leadership literature has been dominated by a focus on the dyadic relationship, where leadership HIIHFWLYHQHVV ZDV PHDVXUHG LQ WHUPV RI VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLon. In order to explain team effectiveness, the notion of leadership should be related to organizational strategy. This is a relative recent area of theory development which is elaborated in the next chapter. Finally shared leadership is related to team effectiveness in chapter nine of this dissertation. 14 2 IN SEARCH FOR STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP 2.1 INTRODUCTION “Organizations are the common tie that binds management researchers” (Molloy et al., 2011, p.584). Podolny et al. (2005) observed WKDW ³IRU DW OHDVW WKH SDVW WKLUW\ \HDUV WKH FRQFHSW RI OHDGHUVKLS KDV been subject to criticism and marginalization by the dominant organizational paradigms and SHUVSHFWLYHV´(p.1). Part of this skepticism has resulted from questions about whether leadership has discernible effects on organizational outcomes (Pfeffer, 1977). Underlying reason may be that leadership theories tend to emphasize interpersonal, face-to-face relationships instead of focusing on organizational problems (Dubin, 1979). Traditional leadership approaches usually start by discussing individuals and what they do (Bass, 1990a; Yukl, 2002) as if they almost exclusively operate in conventional organizations. In contrast, many macro perspectives start with organizations and what they need to do as if average individuals populated them. One might think of these as a slightly less extreme version of the well-NQRZQ³SHRSOHZLWKRXW RUJDQL]DWLRQV YV RUJDQLzations without people³ (Osborn et al., 2002, p.799) arguments in the organizational studies¶ field. Leadership is presumed to have an effect not just on individuals but also on teams, and sometimes even on entire organizations (Kaiser et al., 2008). Leadership enables followers to be motivated and perform, but also small teams to synergize, and organizations to accomplish goals through the differentiated yet synchronized efforts of these individuals and teams (DeChurch et al., 2010). As such, leadership is an inherently multilevel phenomenon (Dansereau et al., 1984; Yammarino et al., 2005). Organizational effectiveness hinges on coordinated leadership being enacted from leaders residing within multiple hierarchical levels, whose leadership shapes crucial individual-, team-, and organizational-level outcomes. Despite this reality, research on leadership often seems disconnected (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001) owing at least in part to separate disciplinary groups which guide theory and research on leadership at different levels; for example, organizational-level leadership research is generally the province of business scholars, whereas lower-level managerial leadership research has a strong grounding in psychology (DeChurch et al., 2010). 15 This chapter reviews briefly the two different approaches, i.e. mainstream leadership research (starting in the 1930s) which focuses on the leader-follower dyad and is embedded in the psychology discipline, and the strategic management research, which has relatively recently (in the 1980s) started to consider the role of leadership of top-level managers in formulating and implementing the overall strategy of an organization. The following section (section 2.2) delves into the common elements for both disciplinary streams of research, i.e. leadership and organizations. Section 2.3 describes some of the main differences between the two. 2.2 LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONS ³$ TXLFN SHUXVDO RI PRVW RUJDQL]DWLRQDO EHKDYLRU WH[WERRNV VKRZV KRZ OHDGHUVKLS SURFHVVHV DUH typically casted DW WKHVPDOO JURXS PLFUR OHYHO´ (Waldman et al., 2004, p.358). House and Aditya (1997) noted tKDW³WRWKLVGD\WKHGRPLQDQWSURSRrtion of the more than 3000 studies listed by Bass (1990a) is primarily concerned with the relationship between leaders and their immediate followers, DQGODUJHO\LJQRUHVWKHNLQGRIRUJDQL]DWLRQDQGFXOWXUHLQZKLFKOHDGHUVIXQFWLRQ´(p.409). This claim has been repeated often (Antonakis et al., 2004). /HDGHUVKLS WKHRULHV ³GR QRW FRQVLGHU KRZ environmental and orJDQL]DWLRQDO FRQWH[W LQIOXHQFH WKH OHDGHUVKLS  SURFHVV´ (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000, p.528). The reasons for the pre-occupation with face-to-face leadership stems from the embedment of leadership studies in the psychology discipline. These models of leadership have typically centered on the impact of leader behavior on his or her group of direct reports (other word for subordinates), while often either discounting or oversimplifying the context in which the behavior is embedded (Bass, 1990a; Capelli & Sherer, 1991; Hunt, 1991; Rousseau, 1985; Salancik et al., 1975; Tosi, 1991; Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992). Primary research in leadership has paid far more attention to the development of theoretical explanations of what constitutes leadership than to defining the types of criteria needed to fully and appropriately evaluate leadership in relation to theoretically relevant criteria (Day, 2000; Kaiser et al., 2008; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). Very few leadership studies, with the exception of those studies of Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Sashkin and Fulmer (1988), include organizational outcomes in their analyses. Even those researchers who have questioned the role of leadership (Meindl et al., 1985) have focused on the efficacy of the OHDGHU DQG RQ IROORZHUV¶ attributions about the leader (with no direct link with organizational outcomes). Even those contextual factors that were introduced as substitutes for leadership in organizations (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) were factors that had an impact on follower behavior, disregarding the potential impact of leadership on organizational outcomes. 16 Some of the leadership processes that are most likely to add significant value at higher organizational levels however, may involve indirect and systems-wide influence. For instance, middle managers are responsible for managing multiple units, and typically providing direction to managers two or more lower levels apart. Top-level leaders provide system-wide direction and influence, and in many cases never meet all of the followers they influence (Hunt, 1991; Jacobs & Jaques, 1987; Zaccaro, 2001). In this respect, leadership can be conceptualized as leading the organization, which has been studied from a different disciplinary perspective, the strategic management perspective. In the late 1980s, several social science researchers began to question whether leadership actually made a difference in organizations while others suggested that perhaps the study of leadership had reached its culminating point (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000). Despite their value in explaining subordinate affect and team performance, dyadic leadership functions were unable to explain all the effects that have been attributed to the leadership phenomenon (such as organizational outcomes) (Bass & Avolio, 1993)³%\WKHmid-1980s, a metamorphosis away from the study of supervisory leadership (House & Aditya, 1997) WRZDUGWKHVWXG\RIVWUDWHJLFOHDGHUVKLSKDGEHJXQ´(Boal & Hooijberg, 2000, pp. 515516). With this change in emphasis came a new found sense of excitement initially centering on Upper Echelon theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) and the study of Top Management Teams (TMTs). Whereas supervisory leadership theories focus on task- and people-oriented behaviors of leaders as they attempt to provide guidance, support and feedback to subordinates (House & Aditya, 1997), strategic leadership implies behaviors which aim at ensuring the prosperity and survival of the organization (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000). A valuable direction for future leadership is to more fully integrate the micro-and macro-oriented perspectives of leadership (Hiller et al., 2011). Regarding leadership research, Blair and Hunt (1985) argued, ³,IIXWXUHUHVHDUFKHIIRUWVDUHWREHRIJUHDWHUYDOXHWKDQWKRVHGRQHXSWRWKLVSRLQWWKH\PXVW be collectively located within a broader and integrative program of research´ (p.273). Their claim was voiced in 1985, however, it still holds today. Ways of understanding leadership have surfaced in different disciplines with limited, if any, cross-fertilization. Psychologists and those trained in micro organizational behavior have taken issues such as job attitudes, work motivation, absenteeism, turnover, and stress as their purview. Strategy researchers and those trained in macro organizational behavior have, in turn, laid claim to issues such as organizational structure, strategy and environment. This micro-macro split has become institutionalized. There are now separate divisions of the American Psychological Association and the Academy of Management, and these separate divisions 17 have become host to micro and macro researchers. At present, not only do experienced academics readily identify themselves as micro or macro researchers, but graduate students take on this delineation from the outset of their academic careers, choosing sides in the search for data and interpretation of theory. Unfortunately, this division has taken its toll on research. Rarely, do micro and macro experts engage each other in debates or collaboration2. The difference between the perspective on leadership embedded in psychology and the approach embedded in strategic management has also been voiced as the difference between ³OHDGHUVKLS in organizations´ and ³OHDGHUVKLSof organizaWLRQV´ (Dubin, 1979) respectively. As was stated earlier, the majority of leadership studies considers ³leadership in organi]DWLRQV´ LH direct leadership ± primarily, if not entirely, face-to-face leadership ³/HDGHUVKLS of organizations´, defined as dealing with strategy, along with the indirect impact on those deep within the organization, is a very recent topic of study. The latter is WHUPHG ³VWUDWHJLF OHDGHUVKLS´ ZKLOH WKH IRUPHU is referred to as ³VXSHUYLVRU\OHDGHUVKLS´(Bedeian & Hunt, 2006, p.202). The diverse priorities of the two leadership functions emerge as follows: strategic leadership focuses on the survival and success of the organization, its critical audience involves the community of employees, and its time horizon is longterm. Supervisory leadership, focuses on the accomplishment of tasks, its critical audience involves individuals, and its time horizon is medium ± to short-term (Kur, 1995). Strategic and supervisory leadership differ in level of analysis of the outcome variables, strategic leadership is frequently linked to archival sources of tangible organizational performance (Kor, 2006), whereas supervisor approaches to leadership are linked to perceptual variables (VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG VXERUGLQDWH¶SHUIRUPDQFH) (Judge et al., 2004). Explicit attention for levels of analysis issues in the leadership literature is relatively new, introduced about two decades ago and considered more seriously over the last decade (Yammarino et al., 2005). Figure 2.1 graphically displays the two different levels of analysis of leadership adopted in this dissertation, i.e. leader-follower dyad and organizational system (in interaction with the environment in which the organization is embedded). 2 It is important to note that researchers of management lack a shared conception of the micro-macro divide. For example, researchers drawing on economics may use the term micro to refer to firms Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10): 1231-1241., whereas those drawing on psychology may use micro to refer to individuals Rousseau, D. M. 2000. Multilevel competencies and missing linkages. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in oganizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 572-582. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.. In this dissertation the micro-macro divide is perceived at the divide between psychological approach to leadership and a strategic management approach. 18 Figure 2-1: Levels of analysis 2.3 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUPERVISORY AND STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP Researchers seem to agree on how to distinguish strategic leadership from supervisory leadership, understandings pertaining to the incorporation of external elements, the extent of reach and the link with organizational level. For a long time it was assumed that the domain of organizational members was largely internal, and that relatively few members were in boundary-spanning roles (Thompson, 1967). Strategic leadership, however involves influencing not merely those elements internal to an organization but external as well (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Rowe, 2001). A large proportion of leadership responsibilities that strategic leaders take on involves direct boundary management between the external and internal environment (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). This aspect is not included in the concept of supervisory leadership as currently defined and studied. Moreover, the influence of strategic leadership extends to the whole organization or its major segments, whereas supervisory leaders exert their influence primarily on their immediate subordinates. Unlike supervisory leaders, strategic leaders are expected to influence some, if not many, in their organizations that are not their direct reports. 19 Lastly, strategic leadership has been considered to be the privilege of the highest echelons in an organization (Cyert & March, 1963). This is in line with traditional thinking, where strategic matters are dealt with at the top of the organization, the middle level translated these matters to operational goals for lower-level managers, and the latter stimulated non-manager employees to fulfill the accompanying tasks. This vertical division of labor suited the way we think in the Western world. The term strategy stems from the Greek language meaning the office of the general (Nurmi, 1984). The main difference between the supervisory and strategic leadership concepts are presented schematically in Table 2.1. Table 2-1: Preliminary delineation of supervisory & strategic leadership An unsettled concern in the separation of supervisory and strategic leadership is that one no longer knows how the two types of leadership stack up in practice. There is controversy concerning who exercises strategic leadership. While the term strategic leadership emerged as a responsibility of the top management team or dominant coalition (Cyert & March, 1963), some researchers purported that ³OHDGHUVDWDOOOHYHOVRIWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQVKRXOGGHYHORSWKLVDELOLW\LQGLFDWLQJWKHIDFWWKDWVWUDWHJLF leadership can be exercised by first-, middle-, and top-OHYHO PDQDJHUV´ (Hitt & Ireland, 2002, p.4). These advocates of strategic leadership at all organizational levels argue WKDWWKHGHPDQGVRIWRGD\¶V dynamic contexts require a push down for the responsibility of strategic leadership (Crossan et al., 2008). Ireland and Hitt (1999) argued that leaders must provide group members with sufficient IOH[LELOLW\WR³WDNHDGYDQWDJHRIcompetitive opportunities that develop rapidly in the new competitive ODQGVFDSH´(p.52). Moreover, preliminary findings hinted that this traditional conception of top-level managers as the primary links to the environment is not supported by empirical studies; for instance researchers have observed no greater overall scanning activity (which is considered to bea strategic leadership activity) by top-level managers than by middle managers (Aguilar, 1967; Hambrick, 1981; Kefalas & Schoderbek, 1973). Similarly, supervisory leadership may not be the sole domain of managers at lower organizational levels. Arguments have been put forward that top-level managers have direct reports as well and also engage in supervisory leadership (Zaccaro, 2001). Tarabishy et al. (2005) suggest that leaders and 20 their leadership style influence both their subordinates and organizational outcomes. ³The interaction of the two types of leadership (strategic and supervisory) would clearly bear considerDEOH VWXG\´ (Schendel, 1989, p.2). 2.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS & RESEARCH STRUCTURE From the introductory chapters, one can conclude that the primary aspects that will be addressed in this dissertation, is the concept of strategic leadership, to what extent it is different from supervisory leadership in terms of the concept as such, its manifestation and effectiveness across organizational levels and its applicability to team effectiveness. This dissertation aims to answer four research questions. I. To what extent are the concepts of supervisory and strategic leadership distinct? This research question is relevant in order to establish the added value of conceptualizing and operationalizing a new strategic leadership model. Supervisory and strategic leadership are conceptualizations of leadership at different levels of analysis. Whereas supervisory leadership is played out at the leader-follower level, strategic leadership is aimed at the level of the organizational system in interaction with its environment. These two conceptualizations of leadership have been kept apart by means of disciplinary boundaries, i.e. supervisory leadership being embedded in the psychology discipline and strategic leadership originating from the field of strategic management. These disciplinary traditions have remained separate; there is however no empirical evidence whether the two concepts can be identified as distinct. II. Is leadership manifested differentially across organizational levels? The extent to which organizational level is still an important antecedent for the manifestation and effectiveness of strategic and supervisory leadership is an unsettled concern. The term strategic leadership emerged as the responsibility of the top management team. Yet, more and more researchers argue that strategic leadership is an ability which needs to be manifested by members at all organizational levels (normative claim). Likewise, even though evidence on supervisory leadership stems from studies on lower-level managers, top-level managers also have subordinates they need to motivate. The topic of how top-level managers motivate their subordinates (which are middle managers) has remained largely unexplored. Moreover, if the manifestation of strategic and supervisory leadership behaviors shows a different relationship with organizational level, this would further support the argument that the concepts are distinct. Moreover, answering this research question 21 is an important step in bridging the gap between the trend to organize horizontally and the leadership literature holding on to a stark demarcation across organizational levels. III. To what extent is leadership effectiveness (in terms of subordinate’ job satisfaction) moderated by organizational level? The manifestation of behaviors does not tell us anything about the desirability of those behaviors at different organizational levels. There are two different perspectives on this. The continuity perspective posits that skills associated with leadership effectiveness at lower organizational levels are also important at higher organizational levels. In contrast, the discontinuity perspective theorizes that effective leadership behaviors at a certain organizational level can become ineffective for the next level. 6XERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ LV RQH RI WKH PRVW ZLGHO\ XVHG HIIHFWLYHQHVV PHDVXUHV LQ leadership research. A different impact of VWUDWHJLF DQG VXSHUYLVRU\ OHDGHUVKLS RQ VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE satisfaction would once again further support the argument that these are two distinct concepts. Even PRUHDGLIIHUHQWLDOLPSDFWRQVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQDFURVVOHYHOVZRXOGEHDQLQGLFDWLRQRIWKH relative relevance of strategic and supervisory leadership across different organizational levels. IV. To what extent does shared strategic leadership predict team effectiveness? Strategic leadership is aimed at the interaction of the organization with its environment, hence the effectiveness measure cannot be captured merely by the internally oriented effectiveness measure of VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ Strategic leadership does not only surpass supervisory leadership in terms of levels of analysis (having an impact on team effectiveness), but potentially also in terms of unit of analysis. Within teams, there are two potential sources of leadership, which are defined by ³ZKR´HQJDJHVLQOHDGHUVKLS7KHILUVWVRXUFHWKHIRUPDOWHDPOHDGHUILWVWKHWULSRGRQWRORJ\DQGKDV received considerable attention and support in the literature. Leadership performed by the formal team leader has also been labeled vertical leadership, due to the hierarchical relationship between the team leader and the team members. The second source, the team, has been the focus of an emerging stream of research that views the team as a potential source of leadership, also labeled as shared leadership. The leadership literature only recently took this alternative source of leadership seriously. Given the complexity of organizational environments and the burden on single leaders, this notion of shared strategic leadership requires further exploration. The structure of the research is three-fold. Following the two introductory chapters, chapter 1 (on shared leadership) and chapter 2 (supervisory versus strategic leadership), Part I contains the three conceptual chapters, chapter three covering the relevance of organizational level in leadership 22 research, chapter four describing the evolution of leadership theory and chapter five presenting a conceptualization of strategic leadership (chapter 5). Part II presents the operationalization (chapter 6) of the strategic leadership model and validation of the measurement instrument (chapter 7). Part III presents two studies of application. In chapter 8, strategic and supervisory leadership are tested against VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ at different organizational levels. Chapter nine elaborates on the application of the strategic leadership concept (vertical and shared) in explaining team effectiveness. The function of the final chapter (chapter 10) is to wrap up and look forward. See Figure 2.2 for an overview of the research structure, with a clear demarcation between the theoretical and empirical chapters. Figure 2-2: Research structure 23 24 PART I: CONCEPTUALIZATION 25 26 3 LEADERSHIP AT DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 3.1 INTRODUCTION Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001) argued that the organizational level of the leader matters a lot more as a context variable affecting the manifestation, interpretation and outcomes related to leadership, than the leadership field acknowledges. Few academic leadership models account for instance, for leadership behaviors at higher levels of the organization (Zaccaro, 2001), most likely due to the relative inaccessibility of higher organizational levels for research purposes. Whether it is due to the inaccessibility of higher levels or to the current academic neglect of organizational level, leadership theory hardly differentiates on the basis of organizational level. Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001) claimed that the lack of consideration to organizational level has contributed to a dearth of good empirical research on organizational leadership. Most leadership theories have focused on lower-level managers (House & Aditya, 1997). Day and Lord (1988) argued that the common practice of ³DSSO\LQJ leadership theories developed at lower levels to explain leadership at upper levels assumes isomorSKLVPDFURVVOHYHOVWKDWLVSUREDEO\QRWWUXH´(p.212). The notion of organizational level stems from the idea of hierarchy. Organizational hierarchy is generally understood as the formal, documented system according to which people in an organization are ranked in terms of authority along a vertical axis (Lundholm et al., 2012). For most people, the word hierarchy carries a pejorative connotation (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Dipadova & Faerman, 1993; Gernert, 2011). It conjures up images of unnecessary layers of organizations where decision making is centralized at the top of the organization, and communication must follow a downward chain of command. In response to this image of organizations, as well as to an increasingly turbulent economic-socio-political organizational environment, organizations have begun exploring the benefits of flattening organizations by eliminating layers of hierarchy and instituting alternative ways of organizing people (Barry, 1991; Daft, 2009; Lawler III, 1988; Peters, 1987; Rajan & Wulf, 2006; Ramos, 2011; Semler, 1989; Whitford). Firms today are claimed to be complex, social systems (Kuhn, 2008) characterized by distributed/collective leadership (Fairhurst, 2008; Gronn, 2002), increasingly intent on creating worker participation (Stohl & Cheney, 2001), teamwork (Cohen & Bailey, 1997), and empowerment (Styhre, 2001). This characterization is particularly relevant with respect to so-FDOOHG µµNQRZOHGJH 27 ZRUN¶¶ZKLFKWHQGVWREHQRQ-routinized, thus relying heavily on the expertise and creativity of the employees (Alvesson, 2004). In this type of work, hierarchical management is seen as counterproductive, and new forms of management are suggested that acknowledge complex rather than hierarchical interaction with employees (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). The manager, in turn, is seen as a coach, teacher, and servant (Senge, 2004), as a social integrator (Alvesson, 1995), and as a manager of meaning (Smircich & Morgan, 1982) rather than as supervisor or boss. The literature discussed above seems to suggest that there is a shift away from the vertical or bureaucratic organization. Nevertheless, as some commentators have pointed out, this postbureaucratic argument should not be exaggerated (Alvesson & Thompson, 2004). Many scholars have argued that hierarchies are a universal feature of all human groups, including organizations (Leavitt, 2005; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Van Vugt et al., 2008). Leavitt (2005) argued that if different forms of social organization were more advantageous, groups would have adopted them a long time ago. As Jaques (1976) observed many years ago ³«EXUHDXFUDWLF hierarchies are the only type of human organization so far discovered for bringing large numbers of people to work together in one united HQWHUSULVH«´(p.127). The pervasiveness of hierarchies alone seems to be evidence of their efficacy. With a certain size, hierarchy is almost impossible to avoid (Lundholm et al., 2012). It is argued that the formal chain of command is a necessary means to maintain clarity and effectiveness in the organization and while hierarchy may appear in a different shape today than it used to, most researchers agree that it is a persistent feature of contemporary organizations (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Hales, 2002; Hoepfl, 2006). In 2010, 2¶7RROH DQG 0HLHU ZURWH a study of the efficacy of bureaucratic structure in difficult economic times which was called ³,Q 'HIHQVH RI %XUHDXFUDF\´ (2010). The authors concluded that traditional managers in authority positions have the capacity to minimize performance declines when faced with significant budgetary shocks. The condemnation of bureaucracy is short-sighted, they argue, because the existing structure allows organizations to respond to problems as they occur. Bureaucracy can however, and often has led to organizational dysfunctions including inadequate communication between levels of hierarchy and a magnification of status differences among organizational members to the extent that the value of contributions was not based on merit, but on organizational level. Too often the different organizational levels have come to represent the maintenance of parallel groups of people who work in the same physical and organizational setting ± and yet have different perspectives, norms and organizational languages. These layered groups 28 function in social and organizational worlds which tend to be largely impenetrable and which severely limit the collective (leadership) effort. A potential area of interest for improving the negative connotation of hierarchy, is acknowledging the distinctive added value of each organizational level. This requires first and foremost insight into the manifestation of leadership behavior at different organizational levels. The sparse literature that exists on this topic, hints at qualitative differences in effective leadership between higher and lower organizational levels (Day & Lord, 1988; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Within an organizational hierarchy, the natural tendency is that people move upwards the corporate ladder. In essence, these are the same people, fulfilling different functions sequentially (Charan et al., 2001; Hurd, 2009). There are different views regarding how change between organizational levels manifests itself. There are two perspectives in the literature that appear to be in direct conflict ± the discontinuous versus continuous required leadership skill transition (De Meuse et al., 2011). The discontinuity perspective posits that the changing skill requirement across organizational levels is discontinuous. Leadership behavior that is positively related to effectiveness at a lower level may become negatively related to effectiveness at higher levels. Consequently, managers need to stop performing those behaviors that are not contributing to effectiveness as they get promoted. The continuity perspective suggests that all levels of effective managers possess about the same behavioral repertoire. Promotion requires managers to perform more of those behaviors that become more important for higher levels and gain skill efficiency on those behaviors. Yet, these individuals do not have to unlearn past behaviors. This chapter explores both the discontinuity and continuity perspective. Section 3.3 reviews the evidence for the discontinuity perspective, followed by section 3.4 which elaborates the continuity perspective. Before the different perspectives are presented, the way differences across levels have been traditionally conceptualized in the leadership literature, is described (section 3.2). 3.2 LEADERSHIP DIFFERENCES ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 3.2.1 THREE LEVELS Much of the earlier work on organizational level culminated in the widely cited systems framework of Katz and Kahn (1978). They presented three different types of leadership based on the different organizational needs at three distinct organizational levels, i.e. ³origination of structure´ WRS-level PDQDJHPHQW  ³interpolation of structure´ PLGGOH PDQDJHPHQW  DQG ³administration of structure´ (lower management). 29 -DTXHV¶ (1976) elaborated this work and developed the stratified systems theory (SST) (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987). The SST highlights the external demands placed on leaders and provided a clear delineation of leadership work and role requirements across organizational levels (Gardner & Schermerhorn Jr, 1992; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). SST states that top-level jobs include setting strategic direction in a long-term context and the coordination of several discrete business units, linking the internal and external environments. Alternatively, lower-level jobs take place within a single business unit and a single functional domain, according to Jaques (1976), and are focused on the local internal environment with activities in the short term. SST adopted seven specific levels to characterize differences in complexity across organizational levels. In turn, these seven narrowly defined levels can be grouped into three higher-RUGHU OHYHOV ³systems´ ³organizational´ DQG ³production´ 7KHVH GLVWLQFWLRQV FRUUHVSRQG FORVHO\ WR WKRVH PDGH E\ .DW] DQG .DKQ (1978) (i.e. ³RULJLQDWLRQRIVWUXFWXUH´³LQWHUSRODWLRQRIVWUXcWXUH´DQG³DGPLQLVWUDWLRQRIVWUXFWXUH´UHVSHFWLYHO\  Despite the variety in terms of organizational levels, ranging from three to seven, cumulative empirical evidence supports only three general domains where the nature of work within each level is highly similar but qualitatively distinct between organizational levels (Zaccaro, 2001). Hunt and Ropo (1995) also pointed out that for a specific organization, it may be practical to include more than three levels, but for cross-organizational comparisons, three organizational levels are considered sufficient. 3.2.2 TIME HORIZON Most theories of organizational level differences involve the concept of complexity. The underlying argument is that job complexity increases with organizational level and managerial success depends on cognitive complexity, based on the notion of requisite variety (Ashby, 1952). Jaques (1994) introduced the notion of µtime span of discretion¶ ZKLFK LPSOLHV ZLWK PRUH FRPSOH[ MREV WKHUH LV D larger time lapse between action and feedback on the consequences of that action. Thus, the primary way to distinguish organizational levels in SST is by the time frame in which managers must consider the feedback on their activities. $FFRUGLQJWR-DTXHV¶WKHRU\the time span for lower-level managers is in the order of days or weeks. Top-level managers, however, may experience a time lapse of years before they receive feedback on their actions. Although there is some disagreement on how adequately time span of discretion represents complexity, empirical studies have identified differences in time span of discretion for the three general organizational levels (Hunt, 1991; Zaccaro, 2001), 30 three months to two years for lower-level jobs, two to five years (perhaps as high as 10 years) for middle managers, and 10 to 20 years-plus for top-level leaders (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987). 3.2.3 FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITIES In line with the traditional idea of division of labor and the nature of bureaucracy (Weber, 1946), activities at different organizational levels were thought to be substantively different. Katz and Kahn (1978) defined the functional activities as follows, at the top level, WKH³RULJLQDWLRQRIVWUXFWXUH´which was the determination of organizational structure and policy. More recently, this has been described as setting strategic direction and creating and maintaining organizational culture (Hunt, 1991). At the middle level, the ³LQWHUSRODWLRQ RI VWUXFWXUH´ consisted of middle managers translating the bigger picture into operating goals, implementing policy, and execution. At the lowest level, ³the administration of structure´ was the routine use of operating procedures to deal with problems in execution. A parallel can be drawn with the notion of complexity, origination of structure deals with high levels of complexity in order to identify and define the novel problem of setting direction in an ambiguous context where options are bountiful whereas the administration structure involves the selection from a relatively known set of options to deal with problems in execution that could have been expected. The key activity for lower-level managers was the supervision and direction of the individuals carrying out the core day-to-day work of the organization, distributing resources and assigning specific tasks to the employees who executed the core work. 3.2.4 PRIMARY SKILLS A somewhat different approach to distinguishing between the three organizational levels involved the identification of the distinct competencies and skills needed at each level. Hodgson et al. (1965) presented a model in which the dimensions of organizational structure, specifically organizational level, moderated the nature of leadership as well as its antecedents and consequences. He argued that performance demands on managers change across organizational levels and hence the critical competencies that form the basis for selection policies and training and development programs, should change as well. While it seems logical that differences in competencies were drawn from the differences in tasks and functional activities, competencies were the firstly discovered distinguishing factor. The skills typology of Katz (1955; Mann, 1965) classified management skills into three general areas: technical skills ± being at ease with specialized methods, processes, knowledge and techniques (for lower-level managers); interpersonal skills ±communication, ability to relate, build and maintain relationships, understand feelings and desires of others (for middle managers); and conceptual skills ± analytic and logical thinking, deductive and inductive reasoning, and mentally representing complex 31 information and drawing connections between pieces of information to form new concepts and anticipate on events (for top-level managers). 3.2.5 BUSINESS RESPONSIBILITY A final way to describe organizational level differences was more pragmatic. This approach corresponded most closely to how different organizational levels are distinguished in practice (Charan et al., 2001; Freedman, 1998). The lower level is the first level where individuals have responsibility for the performance of others, typically non-managerial employees. Section managers and department managers are typical first-level managers. They worked within a single functional area (e.g. production, sales, finance) within one and the same organization. The next level was the middle management level. The qualitative distinction was that this position entailed coordination between varied functional units. The individuals who reported to middle managers also tended to be managers themselves or other highly specialized professionals. A key challenge for managers at this level was to manage individuals with expertise in an area of which they knew relatively little about (Freedman, 1998). Middle managers were also likely to have P&L (profit and loss) responsibilities. Middle managers were responsible for the performance of a division of a business unit that produced a particular product or service line. At the top was the executive level. Whereas middle managers coordinated the activities of several different functional areas within one business unit, executives typically were responsible for a portfolio of businesses. Similar to middle managers, top-level managers may have had relatively little prior experience with some aspects of the industries and markets in which their businesses operated. Top-level managers were accountable to key organizational constituents, typically, a board of directors and shareholders in publicly traded firms, owners in the private case, or the government. The differences between the three organizational levels are briefly summarized in Table 3-1. 32 Table 3-1: Summary of work at three organizational levels The previous section described the ways in which leadership has been distinguished at different organizational levels. The identification of differences however, does not imply that skills and functions dominant for one level are unimportant for the next level. One may assume that top-level managers were middle managers one day, and on an earlier day they fulfilled the role of lower-level manager. Hence, the question arises, how should the movement up the corporate ladder evolve in terms of leadership behavior, i.e. discontinuously in terms of unlearning skills that were useful for a ORZHU OHYHO RU FRQWLQXRXVO\ LQ WHUPV RI LQFUHDVLQJ RQH¶V UHSHUWRLUH E\ DGGLQJ QHZ OHDGHUVKLS functions. 3.3 DISCONTINUITY PERSPECTIVE Popular books like The Leadership Pipeline (Charan et al., 2001) and What Got You Here Won’t Get You There (Goldsmith & Reiter, 2007) DQGHDUOLHUWKHRULHVOLNH$UWKXU)UHHGPDQ¶V (1998) pathways and crossroads model of managerial careers have emphasized how the competencies and skills needed, change as managers climb the corporate ladder. This has been termed the discontinuity perspective (De Meuse et al., 2011). Freedman (1998) noted that, each upward transition in the organizational hierarchy, presents discontinuous and unprecedented changes for the transitioning individual. At each passage, people are faced by a dual challenge: taking up new perspectives and 33 skills and simultaneously letting go of established beliefs. Coping with these challenges requires adaptive changes in preferred behavior. Freedman examined the psychological dynamics that prevent individuals from learning and adjusting to the demands of a new job at a higher level. He asserted that most people derive a sense of pride and confidence when they perform their work roles with competence, comfort and certainty. Many people enjoy these good feelings to such an extent that they become addicted to the associated role behaviors. This tendency inhibits their ability to venture outside their comfort zone and adapt their behavior to new challenges. Freedman emphasizes that organizational decision makers tend to neglect these challenges, and consequently, rather than receiving adequate preparation and support, individuals making upward transitions are often asked to ³VZLPRUVLQN´RQWKHLURZQ The discontinuity perspective of changing leadership skill requirements has received empirical support. Mann (1965) found in a study of hospitals that different leadership styles were required at different organizational levels in order to satisfy subordinates. Nealy and Blood (1968) showed in their stXG\ RI D 9HWHUDQ¶V $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ WKDW IDYRUDEOH SHUIRUPDQFH UHTXLUHG GLIIHUHQW OHDGHUVKLS styles at different organizational levels. Kaiser and Craig (2011) investigated the moderating role of organizational level on the relationship between managerial behavior and overall leadership effectiveness. They found that behaviors associated with effectiveness differed across levels. They observed that some positive predictors of effectiveness at one level became negative predictors at another level. For example, supportive leadership was a negative predictor of leadership effectiveness for lower-level managers, a positive predictor for middle managers, and non-significant for top-level managers. To the contrary, empowering leadership was not a statistically significant predictor for lower-level managers, whereas it was a negative predictor for middle managers and a positive predictor for top-level managers. Brousseau et al. (2006) also found support for the discontinuous changing pattern of leadership behavior. They inYHVWLJDWHG KRZ PDQDJHUV¶ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ VW\OHV evolve during their managerial careers. On the basis of their analysis of the decision profiles of more than 120,000 managers and executives, these authors observed that as individuals advance from lower to higher organizational levels, the decision making profiles do a complete flip. The predominant style for lower-level managers was decisive. In contrast, a flexible decision style became predominant for higher levels of management. Brousseau et al. (2006) compared the profiles of performers in the top 20% with others and found that most successful managers reached and passed the transition point earlier in their careers, whereas the least successful managers (the bottom 20% of performers) started their careers pretty much like the others had, but did not make the transition successfully. Kaplan and Kaiser (2003) reported that in their applied research with top-level managers, they found that many 34 were criticized for their excessive reliance on the middle and lower-level skills of interpersonal behaviors and tactical involvement in operational matters. They were lacking the higher-level skills of influencing the strategic direction of the organization. Lombardo and Eichinger (2000) drew similar conclusions from their analysis of competency ratings of executives in a range of industries. 3.4 CONTINUITY PERSPECTIVE 0DKRQH\HWDO¶V(1965) work represents one of the early examples of the continuity perspective of the leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. They reported thaW ³QR QRWLFHDEOH differences were found; the job of top management and those of supervisory management within a JLYHQ MRE W\SH DSSHDU VLPLODU LQ WHUPV RI SHUIRUPDQFH SURILOHV´ (p.109). Mumford et al. (2007) proposed the Leadership Skills Strataplex of leadership development. According to this model, jobs at the successively higher strata (i.e., levels in an organized system) require all those skills of the lower strata. Their research showed that top-level jobs require higher levels of all leadership skills. Skills important for lower levels, such as interpersonal skills, were also required at higher levels in the organization. Zaccaro (2001) likewise claimed that managers at all levels must carry out the supervisory leadership roles involved in interpersonal influence as well as the indirect leadership activities such as strategic direction setting. This pattern reflects the continuity perspective of management transition. In comparison with the discontinuity perspective, there is less evidence for the continuity perspective, where leaders increase their behavioral repertoire as they move up through the organizational hierarchy. 3.5 CONCLUSION The continuity perspective posits that skills associated with leadership effectiveness lower organizational levels are also important at higher organizational levels. In contrast, the discontinuity perspective theorizes that effective leadership behaviors for one organizational level can become ineffective for another level. Consequently, it is necessary that managers abandon these former leadership behaviors that do not work anymore after a management transition. Which perspective is true holds primary value for the relationship between strategic and supervisory leadership. Following the continuity perspective, lower-level managers add strategic leadership behaviors to their behavioral repertoire, which already contains supervisory leadership behaviors. If however, the discontinuous perspective holds, lower-level managers may need to unlearn their supervisory leadership behaviors and replace these with strategic leadership behaviors. On the one hand the pure manifestation of these different behaviors at different organizational levels would bring light one this issue. But even more, the link with effectiveness, allows one to conclude which behaviors should be developed and potentially which behaviors should be unlearned as one moves up the corporate ladder. Chapter seven 35 delves into the manifestation of strategic and supervisory leadership behaviors across organizational levels, while chapter eight makes the link to the effectiveness of these behaviors across organizational OHYHOVLQWHUPVRIVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQ 36 4 EVOLUTION OF LEADERSHIP THEORY 4.1 INTRODUCTION A major problem in research and theory on effective leadership has been the lack of agreement about which behavior categories are relevant (Yukl, 2002). Traditional leadership theory is characterized by a highly reductionistic approach of cutting the leadership phenomenon into ever smaller and more GLVSDUDWHSLHFHVLQRUGHUWRJHWHYHUFORVHUWRWKHµHVVHQFH¶RIWKHSKHQRPHQRQ(Wheatley, 1992). As a result, there has been a bewildering proliferation of taxonomies on leader behavior (Bass, 1990a; Yukl, 2002) and it is very difficult to compare and integrate results from studies that use different sets of behavioral categories. This chapter reviews the evolution of leadership theory, starting with the classic leadership theories (section 4.2), moving on to new leadership theories (section 4.3) and concluding with contemporary leadership theories (section 4.4), to get a good grasp of the state of the art in leadership research, which this dissertation aims to contribute to. 4.2 CLASSIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 4.2.1 TRAIT THEORIES Systematic leadership research started in the early 1930s with a focus on the search for individual characteristics that universally differentiate leaders from non-leaders (House & Aditya, 1997). Leaders were identified as managers in positions of authority. A large number of personal characteristics were investigated, such as gender, height, physical energy and appearance as well as psychological traits and motives such as authoritarianism, intelligence, need for achievement, and need for power. The dominant part of this literature was published between 1930 and 1950 (House & Aditya, 1997). Despite considerable efforts, no universal leader characteristics could be identified. It appeared to researchers at the time that there were few, if any, universal traits associated with effective leadership. ³Consequently, a near consensus developed among the community of leadership researchers that the search for universal leadership traits was futile´(House & Aditya, 1997, p.410). 4.2.2 BEHAVIORAL THEORIES Following the disenchantment with traits, a period of almost thirty years ensued during which leaders were studied either by observing their behavior in laboratory settings or by asking individuals in field settings to describe the behavior of individuals in positions of authority. This stream of research concentrated on the different dimensions of leader behavior. Which meaningful categories or factors could be used to describe differences in leader behavior? Three influential groups of investigators pursued the quest for leadership dimensions in this manner. These were Robert Bales and his 37 associates at Harvard (Bales, 1958), members of the Ohio State Leadership Center (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) and members of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan (Kahn et al., 1960; Likert, 1961). Research conducted within this stream became known as the ³behavioral´ school of leadership. One of the major empirical contributions from the behavioral school was the identification of two broad classes of leader behaviors, i.e. task-oriented and people-oriented behaviors, which were identified by repeated factor analyses conducted by the Ohio State group, interviews by the Michigan group, and observation of emergent leaders in laboratories by the Harvard group. ³The fundamental dichotomy between task- and people-oriented behavior has been dominant across multiple interpersonal and social exchange theories of leadership´ (Zaccaro & Horn, 2003, p.771). A leader who is high in task-orientation provides goals, standards, directions and schedules for his or her subordinate(s). A leader who is high in people-consideration shows concern and respect for subordinates, looks out for their welfare and expresses appreciation and support (Stogdill, 1950). 4.2.3 CONTINGENCY THEORIES In an attempt to more precisely define the effects of leadership and account for more variance in empirical studies of leader effectiveness, scholars in the 1960s and 1970s turned to contingency theories that took into account situational factors acting as potential constraints or opportunities for leaders. Fiedler's contingency theory was among the first to attempt to reconcile previous inconsistent findings regarding leader traits and behaviors (Fiedler, 1964, 1967). He posited that leadership effectiveness depends on the interaction of leadership style with features of the situation he referred to DV ³VLWXDWLRQDO IaYRUDEOHQHVV´ %DVHG RQ WKH OHDVW SUHIHUUHG FR-worker (LPC) score, a person would either be categorized as a task- or relationship-oriented leader. Situational favorableness was considered high when leader±member relations, task structure and/or position power were high. Under these circumstances, a leader presumably is supported by the situation because it provides some influence and potential power. Fiedler argued that task-oriented leaders would be more effective in highly favorable or highly unfavorable situations, while relationship-oriented leaders would be more effective in moderately favorable situations. Thus, rather than arguing that a certain style (e.g., relationship orientation) is better at all times (as in the trait and behavioral theories), Fiedler acknowledged that the effectiveness of certain styles can depend on the environment in which they are embedded. 38 Similar to Fiedler's work, House's initial statement of path-goal theory focused on situational moderators upon which leaders' effectiveness is contingent (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974). Path-goal theory is grounded in Vroom's expectancy theory of motivation, which at its core suggests that people are more likely to engage in a specific behavior if they perceive a high probability that the behavior will lead to a valued outcome (Vroom, 1964). An effective leader, according to path-goal theory, clarifies employees' paths to work goals and the link between work goals and valued personal outcomes, thus making it explicit what employees need to do. Having a path laid out in front of them that leads to valued personal outcomes (e.g., merit pay, promotion) was posited as a motivator for employees to pursue those outcomes and engage in the desired behaviors. According to path-goal theory, the extent to which certain leadership styles (e.g., directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership) aided in clarifying employees' paths depended on the employees' personal characteristics and on contextual demands with which employees may have to cope. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) proposed a practitioner-oriented situational leadership theory that placed leader effectiveness squarely in the interaction between leader behaviors and the followers' level of maturity. Specifically, the theory suggests that leaders should match their behaviors with the followers' maturity level by moving through the phases of telling, selling, participating, and delegating to correspond to increased follower readiness. Each phase was categorized via the two dimensions of task and relationship behavior. For example, when followers are not yet willing to assume any UHVSRQVLELOLW\ ORZPDWXULW\ DOHDGHUVKRXOG³WHOO´WKHPZKDW WRGRDQGGLVSOD\KLJKOHYHOV RIWDVN behaviors while limiting relationship behaviors. As followers become more mature, it is important for a leader to provide additional socio-emotional support while finally, in the delegation phase, task guidance does not need to be provided anymore, because followers are fully aware of their responsibilities and are willing to assume the challenges. 4.2.4 SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY At approximately the same time that contingency theories were becoming prominent in the leadership field, a somewhat separate line of research emerged that focused on the dyadic relationship between leaders and their followers. This research questioned the assumption of an average leadership style that may be equally effective with all followers and advanced the field by shifting attention towards the leader±follower relationship as the primary domain of analysis (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim et al., 1999). Leader Member Exchange (LMX) emphasized how leaders develop two disWLQFWW\SHVRIUHODWLRQVKLSVZLWKWKHLUIROORZHUVRQHEDVHGRQ³LQIOXHQFHZLWKRXWDXWKRULW\´DQGRQH EDVHG RQ ³LQIOXHQFH ZLWK DXWKRULW\´ (Dansereau et al., 1975, p.48). The ability of the leader to 39 influence without authority was characterized by higher levels of mutual support, trust, loyalty, and latitude given to their followers. Conversely, influence with authority was based primarily on more formal supervisory roles and techniques. The development of such distinct relationships during the initial role making processes was hypothesized to lead to the formation of in-groups and out-groups (Graen & Cashman, 1975). Followers in in-groups enjoy higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment, display higher levels of task and extra-role performance, and are less likely to turn over compared to followers in out-groups (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Thus, being a member of the leader's in-group has been shown to have a positive effect on many follower outcomes. 4.3 NEW LEADERSHIP THEORIES Although the contingency theories, developed in the 1960s and '70s, contributed extensively to the leadership literature, some researchers started to question the validity of the elusive and lofty leadership construct, and provided some compelling arguments for looking at leadership through an entirely different lens. Kerr and Jermier (1978) roiled the field by suggesting that certain variables can act as substitutes or neutralizers, rendering leadership unnecessary or ineffective. Drawing from House and Mitchell's path-goal theory, these authors identified a set of characteristics of the follower, the task, and the organization that, if present, would simply make leadership behaviors (task- and relationship-oriented) redundant. Kerr and Jermier's work moved away from focusing on the leader as the locus of leadership, but emphasized instead the followers and the context. In other words, the extent to which leadership is effective could be based simply on certain follower and contextual attributes, almost independent of what the leader actually does. With regards to the mechanisms of leadership, this theory appears to emphasize that certain follower personality characteristics (e.g. need for independence and ability) act as substitutes and certain contextual variables (e.g. standardization of task) lead to the emergence of leadership behaviors (e.g. setting goals). At about the same time that Kerr and Jermier published their work, Lord et al. (1984) introduced the implicit leadership theory. Implicit leadership theorists posited that followers have preconceived notions (implicit theories) about what a prototypical leader looks like, and when placed within an ambiguous situation, seek confirming evidence of those notions. If cues are found that support the prototype, the person will be perceived as a leader. For example, leader prototypes often include the display of power; if a person does in fact display power, others around them are more likely to perceive him or her as a leader. Unless followers perceive someone as a leader (because he or she provides prototype-confirming cues), leadership is not likely to occur. 40 Meindl et al. (1985) also followed a nontraditional follower-centered approach for examining leadership, suggesting that the concept of leadership is likely romanticized by followers. Drawing from attribution theory, Meindl et al. (1985) suggested that followers seek to make sense of inherently complex and ambiguous organizational activities and outcomes by attributing them to leadership, because it is an accessible and comprehensible explanation. This romanticized view of leadership is particularly strong when organizational performance is extreme²either very good or very poor. Either case is a salient event that triggers sense-making and attribution processes in followers, which result in them portraying the leader as either the hero or the scapegoat. 4.3.1 NORMATIVE LEADERSHIP THEORIES Burns (1978) was WKH ILUVW DXWKRU WR FRQWUDVW ³transforming´ and transactional leadership. ³Transactional leadership involves an exchange relationship between leaders and followers such that IROORZHUVUHFHLYHZDJHVRUSUHVWLJHIRUFRPSO\LQJZLWKDOHDGHU¶VZLVKHV´(Rafferty & Griffin, 2004, p.330). Similar to path-goal theory, transactional leadership was grounded in Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory of motivation as transactional leaders clarify how followers' needs will be fulfilled in exchange for completing their job requirements. In contrast, ³transformational leaders motivate followers to achieve performance beyond expecWDWLRQV E\ WUDQVIRUPLQJ IROORZHUV¶ DWWLWXGHV EHOLHIV and values as opposed to simply gaining compliance (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999a, 1999b)´(Rafferty & Griffin, 2004, p.330). Although transactional leadership provides an important element of effective leadership, it has been overshadowed by the simultaneous emergence of the more revolutionary theories of transformational leadership. Bass isolated four sub-dimensions of transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Idealized influence refers to leaders who have high standards of moral and ethical conduct, who are held in high personal regard, and who engender loyalty from followers. Inspirational motivation refers to leaders with a strong vision for the future, based on values and ideals. The idealized influence and inspirational motivation dimensions are highly correlated and are sometimes combined to form a measure of charisma (Bass, 1998, p.5). Intellectual stimulation refers to leaders who challenge organizational norms, encourage divergent thinking, and who push followers to develop innovative strategies. Individual consideration refers to leader behaviors aimed at recognizing the unique growth and developmental needs of followers as well as coaching followers and consulting with them. %DVV¶ (1985) model of transformational leadership has been embraced by researchers and practitioners alike as the way in 41 which organizations can encourage employees to perform beyond expectations (Dvir et al., 2002; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996; Tichy & Ulrich, 1984; Yammarino et al., 1993). Whereas the more traditional leadership theories emphasized rational decision making, transformational leadership theory emphasize the importance of affect and values (Yukl, 1999). Bass   GHVLJQDWHG DQ HQWLUH SDUW RI KLV ERRN WR WKH ³HPoWLRQDO FRPSRQHQW´ RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO leadership proposing that inspirational motivation leads to follower emotional arousal, and that leader behaviors, such as instilling enthusiasm through pep talks and making employees feel proud of their accomplishments, are part of the emotional appeal process. $W WKH VDPH WLPH WKDW %XUQV¶ LQWURGXFHG WKH QRWLRQ RI WUDQVIRUPLQJ OHDGHUVKLS *UHHQOHDI (1977) introduced the notion of servant leadership. Servant leaders lead because they want to serve others. The focus of servant leadership is on others rather than upon self and on understanding of the role of the leader as a servant. Transformational leadership and servant leadership are both normative theories of leadership (Ciulla, 1999). Both emphasize the relationship of leaders and followers to each other and the importance of values on the process of leadership. Servant leadership has not received as much attention as transformational leadership in the literature, but in recent years interest in it by the business community has grown. ³*LYHQ WKH LGHDO RI VHUYLFH LQ VHUYDQW OHDGHUVKLS WKH ODUJHVW difference between these two [WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO DQG VHUYDQW@ OHDGHUVKLS WKHRULHV LV WKDW >« @ transformational leaders focus on organizational objectives; they inspire their followers to higher performance for the sake of the organization. Servant-leaders focus more on concern for their IROORZHUV E\ FUHDWLQJ FRQGLWLRQV WKDW HQKDQFH IROORZHUV¶ ZHOO-being and functioning and thereby IDFLOLWDWHWKHUHDOL]DWLRQRIDVKDUHGYLVLRQ´(van Dierendonck, 2011, p.1235). On the basis of the evolution of leadership theory up until today, one may draw two main conclusions. First of all, virtually all of the published papers on leadership emphasize the importance of the leader± follower(s) relationship, implicitly assuming leadership as an individual leader endeavor. Second, the common approach for describing leadership has been in terms of a two-factor model (task-oriented and people-oriented leadership, transformational and transactional) (Yukl, 1999b). These two factors are usually formulated and presented as opposites of one another. These dichotomies provide some insights, but they also oversimplify a complex phenomenon and encourage stereotyping of individual leaders (Yukl, 1999b). An alternative way to conceptualizing leadership is to conceive the tension in a multidimensional way, in which interaction between the opposite sets of behaviors is characterized by DQ ³$1'´ UHODWLRQVKLS ,Q FRQWUDVW WR ³25´ WKH ³$1'´ UHODWLRQVKLS UHFRJQL]HV WKH PXWXDO 42 interdependence of opposing tendencies. In this conceptualization the opposing tendencies not only coexist and interact, but also form a complementary relationship. 4.4 CONTEMPORARY LEADERSHIP THEORIES 4.4.1 COMPLEXITY THEORY Over the past two decades, more nuanced, complex, and distinct approaches to leadership have emerged in the literature. Based on Quinn's (1984, 1988) competing values framework, the theory of leadership complexity (Denison et al., 1995; Hooijberg et al., 1997) suggested that behavioral complexity is an important concept to study within the realm of managerial leadership. Specifically, they argued that more effective leaders display a variety of different and sometimes contradictory behaviors to react to the wide range of situations they are typically exposed to and required to address. 7KHORFXVRIOHDGHUVKLSZLWKLQWKH³OHDGHUSOH[´PRGHOOies in the leader and the context. The theory focuses on leaders' ability to integrate and differentiate socially, cognitively, and behaviorally taking into account the context, while adapting their behaviors accordingly. If leaders do not have a particular behavior in their repertoire that matches the demands of the context, then leadership will not arise and the enacted behavior will be ineffective. 4.4.2 SOCIAL NETWORK THEORY A second recent approach to leadership examines the phenomenon through social network theory. Balkundi and Kilduff (2006) discussed the idea that a leader's cognitive representation of the patterns of relationships within various networks (e.g., ego, organizational, and inter-organizational) is the starting point for the way that the leader initiates and maintains social ties, which in turn influences their leadership effectiveness. Although this theory sees the leader's network acuity as the starting point, the locus of leadership lies within the network of relationships or the collective. These authors argued that it is only through a full understanding of the social networks and one's role within them that leadership can arise. Contrasting the earliest trait theories, Balkundi and Kilduff (2006) stated that WKHLU³QHWZRUNDSproach locates leadership not in the attributes of individuals but in the relationships FRQQHFWLQJLQGLYLGXDOV´(p.420). While complexity theory takes a more intricate perspective to the notion of opposite behaviors, social network theory allows for conceptualizing leadership as something more than the sum of individuals. 43 4.5 CONCLUSION In classical leadership theories and research on effective leadership there was a strong bias toward description of leadership processes at the dyadic level, which involves the interaction between a leader and an individual follower. Key questions at this level were how to develop a cooperative, trusting relationship with a follower, and how to influence a follower to be more motivated and committed (Yukl, 1999b). New leadership theories offered a distinctive approach that tied in with the great appetite for stories about heroic chief executives and with the growing self-awareness of many organizations about their missions. Underneath most theories of charismatic and transformational leadership lies the implicit assumption of the leader as hero. The argument is that an effective leader will influence followers to perform better. This orientation steers research in the direction of identifying the essential traits, skills, and behaviors of individual leaders for motivating subordinates. The research on dyadic processes provides important insights on leadership, but it often underestimates the importance of the context in which a dyadic relationship occurs. Contemporary leadership approaches, in contrast account for a leadership going above the individual and for a more paradoxical perspective on leadership, combining seemingly opposing leadership behaviors. The strategic leadership concept which is elaborated in the next chapter follows a similar line of reasoning. 44 5 REINVENTING STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP 5.1 INTRODUCTION 7KH LPSHWXV IRU WKH FRQFHSW RI ³VWUDWHJLF OHDGHUVKLS´ ZDV JLYHQ E\ WKH SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH VHPLQDO paper by Hambrick and Mason (1984) drawn from the strategic management literature. They argued that people (those belonging to the dominant coalition, alternatively termed the Upper Echelon) should have a more prominent place in theories of organizations. Given the chasm between the strategy content and strategy process literatures (Pettigrew, 1992), insights from the process literature had not seeped into the analytically oriented strategy content literature. As a result, strategic management theory had traditionally been dominated by macro-level theories focusing on understanding the behavior of organizations in relationship to their environments, while the individual was notoriously absent (Ansoff, 1965; Chandler, 1962). The tradition of industrial organization economics was similar: industry structure (e.g. concentration ratio of firms) combined with aggregate firm conduct (i.e. combination of factors of production) to yield some level of industry profitability; without regard for the role of individual behaviors (Bain, 1968; Mason, 1939). The perspective on strategy however changed with the introGXFWLRQRIWKHQRWLRQRI³VWUDWHJLFOHDGHUVKLS´(Hambrick & Mason, 1984). As Hambrick (1988) observed ³DIWHU IRFXVLQJ IRU WZHQW\ \HDUV RQ HQYLURQPHQWV processes, structures, portfolios and competitive dynamics, strategic management researchers have shown a recent interest in returning to the study of individuals who are formally charged with GLUHFWLQJWKHLURUJDQL]DWLRQV´(xi). ,W LV QRW WKDW D ³QHZ´ SKHQRPHQRQ RI VWUDWHJLF OHDGHUVKLS HPHUJHG LQ WKH mid-1980s. Rather, the unique domain of strategic leadership (different from the traditional supervisory leadership literature) started to become clarified during this time period. Up until the 1980s, the vast majority of leadership research had been focused on lower- and middle-level managers and their relationships with their immediate subordinates (House & Aditya, 1997). At that time, the distinct nature of challenges of managers at the top-level of organizations and the determination of how these challenges should be met, represented fertile ground for academic theory and research. The Asian economic powers such as Japan and the Little Dragons as well as European players like Germany, undermined the market dominance of North-American organizations. This not only had a dramatic impact on American industry, but it in turn influenced research on many fronts within business schools in the USA (i.e. still the primary source of organizational and leadership literature). A more competitive world forced many organizations to radically reinvent themselves after enjoying several decades of what in 45 hindsight appears to have been relative stability. Research called for organizations to be more flexible, DGDSWLYH HQWUHSUHQHXULDO DQG LQQRYDWLYH WR HIIHFWLYHO\ PHHW WKH FKDQJLQJ GHPDQGV RI WRGD\¶V environment (Orchard, 1998). Many make the point that the rate and complexity of change was rapidly increasing and becoming an integral aspect of organizational effectiveness, rather than a periodic necessity (Kotter, 1996). Researchers (Judge et al., 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Keller, 2006; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000) started to explore the strategic role of leadership in improving organizational performance. While Hitt et al. (2002) referred to strategic leadership as an ability, Hambrick and Mason (1984) conceptualized strategic leadership in terms of characteristics of top-level managers and/or the GLVWULEXWLRQ RI WRS PDQDJHPHQW WHDP PHPEHUV¶ WUDLWV 7KHVH UHVHDUFKHUV LQVSLUHG PDQ\ other researchers to empirically investigate the impact of chief executive officer (CEO) characteristics and top management team (TMT) composition with respect to dimensions such as personality, values, tenure, gender, ethnic background and age on a myriad of organizational outcomes (Boerner et al.; Carpenter et al., 2004; Tihanyi et al., 2000). With respect to CEO research, links have been traced between, for instance CEO tenure, locus of control and need for achievement, on the one hand, and firm rigidity, innovative behavior and organizational performance on the other (Boone et al., 1996; Miller, 1991; Miller & Toulouse, 1986; Musteen et al., 2006). With respect to TMT composition research, the focus has generally been on the impact of the mean and the spread (i.e. diversity) of these characteristics (Boone et al., 2005). Only limited success KDVEHHQDWWDLQHGXVLQJ³GHPRJUDSKLF´YDULDEOHVWRSUHGLFWDVSHFWVRIVWUDWHJLF decision making and performance. Boal and Hooijberg (2000) ZHQWVRIDUDVWR³FDOODPRUDWRULXPRQ WKHXVHRIGHPRJUDSKLFYDULDEOHVVXFKDVVXUURJDWHVIRUSV\FKRVRFLDOFRQVWUXFWV´(p.523). Priem, Lyon and Dess (1999) were likewise critical about the use of such data in strategic leadership research, raising questions about their meaning and construct validity. At the outset, Hambrick et al. (1984) recognized the limitations of demographic and background variables in WKDWWKH\³PD\FRQWDLQPRUH QRLVH WKDQ SXUHU SV\FKRORJLFDO PHDVXUHV´ (p.196) WKDW LV ³SV\FKRORJLFDO PHDVXUHV ZHUH VHHQ DV potentially more direct in terms of revealing the types of CEO values, beliefs and behavioral incliQDWLRQVUHOHYDQWWRVWUDWHJ\IRUPDWLRQDQGSHUIRUPDQFH LHWRILOOLQWKH³EODFNER[´FUHDWHGE\ DQH[FOXVLYHIRFXVRQGHPRJUDSKLFDQGEDFNJURXQGYDULDEOHV ´(Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996, p.46). Despite of the awareness of limited usability of demographic proxies for strategic leadership, there is still no alternative theoretically derived measure for strategic leadership. The lack of a good measure of strategic leadership has deterred further substantive research in this area. 46 The lack of progress on the strategic leadership concept may be partly due to the fact that the dependent variable of organizational effectiveness was highly contested. Organizations operate in multiple domains and may perform well only in a limited number of them (Cameron, 1978). To be effective, an organization must possess attributes that are simultaneously contradictory, even mutually exclusive (Cameron, 1986). A review of the effectiveness literature (Cameron, 1978) found that 80% of the criteria used in evaluations of effectiveness did not overlap with those used in other studies. The most frequently used criterion was a single, overall rating of effectiveness given by respondents within the organization. However, if researchers use narrow measures of effectiveness, they may develop narrow normative conclusions (Hitt, 1988). Some authors became so discouraged with the disarray that characterized the effectiveness literature that they advocated a complete abandonment of the term from scientific investigation (Goodman et al., 1983; Hannan & Freeman, 1977). Nonetheless, all theories of organizations rely on some conception of the differences between high quality (effective) performance and poor quality (ineffective) performance (Richard et al., 2009). As Cameron (1986) stated it, effectiveness is inherently tied to all theory on organizations (p.540). This chapter delves deeper into the notion of strategic leadership. First of all, the concept of strategy (section 5.2) is reviewed briefly, followed by a literature review of the concept of strategic leadership (section 5.3). On the basis thereof, a conceptual model for strategic leadership is presented (section 5.4). Lastly, this model is compared to a widely used alternative model, i.e. the Competing Values Framework of Quinn (section 5.5) (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983)3 5.2 THE CONCEPT OF STRATEGY ³Strategy´ is an elusive concept. The term is employed in a variety of disciplinary literatures. Pennings (1985) noted that it is used by economists, social psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists. The literature abounds with definitions ranging from the general to the specific. Chandler¶s (1962) interpretation is typical of early uses in the management literaWXUH³«WKH determination of the long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these JRDOV´(Chandler, 1962, p.13). This definition is broad, encompassing both ends, in the sense of objectives and goals, and the means for their achievement, including courses of action and allocations of resources. Subsequent theorists have sought to narrow the concept. Thus, for example, Hofer and Schendel (1978) argue the case for 3 See first pilot application in Appendix II 47 OLPLWLQJ WKH GHILQLWLRQ WR PHDQV VWUDWHJ\ LV ³WKH IXQGDPHQWDO SDWWHUQV RI SUHVHQW DQG SODQQHG resources deployments and environmental interactions that indicates how the organization will achieve its objecWLYHV´ (p.25) 3RUWHU¶V (1980, 1985) QRWLRQ RI ³FRPSHWLWLYH VWUDWHJ\´ OLPLWV WKH GHILQLWLRQ IXUWKHU ³FRPSHWLWLYH VWUDWHJ\ LV WKH VHDUFK IRU D IDYRUDEOH FRPSHWLWLYH SRVLWLRQ LQ DQ LQGXVWU\« ,W DLPVWRHVWDEOLVKDSURILWDEOHDQGVXVWDLQDEOHSRVLWLRQDJDLQVWWKHIRUFHVWKDWGHWHUPLQH industry competition (Porter, 1985, p.1). This is achieved through the creation of unique competitive DGYDQWDJHV DQG ³«VWUDWHJ\ LV WKH URXWH WR FRPSHWLWLYH DGYDQWDJH´ (Porter, 1985, p.25). A host of other definitions can be recited. But despite their differences, there is a common theme. Strategy is thought to constitute a logic underlying an organization’s interactions with its environment, and this in turn guides its deployment of resources. There is something which can be called an organization, only if an organization can be distinguished from its environment (Schreyögg & Sydow, 2010). One has to determine what is inside and what is considered outside of the organization. According to systems theory, the difference between an organization and its environment is the degree of complexity. All social systems lower their level of complexity to a level that they can handle. Hence, systems build an inner world of lower complexity; they build an identity (Seidl, 2005). The outside of the organization is by creation of higher complexity. This differential requires that a boundary is drawn and maintained between the organization and its more complex environment. Organizations are boundary-maintaining systems (Aldrich, 1971). If organizations would react to any event in their environment without any notion of continuity or pattern, there would be a blurring of what is inside and outside. These organizations would dissolve in their environment or would not have come to existence in the first place (Schreyögg & Sydow, 2010). Strategy as a way of linking a firm to its environment is a principal element in many strategy definitions (Jemison, 1981b; Miles et al., 1978; Miller & Friesen, 1982; Mintzberg, 1979). This linking has also been termed organization-environment fit which is considered fundamental to the discipline of strategic management (Chakravarthy, 1982). First, the field of business policy ± the initial strategy paradigm (Schendel & Hofer, 1979, p.8) ± waVURRWHGLQWKHFRQFHSWRI³PDWFKLQJ´RU ³DOLJQLQJ´ organizational resources with environmental opportunities and threats (Andrews, 1971; Chandler, 1962). Second, being a relatively new area of inquiry, strategic management borrowed concepts and research methods from related disciplines ± industrial organization (IO) economics (Porter, 1981), administrative behavior (Jemison, 1981a) and marketing (Biggadike, 1981). Because the concept of fit is dominant in the parent disciplines, especially in organization theory and IO 48 economics, it assumed significance while developing and testing theories of strategy. One of the wellaccepted theories in strategic management is that strategy involves the matching or the art of reconciling the various components of the strategy mix (Andrews, 1971). According to this view, the pattern of matching the different elements ± some within the organizational boundaries (competences and resources) and others dealing with the environment (opportunities and threats) is viewed as strategy. This classical view of strategy was consistent with the open system perspective in organization theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Thompson, 1967). Such a view has led strategy to be conceptualized as a pattern or stream of decisions taken to achieve the most favorable match or DOLJQPHQWEHWZHHQWKHH[WHUQDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VVWUXFWXUHDQGSURFHVV(Miles et al., 1978; Mintzberg, 1978). Other strategy researchers also subscribed to this view of strategy as the process of matching environment and organization on an ongoing basis (Chakravarthy, 1982; Jauch & Osborn, 1981; Thorelli, 1977). Within the strategic management literature there has been some disagreement about the nature of the relationship between "organizations" and their "environments". Child (1972) emphasized the importance of strategic choice theory. Child and others (Miles et al., 1978; Montanari, 1978) argued that organizations can select their environmental domains and that environmental forces are not so confining that they cannot be outflanked or sometimes even safely ignored. On the contrary, Aldrich (2007), amongst others (Carroll, 1984; Hannan & Freeman, 1977) maintained that most organizations flounder helplessly in the grip of environmental forces. Aldrich believed that "environments" are relentlessly efficient in weeding out any organization that does not closely align itself with environmental demands. Most researchers seem to place themselves somewhere between these polar views (see Figure 5.1). Figure 5-1: Organization – Environment dichotomy Similarly, de Wit & Meyer (2010) described the perspective of managers who argue that market opportunities should be leading, while implying that the organization should adapt itself to the market SRVLWLRQ DV WKH µRXWVLGH-LQ SHUVSHFWLYH¶ ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH\ DUJXHG that many managers believe that competition eventually revolves around rival resource bases and that firms must focus on the GHYHORSPHQW RI XQLTXH UHVRXUFHV DQG DFWLYLW\ V\VWHPV 7KLV YLHZ ZDV UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH µLQVLGH-out SHUVSHFWLYH¶(p.255). 49 5.3 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP LITERATURE REVIEW In order to systematically study the notion of strategic leadership, a literature review was conducted, LQZKLFKWKHWHUP³VWUDWHJLFOHDGHUVKLS´was used in the title and the notion was described or defined in the article, resulting in 15 articles (the small number GHPRQVWUDWLQJWKHUHODWLYH³QHZQHVV´RIWKH concept). The articles were found on the basis of a systematic search of ISI Web of Knowledge, Business Source Premier and ProQuest. An overview of the literature review on strategic leadership is presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Table 5-1: Literature review on strategic leadership 50 Table 5-2: Literature review on strategic leadership From the literature review on strategic leadership, one can deduce that: ƒ There is controversy concerning who exercises strategic leadership. Whereas some scholars SXUSRUWWKDW³OHDGHUVDWDOOOHYHOVRIWKHRUJanization should develop this ability, indicating the fact that strategic leadership can be exercised by first-, middle, and top-OHYHOPDQDJHUV´(Hitt & Ireland, 2002, p.4). Others focus on the people who have overall responsibility for the organization and includes not only the titular head of the organization but also members of what is referred to as the top management team or dominant coalition (Cyert & March, 1963). ƒ Effective strategic leadership revolves around the tension between short-term and long-term, change and stability, bureaucracy and anarchy. 51 o ³6WUDWHJLFOHDGHUVKLSHQWDLOVWKHDELOLW\WRLQWHJUDWHVKRrt- and long-term visions of the ILUP´(Hitt et al., 1994, p.30). o ³Strategic leadership is the ability to influence others to voluntarily make day-to-day decisions that enhance the long-term viability of the organization, while at the same time maintaining its short-term financial stability´ (Rowe, 2001, p.81-82). o ³6WUDWHJLFOHDGHUVKLSLQYROYHVDFWLYDWLQJDJHQGDVWKDWLQIXVHRUJDQL]DWLRQVQRWMXVWZLWK change visions, but also with sustained capacity for change implementation. Therefore, the leadership needs to accept the change / stability paradox in order to understand the complexity of change as a collective and multi-level organizational competency´ (Taylor-Bianco & Schermerhorn, 2006, p.459). o ³6WUDWHJLFOHDGHUVKLSSURPRWHV³VWUDQJHDWWUDFWLRQ´LQRUJDQL]DWLRQVSURYLGLQJEDODQFH between the inertia of Weberian-style bureaucracy and anarchy. To appreciate the ways in which strategic leadership impacts organizations, it is useful to discuss organizations as complex adaptive systems with strategic leadership providing the balance between complete stability and unmanageable disorder´ (Boal & Schultz, 2007, p.412). These descriptions point to the enduring and overarching issue in the management sciences that an RUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V ORQJ-term success depends on its ability to exploit its current capabilities while simultaneously exploring fundamentally new competencies (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991) (see Figure 5.2 for a graphic display). Figure 5-2: Exploration - Exploitation dichotomy Although the importance of strategic leadership in pursuing exploration and exploitation has been acknowledged (Smith & Tushman, 2005; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996), the specific means through which leaders influence exploitation and exploration are still under-developed. 52 5.3.1 EXPLOITATION VERSUS EXPLORATION Earlier research has often claimed that organizational practices that simultaneously address efficient exploitation and effective exploration are impossible to achieve (Hannan & Freeman, 1977; McGill & Slocum, 1992). Much of contemporary management theory present organizational phenomena in terms of discrete, contrasting categories, forcing firms to focus on either exploitation or exploration (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Ghemawat & Costa, 1993). In his 1991 article, March (1991) argues that exploration and exploration are two fundamentally different learning activities. Whereas exploitation is associDWHG ZLWK DFWLYLWLHV VXFK DV ³UHILQHPHQW HIILFLHQF\ VHOHFWLRQ DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ´ H[SORUDWLRQ UHIHUV WR QRWLRQV VXFK DV ³VHDUFK YDULDWLRQ H[SHULPHQWDWLRQ DQG GLVFRYHU\´ (p.102). Exploitation and exploration may therefore require fundamentally different organizational structures, strategies and contexts. Nonetheless, a myopic focus on either exploration or exploitation can have detrimental consequences for the organization. 5.3.1.1 Exploration Extensive research has shown that, ³$Q RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKDW HQJDJHV H[FOXsively in exploitation will suffer from obsolesFHQFH´(Levinthal & March, 1993, p.105). If investing in new technologies seems uncertain, firms seem to prefer to stick to already established routines. Asymmetric preference for exploitation may enhance short-term performance, but at the expense of flexibility (Volberda, 1996). It can crowd out exploration (Benner & Tushman, 2002) which then leads to competency traps (Herriott et al., 1985; Levitt & March, 1988) and core competencies become core rigidities instead (Leonard-Barton, 1992). Corporate icons such as General Motors (GM), International Business Machines (IBM), Xerox and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) have encountered these traps. 7KH\ EHFDPH µSULVRQHUV¶ RI WKHLU GHHSO\ Lngrained routines and seemingly irreversible, fixed assets, turning their formerly distinctive competencies into obstacles to changing direction. As Lou Gertsner VWDWHG LQ ,%0¶V  DQQXDO UHSRUW ,%0 KDG EHFRPH ³WRR SUHRFFXSLHG ZLWK >LWV@ RZQ YLHZ RI WKH ZRUOG´ 5.3.1.2 Exploitation On the other hand, an exclusive focus on exploration can lead to failure if firms never reap the profits of their investments (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). Focusing solely on exploration can lead firms to neglect improvement and adaptation of existing routines (March, 1991), and may prevent the RUJDQL]DWLRQIURP EHQHILWLQJIURP HFRQRPLHVRIVFDOH7RRPXFKH[SORUDWLRQPD\ HQKDQFHDILUP¶V ability to renew its knowledge base but can trap organizations in an endless cycle of search and unrewarding change (Volberda & Lewin, 2003). 3M, a company with a superior track record in emergent exploration for new opportunities, has discovered the limits to overemphasizing a single 53 approach to emergent innovation (i.e. exploration): the 3M way (Stewart, 1996). The overemphasis on an exploration strategy creates instability as the organization exaggerates the importance of its emergent innovation strategy. The resulting chaotic organization cannot retain a sense of continuity over time (Weick, 1979). Random and chronic exploration creates a vicious circle that results in a renewal trap characterized by conflict about authority, unclear responsibilities, inadequate controls, lack of direction and shared ideology. One of the primary dangers is the fact that the purely explorative organization undervalues institutionali]DWLRQWKHSURFHVVZKHUHE\³RUJDQL]DWLRQVDWWHPSW to capture the patterns of interaction by formalizing theP´(Crossan et al., 1999, p.529). This process HPEHGV OHDUQLQJ LQ WKH ³V\VWHPV VWUXFWXUHV VWUDWHJ\ URXWLQHV >DQG@ SUHVFULEHG SUDFWLFHV RI WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ´ (Crossan et al., 1999, p.529). In doing so, the organization, as an entity, learns and maintains its ³RUJDQi]DWLRQDOPHPRU\´(Crossan et al., 1999, p.529). Researchers such as Van de Ven and Poole (1988) and Fry and Srivastva (1992) argue that many of the theories that are used to better understand the nature of change emphasize either continuity or change. Srivastva and Fry (1992) argue WKDW ZKLOH ³QRYHOW\ DQG WUDQVLWLRQ DUH WZR NH\ DJHQGDV RI WRGD\¶V VRFLDO V\stems, managing continuity is an emerging and critical third agenda. They define FRQWLQXLW\DV³WKHFRQQHFWHGQHVVRYHU time among organizational efforts and a sense or experience of ongoingness that links the past to the SUHVHQW DQG WKH SUHVHQW WR IXWXUH KRSHV DQG LGHDOV´ (p.2). Managing and/or leading change and continuity is about reinforcing stabilizing forces while anticipating on a changing environment. It is because of the exploitation of core competencies that firms maintain their trajectory and thus achieve a sense of continuity in the mists of change (Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998). And it is in the exploration for new opportunities that firms overcome the related problems of competency traps or core rigidities (Leonard-Barton, 1992). The capacity to simultaneously stimulate long-term adaptability (i.e. exploration) and ensure short-term continuity (i.e. exploitation) is termed ambidexterity, referring to the human ability to use both hands at the same time (Duncan, 1976; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). Many scholars have labeled this tension as a paradox (Atuahene-Gima, 2005; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Smith & Tushman, 2005). There is a general agreement that achieving both exploitation and exploration can be beneficial in terms of financial performance (He & Wong, 2004; Kristal et al.; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Morgan & Berthon, 2008) and increased organizational durability (O'Reilly III & Tushman, 2011). Examples from a wide variety of industries and locations highlight the benefits of ambidexterity at the firm level. These include Canadian international new ventures (Han & Celly, 2008), high-tech firms in Taiwan (Li et al., 2008), Indian pharmaceutical firms (Kale & Wield, 2008), German high-tech start- 54 ups (Kuckertz et al., 2010) and Spanish SMEs in the optometry and telecoms businesses (CegarraNavarro & Dewhurst, 2007). The term paradox has been used as a metaphor or an analytical tool to explain findings from Peters DQG:DWHUPDQ¶V(1982) study, who found that on a long-term basis, those organizations which were capable of reconciling tensions were most successful (van de Ven & Poole, 1988). Following a symposium at the Academy of Management conference in 1985, Cameron (1986) published a journal SDSHU RQ ³(IIHFWLYHQHVV DV SDUDGR[´ DQG 4XLQQDQG &DPHURQ (1988) HGLWHG D YROXPH RQ ³3DUDGR[ DQG WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ´ 3DUDGR[ ZDV LQWURGXFHG WR FKDOOHQJH OLQHDU FDXVH-and-effect thinking and the assumption of equilibrium (Quinn and Cameron, 1988). This first collection of ideas and possibilities on what paradox is and how to thrive on paradox in organization theory was followed by a number of SXEOLFDWLRQV VXFK DV ³3DUDGR[ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH´ (Denison et al., 1995), complemented by practitioner-GLUHFWHG ERRNV VXFK DV ³7KH DJH RI SDUDGR[´ (Handy, 1994). Reviewing studies from 1990 to 1997, Davis et al. (1997) found that the term was used in over 300 major publications. Smith and Lewis (2011) argued that paradox is becoming a more paramount lens, given the contemporary context of globalization, innovation, hypercompetition and intricate environments. Smith and Lewis (2011) define paradox as contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time. This definition highlights two components of paradox: (1) underlying tensions, elements that seem logical individually but inconsistent and even absurd when juxtaposed and (2) responses that embrace tensions simultaneously (p.382). ,QGHDOLQJZLWKSDUDGR[HV³DEVROXWHUHFRQFLOLDWLRQLVXQZDUUDQWHGDQGFRXQWHUSURGXFWLYH´ (Graetz & Smith, 2007, p.13). Individuals apply formal logic based on internal consistency, polarizing the elements to stress distinctions rather than interdependencies. Most thinking has been shaped through IRUPDOHGXFDWLRQV\VWHPVWKDWKDYHEHHQJHDUHGWRZDUGWHDFKLQJSHRSOHWKH³RQHULJKWDQVZHU´(Von Oech, 1983). However, stressing one polarity exacerbates the need for the other, often sparking GHIHQVHVDQGHQJHQGHULQJFRXQWHUSURGXFWLYHUHLQIRUFLQJF\FOHV³6WD\LQJZLWKWhe paradox makes it possible to discover a link between opposing forces and opens up the framework that gives meaning WR WKH DSSDUHQW FRQWUDGLFWLRQ´ (Vince & Broussine, 1996, p.4). In that sense, managers can take paradoxes as their guiding principle by avoiding a decision between the two opposite poles. Instead, the simultaneous pursuit of both extremes is regarded as the most suitable way for an organization to GHDO ZLWK LWV HQYLURQPHQW 7KXV WKH ³HLWKHU-RU´ GHYHORSV WRZDUGV D SDUDGR[ LQ WKH VHQVH DV DQ ³DVwell-DV´(DFKSROHLVRSSRVLWHWRWKHRWKHUEXWUHJDUGLQJWKHLUTXDOLW\ DQGRIWHQDOVRWKHLUH[LVWHQFH  they are dependent on each other. Therefore both solutions can be regarded as complementary. 55 Without the tension that exists between simultaneous opposites in organizations, unproductive "schismogenesis" may occur (Bateson, 1936; Morgan, 1981). Schismogenesis is a process of selfreinforcement where one action or attribute in the organization perpetuates itself until it becomes extreme and therefore dysfunctional. 5.3.2 AMBIDEXTERITY Although the idea that organizations must perform both exploratory and exploitative tasks if they are to survive is neither new nor surprising, how organizations should pursue both development modes is still a major point of discussion (Gupta et al., 2006). ³2UJDQizational ambidexterity remains an undertheorized, underconceptualized and, therefore, poorly underVWRRGSKHQRPHQRQ´(Simsek, 2009, p.598). 7KLV LV FDSWXUHG E\ 2¶5eilly and Tushman (2011) DV IROORZV ³what is missing is a clear articulation of those specific managerial actions that facilitate the simultaneous pursuit of exploitation and exploration . . . what is needed is greater insight into the specific micro mechanisms required for a manager to implement and operate an ambidextrous strategy´ (p.8). The ambidexterity approach demonstrates two alternatives, i.e. structural ambidexterity and contextual ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). With structural ambidexterity (Benner & Tushman, 2003; O'Reilly 3rd & Tushman, 2004), it is proposed that agile firms develop specific structures that are dedicated to either exploration or exploitation. The coherence and coordination of the overall firm is ensured by top management that arbitrates between the exploration and exploitation units. Smith and Tushman (2005) explored the integrative mechanisms by which top management teams might successfully manage the contradictions that arise from structural separation in ambidextrous organizations, and Volberda et al. (2001) noted WKDW³7RSPDQDJHPHQWH[SOLFLWO\PDQDJHVWKHEDODQFHRIH[SORUDWLRQand exploitation by bringing in new competencies to some units while utilizing well-GHYHORSHGFRPSHWHQFLHVLQ RWKHUV´ (p.165)2¶5HLOO\DQG7XVKPDQ(2004) emphasized the role of ambidextrous top-level managers with ³WKHDELOLW\WR underVWDQGDQGEHVHQVLWLYHWRWKHQHHGVRIYHU\GLIIHUHQWNLQGVRIEXVLQHVVHV´(p.81). 7XVKPDQ DQG 2¶5HLOO\ (1996) concluded KRZHYHU WKDW ³RQH RI WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW OHVVRQV LV WKDW ambidextrous organizations need ambidextrous senior teams and PDQDJHUV´ (p.81). Ambidextrous managers must manage contradictions and conflicting goals (Smith & Tushman, 2005), engage in paradoxical thinking (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), and fulfill multiple roles (Floyd & Lane, 2000). The latter refers to contextual ambidexterity, which purports that ambidexterity is not so much realized at the structural level, but at the level of individuals within the organization (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Hargadon & Fanelli, 2002). 56 The level of analysis (i.e. the level of the organization, the team or the individual) is vitally important in the conceptualization of contextual ambidexterity. In that sense, the focus on top management team characteristics as the antecedents of the development of organizational capabilities in ambidexterity is not matched by studies on the role of individual PDQDJHUV¶ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RU RQ their ability to perform exploring and exploiting leadership roles simultaneously (Turner et al., 2012). Vera and Crossan (2004) have made a first attempt. They proposed that transformational leadership encourages exploration and transactional leadership engenders exploitation. However, transformational leadership is primarily conceptualized and studied at the level of the leader-follower dyad (Yukl, 1999a). Yet there is a need for more comprehensive models accounting for the influence of leadership on exploration and exploitation (Yukl, 2009). Each type of transformational behavior can influence both exploration and exploitation. Intellectual stimulation can be used not only to encourage people to find new products and markets, but also to encourage people to improve existing products or processes. Inspirational communication can be used not only to build commitment to a new vision or strategy, but also to strengthen loyalty to an existing vision an confidence in established practices (Yukl, 2009). Supportive leadership includes the development of subordinate skills, but the skills may be ones needed to carry out existing practices effectively rather than ones needed to enhance innovation (Yukl, 2009). A more comprehensive and accurate model to explain leader influence on the two processes of exploration and exploitation needs to emphasize specific types of leadership behaviors that appear relevant (Yukl, 2009). This model should not only include leadership behaviors that provide direct forms of influence, but also indirect forms of influence derived from implementing programs and systems that encourage, facilitate, and reward collective learning. 5.4 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP CONCEPTUAL MODEL From the literature review on strategic leadership, it can be concluded that strategic leadership deals with the paradox between exploration and exploitation. In turn, the strategic management discipline revolves around the organization-environment paradox. Bringing these two paradoxes together (i.e. between exploration- exploitation and between organization-environment) results in a four quadrant framework (see Figure 5.3). 57 Figure 5-3: Strategic leadership quadrants The following four sections (5.4.1 till 5.4.4) aim to give content to the four quadrants between the two axes (Exploration-Exploitation and Organization-Environment). 5.4.1 ENVIRONMENT - EXPLOITATION = CLIENT CENTRICITY In a highly competitive environment, one of the most crucial business tenets is customer retention (Colgate & Danaher, 2000). Researchers purported that without senior leadership support, a customer orientation is unlikely to take root (Day, 1994; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Liao & Subramony, 2008; Narver & Slater, 1990; Slater & Narver, 1995). As Webster (1988) stated ³>&@XVWRPHU-oriented values and beliefs are uniquely the responsibility of top management. Only the CEO can take responsibility for defining customer- and market-RULHQWDWLRQ DV WKH GULYLQJ IRUFHV´ (p.37). Transformations to a customer-orientation are distinctive in that top-level managers must articulate organizational aims in terms that are harmonious with customer satisfaction (Senge, 1990), and their behavior must be consistent with customer-oriented mandates (Day, 1994; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Kotter & Heskett, 1992). Schneider and Bowen (1992) argued that a positive climate for customer well-being and a positive climate for employee well-EHLQJDUHGLVWLQFWDQGIXUWKHUVXJJHVWHGWKDW³DQ organization may have policies and practices that are positive in the sense that employees feel welltreated, but this would have little relationship to the service customers experience unless the organization also has policies and practices that proPRWHVHUYLFHH[FHOOHQFH´(p.8). The concept of Client centricity entails strategic leadership behavior which stimulates an organizational culture which places the customer at the center of the firm's while thinking about strategy and operations (Deshpande & Webster Jr, 1989; Kumar et al., 2002). Hence, this concept is focused on the environment and deals with the exploitation of current client accounts. A paradoxical 58 finding in the strategic management literature is that myopically focusing on current cusWRPHUV¶ wishes contributes to several problems that ultimately can lead firms to poorer performance and reduced competitiveness (Bodlaj, 2011; Christensen, 1997; Theoharakis & Hooley, 2008). Hamel and Prahalad (1991) GLVFXVVHGVLPLODUSUREOHPVUHVXOWLQJIURPWKH³W\UDQQ\RIWKHVHUYHGPDUNHW´ (p.83). This challenge is covered in the next section. 5.4.2 ENVIRONMENT - EXPLORATION = BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Several strategic management researchers have suggested that being customer-oriented locks a firm to miss out on the wave of new technologies and emerging customer needs (Christensen & Bower, 1996; Hamel & Prahalad, 1991). Christensen and Bower (1996) concluded from their analysis of the hard GLVN GULYH LQGXVWU\ WKDW ³ILUPV ORVH WKHLU SRVLWLRQ RI LnGXVWU\ OHDGHUVKLS«EHFDXVH WKHy listen too FDUHIXOO\WRWKHLUFXVWRPHUV´(p.198) or may lead managers to interpret the world only through current FOLHQWV¶H\H(Hamel & Prahalad, 1996). Slater and Narver (1998) warned that being client-led is but a short-term strategy. Day (1999) ZDUQHGDJDLQVWILUPVEHFRPLQJ³FXVWRPHUFRPSHOOHG´DQGVWDWHGWKDW WKH³FRQFHUQDERXWEHFRPLQJPRUHPDUNHW-driven is the fear that it might focus inordinate attention on current markets so that WKHFRPSDQ\ZLOOIDLOWRVHHHPHUJLQJPDUNHWV´3UREDEO\WKHPRVWH[WUHPH assertion was made in a Fortune DUWLFOHHQWLWOHG³,JQRUH<RXU&XVWRPHU´(Martin, 1995). Researchers have divided the market orientation construct into two complementary apSURDFKHV WKH³UHVSRQVLYH´ DQG WKH ³SURDFWLYH´ PDUNHW DSSURDFK (Narver et al., 2004). In the case of responsive market orientation, the company puts its effort into understanding and serving the current and expressed needs of its customers. In contrast, the focus of proactive market orientation is on poWHQWLDOFXVWRPHUV¶ needs (Narver et al., 2004). The same suggestion is also embedded in the works of Jaworski et al. (2000), Hills and Sarin (2003) and Kumar et al. (2000), used the concepts of market ± driven (current needs) and market-driving (future needs) activity. The latter may be labeled Business development. Business development, is similar to Client centricity focused on the environment, but with a focus on exploration. Business development is based on the gathering and interpretation of information about the unknown environment (Yukl, 1999a). A number of empirical studies have found support for the notion that the capacity to recognize, value, assimilate, and apply new external knowledge is a significant predictor of successful organizational functioning (Arora & Gambardella, 1994; Helfat, 1997; Kaplan et al., 2003). Grinyer, Mayes and McKiernan (1990) found that the leaders of highperforming companies did more external monitoring (e.g. environmental scanning) than leaders of low-performing companies and were quicker to recognize and exploit opportunities revealed by it. Effective scanning remains a prerequisite to successful organizational adaptation. The bulk of research 59 KDVSURYHGWKHSRVLWLYHFRUUHODWLRQEHWZHHQWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VSHUIRUPDQFHDQGLWVDELOLty to scan the environment (Beal, 2000; Garg et al., 2003; Howell & Sheab, 2001; Kumar et al., 2001; McGee & Sawyerr, 2003; Suh et al., 2004). Over time, existing norms become so embedded within policies and processes that they create a distinct organizational myopia (Huber & Daft, 1987; Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985) &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V SHUFHSWXDO ILOWHU EHFRPHV LPSHUYLRXV WR H[WHUQDO FKDQJH (Lorsch, 1985; O'Reilly, 1983; Reimann & Wiener, 1988; Sathe, 1983). Thus, it is critical that an organization be aware of the nature of the environment that it currently faces or anticipates facing. Most researchers agree that environmental analysis should be an independent staff function in the top levels of an organization's hierarchy (Smeltzer et al., 1988). As Hambrick (1981) has noted, an ³RUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V H[HFXWLYHs FDQ RQO\ DFW RQ WKRVH SKHQRPHQD WR ZKLFK WKHLU DWWHQWLRQ LV GUDZQ´ (p.299). Hence, the strategy literature considers scanning as the very stimulus that initiates the organizational adaptation process (Hambrick, 1981; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Kohli and Jaworski (1990) found that the role of senior management emerged as one of the most important factors in fostering a market orientation. The critical role of top managers in fostering a market orientation is also reflected in the literature. For example, Webster (1988) asserted that a PDUNHWRULHQWDWLRQRULJLQDWHVZLWKWRSPDQDJHPHQWDQGWKDW³FXVWRPHU-oriented values and beliefs are uniquely the responsibility of top management´ (p.37). Likewise, Felton (1969) argued that the most important ingredient of a market orientation is an appropriate state of mind, and that it is attainable RQO\ LI ³WKH ERDUG RI GLUHFWRUV FKLHI H[HFXWLYH DQG WRS-echelon executives appreciate the need to GHYHORSWKLVPDUNHWLQJVWDWHRIPLQG´ S ,QRWKHUZRUGVWhe commitment of top managers is an essential prerequisite to a market orientation. 5.4.3 ORGANIZATION- EXPLORATION = ORGANIZATIONAL CREATIVITY It has been suggested that being market-oriented (focusing on current clients and identifying potential new opportunities) may detract from innovativeness (Berthon et al., 2004)³$VLPSRUWDQWDVPDUNHW orientation and entrepreneurship are, they must be complemented by an appropriate climate to produce a learning organization´ (Slater & Narver, 1995, p.63). Frosch (1996) has shown that excessive client orientation leads to shortsighted research and development, and Bennett and Cooper (1979) have criticized client orientation for leading to incremental and trivial new product development. Jaworski and Kohli (1996) QRWHGWKDW³WKHUHLVOLWWOHLQWKHOLWHUDWure on the effects of a PDUNHW RULHQWDWLRQ RQ WKH PHWULFV UHODWHG WR LQQRYDWLRQ´ (p.129). They also cautioned that an overemphasis on customers may hamper innovation and research and development activities and damage a firm's ability to introduce innovative products in the market (Zhou et al., 2005). The 60 rationale for the Organizational creativity orientation is that it has the potential to create markets and customers. It is not that the Organizational creativity orientation completely ignores customers; it is just that firms following this course believe that existing (and potential) customers may not know what they need and want. Hence, Organizational creativity is focused on exploration, with an (internal) organization focus. According to Mumford et al. (2002), organizational climate and culture represent collective social constructions, over which leaders have substantial control and influence. In turn, several empirical studies have provided evidence that an orJDQL]DWLRQ¶V RU JURXS¶V FOLPDWH IRU LQQRYDWLRQ LV DQ important determinant of innovation. For example, Bain et al. (2001) studied a group of research scientists and technologists in four Australian companies with substantial R&D operations. They IRXQGDSRVLWLYHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQDWHDP¶VFOLPDWHIRULQQRYDWLRQDQGVL[LQGLFDWRUVRILQQRYDWLRQ At the organizational level, Scott and Bruce (1994) found that a climate that strongly supported innovation increased innovative behavior among research scientists and engineers in a large U.S. FRPSDQ\¶V5 'FHQWHU 5.4.4 ORGANIZATION- EXPLOITATION = OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY Many business leaders seem to believe that, instead of thinking about reliability and efficiency, they should spend all their time formulating an exciting vision, negotiating acquisitions, or reinventing the company. Maintaining reliable, efficient processes that minimize costs and ensure high quality of products or services has increasingly been viewed as a responsibility that can be delegated to lowerlevel managers. Yet cost leadership has always been a crucial element in strategy definitions. In 1980, Porter defined the generic VWUDWHJLFW\SHV³FRVWOHDGHUVKLS´DQG³SURGXFWGLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ´7UHDF\DQG Wiersema (1993) DGRSWHGDW\SRORJ\RI³RSHUDWLRQDOH[FHOOHQFH´³SURGXFWOHDdHUVKLS´DQG³FXVWRPHU LQWLPDF\´ *HQHUDOO\ WKH JHQHULF VWUDWHJ\ W\SRORJLHV GHYHORSHG E\ VWUDWHJ\ UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH EURDG similarities (Campbell-Hunt, 2000). While there is less convergence on the key attributes of the other dimensions of strategy (i.e. product leadership, customer intimacy and differentiation), all include cost and efficiency as a key strategy. Operational efficiency is characterized by an emphasis on controlling costs and standardization of procedures. The operational efficiency perspective draws heavily on the economics discipline. Due to scarcity of resources and time, organizations need to allocate resources efficiently and maximize the output received from those inputs. The process of routinization and repetition promotes efficiencies (Day & Montgomery, 1983; Levitt & March, 1988). These, in turn, lead to higher profits (Porter, 61 1980). Operational efficiency refers to competing on the basis of efficient utilization of existing resources in direct contrast to business development where the primary competitive emphasis is prospecting and exploring new opportunities. Kotterman (2006) argues that a CEO ³should take care of stability, routine, clarity, risk minimization, control and predictability as well as take care of change and follow up on new opportunities´ (p.15). This is also in line with 5RZH¶V (2001) description of leaders who combine managerial leadership, focused on the past with visionary leadership focused on the future. Organizational efficiency is often measured by meeting budget and time constraints. A culture that stimulates efficiency and productivity emphasizes the importance of getting things done, on-time delivery of products and services, and maintaining a pace faster than that of competitors, while simultaneously controlling operation costs (Amabile et al., 2002; Lewis et al., 2002). Trade-offs have been identified between operational efficiency and organizational creativity and client centricity, respectively. The postulate of a trade-off between efficiency and creativity is one of the more enduring ideas in organizational theory (Edwards, 2001; Hindo, 2007b; Kratzer et al., 2008; Magnusson et al., 2009). Thompson (1967) describHGLWDVDFHQWUDOSDUDGR[RIDGPLQLVWUDWLRQ´(p.15). Moreover, there is an old established trade-off within the strategic management field between operational efficiency and client centricity (Groenroos, 1994; Radnor & Johnston, 2012). Organizations that aim for both efficient use of resources and customer retention have conflicting strategic goals (Bateson, 1985). This is the case at least for service organizations. Anderson et al. (1997) for instance found that service organizations had a negative correlation between productivity and client satisfaction, in contrast to product organizations (.30 vs. .15). Moreover they found that the profitability of service organizations was affected negatively when those organizations pursued both productivity and satisfaction (cf. (Singh, 2000). Grönroos and Ojasalo (2004) ZHUH OLNHZLVH DWWXQHG WR ZKDW WKH\ FDOOHG WKH ³VHUYLFH SURGXFWLYLW\ GLOHPPD´ (p.415). Becoming more cost effective and more and more productive may lead to decreased service quality. There are many examples of service organizations that face this dilemma (Hindo, 2007a; Singh, 2000). Starbucks for instance experienced that their drive for growth and efficiency was negatively impacting the customer experience, which was the very reason Starbucks was successful in the first place (Adamy, 2007). Despite the potential trade-off between quality and productivity, both are necessary, especially in service organizations with a large human factor, such as health care, entertainment, banking, education and consultancy (Mittal et al., 2005). The health care industry for 62 instance focused for years on quality without regard for productivity; now due to financial constraints the sector is increasingly focused on efficiency. The challenge is to implement efficient processes without sacrificing quality. 5.5 RELATEDNESS WITH OTHER MODELS The Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Quinn, 1984, 1988; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) is a widely used framework, developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), based on paradoxical tensions in organizations. The methodology has been elaborated by Quinn (1988), Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) and Howard (1998). The CVF includes competing values that exist in any human system, in particular the tension between stability and change and, between an internal and external focus (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991). This model highlights contradictory yet complementary elements that must be balanced in order to enhance organizational effectiveness. The CVF model sheds light on differences along the dimensions of flexibility versus control and internal versus external focus. Four quadrants and eight leadership roles are represented in a circular pattern based on the two underlying dimensions (Quinn, 1988) (see Figure 5.4). Clan Adhocracy culture culture Hierarchy Market culture culture Figure 5-4: Competing Values Framework (Quinn, 1988) 7KH UHVHDUFK WHVWLQJ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 4XLQQ¶V RULJLQDO &9) RIIHUV VRPH VXSSRUW IRU WKH PRGHO (Belasen & Frank, 2008; Hartnell et al., 2011). Denison et al. (1995), using multidimensional scaling, reported strong support for a four-quadrant model , but found that the location of the eight roles was 63 different from the original hypothesis when they used a test of convergent-discriminant validity. From their circumplex model they reported that for more effective managers the facilitator and mentor needed to exchanges places, as did the coordinator and monitor. That is, the monitor was found to fall closer to the stability axis than did the coordinator and the mentor was found to fall closer to the internal focus axis than did the facilitator (see Table 5.3 for the behavioral items corresponding to the eight roles (Quinn, 1988)). Table 5-3: Roles and behavioral items of Competing Values Framework (Quinn, 1988) Clients are missing The CVF did not fully fit the strategic leadership model as conceptualized based on the literature review. At first instance, the Exploitation- Environment quadrant seemed to fit the CVF quadrant ³PD[LPL]DWLRQRIRXWSXW´Yet, the roles included in the ³maximization of output´ quadrant, producer and director, reflect more internally focused behaviors. The producer role comprises the behaviors ³FRPSOHWHV WDVNV DQG LV ZRUN IRFXVHG´ ³PRWLYDWHV EHKDYLRU´ DQG VHHNV FORVXUH´ 7KH GLUHctor role includes WKHEHKDYLRUV³VHWVJRDOVFODULILHVUROHVDQGHVWDEOLVKHVFOHDUH[SHFWDWLRQV´7KHVHbehaviors 64 are aimed at members inside the organization. There is no mentioning of clients in this quadrant. Likewise, Hooijberg and Choi (2000), using a 360-degree feedback approach with 252 managers and their staff from public utilities, argued that there are six rather than eight roles. Using confirmatory factor analysis, they found that high intercorrelations existed among producer, director and coordinator. This suggested to them the existence of a second-order factor, underlying these three UROHVZKLFKWKH\ODEHOHG³JRDODFKLHYHPHQW´ Yet, in the competitive landscape of today customer sovereignty (Bishop & Hoel, 2008; Harris & Ogbonna, 1999) is increasingly important. The long-term success of organizations depends on whether organizations deliver client-perceived value. The required external orientation to deliver client value, however might interfere with the focus on the internal organization. This might be the reason why organizations have so much difficulty to do both (Paulin et al., 2000). Innovation at different levels of analysis It seems that the CVF is mixing levels of analysis. Whereas the mentor role is aimed at follower behavior ³LVDZDUHRILQGLYLGXDOQHHGVDQGIDFLOLWDWHVGHYHORSPHQW´³OLVWHQVDFWLYHO\´DQG³LVIDLU´  the facilitator role ³H[SUHVVHV RSLQLRQV´ ³VHHNV FRQVHQVXV´ DQG ³QHJRWLDWHV FRPSURPLVH´ PD\ influence the organizational climate. Hartnell et al.¶V (2011) meta-analysis demonstrated a positive relationship between the human commitment quadrant with employee attitudes. Conceptually, managers can affect employee behavior and organizational innovation in several different ways. /HDGHUV FDQ GLUHFW HPSOR\HHV¶ LQGLYLGXDO Dnd joint efforts towards innovative work processes and outcomes (Amabile, 1996). And leaders can significantly boost organizational creativity, by creating and sustaining an organizational climate and culture that nurtures creative efforts and facilitates diffusion of learning (Yukl, 2002). These behaviors are aimed at different levels of analysis. The CVF models seems to implicitly combine these. Despite its reported content validity and widespread use in research and practice, there has been little thorough assessment of the theoretical foundation of the CVF (Hartnell et al., 2011). In general, empirical results provide support for the two-dimensional model (flexibility versus stability and internal versus external focus) (Buenger et al., 1996; Kalliath et al., 1999; Lawrence et al., 2009). Given the objective of this research to clearly identify differences of leadership aimed at different levels of analysis and the misfit (of roles and content of the quadrants) of the CVF and the strategic model as conceptualized earlier, a new model has been developed to conceptualize strategic leadership. In this model the axes are similar to the CVF (with slightly different names), yet the 65 quadrants are labelled differently. The model for strategic leadership to be tested in this dissertation consists of four quadrants along the dimensions, Organization-Environment and ExplorationExploitation, i.e. Client centricity (Environment Exploitation), Operational efficiency (Organization Exploitation), Organizational creativity (Organization Exploration) and Business development (Environment Exploration) (see Figure 5.5). Figure 5-5: Strategic leadership model 5.6 CONCLUSION This chapter presented a strategic leadership model on the basis of two paradoxes, i.e. the paradox paramount in the strategy literature between the organization and the environment and the paradox in the strategic leadership literature between exploration and exploitation. The strategic leadership model as conceptualized in this chapter is composed of four quadrants, i.e. Client centricity, Business development, Organizational creativity and Operational efficiency along the two dimensions Exploration-Exploitation and Organization-Environment, where the diagonal quadrants (Business development versus Operational efficiency and Client centricity versus Organizational creativity) are in a paradoxical relationship and bear antithetical features to one another. Solely, focusing on one of the dimensions exacerbates the need for the other, often sparking defenses, and engendering counterproductive reinforcing cycles. In that sense, the strategic leadership model may function as a guiding principle for tailoring opposite needs while avoiding a choice between opposite objectives. The basic structure of the two axes (Exploration-Exploitation and Organization-Environment) is similar to the structure of the Competing Values Framework of opposing Change- Continuity and 66 Internal -External focus. Yet the four resulting quadrants are largely distinct. Client centricity is added as a new relevant leadership dimension (where Environment and Exploitation are combined) and Organizational creativity is introduced as the quadrant between Exploration and Organization, focusing on the level of the organizational system, instead of the leader-follower dyad level. In that sense, strategic leadership is different from the classical and new leadership theories as it focuses on leading the organizational system, while the classical leadership theories have been primarily focused on the leader-follower dyad. Moreover, strategic leadership originates from what an organization requires, hence its starting point is the organizational context, instead of the heroic leader figure. This approach fits the contemporary leadership approaches where the emphasis is expanding to include the context as important leadership variable. Given that the focus is less on the individual leader, the strategic leadership model opens up the possibility of different individuals fulfilling different leadership roles concomitantly in order to reach seemingly contradictory goals, so-called shared strategic leadership. 67 68 PART II: OPERATIONALIZATION & VALIDATION 69 70 6 OPERATIONALIZING STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP 6.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the development and internal validation of an instrument to measure strategic leadership. The following sections outline the undertaken steps of development of the scale (DeVellis, 1991), consisting of item generation, content expert validation, and a pilot study in order to test the factorial structure of the measurement instrument, a sequence which is often used when developing and constructing items (e.g. (MacKenzie et al., 1991; Mayfield et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990). The following contains a sequential elaboration of the methodologies that have been used and the resulting findings. An exploratory factor analysis was used to establish the factorial structure of the measurement instrument. The last two analytical steps included in this study, were testing the interrater agreement amongst ratees and the internal reliability of the multi-item scales. On the basis of these three tests (factorial structure, interrater agreement and internal reliability), one could conclude whether the instrument was reliable and valid (enough) to proceed and to be used in subsequent studies. 6.2 METHOD 6.2.1 SAMPLE The sample for this study consisted of 80 focal managers drawn from an international engineering organization. The object of study was the focal manager working in an engineering organization, for ZKRP³OHDGHUVKLSKDGEHFRPHDQRUPDWLYHH[SHFWDWLRQGHPDQGRUSUDFWLFH´(Carroll & Levy, 2008, p.77; Sveningsson & Larsson, 2006). According to the logic of 360-degree feedback, the 80 focal managers were asked to distribute a survey amongst their superior, peers an subordinates. Confidentiality was assured for peer and subordinate raters. The response rate was 100%. As a result, the survey included 513 raters on 80 focal managers. The total rater group consisted of 82 superiors, 202 peers and 229 subordinates. Hence the focal managers were rated on average by 6.41 raters, i.e. 1.03 superior, 2.53 peers and 2.86 subordinates. Regretfully, demographic data was only collected from the focal managers. The typical profile of the 80 focal managers waV PDOH KDYLQJ D 0DVWHU¶V GHJUHH KDYLQJ VWXGLHG Engineering, Economics or Business Administration, having between 4 to 19 years of management experience and organizational tenure. As for organizational level, the sample was spread over organizational levels, i.e. 9 top-level managers (11%), 16 middle-level managers (20%), 35 lower-level managers (44%) and 20 staff members (25%). 71 Data was collected by means of an online questionnaire (survey) asking participants to rate the degree to which a set of behavioral strategic leadership statements suited the focal PDQDJHU¶VEHKDYLRUThe behavioral items were scored along a continuous 5-step Likert scale. The number of scale steps for continuous scales is generally recommended from five to seven (Pett et al., 2003). Fewer choices of VFDOHVWHSV HJWZRWKUHHRUIRXU UHVWULFWWKHLWHP¶VYDULDQFH(YHQQXmbers of scale steps force the rater to either agree or disagree. The problem is that the subject may, in reality, be undecided. An odd number allows for the middle scale step to be the neutral, or indifferent point. The response options were worded as such that there were approximately equal intervals of agreement between them ³WRWDOO\GLVDJUHH´³GLVDJUHH´³LQ-EHWZHHQ´³DJUHH´³WRWDOO\DJUHH´(DeVellis, 1991). 6.2.2 MEASURES Based on the literature review (chapter 5), 24 items were formulated, which were considered to best fit the four strategic leadership dimensions. The next step in the scale development consisted of content expert validation, which is a method to guarantee the content validity of the measurement instrument (Grant & Davis, 1997). It is essentially used to identify which items are incoherent (Hinkin, 1995). The Standard for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, 1985) hold two criteria to determine who to include in an expert panel, namely relevant training experience, and qualifications. With these criteria in mind, the content experts were sourced from top levels in organizations. The sampling technique was purposive and resulted in a selection of interview participants that were leaders with relevant experience with the research topic (Minichiello et al., 1995). Five senior executives have been consulted, which made the sample size for the content analysis relatively small. Yet, as ³Whe validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information-richness and the observational/analytical capabilities of WKHUHVHDUFKHUWKDQZLWKWKHVDPSOHVL]H´ (Patton, 1990, p.185), this small sample for expert validation was considered acceptable. All the interview participants were senior executives that had on average 10 years of management experience. The sample for the content validation was completely male and 40 years and older. All had a post-graduate degree. A semi-structured interview method was used and considered appropriate given that the limited existing information on strategic leadership did not allow for rigidly structured interview schedules (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). The content experts were asked to consider representativeness and clarity (Grant & Davis, 1997) when scrutinizing the leadership measurement instrument. Representativeness meant the degree to which each item was a reflection and operationalized the category to which it belonged (for instance whether 72 an item indeed reflected Client centricity). The content experts were asked to cluster the items along the four domains, Client centricity, Business development, Operational efficiency and Organizational creativity. Second, the content experts were asked to identify the clarity of the wording of the items to make sure items could not be misinterpreted. DeVellis (1991) suggested that items should be strongly worded without ambiguity. Relatively mild statements may result in too much respondent agreement with little variability among the responses. Items that the content experts found redundant, meaningless, or confusing have been discarded. This process resulted in 16 remaining items describing strategic leadership behavior (see Table 6.1). The measurement consisted of four items per quadrant, i.e. Organizational creativity (i.e. Organization Exploration), Business development (i.e. Environment Exploration), Operational efficiency (i.e. Organization Exploitation) and Client centricity (i.e. Environment Exploitation) (in line with the strategic leadership model as presented in chapter five). Table 6-1: Strategic leadership behavioral items 6.3 RESULTS In order to establish the dimensionality of the strategic leadership model, the factor structure was assessed by using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (Gorsuch, 1997). Factor analysis represents a complex array of structure-analyzing procedures used to identify the interrelationships among a large set of observed variables and then, through data reduction, to group a smaller set of these variables into factors that have common characteristics (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). As is common practice, 73 when undertaking a factor analysis using EFA, this study made use of a traditional statistical computer package (e.g. SPSS) for the statistical analyses (Pett et al., 2003). A Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was used to identify the items with strong and unique loadings to components identified in the analysis (Anderson et al., 1995). Simple statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for all subscales. The subscales were assessed for their internal reliability using the SPSS scale internal reliability (alpha) function. Lastly, the scales were correlated in order to demonstrate potential strong relationships between the identified strategic leadership dimensions. 6.3.1 FACTORIAL STRUCTURE A first step consisted of testing the data on criteria to conduct a factor analysis. For instance, the number of subjects needed to undertake a factor analysis depends on the number of items that are initially included. There is, very little agreement among the authorities on factor analysis regarding acceptable sample size. A frequently used criteria is the relative number indicated by the subjects-tovariables ratio. Recommendations for the subject-to-variable ratio range from 2:1 to 10:1. The generally accepted minimum for reaching a stable factor structure is 5:1 (Ferguson & Cox, 1993). The validation of this instrument containing 16 items was performed by using data from 513 individuals about 80 managers. Hence the subject-to-variable ratio (32:1) for this study largely surpassed the most stringent criteria of 10:1 The distribution of the 16 items was checked for range restriction and multivariate normality. The descriptive statistics confirmed a normal distribution. Multivariate normality implies that all of the items being considered and the linear combinations of those items are normally distributed, which is an assumption underlying exploratory factor analysis (Pett et al., 2003). The correlation matrix was examined in order to identify items that were either too highly correlated (ȡ • RUQRWFRUUHODWHG ȡ < .30) with one another. If items were too highly correlated, there was a problem of multicollinearity and one or more of the highly correlated items needed to be dropped from the analysis. If the items were not correlated strong enough, there was not much shared common variance, thus potentially yielding as many factors as items. The correlation matrix was examined carefully and items that were insufficiently correlated with any of the other items in the matrix (i.e. ȡ <.30) were to be eliminated. Table 6.2 shows the correlation matrix, with the items with an ȡ < .30 colored grey and the items with an ȡ •FRORUHGred. It can be concluded that there were no items too highly correlated with each other (i.e. no red items). Nor was there an item that did not correlate with any of the other items (meaning the whole row would be grey). 74 Table 6-2: Correlation matrix of strategic leadership items 75 Two other tests were undertaken to ascertain that it was judicious to proceed with the exploratory factor analysis. These tests were the %DUWOHWW¶V WHVW RI VSKHULFLW\ DQG WKH .DLVHU-Meyer-Olkin test. %DUWOHWW¶V WHVW RI VSKHULFLW\ (1950) tests the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix (i.e. that there is no relationship among the items). The null hypothesis states that there are all ¶VRQWKHGLDJRQDORIWKHPDWUL[DQG¶VRQWKHRII-GLDJRQDO/DUJHUYDOXHVRI%DUWOHWW¶VWHVWLQGLFDWHD greater likelihood that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that the null hypothesis can be rejected. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test (Blackmore & Blackwell, 2006) is a measure of sampling adequacy that compares the magnitudes of the calculated correlation coefficients to the magnitudes of the partial correlation coefficients. If the items share common factors, then it would be reasonable to expect that the partial correlation coefficients between the pairs of items would be small when the linear effects of other items have been removed. The KMO measure can range between 0 and 1, with smaller values indicating that the correlation coefficient is small relative to the partial correlation coefficient, and therefore a factor analysis may be unwise. When evaluating the size of the overall KMO, Kaiser (1974), suggested to use the following criteria for these values: above .90 is ³PDUYHOORXV´, iQWKHVLV³PHULWRULRXV´, iQWKHVLVMXVW³PLGGOLQJ´, lHVVWKDQLV³PHGLRFUH´, ³PLVHUDEOH´RU³XQDFFHSWDEOH´(p.35). This study showed the following statistics: KMO=.854 DQG %DUWOHWW VWDWLVWLF Į .000. Hence, it was concluded that the correlation matrix was factorable. 6.3.2 NUMBER OF FACTORS Based on the Kaiser criteria (eigenvalues > 1), the data showed four distinct factors, explaining 62.4 % of the total variance. The Scree plot likewise hinted at a four-factor structure. Table 6.3 shows the factor pattern matrix. 76 Table 6-3: Pattern matrix with Varimax rotation of strategic leadership From the factor pattern matrix it can be concluded that the data shows a four-factor structure, i.e. 1) Business development, 2) Operational efficiency 3) Client centricity, 4) Organizational creativity. One LWHP ³FRQVFLRXVO\PDNHVroom for creativLW\´ ORDGVRQWZRIDFWRUVKRZHYHUWKHKLJKHVWORDGLQJLV on the factor on which it was supposed to load following the item generation method, i.e. Organizational creativity. 6.3.3 AGGREGATION, INTERNAL RELIABILITY AND CORRELATIONS Before internal reliability of the four dimensions and the intercorrelations between these four dimensions were calculated, the scores were aggregated for individuals. That is, different raters scored one and the same individual. In order to obtain single ratings for the focal manager, the scores were averaged across raters (of a focal managers). Prior to aggregating rater' scores, Interrater agreement, Rwg (James, 1982; James et al., 1984) was assessed using the multiple-item estimator for withingroup agreement (Rwg) as proposed by James et al. (1984) and group reliability (ICC(1) and ICC(2))4 (Bliese, 2000) (see Table 6.4). 4 The formulae for ICC(1) and ICC(2) are based on Bartko, J. J. 1976. On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5): 762-765, Newman, D. A. & Sin, H. P. 2009. How Do Missing Data Bias Estimates of Within-Group Agreement? Sensitivity of SD WG, CVWG, rWG (J), rWG (J)*, and ICC to Systematic Nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1): 113-147. ICC(1) = one-way ANOVA intraclass correlation and is interpreted as the proportion of total variance that can be explained by group membership. 1-ICC(1) • 0 is interpreted as the %age of variance due to the disagreement among raters. ICC(2) = intraclass correlation for the reliability of average ratings. For example, if another random sample of raters rate the same subjects, ICC(2) is approximately the correlation between the averaged ratings from the two sets of raters. High values indicate that aggregate measures of a group-level construct are reasonably free of idiosyncratic rater error (have relatively low within-groups variance). 77 Table 6-4: Intraclass correlations and interrater agreement Table 6.4 shows good Rwg scores that range from .83 to .87 and being above the threshold of .70 (James et al., 1993), support aggregation. Likewise, the ICC(1) range from .17 to .33. There are no definitive guidelines on acceptable values ICC(1) (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). In past research, ICC(1) values have ranged from 0 to .50 with a median of .12 (James, 1982). Hence, one may conclude that the ICC(1) scores equally support aggregation. As for the ICC(2) scores, Ostroff and Schmitt (1993) mention that ICC(2) values should be .60 or higher to conclude that acceptable levels of mean score reliability exist. Three of the four dimensions satisfy this criteria. ICC(2) for Organizational creativity is .57. Other studies however, have shown the a ICC(2) of >.40 is acceptable for aggregation (de Hoogh et al., 2004; Schneider et al., 1998; Simsek et al., 2010). Overall, the indicators support aggregation for these dimensions. All ratings (except self-scores) were averaged across the four items of each dimension and then aggregated across raters for each focal leader. There are several statistical approaches that have been developed to determine the internal reliability of an instrument or its subscales. These include the split-KDOIWHFKQLTXHDQG&URQEDFK¶VDOSKD 7RGD\&URQEDFK¶V(1951) alpha coefficient is the preferred approach for estimating internal reliability. This measure of reliability represents the proportion of total variance in a given scale that can be attributed to a common source (DeVellis, 1991). It is also defined as the estimated correlation of the given scale with another scale of the same length from the universe of possible items (Kline, 1986). An alpha of .70 or higher is generally considered to be acceptable. The results of the internal reliability analysis (as well as the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between the dimensions) are shown in Table 6.5. 78 Table 6-5: Descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha coefficients and intercorrelations The correlation matrix shows significant positive correlations between Business development and Client centricity (ȡ=.51, p<.01) and between Business development and Organizational creativity (ȡ=.43, p<.01) (Aun et al., 2011). Client centricity was also positively correlated with Organizational creativity (albeit to a lesser extent than the former mentioned correlations, ȡ=.37, p<.01). From the Cronbach Alpha reliability analysis, one may deduce that the scales for Business development (Į=.88), Operational efficiency (Į=.89), Client centricity (Į=.82) and Organizational creativity (Į=.79) were internally reliable (all above the Į= .70 threshold). 6.4 DISCUSSION This chapter described the initial phase of scale development based on an exploratory factor analysis in order to establish the structure of the strategic leadership instrument. Four valid and internally reliable factors were identified. The correlations among the dimensions fitted relatively well with the expected relationships. What was striking was that Client centricity was positively related to Organizational creativity. That implies that managers can and do combine these roles. This may be due to the increased importance of consumer collaboration for the purposes of innovation (Malerba, 2006). The most frequently cited term to define this process has been co-creation between a firm and its consumers. As described by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) it involves four factors: (1) a deep dialogue with customers that involves interactivity, engagement, and a propensity to act on both sides, (2) access to tools and information to create, (3) risk assessment that leads to informed choice, especially by consumers, and (4) transparency of information on both sides. The authors argue that combining these four factors in creative ways can lead to new forms of value. So, one may argue that Organizational creativity and Client centricity are not mutually exclusive, but if not considered WRJHWKHUPD\OHDGWRH[WUHPHVOHDGLQJWRFODLPVVXFKDV³LJQRUH\RXUFXVWRPHU´(Martin, 1995) and ³,W¶V WKH FXVWRPHU VWXSLG´  (Aun et al., 2011). Given that these findings are based on a first-time measurement, the validity of the instrument needs to be increased, in particular construct and concurrent validity. 79 Construct validity indicates what meaning can be attached to the scores from an instrument, in other words does it really measure what it says it measures. Even though the 16 items are well spread across the four strategic leadership dimensions, it does not necessarily imply that these items fully capture the content of the corresponding dimensions. Hence, the following chapter (chapter seven) includes an expert panel test on the 16 items that resulted from this study. The next chapter also takes up the challenge of determining whether the factor structure is sensitive to sample characteristics (Kerlinger, 1986). A possible shortcoming of this preliminary study is that the validation of the instrument was done within one engineering firm. This focus helped to control for corporate-, industry- and countryspecific differences that might have otherwise masked certain effects. Yet this focus raises questions about the generalizability of the findings to other industry settings. Additionally, part of the construct validity of the strategic leadership model is the extent to which it is distinct from supervisory leadership. In order to demonstrate whether the strategic leadership measure was distinct from previous supervisory leadership measures, the discriminant validity of the model needs to be tested against a frequently used measure of transformational leadership. Concurrent validity in turn, deals with the relationship between scores of a measurement instrument and performance or effectiveness measured at approximately the same time the instrument was completed. The relevant question is: How accurate is the strategic leadership assessment of current performance or effectiveness? This topic is taken up in chapter eight, where both strategic and supervisory leadership are related to the internally-oriented effectiveness measure, VXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction and in chapter nine where strategic leadership is related to the criterion of team effectiveness (including externally-oriented measures). 80 7 VALIDATION OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MEASUREMENT 7.1 INTRODUCTION The previous chapter resulted in a measurement for strategic leadership. Nonetheless, several questions still remain, like how stable is the strategic leadership model when using a different sample and how distinct is strategic leadership from supervisory leadership. The purpose of this chapter is three-fold. The first objective was to increase the content validity of the strategic leadership measurement by increasing the number of items and confirming the four-factor structure within a different sample. The second objective was to show the discriminant validity of strategic leadership vis-à-vis a widely-used supervisory leadership concept, i.e. transformational leadership. Supervisory and strategic leadership are conceptualizations of leadership at different levels of analysis. Whereas supervisory leadership is played out at the leader-follower level, strategic leadership is aimed at the level of the organizational system in interaction with its environment. These two conceptualizations of leadership have been kept apart by means of disciplinary boundaries, i.e. supervisory leadership being embedded in the psychology discipline and strategic leadership originating from the field of strategic management. These disciplinary traditions have remained separate; there is however no empirical evidence whether the two concepts can be identified as distinct. And the third objective was to assess the relevance of organizational level for the manifestation of strategic and supervisory leadership. The extent to which organizational level is still an important antecedent for the manifestation and effectiveness of strategic and supervisory leadership is an unsettled concern. The term strategic leadership emerged as the responsibility of the top management team. Yet, more and more researchers argue that strategic leadership is an ability which needs to be manifested by members at all organizational levels (normative claim). Likewise, even though evidence on supervisory leadership stems from studies on lower-level managers, top-level managers also have subordinates they need to motivate. The topic of how top-level managers motivate their subordinates (which are middle managers) has remained largely unexplored. Moreover, if the manifestation of strategic and supervisory leadership behaviors shows a different relationship with organizational level, this would further support the argument that the concepts are distinct. Additionally, answering this research question is an important step in bridging the gap between the trend to organize horizontally and the leadership literature holding on to a stark demarcation between organizational levels. 81 Purpose 1: First and foremost, this study aimed at expanding the strategic leadership measurement on the basis of an expert panel and subsequently confirming the factors as identified in the previous explorative study, i.e. the factors 1) Business development, 2) Operational efficiency 3) Client centricity, 4) Organizational creativity (section 7.2). An expert panel was employed in order to test whether the 16 items (identified in the previous chapter) fully covered the four strategic leadership dimensions. On the basis of their feedback the model was expanded. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used in order to test the fit of the hypothesized factor structure to the observed covariance structure (Henson & Roberts, 2006). CFA is the preferred analysis method if theory underlies the measured constructs (Thompson, 2004), which was the case in this study. The sample used (which was a different sample than used in the previous chapter) consisted of 158 focal managers across organizational levels. These focal managers were drawn from different industries ranging from hi-tech to public sector organizations. Purpose 2: Second, while the shift from supervisory to strategic leadership has been occasionally described as a move to transformational leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001), the primary level of analysis of transformational leadership is the leader-follower dyad, considering downward influence of the manager in authority (Yukl, 1999a). Strategic leadership, in contrast is conceptualized as leadership of organizational processes. This theoretical difference needs to be confirmed empirically, hence an exploratory analysis was conducted in order to determine whether the items underlying transformational leadership load on different factors than the items underlying strategic leadership. Purpose 3: And thirdly, an aim of this study was to gain insight into the manifestation of leadership behavior across different organizational levels. Strategic leadership has been considered the responsibility of top-level managers. However, authors such as Mintzberg (1980) and Huy (2002) emphasized the essential role of middle managers connecting executives at the top with customers, markets and operational realities. Other authors likewise advocate the need for strategic leadership at all organizational levels (Hitt & Ireland, 2002, p.4) hinting at the contemporary normative expectation that lower-level managers should manifest strategic leadership behavior. Including organizational level as an antecedent of strategic leadership was not only warranted from the perspective of contemporary normative expectations. Another reason was the expectation that the relationship between leadership and organizational level was different for strategic leadership than for 82 transformational leadership. Due to the recent changes in orJDQL]DWLRQV¶ HQYLURQPHQW, structure and technology, it has been argued that transformational leadership is, increasingly demanded from all leaders throughout the organization (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). Most of the research on transformational leadership however, has emerged from the observation of top managers in organizations, rather than middle and lower level managers (Bryman, 1996). Bass (1997), for example, reported that his initial assumption that transformational leadership was limited to the XSSHUHFKHORQVRIRUJDQL]DWLRQVOHGKLPWRFROOHFWWKHILUVWLQWHUYLHZDQGVXUYH\GDWD³IURPDQGDERXW senior executives and 86 $UP\ FRORQHOV GHVFULELQJ WKHLU OHDGHUV´ $YROLR HW DO (1984) also argued that the behaviors of transformational leadership was more prevalent at higher organizational levels. Bass, subsequently found evidence of transformational leadership at every level in organizations, formaO DQG LQIRUPDO LQFOXGLQJ IRU H[DPSOH DPRQJ µKRXVHZLYHV DFWLYH LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\´ ,W LV ZRUWK\RIFRPPHQWWKDWVRPHRIWKH³QHZOHDGHUVKLSPRGHOV´KDYHEHHQEDVHGRQGDWDFROOHFWHGE\ researchers interviewing chief executives and senior managers, rather than data collected directly from subordinates of managers. Nonetheless, the results over a decade of using MLQ scales (Lowe et al., 1996) show that transformational leadership behaviors were much more common among lower-level managers. Lower-level leaders were rated higher than top-level leaders on all transformational leadership scales. Hence, there is controversy on the manifestation of both strategic and transformational leadership across organizational levels. This study includes an ANOVA test in order to examine whether the differences in means of the focal managers at different organizational levels were significant for both the strategic leadership and transformational dimensions. 7.2 METHOD 7.2.1 SAMPLE Similar to the previous study, the study was conducted online as a leadership survey. The sample described in this chapter is a composite sample, which is used in subsets for the different studies described in this chapter and in the subsequent chapters eight and nine. As a result the sample collection was multi-purpose. 83 In order to obtain a broad and representative sample, 7 industries were selected. From these 7 industries, 35 teams were recruited consisting of 232 managers. 158 focal managers participated (response rate=68%). ƒ 7 teams (20%) from consultancy services (33 focal managers) ƒ 7 teams (20%) from the fast moving consumer goods industry (35 focal managers) ƒ 6 teams (17%) from tertiary education and research industry (27 focal managers) ƒ 5 teams (14%) from the hi-tech industry (20 focal managers) ƒ 4 teams (11%) from the public sector (17 focal managers) ƒ 4 teams (11%) from financial service industry (19 focal managers) ƒ 2 teams (6%) from the health care industry (7 focal managers) Average team size was 5 team members (ȝ=4.89, SD=1.92) Recognizing that teams can and do sometimes have fuzzy boundaries (Mortensen & Hinds, 2002), the teams were screened for consistency with the conceptualization of Guzzo and Dickson (1996), who defined teams as being ³PDGHXSRILQGLYLGXDOVZKRVHHWKHPVHOYHVDQGZKRDUHVHHQE\RWKHUVDVDVRFLDOHQWLW\ZKRDUH interdependent because of the tasks they perform as members of a group, who are embedded in one or more larger social systems (e.g. organization) and who perform tasks that affect others (such as customers or co-ZRUNHUV ´(p.308). The 158 focal managers rated their own leadership behavior and received 360-degree feedback on their leadership behavior from a boss, peers and subordinates. In total, 565 raters were invited of which 486 raters have participated (response rate=86 %). ƒ 124 superiors invited ± 108 participated (response rate superiors=87%) ƒ 230 peers invited ± 196 participated (response rate peers=85%) ƒ 211 subordinates invited ± 182 subordinates participated (response rate subordinates=86%). With 158 focal managers the average rater group consisted of .78 (108/158) superior, 1.24 (196/158) peer and 1.15 (182/158) subordinate. The reason underlying the relative small number of subordinates was due to the negative connotation of the term subordinate, where the emphasis is on a hierarchical structure. Focal managers stated to prefer to label individuals as peers (even though a hierarchical relationship could be at play). This was not considered a limitation, as the ratings from superiors, peers and subordinates on a focal manager were averaged. However, it did influence the sample size for the study of subordinate¶ job satisfaction described in chapter eight. 61% of the focal managers ZDV PDOH 7KH DYHUDJH DJH RI WKH ³focal manager´ ZDV 42 years (SD=9.83). 71% was Dutch. 14% held a function in General management, 11% in Finance, 11%in 84 R&D, 8%in Strategy, 7% in HR, 6% in Operations & Logistics, 5% in ICT and 5% in Marketing & Sales (33% reported other on this criteria). 46% was in his/her current position between 1 and 3 years. 47% % worked in organizations with more than 500 FTE. An important antecedent considered in the studies described in this and subsequent chapters concerns the organizational level of the focal managers. The focal managers were asked to select the number of subordinates that were reporting to them. Of the 158 focal managers, 65 managers did not report this criteria. Of the 93 remaining set 17 focal managers (11%) reported to lead more than 50 subordinates, 26 focal managers (28%) reported to lead 11 to 49 subordinates and 50 focal managers (55%) reported to lead 1 to 10 subordinates. For the study on the validity of the strategic leadership model, as described in this chapter, the sample composition is highlighted in Figure 7.1. Figure 7-1: Sample for validation strategic leadership model 7.2.2 MEASURES Strategic Leadership In order to improve the content validity of the strategic leadership measurement, an expert panel was organized, whom were asked to evaluate to what extent the 16 items fitted the four strategic leadership concepts. The expert panellists were drawn from the sample of 80 managers who participated in the previous study (after they had filled in the measurement). These experts were instructed to keep in mind the definition of the four concepts, and the fact that these concepts were drawn from the distinction between Exploration-Exploitation and Organization-Environment. The feedback from the expert panellists resulted in one additional item for Business development and Organizational creativity. In order to obtain a measurement with an equal number of items per dimension, two more 85 items were generated. Hence, in total the strategic leadership measurement was expanded with four items, including one extra item per dimension. The items added were the following: ƒ Business development: makes clients aware of other company products and services on offer. ƒ Operational efficiency: plans in detail how to accomplish an important task. ƒ Client centricity: creates trust with clients and partners. ƒ Organizational creativity: persuasively sells new ideas in the organization. In turn, the strategic leadership measurement instrument used in this chapter (and the following chapters) included 20 items (5 items per dimension) (for the items included in the online survey see Appendix I). Transformational Leadership In the conceptual part of this dissertation, strategic leadership was presented as distinct from supervisory leadership. In order to test this proposition, the strategic leadership model was tested against transformational leadership. A commonly used scale to measure transformational leadership is the scale developed by Rafferty and Griffin (2004). This scale consists of five 3-item subscales: Vision (Į=.78), Inspirational communication (Į=.75), Intellectual stimulation (Į=.79), Supportive leadership (Į=.82) and personal recognition (Į=.79). 7ZR H[HPSODU\ GHVFULSWLRQV DUH ³KDV D FOHDU XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIZKHUHWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQLVJRLQJ´ 9LVLRQ DQG³3HUVRQDOO\FRPSOLPHQWVPHZKHQ, do outstanding woUN´ 3HUVRQDOUHFRJQLWLRQ  Organizational Level Although there is consistency in the use of three organizational levels (Hunt & Ropo, 1995; Zaccaro, 2001), researchers do not agree on a common definition for organizational level (Hunt, 1991; Jaques, 1976). The operational definition of lower-level, middle and top-level management varies considerably across organizational settings (Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992). The proxy that has been adopted in this study has been used in previous studies in order to identify organizational levels (Finkelstein, 1992; Frey & Kucher, 2002). The focal managers were asked to select an option for the number of subordinates that were reporting to them, choosing amongst the options 1 to 10, 11 to 49 and •50 subordinates. A deliberate choice was made to ask for the number of subordinates, instead of the number of direct reports. Although top-level managers may have plenty of subordinates (that is organizational members, working at a lower level in the organizational hierarchy, these top-level managers may only have a few direct reports. Next to this precaution, the self-given 86 VFRUHV IRU QXPEHU RI VXERUGLQDWHV ZHUH FKHFNHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH DXWKRUV¶ NQRZOHGJH RI WKH respective functions and locations in the organizational hierarchy of the focal managers. 7.3 RESULTS 7.3.1 FACTORIAL STRUCTURE In order to evaluate the validity of the four strategic leadership factors, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using Mplus 6.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2007). A first step was testing whether all items would load on one strategic leadership factor. Next, a three factor solution was tested ± combining items underlying Client centricity and Business development (on the basis of the highest correlations between these factors/dimensions). Lastly, the four factor model as derived from the analysis of the exploratory study (chapter six) was tested. The four factor structure with the 20 items was compared to the four factor structure with the 16 strategic leadership items from the previous chapter. The results were controlled for the fact that several leaders were rated more than once, i.e. the analysis accounted for cluster sampling (Muthen & Muthen, 2007). In this manner, the non-independence of the sample did not influence the results. A comparison of the results is shown in Table 7.1. Table 7-1: Comparison of factor solutions Table 7.1 shows a good model fit for the four-factor solution (Fan & Sivo, 2007; Hu & Bentler, 1998), with the best fit for the four-structure solution considering all 20 items, including the four items that were added in this chapter to the 16 items which were drawn from the previous chapter. The fourfactor model (including 20 items) held a chi-square of 450.549, df=164, CFI=.92, TLI=.91, SRMR=.05 , AIC=25192.419 , RMSEA=.06, which confirmed a good model fit. The internal reliability analysis of the four dimensions (each including five items) resulted in acceptable Cronbach alpha scores for Organizational creativity (Į=.80), Business development (Į=.85), Client centricity (Į=.86), Operational efficiency (Į=.84). Similar to the previous chapter, it 87 was necessary to test the interrater agreement and intraclass correlations before averaging across rater groups (i.e. bosses, peers and subordinates) in order to obtain the scores for the focal managers on both the strategic leadership and transformational leadership dimensions (see Table 7.2). Table 7-2: Intraclass correlations and interrater agreement Similar to the findings in the previous chapter, Table 7-2 shows high interrater agreement scores (ranging from .95 to .86) and acceptable intraclass correlation (ICC(I) scores (ranging from .18 to .49. For 5 out of 9 dimensions the ICC(2) score did not reach the commonly mentioned criteria of •.60 (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). However given the acceptable scores for Rwg and ICC(1) and the fact that previous studies (de Hoogh et al., 2004; Simsek et al., 2010) have accepted ICC of .40, these results can be considered as sufficient to aggregate. 7.3.2 COMPARING STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITH TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP In order to determine whether strategic leadership was different from transformational leadership an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the behavioral items underlying both strategic leadership and transformational leadership. The exploratory factor analysis was conducted based on principal component for extraction method and Varimax with Kaiser Normalization for rotation method. Similar to the method adopted in the previous chapter, the first stage in analyzing the data with exploratory factor analysis was checking the conditions for a stable factor structure (Ferguson & Cox, 1993). This required that the sample size was large enough. With 486 raters for 20 items, the subjectto-variable ratio was 24:1, being significantly higher than the generally accepted minimum ratio (i.e. 5:1) (Ferguson & Cox, 1993). The next step was to check whether the items were multivariate normally distributed by examining their skewness and kurtosis. Following Ferguson and Cox (1993), the data was checked for whether 88 no more than 25% exceeded the range of +/- 2.0. None of the fell outside this range (for both skewness and kurtosis). Then the Kaiser-Meyer-2ONLQ WHVW DQG WKH %DUWOHWW¶V WHVW RI VSKHULFLW\ ZDV applied to make sure that the correlation matrix was appropriate to produce a factor structure which would not occur just because of chance (Hair et al., 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The KaiserMeyer-Olkin test was .923, well above the required minimum value of .50. The approximate chiVTXDUH RI WKH %DUWOHWW¶V WHVW RI VSKHULFLW\ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW 8446.683, df=595, p<.001), indicating a discoverable factor structure in the data. Therefore, it was concluded that the necessary conditions for finding a stable factor structure were met. In stage two, the number of factors to be extracted from the data was determined. The Kaiser 1 rule was used to determine the maximum number of factors. Seven factors were found with an Eigenvalue higher than 1, explaining 63 % of the variance. The Eigenvalues were 10.953, 3.418, 2.200, 1.763, 1.294, 1.244, 1.124. In stage 3, the items that best fitted the seven factors were selected. Items had to have a minimum factor loading of .40 (Ferguson & Cox, 1993) (see Table 7-3). 89 Table 7-3: Factor solution of strategic & transformational leadership items 90 It can be concluded from Table 7-3 that the strategic leadership dimensions were distinct from the sub-dimensions of transformational leadership. There was a slight overlap between the items of a subdimension of transformational leadership, Intellectual stimulation, loading on the same factor as a subdimension of strategic leadership, Organizational creativity. Moreover, the sub-dimensions Vision and Inspirational communication loaded on one and the same factor. This was in line with the suggestion of Bass (1998) to combine idealized influence (which is similar to the Vision dimension from the 5DIIHUW\  *ULIILQ¶V VFDOH and Inspirational motivation (similar to the Inspirational communication dimension from WKH 5DIIHUW\  *ULIILQ¶V VFDOH to form a single measure of charisma due to high intercorrelations. 7KH LWHP ³says positive things about the work unit´ EHORQJLQJ WR WKH Gimension Inspirational communication also loaded on the Personal recognition factor. Nonetheless, as the aim of this dissertation was not to improve the transformational leadership scale, the 5 dimensions (i.e. Vision, Inspirational Communication, Intellectual stimulation, Supportive leadership and Personal recognition) were used as computed in earlier studies (maintaining the original items). A second-order factor analysis was conducted for the four strategic leadership dimensions and the five transformational leadership dimensions (see Table 7-4). Table 7-4: Second-order factor analysis The second ±order factor analysis showed that the sub-dimensions for strategic leadership fell apart in two components in line with the Exploration ± Exploitation division. The transformational leadership dimensions likewise fell apart along this division (except for Inspirational communication and Personal recognition). Whereas Vision and Intellectual stimulation loaded on the Exploration factor, Supportive leadership loaded on the Exploitation factor. Inspirational communication and Personal recognition loaded on both factors. 91 Table 7-5 reports the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between the four strategic leadership dimensions and the transformational dimensions. Two correlation matrices are shown, one (lower table) based on the data set of all raters scoring the focal manager and one (upper table) based on the data set after aggregating across the raters, resulting in a single score per focal manager. Table 7-5: Descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha’s and intercorrelations 92 The common elements in both correlation matrices in Table 7.5 show (when considering significant correlations above .50) that Organizational creativity was strongly positively correlated with Business development and positively correlated with three transformational leadership dimensions, i.e. Vision, Inspirational communication, Intellectual stimulation. Business development and Client centricity were also strongly positively correlated with Inspirational communication. Operational efficiency was strongly positively related to Client centricity. Of the transformational leadership dimensions, Vision was strongly positively related to Inspirational communication. Inspirational communication was also strongly related to Personal recognition. Similar to the two-factor solution, a distinction can be made between exploration-related dimensions (Organizational creativity, Business development, Vision, Intellectual stimulation) and exploitation-related dimensions (Client centricity, Operational efficiency, Supportive leadership). Inspirational communication seemed to correlate equally with explorationrelated and exploitation-related dimensions. 7.3.3 ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL AS ANTECEDENT Next to the factorial validity and discriminant validity of the model this study aimed to explore the differences per organizational level in terms of the manifestation of leadership behaviors (of the four strategic leadership dimensions and the transformational sub-dimensions). ANOVA was performed to compare the difference in mean scores of each strategic leadership and transformational leadership variable for each organizational level (top-level, middle-level and lower-level). Table 7.6 reports the respective means and ANOVA statistics. 93 Table 7-6: Organizational level as antecedent for leadership behavior Organizational level was a significant predictor (p<.05) for all strategic leadership dimensions (Organizational creativity: F=4.792, p=.011; Business development: F=4.273, p=.017; Client centricity: F=4.084, p=.017; Operational efficiency: F=5.565, p=.005) and for the transformational sub-dimension Vision (F=9.289, p=.000). Yet, organizational level was not a significant predictor for the other four transformational leadership dimensions, Inspirational communication (F=1.588, p=.210), Intellectual stimulation (F=1.819, p=.168), Supportive leadership (F=2.304, p=.106) and Personal recognition (F=2.736, p=.070). The general pattern (for the significant relationships) was the higher the organizational level, the higher the leadership scores. There were two exceptions for Client 94 centricity (F=4.084, p=.020) and Operational efficiency (F=5.565, p=.005). For these dimensions, the middle managers scored lowest, followed by lower-level managers and top-level managers scored highest. A series of Bonferroni post hoc tests clarified the location of significant differences in mean scores per organizational level. Table 7.7 reports the significant differences at p<.05 found through the Bonferroni post hoc tests. Table 7-7: Bonferroni post hoc significant differences by organizational level Table 7.7 shows that significant differences are found between organizational levels for all four strategic leadership dimensions and for Vision (sub-dimension of transformational leadership). There were significant differences between focal top-level managers (more than 50 subordinates) and focal middle managers (between 11 and 49 subordinates). This was the case for Business development, Client centricity, Operational efficiency and Vision. And there were significant differences between focal top-level managers (more than 50 subordinates) and focal lower-level managers (between 1 and 10 subordinates). This was the case for Organizational creativity, Business development, Operational efficiency and Vision. Whereas the differences for Business development, Operational efficiency and Vision were significant between all three levels, Client centricity showed to be a dimension primarily distinguishing middle from top-level management, while Organizational creativity distinguished toplevel and lower-level management. 7.4 DISCUSSION Given the fact that the confirmatory analysis showed satisfactory model fit scores, it can be said that the model increased in construct validity showing that the strategic leadership factor structure was stable across different samples and contextual characteristics (Kerlinger, 1986). The best model fit 95 was for the four-factor structure including 20 items, hence including the four items added on the basis of the feedback of an expert panel. Moreover, strategic leadership dimensions showed to load on different factors than the sub-dimensions of transformational leadership, hence supporting the discriminant validity of the strategic leadership model. Organizational creativity was partly overlapping with Intellectual stimulation. This result fits the line of reasoning that the two behaviors play at different levels of analysis yet influence a similar outcome, organizational innovation (Jung, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Organizational creativity behaviors establish an organizational climate and culture that nurtures creative efforts and facilitates diffusion of learning (Yukl, 2002), a work environment that encourages employees to try out different approaches (Amabile et al., 1996; Yukl, 2002) and intellectually stimulating behaviors directly stimulate people to challenge the status quo and encourage new and novel ways of doing things. Mumford and Gustafson (1988) have argued that QH[W WR GLUHFWO\ VWLPXODWLQJ IROORZHU¶V FUHDWLYLW\ organizational innovation also depends on whether the organization has a climate that supports LQQRYDWLRQµµ(YHQZKHQLQGLYLGXDOVKDYHGHYHORSHGWhe capacity for innovation, their willingness to undertake productive efforts may be conditioned by beliefs concerning the consequences of such acWLRQV LQ D JLYHQ HQYLURQPHQW´ (p.37) :KHQ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V FXOWXUH Hmphasizes reliable and efficient operations without making any mistakes or is not highly concerned with innovation, employees will be discouraged from taking initiative in their work even if they are given autonomy (Yukl, 2002). Organizational culture has been conceptualized as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation (Amabile et al., 1996; Deshpandé et al., 1993). In a study of Taiwanese firms, for example, the positive relationship between CEO transformational leadership and firm patent awards was partially mediated by cultural characteristics of support for innovation and empowerment (Jung et al., 2003). Hence, the finding that items underlying Organizational creativity and Intellectual stimulation load on one and the same factor is in the line of expectations. Nonetheless, the two are conceptually different for operating at different organizational levels. The second-factor analysis of the four strategic leadership and five transformational leadership subdimensions resulted in two factors which may be described as Exploration and Exploitation. For transformational leadership, Yukl (1998) had already concluded that³$YDULHW\RIGLIIHUHQWLQIOXHQFH SURFHVVHV PD\ EH LQYROYHG LQ WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS´ (p.328). It may be argued that transformational leadership can be defined in terms of behaviors which stimulate subordinates to be explorative and behaviors which stimulate subordinates to be more exploitative. Those individuals 96 showing high Supportive leadership and Personal recognition behaviors tend to show high Client centricity and Operational efficiency behaviors. And in contrast, those individuals showing high Vision and Intellectual stimulation tended to show high degrees of Organizational creativity and Business development behaviors. In line with the second-factor analysis, Organizational creativity, Business development, Vision and Intellectual stimulation correlated highly with one another and so did Client centricity and Operational efficiency. Organizational level was a significant predictor for all strategic leadership dimensions and for Vision. Regarding the latter, Antonakis and Atwater (2002) aUJXHG ³WKH UROH RI WRS-level leaders is to use their vision and values to ensure that organi]DWLRQDOUHVRXUFHVDUHXVHGWRDFKLHYHWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V LQWHQGHG REMHFWLYHV«$W ORZHU KLHUDUFKLFDO OHYHOV YDOXHV DQG YLVLRQ DOVR SOD\ D UROH EXW GLIIHUHQW instUXPHQWDO OHDGHU EHKDYLRUV«ZLOO FRQWULEXWH WR RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SHUIRUPDQFH´ (p.697). Organizational level, however was no strong predictor for the other four transformational subdimensions in contrast to the findings of Antonakis and Atwater (2002). In line with Zaccaro (2001) who pleaded that managers at all levels must carry out the direct leadership roles involved in interpersonal influence, the manifestation of Inspirational communication, Intellectual stimulation, Supportive leadership and Personal recognition behaviors did not differ across organizational levels. These findings are similar to the findings of Bruch and Walter (2007). They hypothesized and found that visionary behaviors were more prominently displayed by top-level managers than middle managers. Although they had expected top-level managers to also perform intellectually stimulating behaviors to a greater extent than middle managers they found no significant hierarchical differences in the occurrence of intellectual stimulation. Nor did they find significant differences for individualized consideration and recognition (yet this was in line with their expectations). Middle and top-level managers seemed to be able to perform such leadership behaviors to a similar extent. Likewise the findings of this study demonstrate that the manifestation of supervisory leadership is independent of organizational level. The results for strategic leadership largely supported the continuity perspective where top-level managers expand their behavioral repertoire when moving from middle management to top-level management and the same holds for middle managers who move up from lower-level management to middle management. Especially in terms of Organizational creativity behavior, there is a significant difference between top-level managers and lower-level managers. One may assume that managers adopt these behaviors more and more as they climb the corporate ladder. Hence, despite the plea that leaders at all levels of the organization should develop strategic leadership (Hitt & Ireland, 2002), this 97 sample showed that top-level leaders demonstrated the exploration-oriented strategic leadership behaviors to a significant larger extent than lower level managers. This linear reasoning did not hold for the Exploitation dimensions, Client centricity and Operational efficiency. On these dimensions middle managers scored lowest. In other words, whereas these behaviors were shown by lower-level managers, these behaviors were manifested to a lesser degree by middle managers and manifested mostly by top-level managers. For Client centricity, it may be argued that lower-level managers rely on their frontline employees to implement a market oriented strategy and ensure customer satisfaction (Hartline et al., 2000). Moreover, lower-level managers are usually responsible for daily operations and interact closely and often with their subordinates (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Traditionally, middle managers have been seen as part of an organization's control system. Middle management translated strategies defined at higher levels into actions at operating levels. This involved: (1) defining tactics and developing budgets for achieving a strategy; (2) monitoring the performance of individuals and subunits; and (3) taking corrective action when behavior falls outside expectations. This description, or major elements of it, has been applied for decades. In the language of strategic management, their role has been defined as "implementation." In the reengineered organization, however, senior managers rely less and less on middle managers. Information and communications technologies make it easier for those at the top to monitor and control activities directly (Jackson & Humble, 1994). These descriptive findings do not imply that lower-level and top-level managers were more effective. The link with effectiveness is the topic of the following chapter (linking strategic and supervisory OHDGHUVKLSWRVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQ  98 PART III: APPLICATIONS 99 100 8 IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP ON SUBORDINATE’ JOB SATISFACTION 8.1 INTRODUCTION Leadership effectiveness is a contested area of research. Nonetheless, ³0DLQVWUHDP OHDGHUVKLS scholars most consistently agree upon one thing: leaders are supposed ³to motivate subordinates to DFFRPSOLVKRUJDQL]DWLRQDOJRDOV´(Barker, 2001, p.473). While managers at lower and higher levels in the organization may have different responsibilities, their roles share one common property. All managers, regardless of level, have subordinates reporting to them and their effectiveness as managers is to some degree dependent on the extent to which their leadership style mobilizes the energy of these subordinates toward the goals of the organization (Jago & Vroom, 1977). The association between job satisfaction and individual performance is frequently accounted for by assuming that satisfied subordinates feel obliged to do their supervisor a favor by working hard. This idea stems IURP $GDP¶V (1963) equity theoU\ SURSRVLQJ WKDW SHRSOH ERWK ³LQYHVW´ LQ WKHLU relationships with other actors and receive benefits from that relationship. This reasoning implies that primarily affective phenomena such as VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE satisfaction also have activating and motivational potential; high (or low) levels of satisfaction (or, more generally, well-being) would trigger high (or low) levels of motivation to perform well. The management literature has provided accumulating evidence that human resource outcomes (individual-level performance) and RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SHUIRUPDQFH DUH UHODWHG VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW µµWKH SURSHU XVH RI SHRSOH HQKDQFHV RUJDQL]DWLRQDOHIIHFWLYHQHVV¶¶(Koys, 2001, p.102). Heskett et al. (2002) examined this relationship in terms of value profit chain theory. Again, this approach considered job satisfaction as a motivational force, in that high levels of individual-level satisfaction will lead to higher employee loyalty and increased effort, thus leading to higher individual productivity and better product quality. The potential linkage between employee attitudes and organizational performance was considered in earnest in the 1930s, coinciding with (and as a result of) the Hawthorne studies and the ensuing human relations movement (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). Together with the Harvard Committee on Industrial Psychology, Elton Mayo began to explore the relationship between physical conditions and worker productivity at the Hawthorne plant (Mayo, 1933). They became aware that there was a ³KXPDQ UHODWLRQV´ IDFWRU WKDW LQIOXHQFHG WKH RXWSXW RI WKH UHOD\ DVVHPEO\ WHVW URRP ZRUNHUV, independent of any physical conditions or psychological attributes. The Hawthorne studies led 101 researchers to consider the factory as a social system, and recognize that informal organization, social norms, acceptance, and sentiments of the group determined individual work behavior. In contrast to scientific management theory, the human relations approach pointed out the importance of leadership in the organization and of emotional communication and participation. The fundamental principle of scientific management was that all work could be scientifically studied, and that optimal routines and regulations could be developed to ensure maximum efficiency. While scientific management was developed in the United States, two Europeans also made noteworthy and thought-provoking contributions to the formal study of management. First, Henry Fayol (1949), from France, introduced the notion of ³V\VWHPDWLFPDQDJHPHQWWKHRU\´$VHxecutive and mining engineer, Fayol played an important role in the field of management from 1888 until the time of his death in 1915. According to Fayol, the basic functions of any manager involved planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. Second, Max Weber (1946, 1947), from Germany, derived both a theory of organizational structure ± bureaucracy ± and a theory of authority, based on charisma. Although the term bureaucracy was not invented by him, Weber was the first to codify and then slightly modify the system of organization which is as old as history. Weber examined and analyzed in detail, the complex, fairly efficient and very stable bureaucracy that had been the basis of the Chinese civilization for over 3000 years. He also studied other bureaucratic systems that seemed to have been effective in terms of organizational surYLYDODQGJRDODWWDLQPHQWLQFOXGLQJWKH&DWKROLFFKXUFKDQGWKH3UXVVLDQDUP\:HEHU¶VDQDO\VLV of the bureaucratic form, was the first clear statement of organizational structure. Although today SHRSOHRIWHQUHDFWQHJDWLYHO\WRWKHWHUP³EXUHDuFUDF\´ZKHQUHDGLQJ:HEHURQHbecomes aware that bureaucracy was an valuable invention. According to Weber (1946) ³7KH GHFLVLYH UHDVRQ IRU WKH advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other foUPRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ´(p.214). ThLV ³UDWLRQDO-OHJDO´ IRUP RI RUJDQL]DWLRQ ZDV EDVHG RQ UXOHV VHSDUDWLRQ RI SRVLWLRQ IURP SHUVRQ specific work standards, and documented work performance. These principles were translated into dimensions of bureaucracy, including formalization of procedures, specialization of work, standardized practices, and centralization of decision making (Perrow, 1986). Early applications of the bureaucratic model to the topic of effectiveness proposed that efficiency was the appropriate measure of performance ± i.e. avoidance of uncoordinated, wasteful, ambiguous activities. That is, the more 102 nearly an organization approached this ideal bureaucratic characteristic, the more efficient it was. The more specialized, formalized, standardized, and centralized, the better. ,WZDVQRWXQWLOWKH¶VWR¶VGXULQJWKHLQIDPRXVVWXGLHVDWWKH+DZWKRUQHSODQWRI:HVWHUQ Electric, that it became evident that workers are not isolated machines, but social animals, and should be treated as such. Shortly after the Hawthorne studies, researchers began taking a critical look at the QRWLRQ WKDW D ³KDSS\ ZRUNHU LV D SURGXFWLYH ZRUNHU´ (Taris & Schreurs, 2009). The satisfactionperformance relationship, also known WKH µ+RO\ *UDLO¶ RI ,QGXVWULDO DQG 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ (Landy, 1989) has been the subject of hundreds of studies, and a number of meta-analyses have summarized the results of these studies (Bowling, 2007; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Judge et al., 2001; Petty et al., 1984). New impetus for research on the role of job satisfaction in job performance has been provided by a review by Judge et al. (2001). Whereas Iaffaldano and Muchinsky's (1985) highly influential meta-analysis led to the conclusion that job satisfaction is hardly related to job performance (average corrected correlation = .17), Judge et al.'s (2001) meta-analysis revealed a substantial relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (average corrected correlation = .30). Among factors that may affect VXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction, leadership is considered to play a central role. Many of the studies conducted in different countries showed a positive relationship between the leadership behavior of the supervisor and VXERUGLQDWH¶job satisfaction (Berson & Linton, 2005; Chiok Foong Loke, 2001; Dunham-Taylor, 2000; Seo et al., 2004; Stordeur et al., 2000; Vance & Larson, 2002). In particular, a positive relationship has been found between transformational leadership and VXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass et al., 1987; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Studies revealed that transformational leadership styles functioned better than other types of leadership (transactional and laissez-faire) in terms of subordinate¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Dvir et al., 2002; Waldman et al., 2001). Introducing the concept of transformational leadership, Burns (1978) stDWHG ³WKH HVVHQFH RI WKH leader¶s SRZHULV>«@WKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKH\FDQVDWLVI\± or appear to satisfy ± specific needs and engage the IXOO SRWHQWLDO RI WKH IROORZHU´ (p.4). In a similar vein, Bass (1990b) described the IXOILOOPHQW RI IROORZHUV¶ HPRWLRQDO QHHGV DV D FHQWUDO DVSHFW RI WUDQVIRUPational leadership. Transformational leaders go beyond social exchange and involve higher psychological needs including needs for competence and affection. By appreciating and addressing these needs, they develop the potential of their followers and foster their commitment to and effort for the collective. 103 This, in turn, is seen as key for the effectiveness of transformational leaders (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978) ,QGHHG WKH IRFXV RQ IROORZHUV¶ SV\FKRORJLFDO QHHGV VHHPV WR EH D FHQWUDO DVSHFW WKDW differentiates transformational leadership from transactional leadership styles (Bono & Judge, 2003). 8.2 ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL AS A MODERATING VARIABLE The positive effect of transformational leadership on VXERUGLQDWH¶job satisfaction may be contingent RQ VXERUGLQDWHV¶ Kierarchical positioning. Kumar et al. (2012) argued that ³'LIIHUHQW PRWLYDWLRQ strategies must be devised and implemented for the people at different levels of organizational KLHUDUFK\LHMXQLRUPLGGOHDQGVHQLRUOHYHOV´(p.27). Hence, organizational level may be considered a contingency variable, which is also termed a moderator (Howell et al., 1986). James and Brett (1984) defined moderators DVIROORZV³DYDULDEOH]LVDPRGHUDWRULIWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWZR RU PRUH RWKHUYDULDEOHVVD\[DQG\LVDIXQFWLRQRIWKHOHYHORI]´(p.310) (see Figure 8.1 for a graphic display of the moderating variable, organizational level, influencing the relationship between OHDGHUVKLSEHKDYLRURIWKHVXSHULRUDQGVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQ  Figure 8-1: Organizational level as moderating variable The previous chapter showed that transformational leadership was manifested at all organizational levels to largely the same degree. As for strategic leadership, the previous results showed that the higher the manager was located within the organizational hierarchy, the greater the extent to which he/she displayed the Exploration-oriented behaviors, Organizational creativity and Business development, hence confirming the continuity perspective. Likewise, top-level managers also performed the Exploitation-oriented behaviors, Operational efficiency and Client centricity, to the largest extent. Yet, for these dimensions there was no linear relationship, but a u-shaped pattern. Lower-level managers were in fact more involved in these Exploitation-oriented behaviors than their middle manager counterparts. The previous studies were solely descriptive of nature, and held no implications for the effectiveness of these behaviors. 104 The study described in this chapter aims to explore whether the relationship between transformational and strategic leaderVKLSZLWKVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQLVGLIIHUHQWGHSHQGLQJRQWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQDO level of the respective subordinate. The next section reviews transformational leadership and strategic leadership in the light of organizational level. Section 8.3 describes the method used to explore the above-mentioned relationship. First of all, a confirmatory study was conducted to check the factor structure of the different leadership behaviors. Moreover the intercorrelations between the leadership dimensions and job satisfaction were explored. Second, the correlations were studied per organizational level to identify possible differences between the levels. And finally, using a regression analysis, the moderating role of organizational level on the relationship between leadership of the superior on VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZDs tested. Sections 8.4 and 8.5 present the results and provide in a discussion, respectively. 8.2.1 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL There have been a number of studies that have investigated transformational leadership across organizational levels (Bass et al., 1987; Bruch & Walter, 2007; Densten, 2003; Lowe et al., 1996; Oshagbemi & Gill, 2004; Stordeur et al., 2000; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Kovjanic et al. (2012) proposed that WKHUHDUHWKUHHW\SHVRIVXERUGLQDWH¶EDVLFQHHGVWKHVDWLsfaction of which mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction)³need for autonomy´, ³QHHGfor competence´ and ³QHHG for relatedness´. Autonomy refers to being able to self-RUJDQL]H RQH¶V EHKDYLRU ,W LQYROYHV D VHQVH RI FKRLFH DQG D IHHOLQJ RI QRW EHLQJ FRQWUROOHG E\ forces alien to the self. Competence concerns feelings of mastery and effectiveness, which originate from opportuniWLHV WR DSSO\ DQG H[SDQG RQH¶V FDSDELOLWLHV 5HODWHGQHVV UHIHUV WR D IHHOLQJ RI connectedness and association and involves a sense of being significant to others. Kovjanic et al.¶V (2012) exploration of subordinate needs was based on self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne & Deci, 2005) which can be regarded as one of the most detailed and best validated frameworks of psychological needs (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009). In applying SDT to the work context, Gagné and Deci (2005) proposed that the fulfillment of basic psychological needs foster wellbeing and optimal functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Likewise, Lynch et al. (2005) found that the IXOILOOPHQW RI EDVLF SV\FKRORJLFDO QHHGV ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR HPSOR\HHV¶ VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKHLU job tasks. Their results also demonstrated that each of the three needs had a unique effect on job satisfaction. 105 7KLV GLVWLQFWLRQ LQ VXERUGLQDWH¶ QHHGV WKDW DUH VDWLVILHG E\ PHDQV RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS LV very valuable to gain insight into why this leadership style can be linked to such a wide variety of desirable outcomes. However, the above-mentioned studies treated the concept as a singular concept, whereas according to Yukl (1998) amongst others FRQFOXGHG ³$ YDULHW\ RI GLIIHUHQW LQIOXHQFH processes may be involveGLQWUDQVIRUPDWLRQDOOHDGHUVKLS´(p.328). When recalling the finding from the previous chapter drawn from the second-order factor analysis, where Supportive leadership loaded on a different factor than Vision and Intellectual stimulation, one may argue that the former plays into WKH³QHHGIRUUHODWHGQHVVDQGFRPSHWHQFH´DQGWKHODWWHULQWRWKH³QHHGIRUDXWRQRP\´ In this respect, there is evidence that direct subordinates of lower-level managers, such as clerical staff and front-line employees tend to place more emphasis on the quality of relationships with colleagues and supervisors (Kalleberg & Griffin, 1978; Ronen et al., 1979; Ronen & Sadan, 1984). Specifically, Wall et al. (2002) have proposed that because the work processes of managerial jobs are less routine and that the outcomes are less predictable, the occupants would need more autonomy and discretion. There is early empirical evidence that work satisfaction of managers is more dependent on empowering rewards, such as task autonomy, task involvement, and task significance than is the case for lower-level employees (Kalleberg & Griffin, 1978; Ronen et al., 1979; Ronen & Sadan, 1984). Moreover, Sashkin and Williams (1990) reported that while middle managers expressed stronger needs for autonomy and influence, non-supervisory staff tended to pay more attention to relational aspects of work. Whereas most early studies have focused on the difference between supervisory and non-supervisory (employees without subordinates) levels, more recent studies have focused on the difference between managerial levels. Zaccaro (2001) claims that managers at all levels must carry out the direct leadership roles involved in interpersonal influence as well as the indirect leadership activities of strategic direction setting and implementation. Likewise, Wang et al. (2011) showed that behaviors of the CEO did not only influence firm performance, but also the middle managHUV¶ attitudinal responses. There have been a number of studies that have investigated transformational leadership across organizational levels (Bass et al., 1987; Bruch & Walter, 2007; Densten, 2003; Lowe et al., 1996; Oshagbemi & Gill, 2004; Stordeur et al., 2000; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). They examined whether transformational behaviors differentially influenced the job satisfaction of top-level and middle PDQDJHUV¶GLUHFWVXERUGLQDWHV7KHLUUHVXOWVVXJJHVWed that hierarchy constitutes a boundary condition IRUWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIVXFKEHKDYLRUVLQVWUHQJWKHQLQJIROORZHUV¶job satisfaction. Idealized influence VLPLODUWRWKH³9LVLRQ´GLPHQVLRQRI5DIIHUW\DQG*ULIILQ(2004)), inspirational motivation (similar to 106 WKH ³,QVSLUDWLRQDO FRPPXQiFDWLRQ´ GLPHQVLRQ), and intellectual stimulation were found to be more HIIHFWLYHLQVWUHQJWKHQLQJVXERUGLQDWHV¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQZKHQGLUHFWHGE\WRS-level managers towards middle managers than when directed by middle managers towards lower-level supervisors. Middle PDQDJHUV¶ KLHUDUFKLFDO FRQWH[W VHHPed WR EH PRUH FRQGXFLYH WR WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKHLU OHDGHUV¶ visionary, inspirational and intellectually challenging behaviors. No such difference occurred, however, for individualized consideration VLPLODU WR WKH ³6XSSRUWLYH OHDGHUVKLS´ GLPHQVLRQ RI Rafferty and Griffin (2004). Offering individualized support seemed to similarly enhance subordinate satisfaction irrespective of hierarchical differences. Hence, there is significant evidence that transformational leadership has a positive relationship with subordinate job satisfaction, yet this relationship is different depending on the underlying transformational leadership variable considered. It may be argued that the need for competence and relatedness is highest for subordinates of lowerlevel managers and the need for autonomy is higher for subordinates of top-level managers. Hence, one may hypothesize that in general, transformational leadership is positively related to VXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction, yet that the supervisory behaviors Vision, Inspirational communication and Intellectual stimulation are more important predictors for the job satisfaction of middle managers and the supervisory behavior, Supportive leadership is more important for non-manager employees. H1: Visionary, Inspirational communication and Intellectual stimulation behaviors of top-level managers are the most significant predictors for job satisfaction of their direct subordinates. H2: Supportive leadership behaviors of lower-level managers is the most significant predictor for job satisfaction of their subordinates (non-manager employees). 8.2.2 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL Strategic leadership is nowadays expected from all organizational levels (Hitt & Ireland, 2002). Upson et al. (2007), however proposed that when the details of a strategy are left to middle-level managers and lower-level employees, this may cause role ambiguity. Especially when asked to think VWUDWHJLFDOO\DQGDFWHQWUHSUHQHXULDOO\UROHDPELJXLW\PD\EHFUHDWHGWRWKHH[WHQWWKDWWKH³HPSOR\HH feels ill equipped to resolve the VLWXDWLRQ´(Upson et al., 2007, p.82). Since the seminal study on organizational stress in role dynamics (Kahn et al., 1964), role stress has attained substantial research attention (Brown & Peterson, 1993; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Oertqvist & Wincent, 2006). Numerous studies using role theory have demonstrated counterproductive consequences of role stress, which include low satisfaction, high turnover intentions, low commitment 107 and poor performance (Oertqvist & Wincent, 2006). Conceptually, role stress is thought to be derived from role conflict as well as role ambiguity. Whereas, rROHFRQIOLFWLV ³WKHGHJUHHRILncongruity or incompatibility of expectations associated with a role´ (Miles & Perreault, 1976, p.2), role ambiguity reflects an employHH V XQFHUWDLQW\ DERXW RWKHUV¶ H[SHFWDWLRQ RI WKH HPSOR\HH V MRE due to lack of information (Behrman & Perreault, 1984). Kahn et al (1964) suggested that role conflict and role ambiguity were probably greater at the middle management level than at either the top-level or lower-level. Sinha and Subramanian (2012) likewise reported that middle managers felt the greatest stress, they felt that their role offered them a very low or no level of personal and professional growth. While Chandler (1977) emphasized in the 1970s that PLGGOH PDQDJHUV¶ MREV FRYHUed exclusively the supervision of the lower hierarchical levels, the realization of organizational strategies is often fueled by the agency of non-senior managers, which has given rise to a literature focusing on the impact of middle manager agency on the organizational strategy process (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Burgelman, 1983; Floyd & Lane, 2000; Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000; Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). Many results have been published that show that PLGGOH PDQDJHUV FDQ EH WKH GULYHUV RI RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VWUDWHJ\ &RQVLGHU IRU LQVWDQFH %XUJHOPDQ¶V (1983) FODVVLF DFFRXQW RI ,QWHO¶V EXVLQHVV H[LW ZKHUH PLGGOH PDQDJHUV SOD\HG D NH\ UROH in transforming from the memory business into the processor business. Hence, middle managers are therefore expected to play both a supervisory and strategic leadership role. In fact, previous studies investigating middle managers can be divided into two categories. One of them examined the toplevel manager- middle manager relationship (Dutton et al., 1997; Nonaka, 1988; Pappas et al., 2003; Schilit, 1987) while the others dealt with the middle-level manager ± lower-level manager relationship (Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Glasoe & Einarsen, 2006; Xin & Pelled, 2003). Illustratively, Ireland (1992) provided a definition of middle managers where he described them as employees working between an organizaWLRQ¶VORZHU-level and top-level managers. According to Ireland a middle-manager contained WKH LQWHJUDWLRQ RI ³WKH LQWHntions of top-level managers with the day-to-day operational realities experienced by first-OHYHO PDQDJHUV´ (Ireland, 1992, p.18). Hence, to fulfill their tasks, a middle manager must be capable of quickly switching from attending to one relationship to another (Uyterhoeven, 1972). From the above, one may conclude that especially middle managers¶ MRE satisfaction is strongly related to the strategic leadership behavior of their respective top-level manager, for it determines the strategic leadership role to be played out by the middle manager. H3: Strategic leadership of top-level managers is the most significant predictor for the job satisfaction of middle managers. 108 8.3 METHOD 8.3.1 SAMPLE The sample used for this study is a subset of the sample used for the previous study. For this study, as the primary interest was subordinate¶ job satisfaction, only those managers were included that had been rated by their subordinates. Managers that were rated only by peers and/or superiors, were discarded from the sample. :KHUU\DQG%DUWOHWW¶V(1982) theory of rating indicates that there are three bURDGW\SHVRIIDFWRUVWKDWLQIOXHQFHSHUIRUPDQFHUDWLQJVWKHUDWHH¶VDFWXDOMRESHUIRrmance, various rater biases in the perception and recall of that performance, and measurement error. The second, rater bias, refers to the systematic variance in performance ratings that is associated in some way with the rater and not with the actual performance of the ratee. Important type of rater bias concerns the effects DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH UDWHU¶V RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SHUVSHFWLYH LH VHOI GLUHFW UHSRUW SHHU RU ERVV  Borman (1997) advanced three reasons why it is plausible to hypothesize that perspective-related biases affect performance ratings. First, raters from different organizational perspectives might focus their attention on different aspHFWV RI WKH UDWHH¶V SHUIRUPDQFH 6HFRQG UDWHUV IURP GLIIHUHQW SHUVSHFWLYHV PLJKW attend to the same aspects of performance but attach different weights to them. Third, raters from different perspectives may REVHUYH GLIIHUHQW VDPSOHV RI D UDWHH¶V EHKDYLRU When interested in the UHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQDQGOHDGHUVKLS behavior of the superior, it is most appropriate to base both these scores on the ratings of the subordinates themselves. The sample for this study included 182 supervisor-subordinate pairs. This number surpasses the total number of managers in the sample, due to the fact that some managers have been rated by more than one subordinate and hence count for more than one supervisor-subordinate pair. See Figure 8.2 for a graphic display the nested sample. Figure 8-2: Nested structure of sample 109 The sample of 182 subordinates consisted of 39 subordinates of top-level managers (with 50 or more subordinates), 51 subordinates of middle managers (between 11 and 49 subordinates) and 70 subordinates of lower-level managers) between 1 and 10 subordinates (22 focal managers did not report on this criteria). 55.5 % was male. The average age was 43.3 (SD=16.02). 54.9 % was Dutch. In terms of highest degree achieved, 17.0 % received a secondary school degree, 20.9 % received a %DFKHORU¶VGHJUHH% UHFHLYHGD0DVWHU¶VGHJUHHDQG % received a PhD degree (10.4 % did not report on this criteria). 37.9 % was in his/her current position between 1 and 3 years. 110 8.3.2 MEASURES Leadership behaviors Klein et al. (1994; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) have pointed out the importance of specifying the level of analysis at which variables and associations are conceptualized. In this study, transformational leadership and job satisfaction were examined at the individual level (on the basis of subordinate scores). Although job satisfaction is clearly an individual-level variable, transformational leadership has been conceptualized at both the individual and group level (Bass, 1998). Leaders can exhibit a similar style of behavior toward an entire group of followers resulting in comparable or identical relationships with each follower in the group (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1974). This model of leaderfollower interactions is referred to as the Average Leadership Style (ALS) approach (Dansereau et al., 1984). In this case, there is a lack of differences within groups in leader-follower interactions (homogeneous leader-follower interactions). However, there is empirical evidence that leaderfollower relationships differ across followers. This approach has generally been labeled the LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) approach. In this case, there are distinct differences in leader-follower relationships (heterogeneous leader ±follower interactions) (Dansereau et al., 1984). This study uses the strategic and transformational measures as used before (chapter eight). Yet this time the scores are based on subordinate ratings (excluding the ratings of superiors and peers). Although, this may cause a common-method bias, this approach fitted best with the LMX approach. 6XERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQ Subordinate¶ job satisfaction was measureGE\PHDQVRIDVLQJOHLWHP³RYHUDOO,DPVDWLVILHGZLWKP\ MRE´ 6XERUGLQDWHV VFRUHG WKLV LWHP RQ D ILYH-VWHS /LNHUW VFDOH UDQJLQJ IURP ³WRWDOO\ GLVDJUHH´ WR ³WRWDOO\ DJUHH´ Wanous et al. (1997) published a paper demonstrating that single-item measures of overall job satisfaction correlated quite highly with multiple-item (or scale measures) of overall job satisfaction (correlation of ȡ=.63). Moreover, they concluded that single-item measures of overall satisIDFWLRQ³DUHPRUHUREXVWWKDQWKHVFDOHPHDVXUHVRIRYHUDOOMREVDWLVIDFWLRQ´(Wanous et al., 1997, p.250). Wanous et al. (1997) listed several arguments why a single-item measure of overall satisfaction may be preferable to multi-item scale measures of overall job satisfaction, i.e. (1) single item measures usually take less space than scale measures, (2) single-item measures may be more cost-effective, (3) single-item measures may contain more face validity, especially when an organization has poor employee relations (due to negative reactions to perceived repetitious questions from scale measures), and (4) single-item measures may be better to measure changes in job satisfaction. In a review of overall measures of job satisfaction, Scarpello and Campbell (1983) luded 111 that the best global rating of job satisfaction is a one-item, 5-SRLQWVFDOH WKDWVLPSO\DVNV ³2YHUDOO KRZVDWLVILHGDUH\RXZLWK\RXUMRE"´ Organizational level Organizational level is measured, similar to the previous chapter, by means of the number of subordinates reporting to the respective leader. Supervisors with between 1 and 10 subordinates were labeled lower-level managers, supervisors with between 11 and 49 subordinates were considered middle managers and supervisors with 50 or more subordinates were considered top-level managers. The assignment of the focal managers across organizational levels was cross-checked on the basis of WKHDXWKRUV¶knowledge of the function and position of the focal manager within his or her respective organization. 8.4 RESULTS A confirmatory factor analysis, considering a four-factor structure for strategic leadership and a fivefactor structure for transformational leadership resulted in an acceptable fit. X2 = 839.799, df = 524, p<.001, RMSEA = .058, AIC =- 12081.301, SRMR = .058. The descriptive statistics, internal reliability and intercorrelations are shown in Table 8.1. Table 8-1: Descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha’s and intercorrelations Table 8.1 shows transformational leadership and strategic leadership were largely related to VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ, largely to the same extent. Organizational creativity, Vision, Inspirational communication and Intellectual stimulation show the highest correlations with VXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQ 112 In order to determine which leadership dimension added most predictive value, all 9 variables (4 strategic leadership and 5 transformational leadership) variables were added into a regression using the stepwise method. The results are presented in Table 8.2, showing only those variables that would improve prediction of job satisfaction at an appropriate F-ratio level (F to enter equal to or greater than 3.96). Table 8-2: Regression analysis on job satisfaction From Table 8-2 one can draw that only two variables held significant predictive value IRUVXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction, namely Inspirational communication and Intellectual stimulation. Inspirational FRPPXQLFDWLRQ H[SODLQHG  RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG ,QWHOOHFWXDO stimulation added 2.4% to this variance. All strategic leadership dimensions were not of significant predictive value. In order to determine to what extent organizational level was relevant for the relationship between OHDGHUVKLSEHKDYLRUVDQGVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQ a correlation was run for separate samples of lower-level managers, middle-managers and top-level managers. Table 8.3 presents the results. 113 Table 8-3: Correlations subordinate’ job satisfaction & supervisor leadership Table 8.3 shows that the job satisfaction of subordinates of lower-level managers was significantly positively correlated with the Organizational creativity (ȡ=.33, p<.01), Business development (ȡ=.31, p<.05), Inspirational communication (ȡ=.36, p<.01), Intellectual stimulation (ȡ=.33, p<.01), and Supportive leadership (ȡ=.35, p<.01) behaviors of their superior. Job satisfaction of lower-level managers (subordinates of middle managers) was unrelated to the leadership behaviors (considered in this study) of their superior (i.e. middle managers). Job satisfaction of middle managers (subordinates of top-level managers) was significantly positively related to Organizational creativity (ȡ=.38, p<.05), Operational efficiency (ȡ=.34 p<.05), Vision (ȡ=.40, p<.05), Inspirational communication (ȡ=.48, p<.01), and Supportive leadership (ȡ=.40, p<.05) behaviors of their supervisor. These results hint at a moderator role for organizational level for the relationship between VXSHUYLVRU¶ OHDGHUVKLS EHKDYLRU DQG VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLsfaction. In order to determine whether organizational level moderated the relationship between VXSHUYLVRU¶ OHDGHUVKLS EHKDYLRU DQG VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE satisfaction, and leadership behavior an enter regression procedure was undertaken for both the strategic and transformational leadership dimensions, including 3 steps, first of all adding the leadership dimensions, then adding the dummies for organizational level (Orglevel1: distinguishing top-level managers from lower-level and middle level managers and Orglevel2: distinguishing middle managers from their lower-level and top-level counterparts) and lastly adding the interaction terms (leadership dimensions x 2 dummy variables) (see Table 8.4). 114 Table 8-4: Hierarchical regression model job satisfaction Table 8.4 shows that the interaction terms with both dummy variables for organization level did not explain significant extra variance (step 3). Hence, one may conclude that for this sample, organizational level did not serve as a general moderator variable for the relationship between VWUDWHJLF DQG WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS DQG VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ But, it could be that organizational level has a moderating role for several sub-dimensions. In order to test for this, a similar regression procedure was conducted for the four strategic and five transformational leadership variables separately. Therefrom, only Supportive leadership showed significant results. Table 8.5 shows the extra variance in job satisfaction explained by means of the dummy variables, Orglevel1 (distinguishing top-level managers from lower and middle managers and Orglevel2, distinguishing middle managers from toplevel and lower-level managers). 115 Table 8-5: Regression analysis of supportive leadership on job satisfaction Table 8.5 demonstrates that the interaction term Supportive leadership with Orglevel2 adds significant extra variance. Moreover, the negative value of the interaction term, hints that there is a negative relationship. Hence, one may conclude that the relationship between Supportive leadership of middle managers and subordinate¶ (lower-level managers) job satisfaction is significantly different, in comparison to the other organizational levels. This finding is supported by the correlations found per organizational level (Table 8.2), where the correlation between VXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction and Supportive leadership by middle managers is negative, yet positive for Supportive leadership by toplevel managers and lower-level managers. 8.5 DISCUSSION The results from the regression analysis showed that only Inspirational communication and ,QWHOOHFWXDO VWLPXODWLRQ KHOG VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWLYH YDOXH IRU VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRn. In other words, only transformational leadership sub-dimensions showed to be an important predictor for job satisfaction. TKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ OHDGHUVKLS DQG VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZDV QRW PRGHUDWHG E\ organizational level, except for the transformational leadership sub-dimension, Supportive leadership. For this dimension, middle managers showed a significant different relationship than lower- and toplevel managers. Supportive leadership behaviors displayed by middle managers were negatively correlated with the job satisfaction of their subordinates (lower-level managers). For both lower-level and top-level managers this relationship was positive. The job satisfaction of non-manager employees and middle managers was equally affected by the Supportive leadership behaviors of their superiors (hence rejecting H2). 116 Despite the fact that organizational level did not fulfil the role of moderator, a different pattern could be observed across organizational levels. In terms of the correlation of transformational leadership dimensions RQ VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDtisfaction, the most important differential between the organizational levels was that Intellectual stimulation was important for the job satisfaction of nonmanager employees (partially rejecting H1), whereas Vision was considered important for the job satisfaction of middle managers (partially confirming H1). The latter is in line with the expectations, visionary aspirations may be less directly relevant for subordinates of lower-level managers. Organizational visions that focus on overarching goals may have limited relevance for the day-to-day work of these employees and may appear abstract, unrealistic, and unconnected to their actual tasks. The finding regarding Intellectual stimulation was, however unexpected. This surprising finding may be due to the fact that the sample included highly educated subordinates in knowledge-intensive industries. For these individuals, Intellectual stimulation may enhance their job satisfaction by strengthening their sense of significance and autonomy and enhancing their task variety (Bass, 1985; Judge et al., 2001). Likewise, non-manager employees were largely motivated by externally oriented strategic leadership behaviors, Organizational creativity and Business development of their superiors. An important finding was that the job satisfaction of lower-level managers was unrelated to the leadership behaviors of middle managers. When considering the ambivalent role of middle managers between top-level managers and lower-level managers, holding both prominent strategic leadership and supervisory leadership roles, one may argue that middle managers overemphasize their strategic leadership role, neglecting their supervisory role. Moreover, middle managers seemed to be more in need of structure (in terms of Operational efficiency) (partially confirming H3). One may argue that this is due to the role-stress middle managers experience. Middle managers have been portrayed as deenergized and emotionally stricken in the face of the overwhelming power and drive of turnaround executives (O'Neill et al., 1995). Most normative models of strategy tend to accord middle management a supporting role at best (Shrivastava, 1986); executives are advised to reduce equivocalness so that middle managers can act on clear instructions. 1H[W WR WKH µQHHG IRU UHODWHGQHVV¶µQHHGIRUFRPSHWHQFH¶DQGµQHHGIRUDXWRQRP\¶(Kovjanic et al., 2012), one may add the µQHHGIRUFODULW\¶HVSHFLDOO\DSSOLFDEOHWRPLGGOHPDQDJHUVLQWKHFXUUHQWWLPHIUDPH In conclusion when considering organizational level, it can be said that both strategic leadership and WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS DUH LPSRUWDQW IRU VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ ,I WKH DLP LV WR LQFUHDVH VXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQWRS-level managers should perform Visionary behaviors and Operational efficiency behaviors, middle managers should not perform Supportive leadership behaviors and lower117 level managers should perform Intellectual stimulation, Organizational creativity and Business development behaviors. As was mentioned in the introductory chapters, subordinate¶ job satisfaction cannot explain team or organizational outcomes, given the present-day dynamic interaction between organizations and their environments. Therefore, the next chapter delves into the predictor variables for team effectiveness. 118 9 IMPACT OF SHARED STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 9.1 INTRODUCTION As was mentioned in the introductory chapter, the last two and a half decades has witnessed a remarkable transformation of organizational structures worldwide. One of its more compelling aspects has been the on-going shift from work organized around individual jobs to team-based work structures (Erhardt et al., 2009; Lawler et al., 1995). Increasing global competition, consolidation and innovation have created pressures, such as the need for diverse skills, expertise and experience, and the need for more rapid, flexible, adaptive responses that trigger the emergence of teams as basic building blocks of organizations. Organizational outcomes therefore depend to a large extent on the appropriate design and the proper functioning of work units and teams. /HDGHUVKLS ZLWKLQ WHDPV FDQ FRPH IURP WZR GLIIHUHQW VRXUFHV GHSHQGLQJ RQ ³ZKR´ SHUIRUPV leadership. The first source which has been the primary focus in the leadership literature is the formal team leader (Burke et al., 2006; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Schriesheim et al., 1994). Given that there is a hierarchical relationship between the team leader and the team members, leadership performed by the team leader has also been labeled vertical leadership. The second source of leadership is the team, where leadership is distributed among team members, also known as shared leadership (Burke et al., 2003; Pearce & Conger, 2003a). The underlying notion is that team performance may be improved if the team takes advantage of different leadership strengths of all team members. With the first source, vertical leadership the influence is top-down, whereas the second source, shared leadership involves a collaborative process (Ensley et al., 2006). According to Pearce (2004) and Pearce and Manz (2005), with the greater prevalence of knowledgebased organizations characterized by task complexity and highly qualified employees, shared leadership has become a common source of leadership rather than the exception. While the increasingly challenging organizational context makes vertical leaders want to share leadership (Martin et al., 2007), highly skilled knowledge workers are also more inclined to take charge of leadership roles and responsibilities (Lawler & Finegold, 2000). Shared leadership is thus both a deliberate and an emergent phenomenon. This chapter elaborates the impact of both shared and vertical leadership on team effectiveness. 119 Section 9.2 reviews briefly the notion of shared leadership, followed by section 9.3 which elaborates the topic of team effectiveness. Section 9.4 describes the method used to study the relationship between vertical and shared leadership and team effectiveness. Drawing a distinction between vertical leadership and shared leadership does not imply a value judgment on the superiority of one approach over the other. Instead, what is needed is greater clarity on the appropriate level of analysis. When the focal topic of study is leadership in teams, it is important to distinguish the level at which leadership is conceptualized. The sample used in this study is a subset of the sample used in the earlier presented confirmatory study (chapter 7). This study described in this chapter starts by checking whether the factor structure for the leadership dimensions is stable, given that the sample is different from chapter seven. Next, the intraclass correlations and interrater agreements were calculated for each leadership dimension, before aggregating to the level of the focal managers. In turn, the sample of focal managers was divided into formal team leaders and team members, in order to be able to study shared leadership (the average of the team members) as separate from vertical leadership (the formal team leader). A correlation matrix was generated to unveil the interrelationships between the shared and vertical leadership dimensions. A following step was calculating the team effectiveness scores. First, a confirmatory analysis was conducted in order to confirm the factor structure (as the team effectiveness dimensions were drawn from different previous studies and taken together for the first time), then the intraclass correlations and interrater agreement were calculated before aggregating the scores given by the focal managers themselves on team effectiveness into average team scores. Lastly, section 9.6 presents a multiple regression analysis to gain insight into the absolute value of both the vertical and shared leadership dimensions in terms of explaining the team effectiveness scores. In order to test the relative value of shared leadership vis-à-vis vertical leadership, two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted while employing a different order, first regressing vertical leadership and then adding shared leadership and vice versa. On the basis thereof, one can draw inferences as to whether shared or vertical leadership holds the largest explanatory value for the respective team effectiveness scores. 9.2 SHARED LEADERSHIP The topic of shared leadership has received a great deal of attention (Pearce & Conger, 2003a; Pearce & Sims, 2002). Besides the notion of shared leadership, there are approaches emphasizing connective 120 (Lipman-Blumen, 2000) and distributed (Brown & Gioia, 2002; Gronn, 2002) leadership, social network forces for leadership (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006), as well as aggregates of leadership capacity (Day et al., 2004a). These are just a few example approaches that attempt to go beyond the individual leader in better understanding and studying leadership in teams and organizations. A deeper investigation further reveals that although there are some central tendencies surrounding the meaning of these terms, there is also a good deal of inconsistency, with some scholars using different terms loosely and interchangeably and others adhering to narrower definitions (see (Bolden, 2011). Shared and distributed are the most widely used adjectives describing this type of leadership (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). There are a few research partnership that dominate the domain of shared leadership (with a focus on teams), namely between Manz and Sims (1987, 1991; 1980), Pearce and Sims (2002; 2000), Pearce and Manz (2005) and Pearce et al. (2008; 2009). A review of the literature revealed six seminal empirical studies (Avolio et al., 1996; Carson et al., 2007; Ensley et al., 2006; Mehra et al., 2006; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002) (see Table 9.1 for the primary research question, methodology employed and the reported findings). 121 Table 9-1: Review of empirical studies on (shared) leadership in teams Avolio et al. (1996) studied the relationship between leadership behavior performed by the team as a whole and team effectiveness. Later studies (Ensley et al., 2006; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pearce et al., 2003; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002) applied similar research designs. Most studies used survey methods to measure leadership behaviors at the level of the team. The primary aim was to differentiate the impact of vertical and shared leadership on team effectiveness. Pearce and Sims (2002) for instance, found that for teams, dealing with change management, shared leadership held more explanatory value than vertical leadership. They defined vertical leadership as leadership behavior performed by the formal team leader. Shared leadership was defined as a form of distributed leadership that emerges from team dynamics. The empirical findings showed that shared leadership had a strong impact on perceived team effectiveness. Moreover, vertical leadership also played an important role, suggesting that these two alternate sources of leadership are not mutually exclusive but rather can be perceived as complementary. Ensley et al. (2006) analyzed the role of vertical and shared leadership within two different samples of startup firms. Their results showed that shared leadership among top management team members held more explanatory variance for performance 122 than vertical leadership. Carson et al. (2007) argued that external coaching may compensate for deficiencies in internal team environment. Since these seminal studies, several noteworthy adjoining studies on shared leadership have been published (Erkutlu, 2012; Harris, 2008; Hoch et al., 2010; Solansky, 2008; Zhang et al., 2012). See Table 9.2 for a brief overview. Table 9-2: Further studies into shared leadership Solansky (2008) found that teams with shared leadership have motivational and cognitive advantages. Hoch et al. (2010) argued that both age diversity and coordination moderated the impact of shared leadership on team performance. Erkutlu (2012) found that the relationship of shared leadership with team proactivity is stronger in organizations with higher level of supportive culture. Zhang et al. (2012) found that formal leaders and team shared vision jointly promote or inhibit informal leader emergence and thereby impact individual performance and team effectiveness. There are quite some different methods for measuring shared leadership. Several researchers have presented models that discuss the theoretical relationship between individual and team-level constructs (House et al., 1995; Rousseau, 1985). Group composition research for instance, requires individual differences to somehow emerge to form team±level constructs that in turn relate to team performance (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). One form of emergence occurs when individual 123 characteristics combine in a linear fashion such that the mean or sum of individual characteristics represents the team-level construct (Chan, 1998). The extent of behaviors may vary among individuals, but individual contributions are all weighted equally. This has also been labeled amplitude (or numerical action) and is operationalized as the mean of all individual team member scores (Barrick et al., 1998; Senior, 1997). This additive understanding does not privilege the work of a particular individual or categories of persons, nor is there a presumption about which individual behavior carries more weight. This multiple sense is the most common understanding invoked in the growing number of references to shared leadership in the literature (Gronn, 2002) and is the way shared leadership is considered in the study described in this chapter. 9.3 TEAM EFFECTIVENESS The relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness has been the subject of a few studies in the past decades. These empirical studies have provided support both for the feasibility of shared leadership and for the significance of its influence on team performance above and beyond the influence RI WKH WHDP¶V KLHUDUFKLFDO OHDGHU (Barry, 1991; Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Carson et al., 2007; Pearce & Sims, 2002). The supposition tested in this study is that: H: Shared leadership adds significant explanatory value for team effectiveness (above and beyond the impact of the vertical team leader). ³Performance is the most widely studied criterion variable in the organizational behavior and human UHVRXUFH PDQDJHPHQW OLWHUDWXUHV´ (Bommer et al., 1995, p.587). Interestingly, team research has focused on the who is part of the team, and how team members cooperate. Teams studies have resulted in ³DILQH-grained analysis of internal group dynamLFV>«@ZLWKJURXSVSULPDULO\DVFORVHG V\VWHPV´(Ancona, 1990, p.335). The focus has been largely on the interaction among group members (Gladstein, 1984). Team performance has been ³OHVVV\VWHPDWLFDOO\DGGUHVVHG´ (Ilgen, 1999, p.131). As a consequence we know a lot about the antecedents and mediating influences of team behavior and much less on what comes out of it. Team research has recently started to take organizational outcomes into account. In particular with reference to Top Management Teams (TMTs), team characteristics were aligned with organizational outcomes. Alvarez and Svejenova (2005) for instance, examined shared leadership with top-level leaders. They found that organizations face competing demands, on the one hand aligning closely with the environment (similar to Client centricity in the strategic leadership model), and on the other hand 124 remaining flexible to tailor into new opportunities (similar to Business development). They argued that these tensions could be managed when working with complementary individuals: for example, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Operations Officers or two Chief Executive Officers who complement one another (Arnone & Stumpf, 2010). In this respect, the concept of shared leadership is especially relevant for the manifestation of strategic leadership, given that this concept is based on the tensions between Organization-Environment focus and Exploration-Exploitation, requiring different kinds of behavior, which may well be manifested by different individuals working in a team. Whereas it is relatively easy to align TMT functions and organizational outcomes, this has been less obvious at lower organizational levels. Similar to the argument made for strategic leadership to be practiced throughout the organization (due to the changing organizational context), organizational performance criteria which are relevant at higher organizational levels equally hold for teams operating at lower organizational levels). In contemporary organizations, external activities or boundary-spanning activities are becoming more and more important for teams across all organizational levels. Organizational teams cannot rely solely on either internal or external activities because no team works in a vacuum of external forces and, at the same time, no team exists without maintaining its boundary. Given that a team has only limited resources (e.g. time, effort, and personnel), conducting either internal or external activities may reduce resources available for the other. This trade-off relationship forces organizational teams to allocate their resources between internal and external activities. This trade-off between internal and external activities appears to be the critical issue of managing team boundaries, as noted by Sundstrom et al. (1990)³7KHJURXSERXQGDU\ needs continual management to ensure that it becomes neither too sharply delineated nor too SHUPHDEOHVRWKDWWKHWHDPQHLWKHUEHFRPHVLVRODWHGQRUORVHVLWVLGHQWLW\´(p.130). Teams that strike a good balance or shift emphasis between internal and external activities seem to be more effective in general than teams that stick to either one of the two activities (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Gersick, 1988). Multiple team outcome measures exist (Mathieu et al., 2008), yet for the purpose of this study, team effectiveness measures were included which were drawn from and validated in previous studies. As the strategic model is based on seemingly contradictory organizational objectives, the team effectiveness measures needed to be in line with these different organizational objectives. No study has yet included the four objectives of strategic leadership in one model, hence four separate team effectiveness measures were included: i.e. Team innovation as an outcome of Organizational creativity, Team efficiency as an outcome of Operational efficiency, Market responsive orientation as 125 an outcome of Client centricity and Market proactive orientation as an outcome of Business development (see Figure 9.1 for a graphic overview). Figure 9-1: Team effectiveness related to strategic leadership model The four team effectiveness measures, Team innovation, Team market proactiveness, Team market reactiveness and Team efficiency were considered as dependent variables, controlling for industry, studying the predictive value of the respective strategic leadership dimensions both in terms of vertical and shared leadership. The causal model is displayed in Figure 9.2. Figure 9-2: Predictive model of vertical and shared leadership 126 9.4 METHOD 9.4.1 SAMPLE The sample for this study has been described in chapter eight, but requires some elaboration for this particular study. The initial sample of 158 focal managers was separated in a sample of formal team leaders and a sample of team members (excluding the formal team leader). The distinction between formal team leader and team member was reported upon administration for the survey. 6 of the 35 teams were self-managing teams, without a formal team leader. These teams were excluded from the sample (for this last study). Hence the sample for this study consisted of 139 focal managers from 29 teams, where the 139 focal managers were rated by 443 colleagues (superiors, peers and subordinates). The sample of 139 focal managers was separated in two parts, resulting in 29 formal team leaders and 110 team members. In other words, the sample consisted out of 29 teams, consisting out of formal team leader and out of a set of team members (with an average of 3.79 team member per team). The formal team leaders were considered in order to measure vertical leadership and the team members to measure shared leadership per team. The typical profile of the formal team leader was male (76%), 48.5 years old (average age of subsample), Dutch (79% ZLWKD0DVWHU¶VGHJUHH %), functioning in current position between 1 to 3 years (48%). The typical profile of a team member was male (57%), 41 years old (average age of this subsample), Dutch (68%  ZLWK D 0DVWHU¶V GHJUHH (56%). MEASURES Vertical leadership Vertical leadership was measured on the basis of the strategic leadership dimensions described in earlier chapters. These scores were calculated by averaging the scores of different raters, resulting in individual scores for the formal team leaders on all four strategic leadership. Hence, there were 29 vertical leadership scores for four strategic leadership dimensions. Shared leadership Shared leadership was measured by means of the amplitude of strategic leadership within a team. First of all the individual scores of the team members were calculated in a similar way as has been done for the formal team leaders. These scores were based on the scores given by the different raters per individual. Next, the individual scores of the team members were averaged across the teams, resulting 127 in 29 shared leadership scores for the four strategic leadership dimensions. In this measure the team leader was excluded, in order to identify the discrepant influence of leadership behavior by team members (versus the influence of the formal team leader). In order to make sure that the shared leadership scores were not dominated by a single team member, the standard deviation on the four strategic leadership dimensions were checked in terms of their correlation with the team effectiveness scores. In case of no strong correlations, one could conclude that the shared leadership measure captured a collective effort Team effectiveness In this study four team effectiveness measures were considered, in line with the strategic leadership model: i.e. Team innovation as an effectiveness score for Organizational creativity, Team efficiency for Operational efficiency, Market responsive orientation for Client centricity and Market proactive orientation for Business development. These four measurements were based on previously validated measures of these constructs, i.e. Team innovation (De Dreu, 2002), Team efficiency (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001), Responsive and Proactive market orientation (Narver et al., 2004). In order to have equal measurements and to keep the survey manageable (including all leadership items, intermediary variables and the individual outcome score of job satisfaction) three items were kept for each dimension. All items were answered by the formal team leader and all team members, resulting in an average team score for the four Team effectiveness measures. Items were scored on a 5-point scales (1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). ([HPSODU\LWHPVZHUHDVIROORZV³2XUWHDPRIWHQ LPSOHPHQWVQHZLGHDVWRLPSURYHWKHTXDOLW\RIRXUSURGXFWVDQGVHUYLFHV´ 7HDPLQQRYDWLRQ ³2XU team works in a team-efficient ZD\´ 7HDP HIILFLHQF\ ³2XUWHDP FRQVWDQWO\PRQLWRUVRXUOHYHO RI FRPPLWPHQW DQG RULHQWDWLRQ WR VHUYLQJ FXVWRPHU QHHGV´ 7HDP 5HVSRQVLYH PDUNHW RULHQWDWLRQ  DQG ³2XU WHDP KHOSV FXVWRPHU DQWLFLSDWH GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKHLU PDUNHWV´ 7HDP SURDFWLYH PDUNHW orientation). 9.5 RESULTS 9.5.1 CONFIRMATORY ANALYSES AND INTRACLASS CORRELATIONS A confirmatory analysis was conducted on the sample in order to confirm the factor structure of the strategic leadership dimensions that has been found and confirmed in the previous studies. Controlling for the fact that some focal managers were rated by more than one colleague, the confirmatory analysis resulted in X2 = 441.361, df = 164, p<.01, CFI = .914, TLI = .900, AIC = 22728.126, SRMR = .049, RMSEA = .062. Table 9.3 shows the interreliability scores as well as the interrater agreement scores to check whether aggregation is allowed. 128 Table 9-3: ICC’s and interrater agreement scores for leadership dimensions Table 9.3 shows acceptable intraclass correlations I (ICC(I) and interrater agreement scores for most of the dimensions. ICC(2) scores were around .60 or higher. Two scores were very close to .60, and given that previous studies have accepted lower values as sufficient for aggregation (de Hoogh et al., 2004; Simsek et al., 2010) these scores were also considered acceptable. The team effectiveness measures were drawn from different previous studies. In order to check whether indeed 4 different factors were present in the data set, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the four team effectiveness scores resulted in the following statistics X2 = 90.423, df=48, p<.01, CFI = .922, TLI =.893, AIC = 4055.031, SRMR = .074 and RMSEA=.077 Before averaging the self-scores for each team, intraclass correlations and interrater agreement (James, 1982) were tested for all team measures, i.e. the four team effectiveness measures (see Table 9.4). Table 9-4: ICC’s and interrater agreement scores for team effectiveness measures All scores justified aggregation from individual scores to team scores, showing high interrater agreement and interrater reliability. Table 9.5 shows the descriptive statistics, the internal reliability and the intercorrelations and Cronbach alphas of the team measures. 129 Table 9-5: Correlation matrix shared, vertical leadership and team outcomes Table 9.5 shows the following correlations: In terms of vertical leadership: ƒ Organizational creativity was significantly correlated with Business development (ȡ=.67, p<.01) and Client centricity (ȡ=.62, p<.01). ƒ Business development was significantly correlated with Client centricity (ȡ=.48, p<.01). ƒ Client centricity was highly significantly correlated with Operational efficiency (ȡ=.61, p<.01). In terms of shared leadership: ƒ Organizational creativity was significantly correlated with Business development (ȡ=.41, p<.05), Client centricity (ȡ=.37, p<.05), and mostly correlated with Operational efficiency (ȡ=.51, p<.01). ƒ Business development was significantly correlated with Client centricity (ȡ=.63, p<.01). ƒ Client centricity was significantly correlated with Operational efficiency (ȡ=.64, p<.01). In terms of team effectiveness: ƒ Team innovation was highly correlated with Team market proactiveness (ȡ=.68, p<.0). ƒ Team efficiency was highly correlated with Team market responsiveness (ȡ=.46, p<.05). All measurements were FRQVLGHUHGLQWHUQDOO\UHOLDEOH &URQEDFKDOSKD¶V! The correlation matrix showed that shared and vertical strategic leadership were largely unrelated. It remains interesting to study their respective value in explaining team outcomes, i.e. the impact of the formal team leader (vertical leadership) and the impact of shared leadership (excluding the hierarchical team leader) on the four team effectiveness scores. For each team the standard deviation was calculated on the four strategic leadership dimensions and were correlated with the team effectiveness scores. None of these scores turned out to have a significant influence on team effectiveness. Hence, one may conclude that the shared leadership measures does capture a collective effort. Before studying their relative added 130 value, team effectiveness measures were regressed separately on vertical and shared strategic leadership. Industry was included as a control variable and was entered in Step 1 of all regression models. Different industries differ in their focus on effectiveness criteria. In other words, some industry focus more on innovation than others, while for other industries efficiency may be a more prominent effectiveness criteria. Step 2 included the regressions of the four team effectiveness measures on the vertical strategic leadership behaviors (Step 2a) and on the shared strategic leadership behaviors (Step 2b) (after controlling for industry). The results are found in Table 9.6. 131 Table 9-6: Multiple regression analysis of vertical and shared leadership 132 Table 9.6 shows the respective ǻR2 statistics for the four team outcomes, of both the vertical strategic leadership dimensions and the shared strategic leadership dimensions. When controlling for the impact of industry, the multiple regression analyses show that shared Business development (ȕ=.43, p<.05) was a significant predictor for Market proactiveness, explaining 16% (above the variance explained by industry). Equally the regression results showed that shared Client centricity was a significant predictor for Market responsiveness (ȕ=.32, p<.10), explaining 11% of variance, pectively. Shared leadership was no significant predictor for either Innovation of Efficiency. Vertical leadership was no significant predictor for any of the four effectiveness scores considered in this study. An important component of this research was determining the relative usefulness of vertical and shared strategic leadership in predicting team effectiveness. To do so, hierarchical regression models were specified, in which the order of entry for vertical and shared leadership was manipulated and examined for each of the dependent variables (Efficiency, Innovation, Market proactiveness, Market responsiveness). The appropriate test statistics for this comparison were the ǻR2 statistics found in Step 3, when comparing the upper and lower table (Table 9-7). In case the ǻR2 in Step 3 was larger for the upper table, shared leadership was a more significant predictor than vertical leadership. If the ǻR2 was larger in the lower table (for Step 3), than vertical leadership was a more important predictor (than shared leadership) for that the respective team outcome. 133 Table 9-7: Hierarchical regression analysis vertical and shared leadership 134 From Table 9.7, it can be drawn that shared leadership is a more relevant predictor (i.e. of the predictors considered here) for Team market proactiveness (explaining 23%), Team market responsiveness (explaining 11%) and Team efficiency (explaining 4%). Vertical leadership is a more relevant predictor for Team innovation (explaining 4%). 9.6 DISCUSSION In this study, shared leadership and vertical leadership were largely unrelated, despite the claim that vertical team leaders may promote (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Diaz-Saenz, 2011) or limit shared leadership. Comparing shared leadership with vertical leadership showed that shared leadership was a more important predictor for team effectiveness than vertical leadership. In particular, shared leadership was a significant predictor for the Environment-oriented Team effectiveness measures, Market proactiveness and Market responsiveness. These findings are in line with the argumentation of Pearce and Conger (2003a) who argue that organizations increasingly use teams as a predominant strategy when faced with environments characterized by complexity and ambiguity. Hence teams where externally oriented leadership behaviors are shared are more effective in terms of proactive and responsive market orientation. The internally-oriented team effectiveness measures, Team efficiency and Team innovation, turned out to be unrelated to leadership (shared and vertical). At least the regression did not show any significant values for these two team effectiveness measures. Even though a very dated study has shown that if the dependent variable is team efficiency, the summation of individual proficiency allows relative poor prediction (Wiest et al., 1961), also team efficiency cannot be related by means of one-to-one relationship with leadership performed by the team leader. One may argue that team efficiency may be more prone for distributed leadership, i.e. specific division of functional roles DFURVV WHDP PHPEHUV ³7he collective effect of individual actions can only be understood by examining the structure ± or combination ± of roles within a team (Schneider et al., 2000)´(Stewart et al., 2005, p.345). The notion of a collective role structure has been pursued by researchers examining the prevalence and dispersion of roles within teams (Belbin, 1993; Partington & Harris, 1999; Senior, 1997). Bales and Slater (1955) hypothesized that in group interaction, a process of role differentiation takes place along task and people-oriented diPHQVLRQV7KH\IRXQGWKDWDWWKHHQGRIWKHJURXS¶VILUVW meeting, there is a 50% chance that the task-oriented leader will be the most liked. This reduces to 25% at the end of the second meeting, about 16% by the third, and even less by the fourth meeting. 135 The proposal that team creativity is influenced by individual creativity seems uncontroversial. However, an important question that is far less clear is whether team creativity is completely determined by individual creativity. That is, is team creativLW\WKHVDPHWKLQJDVWKHWRWDORIWKHWHDP¶V PHPEHU¶V FUHDWLYLW\" The results showed that team innovation is unrelated to leadership. TDJJDU¶V (2002) findings that team creativity-relevant processes accounted for additional variance in team creativity beyond the variance already accounted for by individual creativity suggests that group creativity is not completely determined by individual creativity; rather, group creativity might emerge synergistically when members interact in certain ways. This evidence suggests that individual creativity can provide the raw material of novel and useful ideas, but that team member interactions and team processes play an important role in determining how this raw material is developed into group-level creativity. It could be for instance that instead of the averaging function (group creativity being accounted for by average individual creativity), it could be that a weighted averaging function (where certain individuDOV¶ FUHDWLYH FRQWULEXWLRQV Dre PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ RWKHUV¶  ZRXOG EH PRUH appropriate. It is critical to consider the context within which shared leadership is enacted. Specifically, this includes elements in the organization and the external environment that can both foster and hinder the general capacity for shared leadership to emerge. For example, availability of resources and professionalism of members of the organization (Mumford et al., 2008) can directly impact whether a team needs, or is able, to selectively distribute elements of the leadership role among multiple individuals. The development of more sophisticated multivariate models that document the causal chain from the antecedents of shared leadership to its consequences on team leadership and effectiveness represents an emerging preoccupation within this stream of research. For instance, the work by Burke et al. (2003) and Solansky (2008) paid attention to the sociocognitive processes involved in the development and consequences of shared leadership. In their review of work on shared cognition and shared leadership, Burke et al. (2003) examined the cognitive implications of transferring leadership functions among team members. They developed a model of the knowledge structure of the team as a predictor of shared leadership and team adaptability. Their model suggested that shared mental models among team members favor the coordination of their action. A series of attitudinal variables related to collective self-efficacy, collective orientation, and open climate act in synergy with the cognitive variables to support shared leadership in the team. The research by Solansky (2008) consisted of a laboratory study of 20 work teams during a 16-week period where teams compete with each other in various activities. Team participants were surveyed to 136 assess the difference in collective efficacy, relational conflict, and transactive memory system between teams with shared leadership and teams with single (i.e. non-shared) leadership. Empirical results indicated that teams with shared leadership had higher motivational and cognitive advantages than teams with non-shared leadership. These studies reveal the importance of cognitive processes in supporting and sustaining shared leadership. 137 138 CONCLUSION 139 140 10 WRAPPING UP AND LOOKING FORWARD 10.1 WRAPPING UP The notion of strategic leadership, as conceptualized, operationalized, validated and applied in this dissertation, provides an answer to the gap between the historical-social context of the 21st century and the contemporary leadership research context (chapter 1). This chapter summarizes the research findings, describes theoretical and practical implications and identifies areas for further research. HISTORICAL-SOCIAL CONTEXT The historical-social context of the 21st century is characterized by organizations that organize themselves more and more horizontally (across organizational boundaries) (Bamford et al., 2003), no longer merely depending on their traditional vertical organizational structure (Czajkiewicz et al., 2008; Lewin & Stephens, 1993; Schein, 1996). Likewise, there has been an apparent trend of increasing complex and competitive organizational landscapes. Knowledge has become the primary organizational asset (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). In this Knowledge era, most organizations rely on their social assets rather than on their physical assets (McKelvey, 2001; Zohar, 1997). Traditional departments are replaced by highly autonomous teams, organized around clients or services. Decisions are pushed downward to where relevant knowledge and information reside. Whereas, in a typical bureaucracy, bigger is better, the current context shows organizations in terms of smaller units (Czajkiewicz et al., 2008), which are thought to be more responsive to market requirements and better able to adapt rapidly to external changes. Organizational vitality and survival can no longer depend on internal steering of the organization, optimizing the production and physical flow of products as used to be the common way in the Industrial era (Boisot, 1998; Schneider, 2002). More and more, organizational functioning is (equally) defined by the interaction of these organizations with their respective environments (Hitt et al., 2007). Hence, while traditional thinking perceived organizations as closed systems with a solid hierarchical structure (Wheatley, 2006), contemporary trends show both a horizontal and outward move. The leadership literature should follow suit. 141 RESEARCH CONTEXT The research context of the leadership literature, however is still dominated by a tripod ontology (Bennis, 2007) including 1) the leader, 2) followers and 3) goals. Organizational context is hardly included in the conceptualizations of leadership (Podolny et al., 2005). The focus is on the leaderfollower dyad, characterized by a vertical relationship and an internal (within the boundaries of the organization) orientation. In other words, most research efforts are spent on studies of supervisory (between supervisor and subordinate) leadership. In order to anticipate the horizontal and outward move characterizing the 21st century organization, an alternative leadership answer is warranted. The focus of leadership research needed to move beyond the leader-follower dyad, linking external organizational objectives to leadership of organizational members. In the strategic management literature this concept has been termed strategic leadership (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996). Despite early enthusiasm, the concept has remained largely untheorized. The primary conceptualization of strategic leadership has been in terms of the UHODWLRQVKLS RI LQQDWH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI &(2¶V DQGRU 7RS 0DQDJHPHQW 7HDP PHPEHUV ZLWK organizational outcomes. Hitherto, the potential for further application to other organizational levels and the value of the concept for organizational and team development has been neglected. This dissertation has contributed to both theory and practice by giving further content to the concept of strategic leadership. In summary, this dissertation contained the conceptualization of a strategic leadership model (chapter five), the operationalization (chapter six) and validation (chapter seven) of this model, and two applications of the model in terms of effectiveness (chapters eight and nine). BUILDING A NEW STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MODEL This dissertation built a conceptual model for strategic leadership on the basis of two paradoxes, i.e. the paradox drawn from the strategy literature between the (internal) organization and the (external) environment and the paradox between exploration and exploitation underlying the strategic leadership literature. Most if not all references to strategic leadership literature revolve around the tension between long-term viability of the organization which is dependent on exploring fundamentally new competencies, and short-term financial stability, which in turn is based on the exploitation of current organizational capabilities (chapter five and pilot study in Appendix II). In turn, this dissertation presented a strategic leadership model composed of four dimensions, Organization - Exploitation (Operational efficiency), Organization - Exploration (Organizational creativity), Environment Exploration (Business development) and Environment - Exploitation (Client centricity) (see Figure 10.1). 142 Figure 10-1: Strategic leadership model On the basis of a literature review, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted resulting in four distinct and internally reliable factors. A confirmatory factor analysis with a different sample confirmed the factor structure and the reliability of the four scales. To find out whether the model was distinct from previous well-established measures, a discriminant analysis was conducted. This analysis showed that the strategic leadership dimensions, as conceptualized in this dissertation were distinct from the sub-dimensions of transformational leadership. The latter was selected as a measure of supervisory leadership, as it is the most commonly used measure that accounts for leadership at the leader-follower dyad level (Pearce et al., 2003). Only the Organization-Exploration dimension, Organizational creativity (a sub-dimension of strategic leadership) was related to the Intellectual stimulation of subordinates (a sub-dimension of transformational leadership). This finding was in line with previous studies (Jung, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). that showed that creativity can be triggered directly, i.e. by means of intellectually stimulating subordinates, and indirectly, by creating an organizational climate which is conducive to creativity. POSITIONING THE STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MODEL The conceptual and operational elaboration of strategic leadership was intended to emphasize its relative and potential complementary value to the mainstream supervisory leadership concept. Both leadership concepts play a role at different levels of analysis in the theoretical leadership debate 143 (chapter two). Basically the lowest level of analysis is the single leader, the next level of analysis is the leader-follower dyad and the level higher is leadership of the organizational system (Klein et al., 2000). Whereas supervisory leadership is considered at the second-mentioned level of analysis aimed at increasing subordinate motivation, strategic leadership functions at the third-mentioned level, dealing with organizational functioning, determined by the interaction of the organization with its environment. 7KHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHWZRKDVDOVREHHQODEHOHG³OHDGHUVKLSLQRUJDQL]DWLRQV´DQG ³OHDGHUVKLSRIRUJDQL]DWLRQV´(Dubin, 1979). STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AT DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS These two concepts have been introduced as the privilege of a specific organizational level in the organizational hierarchy (chapter two). Strategic leadership was supposed to be displayed at higher organizational levels (Elenkov et al., 2005; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Sosik et al., 2005), whereas lower organizational levels would be largely involved with motivating their subordinates (House & Aditya, 1997). Yet, this clear delineation of leadership along the organizational hierarchy seems no longer warranted (chapter two). It is increasingly acknowledged that motivation plays a distinctive role at all organizational levels (Zaccaro, 2001). And given the increasingly challenging environment in which organizations are operating, performing strategic leadership has become a requirement for organizational members at all organizational levels (Hitt & Ireland, 2002). This dissertation showed (chapter seven) that there was no significant difference per organizational level in the manifestation of transformational leadership (except for vision, which supported the continuity perspective (De Meuse et al., 2011), where top-level managers score highest and lowerlevel managers score lowest). As for strategic leadership, a distinct pattern was deduced (see Figure 10.2). By large the continuity perspective was applicable on the manifestation of both strategic and supervisory leadership. Top-level managers scored highest on all leadership dimensions. For the two Exploitation-oriented dimensions a discontinuous (De Meuse et al., 2011) pattern was found. Middle managers scored lower on Operational efficiency and Client centricity than their lower-level counterparts. 144 Figure 10-2: Impact of organizational level on leadership behavior This may be due to a changing role of middle managers (McCann et al., 2004), where they are no longer controlling their subordinates or actively involved in client management, but function as coaches for their subordinates, while unleashing their potential (Denham et al., 1997). In the past, when a company needed to grow, management simply added workers to the bottom and then filled in management layers above, to control lower levels (Nealey & Fiedler, 1968). The wave of reengineering from the 1980s (Holden & Roberts, 2004) onwards however aimed at rethinking the division of work and reRUJDQL]LQJDURXQG³KRUL]RQWDO´Srocesses has changed this. Due to this trend, middle managers seem to have be stuck in the tension between their strategic and supervisory leadership role. STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS The conceptual difference between strategic and supervisory leadership was drawn in terms of level of analysis. This also had implications for the potential effectiveness measures of the respective behaviors (Judge et al., 2004; Kor, 2006). Given the focus of the external environment in the concept of strategic leadership, the effectiveness measure should also account for environment-oriented measures. Moreover, the move to a higher level of analysis provided fertile ground to consider alternative sources of leadership. Both transformational and strategic leadership behaviors have been related to subordiQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ (chapter eight). Mainstream leadership scholars most consistently agree upon that leaders are supposed to motivate subordinates to accomplish organizational goals (Barker, 2001). Next to this outcome, the measure of strategic leadership has also been related to team effectiveness (chapter nine), as the concept goes beyond leader-follower interaction and accounts for the interaction of the organization with its environment. The results showed that if the aim is WRLQFUHDVHVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIaction, top-level managers should perform 145 Visionary and Operational efficiency behaviors, middle managers should refrain from Supportive leadership behaviors and lower-level managers should perform Intellectual stimulation, Organizational creativity and Business development behaviors. THE POTENTIAL OF SHARED STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP The primary question in the last application study was the extent to which leadership could be shared amongst team members. Besides the trend towards more horizontal and externally oriented organizations, there has also been a trend to look beyond the individual leader as a source of leadership (Nonaka & Nishiguchi, 2001; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Pearce & Conger, 2003a), where leadership is not necessarily be tied to a particular individual in authority position (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). Shared leadership is a recent concept which provides leeway for the increased burden on the shoulders of individual single leaders. In this dissertation, strategic leadership is analyzed in terms of strategic leadership effectuated by the team leader, which has been called vertical strategic leadership and strategic leadership effectuated by the team members as a collective effort, called shared strategic leadership. The most important finding was that shared leadership was an important predictor for the environment-oriented team effectiveness measures. These results showed that a conscious strategy of sharing the strategic leadership functions of Business development and Client centricity is likely to enhance team effectiveness in terms of its external orientation. Hence, the notion of shared strategic leadership suits the societal trend, where the interaction between the organization and the environment, becomes more and more crucial for organizational performance. 10.2 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS This dissertation bears multiple theoretical contributions. First of all, it has developed a conceptual model for strategic leadership. This model has been operationalized and proved to be stable across samples in terms of exploratory and confirmatory analyses and distinctive from transformational leadership (selected as an appropriate measure of supervisory leadership). The strategic leadership model holds primary value as it links strategy and leadership (Montgomery, 2008) and is distinct from the mainstream supervisory leadership concept. Strategic leadership goes beyond disciplinary and theoretical boundaries. No longer fixating on the internal leader-follower dyad (Yukl, 1999b), but opening up the leadership perspective, including the interaction of the organization with its environment. Moreover, this dissertation shows that leadership concept holds 146 promising value when considering the team as a source of leadership and that shared leadership has an impact on environment-oriented team effectiveness. The latter finding is especially interesting in the light of the societal trends, where organizations need to tailor their leadership endeavours much more to what happens outside of the organization. Moreover, this model has proven to be useful in providing insight on the leadership behaviors manifested across organizational levels (De Meuse et al., 2011). Transformational leadership is displayed at all organizational levels. As for strategic leadership, top-level managers are most prominent in these behaviors, which is in line with the argument that strategic leadership is the privilege of top-level managers. Following the same line of reasoning, middle managers are more prominent than lower-level managers in exploration-oriented strategic leadership behaviors, Business development and Organizational creativity. This was however not the case for the exploitationoriented strategic leadership behaviors, Operational efficiency and Client centricity. Middle managers were least prominent in the display of the latter behaviors (when compared to top-level and lowerlevel managers). Next to adding descriptive insights on the concept and distinctiveness of strategic leadership, this dissertation also provided prescriptive value in terms of showing which leadership behaviors are most effective at different organizational levels (LQ WHUPV RI VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE satisfaction). The findings from the first application study showed that different behaviors were considered less or more desirable ZKHQ FRQVLGHULQJ VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ. MiGGOH PDQDJHUV¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZDs significantly related to the Visionary and Operational efficiency behaviors of their respective supervisors. Surprisingly, lower-level PDQDJHUV¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQZDVXQUHODWHGWRWKHOHDGHUVKLSEHKDYLRUVRUWKHLU respective supervisors, which may be due to the role stress of middle managers, required to fulfil both a strategic and supervisory leadership role. Non-PDQDJHUHPSOR\HHV¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQZDs significantly related to the Intellectual stimulation, Organizational creativity and Business development behaviors of their respective supervisor. The second application study showed that shared strategic leadership was significant in predicting environment-oriented team effectiveness. Vertical strategic leadership was unrelated to team effectiveness. In general, shared strategic leadership was a more important predictor for team effectiveness than vertical strategic leadership. 147 10.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS There are several important practical implications from this research. The promising results with regard to shared leadership emphasize the importance of making it an important aspect of team functioning (Day et al., 2004a; Day et al., 2004b). This can be encouraged by means of leadership development and teamwork training programs. The conceptual strategic leadership model can be taken as framework for the design of such a leadership development/teamwork training program. As managers and their bosses generate the statement of performance expectations for the next time period, they can examine what skills and competencies need to be developed, focusing on one of the four strategic leadership dimensions which have been identified as requiring additional attention. Team managers could actively seek to build autonomy and experimentation capabilities (through encouragement or specialized team training) to explore new ideas and product solutions (Organizational creativity) while, in a different time span, shift focus on disciplined project management procedures to exploit current knowledge (Operational efficiency). The strategic leadership measurement instrument can be used to measure the effectiveness of development programs or other type of interventions (Collins & Holton, 2004). Annual budgets for leadership development will continue to groZ WKURXJKRXW WKH QH[W GHFDGH DV FRPSDQLHV ³UHFRJQL]H WKH VKRUWDJH RI WDOHQWHG PDQDJHUV WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI GHYHORSLQJ µEHQFK VWUHQJWK¶ DQG WKH QHHG WR ZLGHQSHUVSHFWLYHVLQRUGHUWRFRPSHWHJOREDOO\´(Gibler et al., 2000, p.xii). Even though leadership development interventions are pervasive, research indicates that organizations are spending little time evaluating the effectiveness of their interventions and, more specifically, evaluating whether those programs improve the organi]DWLRQ¶V SHUIRUPDQFH (Collins & Holton, 2004). That leadership development efforts will result in improved leadership skills appears to be taken for granted by many corporations, professional management associations, and consultants. Some programs or structural changes may improve more than one effectiveness determinant (Day, 2000). For example, a welldesigned incentive system may improve reliability (Operational efficiency), innovation (Organizational creativity), and client satisfaction (Client centricity) simultaneously. The strategic leadership model ensures that all four strategic leadership dimensions are considered and that deliberate choices are made. The measurement instrument can effectively guide the implementation of the strategic choices, by monitoring individual, team and organizational profiles over time (Miller & Friesen, 2007). 148 The strategic leadership measurement may not only provide leeway for developing those organizational members already on board. But likewise, the measurement instrument can be used to recruit new members to the team. By profiling both the existing team and the new potential member, one may identify where the person may fit within the team. Deciding whom to put on a team is one of the biggest challenges facing a manager or team leader (Reagans et al., 2004). Building on the research of Clifton and Nelson (1992), Buckingham and Clifton (2001) asserted that organizational effectiveness requires managers to change their team effectiveness strategy. Rather than balancing a team with similarities, they maintained that excellence can only be achieved by building on HPSOR\HHV¶ VWUHQJWKV DQG PDQDJLQJ WKHLU ZHDNQHVVHV Unfortunately, many teams are formed by selecting people with similar competencies and personalities (temperaments) as way of minimizing conflict (Humphrey et al., 2009). When teams are formed around similarities, they have a greater potential for ³JURXSWKLQN´ZKLFKH[LVWVZKHQDFRKHVLYHJURXS¶VGHVLUHIRUDJUHHPHQWLQWHUIHUHVZLWK WKHJURXS¶VFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIDlternative solutions (Janis & Mann, 1977). Complementary fit suggests that people fit when they fill an unmet need (Edwards et al., 2006; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987)7KDWLVWKHSHUVRQ³ILWV´WKHWHDPQRWEHFDXVHKHRUVKHLVWKHVDPHDV HYHU\RQHHOVHEXWUDWKHUEHFDXVHKHRUVKHEULQJVVRPHWKLQJXQLTXHWRWKHFROOHFWLYHWKDW³PDNHVLW ZKROH´ (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p.271). Because team performance is a function of the effective execution of a set of interdependent roles (Belbin, 1993), a team that lacks an individual with specific skills or traits necessary has an unmet need (Biddle, 1979)%\DGGLQJDSHUVRQZKR³ILWV´WKH team may become more effective (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987),WVKRXOGEHVWUHVVHGWKRXJK³7KH effects of a valid selection procedure can be nullified by any lack of cooperation within groups and by ERWWOHQHFNVVKLUNLQJDQGVRFLDOORDILQJ´(Schneider et al., 2000, p.99). The acknowledgement of the value of diversity should be well incorporated and expressed in company culture. Lastly, on an individual basis, the 360-degree feedback method shows to be a powerful tool for personal development (Thach, 2002). As such, the strategic leadership model can be used as the basis for examining the transition from one managerial level to the next. Research has shown that one cause of derailment by managers who had previously been considered successful is their continued use of behaviors that were appropriate at the lower level but which may no longer be appropriate at the level to which they were promoted (Kaplan & Kaiser, 2003)3URYLGLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ RQKRZDPDQDJHU¶V current position differs from the previous position is particularly important because this information can better equip managers to make the transition from one position to the next and help them to identify which new behaviors must be learned, as well as which old behaviors may need to be 149 unlearned (Faerman & Peters, 1991). Moreover, by increasing the understanding of similarities and differences, higher-level managers will be less inclined to have performance expectations of their subordinates based on judgments regarding how managers at their own level of the hierarchy should be performing (DeChurch et al., 2010). 10.4 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This dissertation holds promising value, yet several limitations can be identified which open up the opportunity for additional studies. First of all, other researchers are encouraged to validate and retest the strategic leadership model as conceptualized and operationalized in this dissertation. The availability of a valid and reliable instruments allows for testing in different samples and across different industries. But also in terms of test-retesting. How stable are the behaviors across individuals and teams? Moreover, the findings concerning middle managers require further attention. The societal trends of delayering and horizontal organizations, put a stress on the role of middle managers. Many firms have reduced the number of managerial layers (Littler et al., 2003; Powell, 2002). Especially the normative claim that these managers need to play both a strategic and supervisory leadership role may lead to particular role stress. There is relatively little attention in the leadership literature for the changing role of middle managers. The findings of this research unveil that middle managers should be treated as a distinct category. The strategic leadership concept seems useful to this extent, but should be extended further with a larger sample of middle managers. The sample size for measuring the impact of shared and vertical leadership on team effectiveness was small (even though hundreds of individuals filled in the measurement instrument ± the aggregations led to a sample size of N=30). Additional data at the team level would facilitate the specification of more complex causal models. Thus, future research would do well to collect larger data sets (including more teams). The findings of this research strongly support an important role for shared leadership in explaining team effectiveness. Given the increasing importance of teams in contemporary organizations, further research is definitely required, to demonstrate the value the alternative source of leadership in alternate organizational contexts. 150 Moreover, on the basis of the results from this dissertation, it seems very promising to study shared leadership at different organizational levels. Given the differences in leadership dimensions displayed at different organizational levels, there is a lot of potential to elaborate the notion of shared strategic leadership across organizational levels. The sample of this study did not allow for the study of shared leadership at multiple organization levels, yet we strongly invite other researchers to study shared leadership in groups while mixing senior executives and middle managers. A debate published in 2007 in Leadership Quarterly between Pearce and Conger, on the one side, and Locke, on the other side, confirms that this stream of work still struggles between an expanded and a confined representation of shared leadership. Shared leadership could be however more or less redistributed within the organizational hierarchy. In addition to understanding the shared leadership construct, understanding its correlates is equally important. Situational and contextual factors seem likely to affect the importance of shared leadership in the explanation of team effectiveness (Pearce & Sims, 2000). Building on the findings of Littlepage et al. (1997), one may speculate that shared leadership is likely to be more potent in mature teams in which leadership skills of team members have had an opportunity to develop and the members understand and DUH EHWWHU DEOH WR WDNH DGYDQWDJH RI HDFK RWKHU¶V VNLOOV According to Avolio, Jung, Murry and Sivarsubramaniam (1996) as teams reach higher stages of development they exhibit a greater tendency to share leadership responsibilities. Katz (1982), in contrast, found a nonlinear relationship between team tenure and performance in the research and development teams he studied. He explained that groups go through different stages: socialization, innovation, and stability. He expected young teams to perform poorly because of poor socialization, but he also argued that teams that have spent a long time together become committed to the status quo, experience selective perception, and increasingly rely on the group's own expertise. He concluded that long-tenured groups would eventually become less adaptive and innovative. It would be interesting to explore whether team tenure is an antecedent for shared leadership. Likewise, Katz and Kahn (1978) pointed out that leadership enacted in a social system is informed by both norms (which prescribe and sanction behaviors) and values (which are the ideological justifications for roles). Shared leadership enactment may be better understood by examining the norms and values in which shared leadership is embedded. Two normative/value dimensions thought to be related to shared leadership are the cultural dimensions individualism/collectivism and power distance (Hofstede, 1984). These dimensions may be considered in further research endeavors. 151 While the potential impact of vertical leaders on shared leadership has been considered previously (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Diaz-Saenz, 2011), no attention has been paid to the influence of shared leadership on the role and practices of formally appointed leaders. Moreover, the conceptual and methodological traditions of this research stream is largely embedded within the broader tradition of leadership research that emphasizes almost exclusively variance models and quantitative methods (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). A more qualitative-oriented analysis, examining in finer detail the nature of shared leadership (Mehra et al., 2006) in organizations and the processes associated with its emergence and development, requires further research. In short, this dissertation has introduced a new strategic leadership model, stretching the traditional leadership ontology by means of including an external orientation and allowing for a more horizontal (shared) leadership answer. A model which fits the contemporary challenges, which has been validated and has shown its theoretical and practical value. The research findings enhance further endeavors on the identified research avenues, with the aim to publish the results in articles and ultimately to further the debate on strategic leadership in theory and in practice together with other leadership researchers and practitioners. 152 REFERENCES Adams, J. S. 1963. Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5): 422-436. Adamy, J. 2007. Starbucks Chairman Says Trouble May Be Brewing. The Wall Street Journal, February 24th. Aguilar, F. J. 1967. Scanning the business environment. New York, NY: Macmillan. Aldrich, H. 1971. Organizational boundaries and inter-organizational conflict. Human Relations, 24(4): 279293. Aldrich, H. 2007. Organizations and environments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. 2001. The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(1): 1-27. Alvarez, J. & Svejenova, S. 2005. Sharing executive power: roles and relationships at the top. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Alvesson, M. 1995. Management of knowledge-intensive companies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Alvesson, M. 2004. Knowledge work and knowledge-intensive firms. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press. Alvesson, M. & Thompson, P. 2004. Post-bureaucracy? In S. Ackroyd & R. Batt & P. Thompson & P. Tolbert (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization: 485-507. Oxford: Ozford University Press. Amabile, T. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T., Hadley, C., & Kramer, S. 2002. Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80: 52-63. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1154-1184. American Educational Research Association, A. P. A. 1985. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance. In J. Levine & R. Moreland (Eds.), Small Groups, Vol. 13: 499-513. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 334-365. Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Rust, R. T. 1997. Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: Differences between goods and services. Marketing Science, 16(2): 129-145. Anderson, R., Black, W., Hair, J., & Tatham, R. 1995. Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Andrews, K. 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategy Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin. Ansoff, H. 1965. Corporate Strategy New York, NY: Mc-Graw Hill Company. 153 Antonakis, J. & Atwater, L. 2002. Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 673-704. Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A., & Sternberg, R. 2004. The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Arnone, M. & Stumpf, S. A. 2010. Shared leadership: from rivals to co-CEOs. Strategy & Leadership, 38(2): 15-21. Arora, A. & Gambardella, A. 1994. Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 24(1): 91-114. Ashby, W. 1952. Design for a Brain. London: Chapman and Hall. Atuahene-Gima, K. 2005. Resolving the Capability²Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4): 61-83. Aun, M. A., Aun, M., & Gitomer, J. 2011. It's the Customer, Stupid!: 34 Wake-up Calls to Help You Stay Client-focused. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Avolio, B., Jung, D., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and performance. In M. Beyerlein & D. Johnson & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team Leadership: 173-209. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. 1988. Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J. Hunt & B. Baliga & H. Dachler & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas: 29-59. Boston, MA: Lexington Books. Bain, J. 1968. Industrial organization. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. 2001. The innovation imperative. Small Group Research, 32(1): 5573. Bales, R. & Slater, P. 1955. Role differentiation in small decision-making groups, Family, socialization and interaction process: 259-306. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Bales, R. 1958. Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. Macoby (Ed.), Readings in social psychology: 437-447. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Balkundi, P. & Kilduff, M. 2006. The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4): 419-439. Balogun, J. & Johnson, G. 2004. Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 523-549. Bamford, J., Gomes-Casseres, B., & Robinson, M. 2003. Mastering alliance strategy: A comprehensive guide to design, management, and organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barkema, H., Baum, J., & Mannix, E. 2002. Management challenges in a new time. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5): 916-930. Barker, R. 2001. The nature of leadership. Human Relations, 54(4): 469-494. 154 Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10): 1231-1241. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. 1998. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3): 377-391. Barry, D. 1991. Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20(1): 31-47. Bartko, J. J. 1976. On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5): 762765. Bartlett, M. 1950. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 3: 77-85. Bass, B. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B., Waldman, D., Avolio, B., & Bebb, M. 1987. Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Management, 12(1): 73-87. Bass, B. 1990a. Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. 1990b. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3): 19-31. Bass, B. & Avolio, B. 1990. Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bass, B. & Avolio, B. 1993. Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions: 49-80. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bass, B. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2): 130-139. Bass, B. 1998. Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B., Avolio, B., & Atwater, L. 2008. The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology, 45(1): 5-34. Bateson, G. 1936. Naven. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bateson, J. E. G. 1985. Retailing and services marketing: friends or foes? Journal of Retailing, 61(4): 11-13. Beal, R. M. 2000. Competing effectively: environmental scanning, competitive strategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1): 27-47. Bedeian, A. & Hunt, J. 2006. Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our forefathers. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2): 190-205. Behrman, D. N. & Perreault, W. D. 1984. A role stress model of the performance and satisfaction of industrial salespersons. The Journal of Marketing, 48(4): 9-21. 155 Belasen, A. & Frank, N. 2008. Competing values leadership: quadrant roles and personality traits. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(2): 127-143. Belbin, R. 1993. Team Roles at Work. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Benner, M. & Tushman, M. 2002. Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Study of the Photography and. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 676-706. Benner, M. & Tushman, M. 2003. Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238-256. Bennett, R. C. & Cooper, R. G. 1979. Beyond the marketing concept. Business Horizons, 22(3): 76-83. Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row. Bennis, W. 1997. The secrets of great groups. Leader to Leader, 3: 29-33. Bennis, W. 2007. The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 62(1): 2-5. Berson, Y. & Linton, J. D. 2005. An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative environments. R&D Management, 35(1): 51-60. Berthon, P., Mac Hulbert, J., & Pitt, L. 2004. Innovation or customer orientation? An empirical investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10): 1065-1090. Biddle, B. J. 1979. Role theory: Concepts and research. New York, NY: John Wiley. Biggadike, E. R. 1981. The contributions of marketing to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4): 621-632. Bishop, V. & Hoel, H. 2008. The Customer is Always Right? Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(3): 341-367. Blackmore, P. & Blackwell, R. 2006. Strategic leadership in academic development. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3): 373-387. Blair, J. & Hunt, J. 1985. A Research Agenda. In J. Hunt & J. Blair (Eds.), Leadership on the Future Battlefield: 271±317. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Blanchard, K. & Hersey, P. 1982. Management of organizational behavior. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions and New Directions: 349-381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boal, K. & Hooijberg, R. 2000. Strategic leadership research Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4): 515-549. Boal, K. & Schultz, P. 2007. Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4): 411-428. Bodlaj, M. 2011. Market Orientation and Degree of Novelty. Managing Global Transitions, 9(1): 63-79. 156 Boerner, S., Linkohr, M., & Kiefer, S. Top management team diversity: positive in the short run, but negative in the long run? Team Performance Management, 17(7/8): 328-353. Boisot, M. 1998. Knowledge assets: Securing competitive assets in the information economy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bolden, R. 2011. Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13: 251-269. Bommer, W., Johnson, J., Rich, G., Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. 1995. On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48(3): 587-605. Bono, J. & Judge, T. 2003. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 554-571. Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 901-910. Boone, C., Brabander, B., & Witteloostuijn, A. 1996. Ceo Locus of Control and Small Firm Performance: an Integrative Framework and Empirical Test. Journal of Management Studies, 33(5): 667-700. Boone, C., Van Olffen, W., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. 2005. Team locus-of-control composition, leadership structure, information acquisition, and financial performance: A business simulation study. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 889-909. Borman, W. C. 1997. 360 ratings: An analysis of assumptions and a research agenda for evaluating their validity. Human Resource Management Review, 7(3): 299-315. Bowers, D. & Seashore, S. 1966. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11: 238-263. Bowling, N. A. 2007. Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination. Journal of vocational behavior, 71(2): 167-185. Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Hourihan, G., & Larsson, R. 2006. The seasoned executive's decision-making style. Harvard Business Review, 84(2): 1-10. Brown, M. & Hosking, D. 1986. Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organization in social movements. Human Relations, 39(1): 65-79. Brown, M. 1989. Organizing activity in the women's movement: an example of distributed leadership. In B. Klandermans (Ed.), International social movement research, Vol. 2: 225-240. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Brown, M. & Gioia, D. 2002. Making things click Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4): 397-419. Brown, S. P. & Peterson, R. A. 1993. Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Metaanalysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30: 63-77. Bruch, H. & Walter, F. 2007. Leadership in context: investigating hierarchical impacts on transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(8): 710-726. 157 Bryman, A. 1996. Leadership in organizations. In S. Clegg & C. Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies: 276-292. London: Sage. Bryman, A., Stephens, M., & Campo, C. 1996. The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 353-370. Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. O. 2001. Now, discover your strengths. London: Simon & Schuster. Buenger, V., Daft, R., Conlon, E., & Austin, J. 1996. Competing values in organizations: Contextual influences and structural consequences. Organization Science, 7(5): 557-576. Burgelman, R. 1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2): 223-244. Burke, C. S., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. 2003. The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and team adaptability. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership: 103-122. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. 2006. What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3): 288-307. Burns, J. 1978. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Burns, J. 1998. Transactional and transforming leadership. In G. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era: 133-134. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Burns, T. & Stalker, G. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Cameron, K. 1978. Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4): 604-632. Cameron, K. 1986. Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32: 539-553. Campbell-Hunt, C. 2000. What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2): 127-154. Capelli, P. & Sherer, P. 1991. The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: 55-110. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6): 749-778. Carroll, B. & Levy, L. 2008. Defaulting to Management: Leadership Defined By What It Is Not. Organization, 15(1): 75-96. Carroll, G. R. 1984. Organizational ecology. Annual review of sociology, 11: 71-93. Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. 2007. Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1217-1234. 158 Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. & Dewhurst, F. 2007. Linking organizational learning and customer capital through an ambidexterity context: an empirical investigation in SMEs. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10): 1720-1735. Chakravarthy, B. 1982. Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7(1): 35-44. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 234-246. Chandler, A. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chandler, A. 1977. The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. 2001. The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership-powered company. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chesbrough, H. & Rosenbloom, R. 2002. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3): 529-555. Child, J. 1972. Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice. Sociology, 6(1): 1-22. Child, J. & McGrath, R. 2001. Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1135-1148. Chiok Foong Loke, J. 2001. Leadership behaviours: effects on job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment. Journal of nursing management, 9(4): 191-204. Christensen, C. M. & Bower, J. L. 1996. Customer Power, Strategic Investment, and the Failure of Leading Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 197-218. Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Ciulla, J. B. 1999. The importance of leadership in shaping business values. Long Range Planning, 32(2): 166172. Clifton, D. O. & Nelson, P. 1992. Soar with your strengths. New York, NY: Delacorte Press. Cohen, S. & Bailey, D. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3): 239-290. Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: a New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152. Colgate, M. R. & Danaher, P. J. 2000. Implementing a customer relationship strategy: the asymmetric impact of poor versus excellent execution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3): 375-387. 159 Collins, D. B. & Holton, E. F. 2004. The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human resource development quarterly, 15(2): 217-248. Collinson, D. 2006. Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2): 179-189. Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. 1988. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crabtree, B. F. & Miller, W. L. 1999. Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Cronbach, L. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3): 297-334. Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. 1999. An Organisational Framework: From Intuition to Institution. Academy of Management review, 24(3): 522-537. Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. 2008. Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in dynamic environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5): 569-581. Crouch, A. & Yetton, P. 1988. Manager-subordinate dyads: Relationships among task and social contact, manager friendliness and subordinate performance in management groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1): 65-82. Cyert, R. & March, J. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Czajkiewicz, Z. J., Grudzewski, W. M., & Hejduk, I. K. 2008. Leadership and New Science. Economics and Organization of Future Enterprise, 2(2): 9-13. Daft, R. L. 2009. Organization theory and design. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western Publishing. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1): 46-78. Dansereau, F., Alutto, J., & Yammarino, F. 1984. Theory Testing in Organizational Behavior: The Varient Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Davenport, T. 2001. Knowledge work and the future of management. In W. Bennis & G. Spreitzer & T. Cummings (Eds.), The future of leadership: Today's top leadership thinkers speak to tomorrow's leaders: 4158. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. 1998. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davis, A. S., Maranville, S. J., & Obloj, K. 1997. The paradoxical process of organizational transformation: Propositions and a case study. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 10: 275-314. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Day, D. & Lord, R. 1988. Executive Leadership and Organizational Performance: Suggestions for a New Theory and Methodology. Journal of Management, 14(3): 453-464. Day, D. 2000. Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4): 581-613. 160 Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. 2004a. Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6): 857880. Day, D., Sin, H., & Chen, T. 2004b. Assessing the burdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadership roles on individual performance over time. Personnel Psychology, 57(3): 573-605. Day, G. S. & Montgomery, D. B. 1983. Diagnosing the experience curve. The Journal of Marketing, 47(2): 4458. Day, G. S. 1994. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. The Journal of Marketing, 58(4): 37-52. Day, G. S. 1999. Creating a market-driven organization. Sloan Management Review, 41(1): 11-22. De Dreu, C. K. W. 2002. Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3): 285-298. de Hoogh, A., den Hartog, D., Koopman, P., Thierry, H., van den Berg, P., van der Weide, J., & Wilderom, C. 2004. Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(4): 447-471. De Meuse, K., Guangrong, D., & Wu, J. 2011. Leadership Skills across Organizational levels: a closer examination. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14(2): 120-139. DeChurch, L. A., Hiller, N. J., Murase, T., Doty, D., & Salas, E. 2010. Leadership across levels: Levels of leaders and their levels of impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6): 1069-1085. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4): 227-268. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. 2008. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3): 182-185. Dell, L., van Tulder, R., Duursema, H., & McNeill, D. 2009. Leiderschap & coaching in tijden van crisis. Den Hartog, D., Van Muijen, J., & Koopman, P. 1997. Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1): 19-34. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. 1999. Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 219-256. Denham, N., Ackers, P., & Travers, C. 1997. Doing yourself out of a job? How middle managers cope with empowerment. Employee Relations, 19(2): 147-159. Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. 1995. Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5): 524-540. Denison, D. R. & Spreitzer, G. M. 1991. Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. Research in organizational change and development, 5(1): 1-21. Densten, I. L. 2003. Senior police leadership: does rank matter? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(3): 400-418. 161 Deshpande, R. & Webster Jr, F. E. 1989. Organizational culture and marketing: defining the research agenda. The Journal of Marketing, 53(1): 3-15. Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster Jr, F. E. 1993. Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1): 23-37. DeVellis, R. 1991. Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Diaz-Saenz, H. R. 2011. Transformational Leadership. In A. Bryman & D. Collinson & K. Grint & B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Leadership: 299-310. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Diefenbach, T. & Sillince, J. A. A. 2011. Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization. Organization Studies, 32(11): 1515-1537. Dipadova, L. & Faerman, S. 1993. Using the competing values framework to facilitate managerial understanding across levels of organizational hierarchy. Human Resource Management, 32(1): 51-73. Drath, W. 1996. Changing our minds about leadership. Leadership in action, 16(1): 1-4. Drath, W., McCauley, C., Palus, C., Van Velsor, E., O'Connor, P., & McGuire, J. 2008. Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6): 635-653. Drucker, P. 1992. The new society of organizations. Harvard Business Review, 70(5): 95-104. Drucker, P. 1993. Post-capitalist Society. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Dubin, R. 1979. Metaphors of leadership: An overview. In J. Hunt & L. Larson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in Leadership: 225-238. Carbondale, IL: Soutern Illinois University Press. Duncan, R. 1976. The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation. In R. Kilman & L. Pondy (Eds.), The Management of Organization Design: 167-188. New York, NY: North Holland. Dunham-Taylor, J. 2000. Nurse executive transformational leadership found in participative organizations. Journal of Nursing Administration, 30(5): 241-250. Dutton, J. & Ashford, S. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3): 397428. Dutton, J., Ashford, S., O'Neill, R., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. 1997. Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5): 407-423. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4): 735-744. Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. 2006. The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 802-827. Edwards, S. M. 2001. The technology paradox: Efficiency versus creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2): 221-228. Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 543-576. 162 Elenkov, D., Judge, W., & Wright, P. 2005. Strategic leadership and executive innovation influence: an international multi-cluster comparative study. Strategic Managment Journal, 26(7): 665-682. Ensley, M., Hmieleski, K., & Pearce, C. 2006. The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3): 217-231. Erhardt, N. L., Martin-Rios, C., & Way, S. A. 2009. From bureaucratic forms towards team-based knowledge work systems: implications for human resource management. International Journal of Collaborative Enterprise, 1(2): 160-179. Erkutlu, H. 2012. The impact of organizational culture on the relationship between shared leadership and team proactivity. Team Performance Management, 18(1/2): 102-119. Everitt, B. 1975. Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 126(3): 237-240. Faerman, S. & Peters, T. 1991. A conceptual framework for examining managerial roles and transitions across levels of organizational hierarchy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Management Research Conference. Fairhurst, G. T. 2008. Discursive leadership: A communication alternative to leadership psychology. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(4): 510-521. Fan, X. & Sivo, S. A. 2007. Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3): 509-529. Fayol, H. 1949. General and industrial administration. London: Pitman. Ferguson, E. & Cox, T. 1993. Exploratory factor analysis: a users' guide. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(2): 84-94. Fiedler, F. 1964. A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 1: 149-190. New York, NY: Academic Press. Fiedler, F. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Finkelstein, S. 1992. Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 35(3): 505-538. Finkelstein, S. & Hambrick, D. 1996. Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. New York, NY: West Publishing Company. Fitzsimons, D., James, K. T., & Denyer, D. 2011. Alternative Approaches for Studying Shared and Distributed Leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13: 313-328. Fleishman, E. 1953a. The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1): 1-6. Fleishman, E. 1953b. The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(3): 153-158. Fleishman, E. 1969. Manual for leadership opinion questionnaire (rev. ed.). Chigago, IL: Science Research Associates. 163 Fleishman, E. 1995. Consideration and structure: Another look at their role in leadership research. In F. Dansereau & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches: 51-60. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Floyd, S. & Wooldridge, B. 1992. Managing strategic consensus: the foundation of effective implementation. The Academy of Management Executive, 6(4): 27-39. Floyd, S. & Lane, P. 2000. Strategizing Throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 154-177. Floyd, S. & Wooldridge, B. 2000. Building strategy from the middle: Reconceptualizing strategy process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Follett, M. 1924. Creative experience. New York, NY: Peter Smith. Fox-Wolfgramm, S., Boal, K., & Hunt, J. 1998. Towards an understanding of organizational adaptation: Inside the black box. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1): 87-126. Freedman, A. 1998. Pathways and crossroads to institutional leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50(3): 131-151. Frey, B. & Kucher, M. 2002. People Pay for Power. In M. Holler & H. Kliemt & D. Schmidtchen & M. Streit (Eds.), Power and fairness: 147-167. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Friedman, T. 2005. The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux. Frosch, R. A. 1996. The customer for R&D is always wrong! Research Technology Management, 39(6): 22-27. Gagne, M. & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4): 331-362. Gardner, J. 1990. On leadership, The Free Press, Vol. 1990. New York, NY. Gardner, W. & Schermerhorn Jr, J. 1992. Strategic operational leadership and the management of supportive work environments. In R. Phillips & J. Hunt (Eds.), Strategic leadership: A multiorganizational-level perspective: 99-117. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Garg, V. K., Walters, B. A., & Priem, R. L. 2003. Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(8): 725-744. Gernert, D. 2011. The organisation as an obstacle to creativity. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 4(1): 126-135. Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1): 9-41. Gerstner, C. R. & Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-Analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6): 827-844. Ghemawat, P. & Costa, J. 1993. The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 59-73. 164 Gibb, C. 1969. Leadership. In G. Lindreg & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Lombridge, MA: Addison Wesley. Gibler, D., Carter, L., & Goldsmith, M. 2000. Best practices in leadership development handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gibson, C. & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209-226. Gladstein, D. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4): 499-517. Glasoe, L. & Einarsen, S. 2006. Experienced affects in leader-subordinate relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22(1): 49-73. Goldsmith, M. & Reiter, M. 2007. What got you here won't get you there. New York, NY: Hyperion. Goodman, P., Atkin, R., & Schoorman, F. 1983. On the demise of organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple models. New York: Academic Press. Gorsuch, R. 1983. Factor Analysis 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gorsuch, R. 1997. Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3): 532-560. Graen, G. & Cashman, J. F. 1975. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach, Leadership frontiers: 143-165. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graen, G. & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 219-247. Graetz, F. & Smith, A. 2007. The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3): 265-280. Grant, J. S. & Davis, L. L. 1997. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(3): 269-274. Greenleaf, R. 1977. Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulust Press. Greguras, G. J. & Diefendorff, J. M. 2009. Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2): 465-477. Grinyer, P. H., Mayes, D., & McKiernan, P. 1990. The sharpbenders: Achieving a sustained improvement in performance. Long Range Planning, 23(1): 116-125. Groenroos, C. 1994. From scientific management to service management: a management perspective for the age of service competition. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(1): 5-20. Groenroos, C. & Ojasalo, K. 2004. Service productivity: Towards a conceptualization of the transformation of inputs into economic results in services. Journal of Business Research, 57(4): 414-423. 165 Gronn, P. 2000. Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 28(3): 317-338. Gronn, P. 2002. Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4): 423-451. Gupta, A., Smith, K., & Shalley, C. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 693-706. Guzzo, R. & Dickson, M. 1996. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual review of psychology, 47(1): 307-338. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Halal, W. & Crocker, C. 1998. The infinite resource: Creating and leading the knowledge enterprise. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass. Halal, W. & Taylor, K. 1999. Twenty-first century economics: perspectives of socioeconomics for a changing world. New York, NY: St Martin's Press. Hales, C. 2002. 'Bureaucracy-lite' and Continuities in Managerial Work. British Journal of Management, 13(1): 51-66. Halpin, A. & Winer, B. 1957. A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. Stogdill & A. Coons (Eds.), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement: 39-51. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Hambrick, D. & Mason, P. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193-206. Hambrick, D. C. 1981. Specialization of environmental scanning activities among upper level executives. Journal of Management Studies, 18(3): 299-320. Hambrick, D. C. 1988. The executive effect: concepts and methods for studying top managers. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. 1991. Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing. Harvard Business Review, 69(4): 81-92. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. 1996. Competing for the Future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Han, M. & Celly, N. 2008. Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 25(4): 335-349. Handy, C. 1994. The Age of Paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 929-964. Hargadon, A. & Fanelli, A. 2002. Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations. Organization Science, 13(3): 290-302. Harris, A. 2008. Distributed leadership: Developing Leaders for Tomorrow. London: Routledge Press. 166 Harris, L. C. & Ogbonna, E. 1999. Developing a market oriented culture: a critical evaluation. Journal of Management Studies, 36(2): 177-196. Harris, M. M. & Schaubroeck, J. 1988. A meta analysis of self supervisor, self peer, and peer supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1): 43-62. Hartline, M. D., Maxham III, J. G., & Mckee, D. O. 2000. Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees. The Journal of Marketing, 64(2): 35-50. Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. 2011. Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4): 677-694. Hater, J. & Bass, B. 198 6XSHULRUV¶HYDOXDWLRQV DQG VXERUGLQDWHV¶ SHUFHSWLRQV RI WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDO DQG transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4): 695-702. He, Z. & Wong, P. 2004. Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481-494. Heckscher, C. 1994. Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In C. Heckscher & A. Donnellon (Eds.), The postbureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change: 14-62. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Helfat, C. E. 1997. Know how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of r&d. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5): 339-360. Henderson, A. & Fredrickson, J. 2001. Top management team coordination needs and the CEO pay gap: A competitive test of economic and behavioral views. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 96-117. Henson, R. K. & Roberts, J. K. 2006. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3): 393-416. Herriott, S., Levinthal, D., & March, J. 1985. Learning from experience in organizations. The American Economic Review, 75(2): 298-302. Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. 2002. The value profit chain: Treat employees like customers and customers like employees. New York, NY: Free Press. Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. 2011. Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37(4): 1137-1177. Hills, S. B. & Sarin, S. 2003. From market driven to market driving: an alternate paradigm for marketing in high technology industries. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(3): 13-24. Hindo, B. 2007a. At 3M, a struggle between efficiency and creativity. Business Week, June 11th. Hindo, B. 2007b. At 3M, a struggle between efficiency and creativity. Business Week, June 11th: 8-14. Hinkin, T. R. 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5): 967-988. Hitt, M. 1988. The measuring of organizational effectiveness: Multiple domains and constituencies. Management International Review, 27(1): 28-40. 167 Hitt, M., Keats, B., Harback, H., & Nixon, R. 1994. Rightsizing: Building and maintaining strategic leadership and long-term competitiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 23(2): 18-32. Hitt, M. & Ireland, R. 2002. The essence of strategic leadership: Managing human and social capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1): 3-14. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. 2007. Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing. Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Welzel, L. 2010. Is the Most Effective Team Leadership Shared? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(3): 105-116. Hodgson, R., Levinson, D., & Zaleznik, A. 1965. The executive role constellation. Boston, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration. Hoegl, M. & Gemuenden, H. G. 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4): 435-449. Hoepfl, H. M. 2006. Post-bureaucracy and Weber's â "modern" bureaucrat. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(1): 8-21. Hofer, C. & Schendel, D. 1978. Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St Paul, MN: West Publishing. Hofstede, G. H. 1984. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Holden, L. & Roberts, I. 2004. The depowerment of European middle managers: Challenges and uncertainties. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(3): 269-287. Hollander, E. 1978. Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships. New York, NY: Free Press. Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J., & Dodge, G. 1997. Leadership Complexity and Development of the leaderplex Model. Journal of Management, 23(3): 375-408. Hooijberg, R. & Choi, J. 2000. Which leadership roles matter to whom? An examination of rater effects on perceptions of effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(3): 341-364. Hope, J. & Hope, T. 1997. Competing in the third wave: the ten key management issues of the information age. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. House, R. 1971. A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3): 321338. House, R. & Mitchell, T. 1974. Path goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3: 81-97. House, R. 1995. Leadership in the 21st century: A speculative enquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work. San Francisco, CA Jossey Bass. House, R., Rousseau, D., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17: 71-71. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 168 House, R. & Aditya, R. 1997. The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3): 409-473. House, R. J. & Podsakoff, P. M. 1994. Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science: 45-82. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Howard, L. W. 1998. Validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational cultures. International journal of organizational analysis, 6(3): 231-250. Howell, J. M. & Sheab, C. M. 2001. Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation framing, and champion behavior: key predictors of project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(1): 15-27. Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. 1986. Moderator Variables in Leadership Research. Academy of Management Review, 11(1): 88-102. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological methods, 3(4): 424-453. Huber, G. P. & Daft, R. L. 1987. The information environments of organizations. In F. Jablin & K. Putnam & K. Roberts & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J. 2009. Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1): 48-61. Hunt, J. & Osborn, R. 1982. Toward a macro-oriented model of leadership: An odyssey. In J. Hunt & U. Sekaran & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views: 196-221. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Hunt, J. 1991. Leadership: A New Synthesis. Thoasand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hunt, J. & Ropo, A. 1995. Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of general motors. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3): 379-412. Hurd, J. L. 2009. Development coaching: Helping scientific and technical professionals make the leap into leadership. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 28(5): 39-51. Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. 2000. Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 3(6): 1159-1175. Huy, Q. 2002. Emotional Balancing of Organizational Continuity and Radical Change: The Contribution of Middle Managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1): 31-69. Iaffaldano, M. T. & Muchinsky, P. M. 1985. Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2): 251-273. Ilgen, D. 1999. Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54(2): 129-139. Ireland, R. 1992. Corporate culture is best conveyed by mid level managers. Baylor Business Review, 10(1): 18-19. 169 Ireland, R. & Hitt, M. 1999. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. The Academy of Management Executive 13(1): 43-57. Jackson, D. & Humble, J. 1994. Middle managers: new purpose, new directions. Journal of Management Development, 13(3): 15-21. Jackson, S. E. & Schuler, R. S. 1985. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1): 16-78. Jacobs, T. & Jaques, E. 1987. Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human Productivity Enhancement: Organizations, personnel and decision making: 7-65. New York, NY: Praeger. Jago, A. G. & Vroom, V. H. 1977. Hierarchical level and leadership style. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18(1): 131-145. James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2): 219-229. James, L. R. & Brett, J. M. 1984. Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2): 307-321. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85-98. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2): 306-309. Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. 1977. Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York, NY: Free Press. Jaques, E. 1976. A general theory of bureaucracy. New York, NY: Halsted Press. Jaques, E. & Clement, S. 1994. Executive Leadership: A Practical Guide to Managing Complexity. Arlington, VA: Cason Hall. Jauch, L. R. & Osborn, R. N. 1981. Toward an integrated theory of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 6(3): 491-498. Jaworski, B., Kohli, A. K., & Sahay, A. 2000. Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1): 45-54. Jaworski, B. J. & Kohli, A. K. 1993. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. The Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 53-70. Jaworski, B. J. & Kohli, A. K. 1996. Market orientation: review, refinement, and roadmap. Journal of MarketFocused Management, 1(2): 119-135. Jemison, D. B. 1981a. The contributions of administrative behavior to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4): 633-642. Jemison, D. B. 1981b. The importance of an integrative approach to strategic management research. Academy of Management Review, 6(4): 601-608. 170 Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. 2002. Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 765-780. Judge, T. & Piccolo, R. 2004. Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 755-768. Judge, T., Piccolo, R., & Ilies, R. 2004. The forgotten ones?: A re-examination of consideration, initiating structure, and leadership effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1): 36±51. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. 2001. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3): 376-407. Judge, W. & Ryman, J. 2001. The shared leadership challenge in strategic alliances: Lessons from the US healthcare industry. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 15(2): 71-79. Jung, D. 2001. Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2): 185-195. Jung, D., Chow, C., & Wu, A. 2003. The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5): 525-544. Kahn, R., Katz, D., Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. 1960. Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley. Kaiser, H. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1): 31-36. Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. 2008. Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2): 96-110. Kaiser, R. B. & Craig, S. B. 2011. Do the Behaviors Related to Managerial Effectiveness Really Change With Organizational Level? An Empirical Test. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 14(2): 92-119. Kale, D. & Wield, D. 2008. Exploitative and explorative learning as a response to the TRIPS agreement in Indian pharmaceutical firms. Industry and Innovation, 15(1): 93-114. Kalleberg, A. L. & Griffin, L. J. 1978. Positional sources of inequality in job satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 5(4): 371-401. Kalliath, T., Bluedorn, A., & Gillespie, D. 1999. A confirmatory factor analysis of the competing values instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1): 143-158. Kaplan, R. & Kaiser, R. 2003. Rethinking a classic distinction in leadership: Implications for the assessment and development of executives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(1): 15-25. Kaplan, S., Murray, F., & Henderson, R. 2003. Discontinuities and senior management: Assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2): 203233. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Katz, R. 1955. Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33: 33-42. 171 Katz, R. 1982. The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1): 81-104. Kefalas, A. & Schoderbek, P. P. 1973. Scanning the business environment: some empirical results. Decision Sciences, 4(1): 63-74. Keller, R. T. 2006. Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1): 202-210. Kerlinger, F. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Research New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kerr, S. & Jermier, J. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22(3): 375-403. Khandwalla, P. 1977. The design of organizations. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Kilburg, R. 2000. Executive Coaching: Developing Managerial Wisdom in a World of Chaos. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. Klein, K., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. 1994. Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 195-195. Klein, K., Kozlowski, S., & Zedeck, S. 2000. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kline, P. 1986. A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. London: Methuen. Kohli, A. K. & Jaworski, B. J. 1990. Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. The Journal of Marketing, 54(2): 1-18. Kor, Y. Y. 2006. Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11): 1081-1099. Kotter, J. 1996. Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kotter, J. P. & Heskett, J. L. 1992. Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: Free Press. Kotterman, J. 2006. In My View... Leadership Versus Management: What's the Difference? Journal for Quality and Participation, 29(2): 13-17. Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Quaquebeke, N. V., & Dick, R. 2012. How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination-based analysis of employees' needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior, In press. Koys, D. J. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1): 101-114. Kozlowski, S. & Klein, K. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3-90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 172 Krantz, J. 1990. Lessons from the field: An essay on the crisis of leadership in contemporary organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 26(1): 49-64. Kratzer, J., Gemuenden, H. G., & Lettl, C. 2008. Balancing creativity and time efficiency in multi-team R&D projects: the alignment of formal and informal networks. R&D Management, 38(5): 538-549. Kristal, M. M., Huang, X., & Roth, A. V. The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28(5): 415-429. .XFNHUW]$.RKWDPDNL0 'URHJHJHQ.RUEHU&7KHIDVWHDWWKHVORZk¼³WKHLPSDFWRIVWUDWHJ\ and innovation timing on the success of technology-oriented ventures. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(1): 175-188. Kuhn, T. 2008. A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intraorganizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29(8-9): 1227-1254. Kumar, K., Subramanian, R., & Strandholm, K. 2001. Competitive strategy, environmental scanning and performance: a context specific analysis of their relationship. International Journal of commerce and Management, 11(1): 1-33. Kumar, K., Subramanian, R., & Strandholm, K. 2002. Market orientation and performance: Does organizational strategy matter? Journal of Applied Business Research 18(1): 37-49. Kumar, S. S. 2012. Motivation as a Strategy to enhance Organizational Productivity. Advances In Management Vol, 5(7): 24-27. Kur, E. 1995. Developing leadership in organizations: a continuum of choices. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(2): 198-206. Landy, F. J. 1989. Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Lawler, E. & Finegold, D. 2000. Individualizing the organization: past, present, and future. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1): 1-15. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. 1995. Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Lawler III, E. 1988. Substitutes for hierarchy. Organizational Dynamics, 17(1): 4-15. Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P., & Quinn, R. E. 2009. Behavioral complexity in leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2): 87-102. Leavitt, H. 2005. Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more effectively. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 111-125. Levinthal, D. & March, J. 1993. The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-95. Levitt, B. & March, J. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 14(1): 319-338. 173 Lewin, A. Y. & Stephens, C. U. 1993. Designing postindustrial organizations: combining theory and practice. In G. Huber & W. Glick (Eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign: 393-409. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lewis, M., Welsh, M., Dehler, G., & Green, S. 2002. Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3): 546-564. Li, C. R., Lin, C. J., & Chu, C. P. 2008. The nature of market orientation and the ambidexterity of innovations. Management Decision, 46(7): 1002-1026. Liao, H. & Subramony, M. 2008. Employee customer orientation in manufacturing organizations: Joint influences of customer proximity and the senior leadership team. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2): 317328. Lievens, F., Van Geit, P., & Coetsier, P. 1997. Identification of transformational leadership qualities: An examination of potential biases. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6(4): 415-430. Likert, R. 1961. New Patterns of Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Lipman-Blumen, J. 2000. Connective leadership: Managing in a changing world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. 1997. Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2): 133-147. Littler, C. R., Wiesner, R., & Dunford, R. 2003. The Dynamics of Delayering: Changing Management Structures in Three Countries. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2): 225-256. Lombardo, M. & Eichinger, R. 2000. High potentials as high learners. Human Resource Management, 39(4): 321-330. Lord, R., Foti, R., & De Vader, C. 1984. A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3): 343-378. Lord, R. & Maher, K. 1993. Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance. London: Routledge. Lord, R., Brown, D., & Freiberg, S. 1999. Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower selfconcepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3): 167-203. Lorsch, J. W. 1985. Strategic myopia: Culture as an invisible barrier to change. In R. Kilmann & M. Saxton & R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture: 84-102. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lowe, Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ. literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 385-425. Lowin, A., Hrapchak, W., & Kavanagh, M. 1969. Consideration and Initiating Structure: An Experimental Investigation of Leadership Traits'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2): 238-253. 174 Lubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. 2006. Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to MediumSized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. Journal of Management, 32(5): 646-672. Lundholm, S. E., Rennstam, J., & Alvesson, M. 2012. Understanding Hierarchy in Contemporary Work. In T. Diefenbach & R. Todnem (Eds.), Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy - from the Bureau to Network Organizations, Vol. 35: 113-140: Emeral Group Publishing. Lynch Jr, M. F., Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. 2005. Psychological Needs and Threat to Safety: Implications for Staff and Patients in a Psychiatric Hospital for Youth. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4): 415-425. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1): 123-150. Magee, J. C. & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 351-398. Magnusson, M., Boccardelli, P., & Boerjesson, S. 2009. Managing the Efficiency-Flexibility Tension in Innovation: Strategic and Organizational Aspects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(1): 2-7. Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J. 1965. The job (s) of management. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 4(2): 97-110. Malerba, F. 2006. Innovation and the evolution of industries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(1): 3-23. Mann, F. 1965. Toward an understanding of the leadership role in formal organizations. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Leadership and productivity: 68-103. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Manville, B. & Ober, J. 2003a. Beyond empowerment: building a company of citizens. Harvard Business Review, 81(1): 48-53. Manville, B. & Ober, J. 2003b. A company of citizens: What the world's first democracy teaches leaders about creating great organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Manz, C. & Sims, H. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1): 106-129. Manz, C. & Sims, H. 1991. SuperLeadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(4): 18-35. Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. 1980. Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review: 361-367. March, J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87. Martin, A., Willburn, P., Morrow, P., Downing, K., & Criswell, C. 2007. The changing nature of leadership. Center for Creative Leadership. Martin, J. 1995. Ignore your customer. Fortune, 131(8): 121-124. 175 Mason, E. 1939. Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. The American Economic Review, 29: 61-74. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3): 410-476. Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Kopf, J. 1995. Motivating language: Exploring theory with scale development. Journal of Business Communication, 32(4): 329-344. Mayo, E. 1933. The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY Macmillan. McCann, L., Hassard, J., & Morris, J. 2004. Middle managers, the new organizational ideology and corporate restructuring: comparing Japanese and Anglo-American management systems. Competition and Change, 8(1): 27-44. McGee, J. E. & Sawyerr, O. O. 2003. Uncertainty and Information Search Activities: A Study of 2ZQHUk¼³0DQDJHUV RI 6PDOO +LJKk¼• Technology Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(4): 385-401. McGill, M. & Slocum, J. 1992. Management practices in learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1): 5-17. McGrath, R. G. & MacMillan, I. C. 2000. The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. McKelvey, B. 2001. Energising order-creating networks of distributed intelligence: improving the corporate brain. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2): 181-212. Mehra, A., Smith, B., Dixon, A., & Robertson, B. 2006. Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3): 232-245. Meindl, J., Ehrlich, S., & Dukerich, J. 1985. The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1): 78-102. Melcher, A. 1977. Leadership models and research approaches, Leadership: The cutting edge: 94-108. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Miles, R., Snow, C., Meyer, A., & Coleman Jr, H. 1978. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3): 546-562. Miles, R. 1998. The spherical network organization, The Infinite Resource: Creating and Leading the Knowledge Enterprise. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, R., Snow, C., Matthews, J., & Miles, G. 1999. Cellular-network organizations. In W. Halal & K. Taylor (Eds.), Twenty-first century economics: perspectives of socioeconomics for a changing world. : 155-173. New <RUN1<6W0DUWLQ¶V3UHVV Miles, R. H. & Perreault, W. D. 1976. Organizational role conflict: Its antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17(1): 19-44. Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. 1982. Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Managment Journal, 3(1): 1-25. 176 Miller, D. & Toulouse, J. 1986. Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small firms. Management Science, 32(11): 1389-1409. Miller, D. 1991. Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Science, 37(1): 34-52. Miller, D. & Friesen, P. 2007. A Longitudinal Study of the Corporate Life Cycle. Management Science, 30(10): 1161-1183. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. 1995. Indepth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Australia Pty Ltd Mintzberg, H. 1978. Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9): 934-948. Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H. 1980. The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mittal, V., Anderson, E. W., Sayrak, A., & Tadikamalla, P. 2005. Dual emphasis and the long-term financial impact of customer satisfaction. Marketing Science, 24(4): 544-555. Mohrman, S., Cohen, S., & Mohrman, A. 1995. Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 0ROOR\ - & 3OR\KDUW 5 (  :ULJKW 3 0  7KH 0\WK RI ³WKH´ 0LFUR-Macro Divide: Bridging System-Level and Disciplinary Divides. Journal of Management, 37(2): 581-609. Montanari, J. R. 1978. Managerial discretion: An expanded model of organization choice. Academy of Management Review, 3(1): 231-241. Montgomery, C. 2008. Putting leadership back into strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1): 54-60. Morgan, G. 1981. The schismatic metaphor and its implications for organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 2(1): 23-44. Morgan, R. E. & Berthon, P. 2008. Market Orientation, Generative Learning, Innovation Strategy and Business Performance Inter-Relationships in Bioscience Firms. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8): 1329-1353. Mortensen, M. & Hinds, P. 2002. Fuzzy teams: Boundary disagreement in distributed and collocated teams. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work: 284-308. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Muchinsky, P. M. & Monahan, C. J. 1987. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of vocational behavior, 31(3): 268-277. Mumford, M. & Gustafson, S. 1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1): 27-43. Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. 2002. Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 705-750. Mumford, T., Campion, M., & Morgeson, F. 2007. The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2): 154-166. 177 Mumford, T. V., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. 2008. The Team Role Test: Development and validation of a team role knowledge situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2): 250-267. Musteen, M., Barker III, V. L., & Baeten, V. L. 2006. The influence of CEO tenure and attitude toward change on organizational approaches to innovation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(3): 360-387. Muthen, L. & Muthen, B. 2007. Mplus: User guide. Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen. Narver, J. C. & Slater, S. F. 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. The Journal of Marketing, 54(4): 20-35. Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. 2004. Responsive and Proactive Market Orientation and New Product Success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5): 334-347. Nealey, S. & Fiedler, F. 1968. Leadership functions of middle managers. Psychological Bulletin, 70(5): 313329. Nealy, S. & Blood, M. 1968. Leadership performance of nursing supervisors at two organizational levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(5): 414-422. Newman, D. A. & Sin, H. P. 2009. How Do Missing Data Bias Estimates of Within-Group Agreement? Sensitivity of SD WG, CVWG, rWG (J), rWG (J)*, and ICC to Systematic Nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1): 113-147. Nonaka, I. 1988. Creating organizational order out of chaos: Self-renewal in Japanese firms. California Management Review, 30(3): 57-73. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nonaka, I. & Nishiguchi, T. 2001. Knowledge emergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Northouse, P. 2004. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, I. 1994. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Nurmi, R. 1984. Aristotle and management. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 1(1): 65-73. O'Neill, H. M., Lenn, D. J., & Caimano, V. F. 1995. Voices of Survivors: Words That Downsizing CEOs Should Hear. The Academy of Management Executive 9(4): 23-34. O'Reilly 3rd, C. & Tushman, M. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4): 7481. O'Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., Chatman, J., Lapiz, M., & Self, W. 2010. How leadership matters: The effects of leaders' alignment on strategy implementation. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1): 104-113. O'Reilly, C. A. 1983. The use of information in organizational decision making: A model and some propositions. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: 103-105. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 178 O'Reilly III, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. 2011. Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers Explore and Exploit. California Management Review, 53(4): 5-22. O'Toole Jr, L. J. & Meier, K. J. 2010. In Defense of Bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 12(3): 341-361. Oertqvist, D. & Wincent, J. 2006. Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Stress Management; International Journal of Stress Management, 13(4): 399-422. Orchard, L. 1998. Managerialism, economic rationalism and public sector reform in Australia: connections, divergences, alternatives. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 57(1): 19-32. Osborn, R., Hunt, J., & Jauch, L. 2002. Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 797-837. Oshagbemi, T. & Gill, R. 2004. Differences in leadership styles and behaviour across hierarchical levels in UK organisations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(1): 93-106. Ostroff, C. & Schmitt, N. 1993. Configurations of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Academy of management Journal, 36(6): 1345-1361. Ouchi, W. G. & Wilkins, A. L. 1985. Organizational culture. Annual review of sociology, 11: 457-483. Palmer, I. & Dunford, R. 2002. Out with the old and in with the new? The relationship between traditional and new organizational practices. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(3): 209-225. Pappas, J. M., Flaherty, K. E., & Wooldridge, B. 2003. Achieving strategic consensus in the hospital setting: A middle management perspective. Hospital topics, 81(1): 15-22. Partington, D. & Harris, H. 1999. Team role balance and team performance: an empirical study. Development, 18(8): 694-705. Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. J., & Payaud, M. 2000. Effectiveness of relational and transactional cultures in commercial banking: putting client-value into the competing values model. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(7): 328-337. Pearce, C. & Sims, H. 2002. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2): 172-197. Pearce, C. & Conger, J. 2003a. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pearce, C. & Conger, J. 2003b. All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & C. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership: 1-18. London: Sage. Pearce, C., Sims Jr, H., Cox, J., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K., & Trevino, L. 2003. Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4): 273-307. 179 Pearce, C. 2004. The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 47-57. Pearce, C. & Manz, C. 2005. The new silver bullets of leadership: the importance of self-and shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2): 130-140. Pearce, C. L. & Sims, H. P. 2000. Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. In M. Beyerlein & D. Johnson & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advance in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership: pp.173-209. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. 2008. The roles of vertical and shared leadership in the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3): 353-359. Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. 2009. Is Shared Leadership the Key to Team Success? Organizational Dynamics, 38(3): 234-238. Pennings, J. M. 1985. Organizational strategy and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Perrow, C. 1986. Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York, NY: Random House. Peters, T. & Waterman, R. 1982. In Search of Excellence. Harper & Row. Peters, T. 1987. Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a managerial revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Pett, M., Lackey, N., & Sullivan, J. 2003. Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. London: Sage Publications. Pettigrew, A. M. 1992. The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic Managment Journal, 13(5): 5-16. Pettigrew, A. M. 2003. Innovative forms of organizing: international perspectives. London: Sage. Petty, M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. 1984. A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review, 9(4): 712-721. Pfeffer, J. 1977. The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1): 104-112. Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. 1978. The External Control of Organisations. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Podolny, J., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. 2005. Revisiting the meaning of leadership. In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: 1-36. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531-544. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142. Porter, M. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press. Porter, M. 1981. The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4): 609-620. 180 Porter, M. 1985. Competitive advantage. New York, NY: Free Press Powell, L. 2002. Shedding a tier: flattening organisational structures and employee empowerment. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1): 54-59. Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3): 4-9. Priem, R., Lyon, D., & Dess, G. 1999. Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25(6): 935-953. Quinn, R. & Rohrbaugh, J. 1983. A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3): 363-377. Quinn, R. 1984. Applying the competing values approach to leadership: Toward an integrative framework. In J. Hunt & D. Hosking & C. Schriesheim & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership: 10-27. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Quinn, R. 1988. Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R. & Cameron, K. 1988. Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Quinn, R. & Spreitzer, G. 1991. The psychometric of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Research in organizational change and development, 5 (2 ): 115-142. Radnor, Z. & Johnston, R. 2012. Lean in UK Government: internal efficiency or customer service? Production, Planning & Control: 1-13. Rafferty, A. E. & Griffin, M. A. 2004. Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3): 329-354. Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375-409. Rajan, R. & Wulf, J. 2006. The flattening firm: Evidence from panel data on the changing nature of corporate hierarchies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4): 759-773. Ramos, P. P. 2011. Network Models for Organizations: The Flexible Design of 21st Century Companies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Raynor, M. & Bower, J. 2001. Lead from the center. How to manage divisions dynamically. Harvard Business Review, 79(5): 92-100. Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. 2004. How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1): 101-133. Reimann, B. C. & Wiener, Y. 1988. Corporate culture: Avoiding the elitist trap. Business Horizons, 31(2): 3644. 181 Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. 2009. Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 35(3): 718-804. Roethlisberger, F. & Dickson, W. 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ronen, S., Kraut, A. I., Lingoes, J. C., & Aranya, N. 1979. A nonmetric scaling approach to taxonomies of employee work motivation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14(4): 387-401. Ronen, S. & Sadan, S. 1984. Job attitudes among different occupational status groups. Work and Occupations, 11(1): 77-97. Rost, J. 1991. Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. Rousseau, D. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1): 1-37. Rousseau, D. M. 2000. Multilevel competencies and missing linkages. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in oganizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 572582. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rowe, W. 2001. Creating Wealth in Organizations: The Role of Strategic Leadership. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(1): 81-94. Salancik, G., Calder, B., Rowland, D., Leblebici, H., & Conway, M. 1975. Leadership Frontiers. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. Sashkin, M. & Fulmer, R. 1988. Toward an organizational theory of leadership. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Sashkin, M. & Williams, R. L. 1990. Does fairness make a difference? Organizational Dynamics, 19(2): 56-71. Sathe, V. 1983. Implications of corporate culture: A manager's guide to action. Organizational Dynamics; Organizational Dynamics. Scarpello, V. & Campbell, J. P. 1983. Job satisfaction: are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology, 36(3): 577-600. Schein, E. H. 1996. Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, 10(4): 80-88. Schendel, D. & Hofer, C. 1979. Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co. Schendel, D. 1989. Introduction to the second special issue on stategic leadership. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 1-3. Schilit, W. K. 1987. An examLQDWLRQ RI WKH LQIOXHQFH RI PLGGOHk¼• level managers in formulating and implementing strategic decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 24(3): 271-293. Schneider, B. & Bowen, D. E. 1992. Personnel/human resources management in the service sector. Research in personnel and human resources management, 10(1): 1-30. 182 Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. 1998. Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 150-163. Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Sipe, W. P. 2000. Personnel selection psychology: Multilevel considerations. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski & S. Zedeck (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions: 91-120. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, M. 2002. A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organization Science, 13(2): 209-220. Schreyögg, G. & Sydow, J. 2010. CROSSROADS-Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms. Organization Science, 21(6): 1251-1262. Schriesheim, C. & Kerr, S. 1974. Psychometric properties of the Ohio State leadership scales. Psychological Bulletin, 81(11): 756-765. Schriesheim, C., Tepper, B., & Tetrault, L. 1994. Least preferred co-worker score, situational control, and leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contingency model performance predictions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4): 561-573. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. 1999. Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1): 63-113. Scott, S. & Bruce, R. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3): 580-607. Seers, A., Keller, T., & Wilkerson, J. 2003. Can team members share leadership? Foundations in research and theory. In C. Pearce & J. Conger (Eds.), Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership: 77102. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Seidl, D. 2005. Organisational identity and self-transformation: An autopoietic perspective. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co. Seltzer, J. & Bass, B. 1990. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4): 693-703. Semler, R. 1989. Managing without managers. Harvard Business Review, 67(5): 76-84. Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P. M. 2004. The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations. In K. Starkey & S. Tempest & A. McKinlay (Eds.), How Organizations Learn: Managing the Search for Knowledge: 462-486. London: Thomson learning. Senior, B. 1997. Team roles and team performance: Is there'really'a link? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(3): 241-258. Seo, Y., Ko, J., & Price, J. L. 2004. The determinants of job satisfaction among hospital nurses: a model estimation in Korea. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(4): 437-446. Shrivastava, P. 1986. Postmerger integration. Journal of Business Strategy, 7(1): 65-76. 183 Simsek, Z. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4): 597-624. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Veiga, J. J. F. 2010. The impact of CEO core self-evaluation on the firm's entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1): 110-119. Singh, J. 2000. Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organizations. The Journal of Marketing, 64(2): 15-34. Sinha, V. & Subramanian, K. 2012. Organizational role stress across three managerial levels: A comparative study. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 31(5): 70-77. Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W., Avolio, B., & Jung, D. 2002. A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27(1): 66-96. Slater, S. F. & Narver, J. C. 1995. Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of Marketing, 59(3): 63-74. Slater, S. F. & Narver, J. C. 1998. Customer led and market oriented: let's not confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10): 1001-1006. Smeltzer, L. R., Fann, G. L., & Nikolaisen, V. N. 1988. Environmental scanning practices in small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(3): 55-62. Smircich, L. & Morgan, G. 1982. Leadership: The management of meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3): 257-273. Smith, W. & Tushman, M. 2005. Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522-536. Smith, W. K. & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review 36(2): 381-403. Solansky, S. T. 2008. Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4): 332-341. Sosik, J., Jung, D., Berson, Y., Dionne, S., & Jaussi, K. 2005. Making all the right connections: The strategic leadership of top executives in high-tech organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1): 47-61. Spreitzer, G. M. & Quinn, R. E. 1996. Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3): 237-261. Srivastva, S. & Fry, R. 1992. Executive and organizational continuity: Managing the paradoxes of stability and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. 2005. An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58(2): 343-365. Stewart, T. 1996. 3M fights back. Fortune, 2: 42-47. Stogdill, R. 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1): 35-71. 184 Stogdill, R. 1950. Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47(1): 1-14. Stogdill, R. & Coons, A. 1957. Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Stogdill, R. 1974. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New York, NY: Free Press. Stohl, C. & Cheney, G. 2001. Participatory processes/paradoxical practices communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3): 349-407. Stordeur, S., Vandenberghe, C., & D'hoore, W. 2000. Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in nursing departments. Nursing research, 49(1): 37-43. Styhre, A. 2001. Kaizen, ethics, and care of the operations: Management after empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6): 795-810. Suh, W. S., Key, S. K., & Munchus, G. 2004. Scanning behavior and strategic uncertainty: Proposing a new relationship by adopting new measurement constructs. Management Decision, 42(8): 1001-1016. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K., & Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2): 120-133. Sveningsson, S. & Larsson, M. 2006. Fantasies of leadership: identity work. Leadership, 2(2): 203-224. Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. 2007. Using multivariate statistics Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 315-330. Tarabishy, A., Solomon, G., Fernald Jr, L. W., & Sashkin, M. 2005. The entrepreneurial leader's impact on the organization's performance in dynamic markets. The Journal of private equity, 8(4): 20-29. Taris, T. W. & Schreurs, P. J. G. 2009. Well-being and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress, 23(2): 120-136. Taylor-Bianco, A. & Schermerhorn, J. J. 2006. Self-regulation, strategic leadership and paradox in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4): 457-475. Thach, E. 2002. The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(4): 205-214. Theoharakis, V. & Hooley, G. 2008. Customer orientation and innovativeness: Differing roles in New and Old Europe. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(1): 69-79. Thompson, B. 2004. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Thorelli, H. B. 1977. Strategy+ structure: the strategic planning imperative. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 185 Tichy, N. & Ulrich, D. 1984. The leadership challenge±a call for the transformational leader. Sloan Management Review, 26(1): 59-68. Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A. E., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. 2000. Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1157-1177. Toffler, A. 1981. The third wave. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Tosi, H. 1991. The organization as a context for leadership theory: A multilevel approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(3): 205-228. Treacy, M. & Wiersema, F. 1993. Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harvard Business Review, 71: 84-84. Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. 2012. Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, in press. Tushman, M. & O'Reilly, C. 1996. The Ambidextrous Organization. California Management Review, 38(4): 830. Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G., & Scandura, T. 2000. Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 18: 137-186. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. 2007. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4): 298-318. Upson, J. W., Ketchen, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing employee stress: A key to the effectiveness of strategic supply chain management. Organizational Dynamics, 36(1): 78-92. Uyterhoeven, H. 1972. General managers in the middle. Harvard Business Review, 50(2): 75-86. van de Ven, A. & Poole, M. 1988. Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management: 19-64. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing van Dierendonck, D. 2011. Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4): 12281261. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. 2008. Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3): 182-196. Vance, C. & Larson, E. 2002. Leadership research in business and health care. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(2): 165-171. Vecchio, R. 2002. Leadership and gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 643-671. Vera, D. & Crossan, M. 2004. Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2): 222-240. Vince, R. & Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1): 1-21. 186 Volberda, H. 1996. Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments. Organization Science, 7(4): 359-374. Volberda, H. 1998. Building the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Competitive. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Volberda, H., Baden-Fuller, C., & van den Bosch, F. 2001. Mastering Strategic Renewal Mobilising Renewal Journeys in Multi-unit Firms. Long Range Planning, 34(2): 159-178. Volberda, H. & Lewin, A. 2003. Co-evolutionary Dynamics Within and Between Firms: From Evolution to Coevolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8): 2111-2136. Von Oech, R. 1983. A Whack on the Side of the Head. New York, NY: Warner Books Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Waldman, D., House, R., & Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 134-143. Waldman, D., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. 2004. Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3): 355-380. Wall, T. D., Cordery, J. L., & Clegg, C. W. 2002. Empowerment, performance, and operational uncertainty: A theoretical integration. Applied Psychology, 51(1): 146-169. Wang, H., Tsui, A. S., & Xin, K. R. 2011. CEO leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and employees' attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1): 92-105. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. 1997. Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2): 247-252. Weber, M. 1946. Bureaucracy. In M. Weber (Ed.), Essays in Sociology: 196-244. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. 1947. The theory of economic and social organization (A. H. a. T. Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Webster, F. E. 1988. The rediscovery of the marketing concept. Business Horizons, 31(3): 29-39. Weick, K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organization. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weissenberg, P. & Kavanagh, M. 1972. The independence of initiating structure and consideration: A review of the evidence. Personnel Psychology, 25(1): 119-130. Wheatley, M. 1992. Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Wheatley, M. 2006. Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Wherry Sr., J. & Bartlett, C. 1982. The control of bias in ratings: A theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35(3): 521-551. 187 Whitford, A. B. The hierarchical consequences of reinvention: evidence from the American bureaucracy. Journal of Management History, 16(1): 59-74. Wiest, W. M., Porter, L. W., & Ghiselli, E. E. 1961. Relationship between individual proficiency and team performance and efficiency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(6): 435-440. Wit de, B. & Meyer, R. 2010. Strategy--process, Content, Context: An International Perspective (4th ed.). London: Cengage. Woods, F. 1913. The influence of monarchs. New York, NY: Macmillan Company. Wooldridge, B. & Floyd, S. W. 1990. The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3): 231-241. Xin, K. R. & Pelled, L. H. 2003. Supervisor-subordinate conflict and perceptions of leadership behavior: a field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1): 25-40. Yammarino, F. & Bass, B. 1990. Transformational Leadership and Multiple Levels of Analysis. Human Relations, 43(10): 975-995. Yammarino, F. & Dubinsky, A. 1992. Superior-subordinate relationships: A multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45(6): 575-601. Yammarino, F., Dionne, S., Uk Chun, J., & Dansereau, F. 2005. Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-ofthe-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6): 879-919. Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. 1993. Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1): 81-102. Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. 1996. Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3): 309-317. Yukl, G. 1998. Leadership in Organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. 1999a. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 285-305. Yukl, G. 1999b. An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1): 33-48. Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. 2009. Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1): 49-53. Yukl, G. A. & Nemeroff, W. F. 1979. Identification and measurement of specific categories of leadership behavior: A progress report. In J. Hunt & L. Larson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in leadership: 164-200. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Zaccaro, S., Foti, R., & Kenny, D. 1991. Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: an investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 308315. 188 Zaccaro, S. 2001. The Nature of Executive Leadership: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Success. Washington, DC: APA books. Zaccaro, S. & Klimoski, R. 2001. The nature of organizational leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Zaccaro, S. & Horn, Z. 2003. Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective symbiosis. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 769-806. Zaccaro, S. 2007. Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1): 6-16. Zhang, Z., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, Z. 2012. A multilevel investigation of leader-member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(1): 49-78. Zhou, K. Z., Kin, C., & Tse, D. K. 2005. The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2): 42-60. Zohar, D. 1997. Rewiring the corporate brain. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 189 190 APPENDIX I: STRATEGIC & TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP SCALE The Strategic Leadership Questionnaire Items Client centricity: 1. Listens attentively to the client 2. Maintains a good relationship with the client 3. Actively evaluates wKHWKHUFOLHQW¶VH[SHFWDWLRQVKDYHEHHQPHW 4. Is attentive to client need 5. Creates trust with clients and partners Operational efficiency: 1. Checks work progress against agreed-upon objectives 2. Formulates clear objectives 3. Reassures time schedules and deadlines 4. Works according to a structured system in order to ensure an optimal service level 5. Plans in detail how to accomplish an important task Business development: 1. Actively explores new markets 2. Recognizes potential new clients 3. Makes innovative proposals to penetrate new markets 4. Seeks entrance at new potential clients 5. Makes clients aware of other company products and services on offer Organizational creativity: 1. Consciously makes room for creativity 2. Stimulates thinking outside-the-box 3. Facilitates the experimentation with new ideas 4. Engenders proactive behavior 5. Persuasively sells new ideas in the organization 191 The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire Items Vision: 1. Has a clear understanding of where the organization is going 2. Has a clear sense of where he/she wants our team/unit to be in 5 years 3. Has no idea of where the organization is going (R) Inspirational communication: 1. Says things that makes me proud to be part of this organization 2. Says positive things about the work unit 3. Encourages me to see changing environments as situations full of opportunities Intellectual stimulation: 1. Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways 2. Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some things that I have never questioned before 3. Has challenged me to rethink some of their basic assumptions about work Supportive leadership: 1. Considers my feelings before acting 2. Behaves in a manner which is thoughtful of my personal needs 3. Sees that my interests are given due consideration Personal recognition: 1. Commends me when I do a better than average job 2. Acknowledges improvement in my quality of work 3. Personally compliments me when I do outstanding work 192 APPENDIX II: PILOT STUDY INTO LEADERSHIP DICHOTOMIES This pilot study was conducted in the initial phase of the PhD trajectory and provided very interesting insights which have triggered the final direction of this PhD dissertation. The initial interest was to explore to what extent leaders can integrate opposite leadership behaviors. Contrary to what one may have expected on the basis of the literature, people- and task-oriented leadership were significantly positively correlated. A second observation was the overlap between behaviors. Transactional and task-oriented leadership showed a strong overlap, to the extent that they seemed to represent a same factor. Transformational leadership partly overlapped with people-oriented leadership, yet it was distinct to the extent that transformational leadership included a long term focus and a focus on innovation. This seemed to be a separate factor, distinct from task- or people-oriented leadership. A third insight dealt with the primary tensions that were identified by the leaders in question being the opposition at play within the organization, between task- and people-oriented leadership, and the tension between short-term and long-term oriented leadership, which was related to the interaction of the organization with its environment. This pilot study was aimed at identifying the primary leadership tensions from the leader point of view. A second aim was to gain insight into the relationship of several leadership behaviors as conceptualized in leadership theory. Amidst the abundance of different typologies of leadership behavior, findings on the relationship between the different behavioral types was considered to be inconsistent. As theory and empirical data have been inconsistent when considering the relationship between seemingly opposite leadership behaviors, an exploratory study was required in order to get a better grasp of the underlying relationship between leadership behaviors. This study included an exploratory factor analysis of behavioral items drawn from validated measures for task and people leadership and transactional and transformational leadership. Managers from various organizations scored themselves on these different leadership behaviors. Method Sample As part of a study on coaching (Dell et al., 2009), questions related to competing leadership functions, i.e. task- versus people-oriented leadership and transformational versus transactional leadership, were posed to middle and top-level manager from various organizations, operating in different industries. Coaching has been one of the fastest growing new trends in leadership development over the past 10 193 years. There is extensive anecdotal, case study and other qualitative research on executive coaching (Kilburg, 2000), however, these studies describe the process of executive coaching, not its effects. A survey questionnaire was set up in order to measure the effectiveness of coaching. As part of the questionnaire, questions which dealt with leadership behavior were included. The questionnaire was answered by 163 managers (response rate of 47%) at different levels in different organizations. Table A.1 shows the demographic data of the sample used. Table A.1: Demographic data of sample In the sample for this pilot study the sample to variable ratio was 163:11 ~ 15:1, which may be considered acceptable, as it fits the more stringent rules of thumb (Everitt, 1975; Gorsuch, 1983; Hair et al., 1998; Pett et al., 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The assessment was a self-assessment. The participants were asked to what extent the described leader behaviors reflected their own behavior as a leader. The items were scored on a Likert-W\SHVFDOHZLWKDQVZHUVUDQJLQJIURP³WRWDOO\DJUHH´ VFRUH  WR³WRWDOO\GLVDJUHH´ VFRUH  Measures Task- and people-oriented leadership behaviors and transformational and transactional leadership behaviors were measured by means of different measurement instruments. The following sections provide arguments for the items that have been included in the measurement. Task-oriented versus People-oriented Leadership As elaborated in chapter four, leadership behavior has been conceptualized along the opposition between task and people orientation (Vecchio, 2002). In the more than half century since the discovery of the parallel terms of task- and people-orientation, much has been learned about these concepts. At the same time, upon reflecting on this literature, one cannot help but be impressed by the mysteries that surround task- and people-orientation. Questions have been raised about the generality of the validities and the nature of the measures themselves; many may feel that these questions were 194 never answered satisfactorily (Judge et al., 2004). The scales most frequently used to measure the task- and people-orientation constructs were the initiating structure and consideration scales developed by the Ohio State investigators, included in the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ: (Halpin & Winer, 1957). As Fleishman (1995) QRWHG³&RQVLGHUDWLRQDQGLQLWLDWLQJVWUXFWXUH KDYHSURYHQWREHDPRQJWKHPRVWUREXVWRIOHDGHUVKLSFRQFHSWV´(p.51). %ULHIO\WKH/%'4¶VFUHDWLYHSURFHVVFRQVLVWHGRIWKHUHVHDUFKHUVVSHFLI\LQJQLQHa priori dimensions of leader behavior. Experts formulated 1,800 items which suited the nine dimensions. Subsequently this initial set of items was reduced to a set of 150 items. Next, a factor analysis was conducted, using the Wherry-Gaylord Iterative procedure, on the basis of a sample of 300 members of the Air force crew who described the behavior of their supervisor. The factor analysis resulted in two factors that H[SODLQHG  RI WKH YDULDQFH DQG WKHVH WZR IDFWRUV ZHUH FDOOHG ³,QLWLDWLQJ VWUXFWXUH´ DQG ³&RQVLGHUDWLRQ´ /DWHU VWXGies confirmed these two factors (Fleishman, 1953b; Halpin & Winer, 1957). Results of the Ohio factor analyses for both the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Fleishman, 1953a; Halpin & Winer, 1957) and the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ) (Fleishman, 1953a) indicated that initiating structure (i.e. task-oriented leadership) and consideration (i.e. people-oriented leadership) were orthogonal dimensions. This orthogonality has been interpreted as VXJJHVWLQJWKDWWKHWZRGLPHQVLRQVDUHLQGHSHQGHQWWKXVDOHDGHU¶VDFWLRQVRQWKHRQHGLPHQVLRQ will not affect his/her actions on the other dimension. This orthogonality has been among others questioned by Bales (1958), Fiedler (1964) and Lowin et al. (1969). The appearance of numerous sizable correlations in the literature led these authors to seriously question the generality of the assumed independence of these two leadership dimensions. Weissenberg and Kavanagh (1972) came to a similar conclusion after reviewing 72 studies. Results from their literature review showed that 51% of the studies reported significant positive correlations, 10% reported significant negative correlations, and 39% reported non-significant correlations between the dimensions of initiating structure and consideration. The type of questionnaire used to measure the dimensions of task-oriented versus relationshiporiented leadership appears to make a statistical difference. Studies using the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ) reported three positive significant correlations between initiating structure and consideration, five negative significant correlations, and 16 non-significant relationships. In contrast, studies using the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) reported 34 positive significant 195 correlations, two negative significant correlations, and 12 non-significant relationships. Differences relative to instrument seem logical since different psychodynamics underlie each instrument. The LOQ (Fleishman, 1953b, 1969) is a self-report, attitudinal questionnaire which asks the respondent to GHVFULEHKLV³LGHDO´OHDGHUVKLSEHKDYLRU KRZKHshould behave), not his actual behavior. On the other hand, the LBDQ (Fleishman, 1953a; Halpin & Winer, 1957) DVNV WKH OHDGHU¶V IROORZHUV WKH PDQDJHU¶VVXERUGLQDWHV WRGHVFULEHWKHDFWXDOEHKDYLRURIWKHOHDGHUDVWKH\SHUFHLYHLW:KHQOHDGHUV described their attitudes about how they should behave (LOQ), the dimensions of initiating structure and consideration were empirically independent in 67 % RIWKHFDVHV %XW ZKHQWKHOHDGHU¶VDFWXDO behavior was described by others (LBDQ), the two dimensions were related in 75 % of the cases. Weissenberg and Kavanagh (1972) FRQFOXGHGWKDW³$OWKRXJKDVXSHUYLVRUZRXOGlike to behave as if C(onsideration) and S(tructure) were orthogonal, he finds this impossible to do in his day-to-day behavior, at least in terms of his subordinates¶ SHUFHSWLRQVRIKLVEHKDYLRU´(p. 124). The actual items used are rarely mentioned in the articles presenting the outcomes of these studies. Yet, items can be formulated on the basis of the description of both initiating structure and consideration oriented leadership. Transformational versus Transactional Leadership The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bono & Judge, 2003; Bono & Judge, 2004) is most widely used in order to measure transformational and transactional leadership. The usual method consists of subordinates rating the frequency with which their supervisors perform certain behaviors. ³7UDQVIRUPDWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS LQFOXGHV ³LQGLYLGXDOL]HG FRQVLGHUDWLRQ´ ³LQWHOOHFWXDO VWLPXODWLRQ´ ³LGHDOL]HG LQIOXHQFH´ FKDULVPD  DQG ³LQVSLUDWLRQDO PRWLYDWLRQ´ 7Uansactional leadership includes ³FRQWLQJHQW UHZDUG EHKDYLRU´ ³SDVVLYH PDQDJHPHQW E\ H[FHSWLRQ´ DQG ³DFWLYH PDQDJHPHQW E\ H[FHSWLRQ´ (Yukl, 1999a, pp. 286-287). The initial 142 item pool for the MLQ (Bass, 1985) was developed by combining a review of the literature with an open-ended survey asking 70 executives for their descriptions of attributes of transformational and transactional leaders. Factor analysis indicated five scales with acceptable reliabilities. The final 73 items were factor analyzed again in a later study (Hater & Bass, 1988) with similar results. The MLQ has since acquired a history of research as the primary quantitative instrument to measure the transformational leadership construct. The transformational leadership dimensions have been identified inductively (factor analysis). There is no underlying theory explaining the relationship between these dimensions (Yukl, 1999a). 196 Moreover each dimension seems to bear several sub-GLPHQVLRQV 7KH GLPHQVLRQ ³individualized FRQVLGHUDWLRQ´ Kolds both a supporting and developing sub-dimension which may have a different impact on subordinates (Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Nemeroff, 1979). Developing implies that one coaches subordinates, while supporting subordinates implies being considerate. Besides, there are high inter-correlations between the dimensions hampering the construct validity of transformational leadership. Various studies have found that the transactional leadership dimension of contingent reward loads on the transformational leadership factor and that active management by exception and passive management by exception are a factor (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Lievens et al., 1997; Yammarino & Bass, 1990) ³,QWHOOHFWXDO VWLPXODWLRQ LV GHILQHG DV stimulating subordinates to question traditional beliefs, to look at problems in a different way, and to find innovative solutions for problems´ (Yukl, 1999a, pp.288-289). Intellectual stimulation partially resembles individualized consideration or inspirational motivation. The notion of focus on innovation is what make this dimension distinct of the other dimensions. Transactional leadership involves a set of leader-subordinate exchange behaviors that ³lack any clear common denominator´ (Yukl, 1999a, p.289). Contingent reward implies leader behavior that stimulate subordinate behavior in terms of incentives and rewards. Recognition is also considered part of the contingent reward dimension, yet recognition could also be considered a transformational leadership behavior (Yukl, 1998). On the basis of the above, a set of items is formulated. Given that the questions concerning leadership behavior were only a sub-part of the total questionnaire, a limited number of items could be included. Table A.2 presents the behavioral items that have been included in the measurement. Table A.2: Behavioral items included in measurement 197 The reasoning behind the selection of items was as follows. Transactional leadership is generally associated with the two LBDQ dimensions, i.e. initiating structure and consideration (House, 1995). Both the LBDQ and the MLQ tap people-oriented leadership, but the LBDQ content emphasizes leader participativeness, SDUWLFXODUO\ DW WKH JURXS OHYHO KHQFH WKH LWHPV ³, DP WKH RQH WDNLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQV´DQG³,GHOHJDWHPDQ\UHVSRQVLELOLWLHVWRP\SHRSOH´KDYHEHHQLQFOXGHGLQWKHVet of items. A study by Seltzer and Bass (1990) found that the LBDQ consideration scales correlated .69 with the individualized consideration MLQ scale for a sample of part-time MBA students describing their bosses at work. Besides, the MLQ includes measures of charismatic, inspirational and intellectually stimulating leadership; additional components of transformational leadership that are not tapped by the LBDQ (Bass et al., 2008)$VDUHVXOWWKHLWHPV³,IRFXVRQORQJWHUPREMHFWLYH´ LQVSLUDWLRQDODQG LQWHOOHFWXDOO\ VWLPXODWLQJ  ³, FRQWLQXRXVO\ VHHN QHZ DQG LQQRYDWLYH VROXWLRQV´ LQWHOOHFWXDOO\ VWLPXODWLQJ DQG³,PRWLYDWHP\SHRSOHE\PHDQVRIYLVLRQ´ LQVSLUDWLRQDO DUHLQFOXGHGLQWKHVHWRI items. According to data collected by Seltzer and Bass (1990), LBDQ initiation and consideration may substitute for transactional leadership, but not for transformational leadership. Much additional variance in effectiveness was accounted for by adding the MLQ transformational leadership scores to the LBDQ initiation and consideration scores in multiple regression equations. Task-oriented leadership and transactional leadership seem rather similar, to the extent that transactional leaders set goals, and reward people for achieving set targets and so do task-oriented leaders. Preliminary evidence provided by Seltzer and Bass (1990), in contrast indicated that the correlation was close to zero between LBDQ ratings of initiation of structure and any of the scale scores of the MLQ. The empirical data will tell whether transactional and task-oriented leader behaviors are distinct behavior types. Analysis Although the items included in the measurement stem from previous research, given the limited number of items included and the preliminary phase of the research study, this pilot study adopted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (Pett et al., 2003). A first step in the EFA was to build a correlation matrix. Table A.3 shows the resulting correlation matrix. 198 Table A.3: Correlation matrix leadership behavioral items 199 The correlation matrix waVH[DPLQHGWRLGHQWLI\LWHPVWKDWDUHHLWKHUWRRKLJKO\FRUUHODWHG U• RU not correlated (r < .30) with one another. If items are too highly correlated, there is a problem of multicollinearity and one or more of the highly correlated items need to be dropped from the analysis. If the items are not correlated strong enough, there will not be much shared common variance, thus potentially yielding as many factors as items. There were no items with an r •. It can be concluded that there are no items too highly correlated with each other. Nor is there an item which does not correlate with any of the other items . There were two negative correlations, EHWZHHQ WKH LWHP ³, focus on long-WHUPREMHFWLYHVZLWK³,FUHDWHDQDWPRVSKHUHLQZKLFKSHRSOHIHHOFRPIRUWDEOH´DQG³, UHZDUGP\SHRSOHIRUJRRGSHUIRUPDQFH´ Prior to the extraction of factors, several tests were performed to assess the suitability of the respondent data for factor analysis. These tests included the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and the %DUWOHWW¶V7HVWRI6SKHULFLW\(Pett et al., 2003). This resulted in a KMO = 0.795 and a significant result from the %DUWOHWW¶V 7HVW RI 6SKHULFLW\ (p=0.000). Hence the data set passed the KMO test (>.50) DQG%DUWOHWW¶V7HVW(p<.50) and hence can be considered suitable for factor analysis (Hair et al., 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). On the basis of the Kaiser criteria (eigenvalues > 1), the factor analysis for this data set resulted in four distinct factors (3.735, 1.385, 1.308 and 1.006), explaining 62% of total variance. A Varimax orthogonal rotation resulted in the factor structure shown in Table A.4. Table A.4: Pattern matrix of factor solution Items that either loaded strongly (>.40) on several factors that did not load on any factor, or that did not conceptually fit any logical factor structure were discarded. Traditionally, at least two or three variables must load on a factor so it can be given meaningful interpretation (Henson & Roberts, 200 2006), hence the fourth factor, including only one item, ³, DP WKH RQH WDNLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQV´ was discarded. This resulted in a three-factor structure, 1) people-orientation (including four behavioral items), 2) Task orientation (including three behavioral items) and 3) visionary/innovation orientation (including two behavioral items). Next the internal reliability of these factors and the intercorrelations were tested. The results from the Cronbach Alpha test and intercorrelations between the factors are shown in the Table A.5. Table A.5: Descriptives, intercorrelations and Cronbach alpha’s of leadership dimensions 7KH&URQEDFK$OSKD¶VIRUWKHYLVLRQDU\LQQRYDWLRQ-oriented leadership scale is relatively low, yet this may be due to the small number of items. The factors people-orientation and task-orientation were significantly positively correlated (p < .01). The visionary/innovation-orientation showed to be independent of both people-orientation and task-orientation. Next to the closed questions which were scored on a five-step Likert scale, the survey included the following question? Do you feel there are tensions underlying your role as a leader? If so, can you shortly describe the tension? Only 34 (out of 163) participants responded to these questions. Table A.6 shows the tensions that were mentioned. 201 Table A.6: Primary leadership tensions mentioned The answers could be clustered along two primary tensions. The respondents reported to feel tension between a short-term and long-term orientation and between task- versus people-orientation. Discussion The results from this pilot study lead to three points of discussion. First of all, contrary to what may be expected on the basis of the literature, people- and task-oriented leadership items were significantly positively correlated. It should be stressed that the results of this pilot study were based on a selfassessment. There could be a bias in terms of individual differences in terms of scoring. Some individuals have the tendency to give high scores, while others have a tendency to give low scores, meaning that when a leader gives him- or herself a high score on task-oriented leadership behavior, he or she is likely to give a high score on people-oriented leadership, as well. Or vice versa, when a leader scores him- or herself low on task-oriented leadership, he or she tends to score him- or herself 202 low on people-oriented leadership as well. The most important conclusion to be drawn from this first observation, is that from the leader point of view, task- and people-oriented leadership do not represent mutually exclusive categories, as was opted in the chapter four. However, this result does not imply that the leader actually performs both functions equally well. This would require observations from others. A second observation is the overlap between behaviors. Transactional and task-oriented leadership showed a strong overlap, to the extent that they seemed to represent a same factor. Transformational leadership partly overlapped with people-oriented leadership, yet it was distinct to the extent that transformational leadership included a long term focus and a focus on innovation. This seemed to be a separate factor, distinct from task- or people-oriented leadership. This factor requires further analysis and further theoretical analysis. This topic is elaborated in the main text of this dissertation. A third point of discussion deals with the primary tensions that were identified in the answers to the open question, ³do you feel there are tensions underlying your role as a leader? If so, can you shortly describe the tension?´ The answers to this question could be clustered around two opposite tensions, i.e. an internal tension between task- and people-oriented leadership and a tension dealing with the interaction of the organization with its environment, between short-term and long-term oriented leadership. The latter seems to deal with was has been called strategic leadership. The notion has not been operationalized yet. This is one of the aims of the dissertation and is taken up in the main text of the dissertation. Limitations An important limitation of this pilot study is that it did not include all items of the different previous measurement instruments, i.e. the LBDQ (for measuring initiating structure and consideration) and the MLQ (transformational and transactional). Another limitation concerns the fact that it is a selfassessment. As has been seen in terms of the discrepancies betweeQ RQH¶V VHOI-view and the observations of others. Self-ratings tend to be inflated, suffering from leniency and social desirability biases (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Second, self-ratings are less highly related to ratings by others (i.e. peers, supervisors, or subRUGLQDWHV  WKDQ SHHUV¶ VXSHUYLVRUV¶ DQG VXERUGLQDWHV¶ UDWLQJV DUH ZLWK RQH another (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). This may also have implications for the relationship between opposite leader behaviors. As mentioned earlier, the self-assessment of initiating structure and consideration and the assessment by subordinates on the same dimensions resulted in different outcomes in terms of the independence of the two dimensions (Weissenberg & Kavanagh, 1972). 203 204 APPENDIX II.A: QUESTIONNAIRE OF PILOT STUDY Demographic information 1. Gender 2. Age (years) 3. Nationality 4. In which country do you work? 0 Female 0 Male 0 20 - 25 0 26 - 30 0 31 - 35 0 36 - 40 0 41- 45 0 46 - 50 0 51 ± 55 0 56 - 59 0 • 60 «««««««««««« «« «««««««««««« «« Education 0 0 0 0 0 Primary education Secondary education Bachelor (HBO) Master (drs, ir, mr) PhD (dr.) 6. Area of study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biology/ chemistry / physics Business Administration Economics Philosophy / Theology Information Management Medicine / care Education Law Social Sciences Languages Engineering Mathematics Other« 7. Function 5. 0 Specialist 0 Manager 0 Executive Director 205 0 Non-Executive Director 8. 9. 10. 206 0 0 0 0 How many people report to you? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 How many years of management experience do you 0 have? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Functional area 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less than 10 10 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 499 500 - 999 1000 ± 9999 10.000 ± 99.999 •100.000 None 1 tot 3 4 tot 9 10 tot 19 20 tot 29 30 tot 39 •40 General management Finance Human resources Information Management Marketing Sales Operations / logistics Procurement Research & development Strategy Other,« Your current leadership behavior Please answer the following questions considering your role as a leader 11. I focus on long term objectives 12. I continuously seek for new and innovative solutions 13. I make sure we get results and that my people fulfill their tasks properly 14. I am the one taking the decisions 15. I create an atmosphere in which people feel comfortable 16. I set realistic and clear short-term objectives 17. I am flexible and adapt my leadership style to the situation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree 207 Desired leadership behavior Please answer the following questions considering your role as a leader 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree Totally disagree Somewhat disagree In between Somewhat agree Totally agree 18. I make sure the organization is run efficiently 19. I delegate many responsibilities to my people 20. I motivate my people by means of inspiration 21. I reward my people for good performance 22. I maintain a good relationship with my people 23. I would like to change my current leadership style 24. If answered with yes or somewhat, what would you like to change? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 0 0 Yes 0 Somewhat 0 No 0 No idea 25. Do you feel there are opposite tensions in your role as a leader 26. Shortly describe the tension(s) you have come across in your work __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 27. Give an example of how you dealt with these tensions? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 208 SUMMARY “In der Beschränking zeigt sich erst der Meister” (“Less is more”) - von Goethe (1749 ± 1832)5- HISTORICAL-SOCIAL CONTEXT Today we are living in a knowledge era, characterized by a competitive landscape driven by globalization, technology, deregulation, and democratization. Many organizations deal with this new landscape by allying horizontally, across organizational boundaries. As such, the interaction of organizations with and amidst their environment has become a crucial element for organizational vitality. Organizational members across all organizational levels are taking advantage of the competitive opportunities that develop rapidly in the new competitive (external) landscape. Organizational performance is no longer a solely internal endeavor (focusing on what happens within the organization) and no longer the mere responsibility of top-level managers. In fact, the interaction with the environment has become so complex and crucial that a single (or set of) leader(s) at the top of the organization can no longer singlehandedly steer an organization. These contemporary circumstances bear consequences for the way leadership is conceptualized and practiced. RESEARCH CONTEXT Leadership research is (still) largely embedded in the Industrial paradigm (originating from the Industrial era), dominated by the tripod ontology of i) the leader, ii) followers, and iii) goals. The tripod ontology suited the hierarchical structures of organizations and the relatively placid environments these organizations were operating in during that time period. Despite the mentioning of the third leg of the tripod, the actual content of goals has remained largely internally oriented. Most leadership research has focused on the dyadic level, i.e. the impact of the leader on the follower. Little attention has been paid to the organizational context, i.e. the way the organization interacts with its environment. Motivating people is still an important aspect of leadership, but given the complex interaction of organizations with their external environments today, this internal focus is no longer sufficient for explaining organizational performance. Organizational performance is dependent on both an internal and external leadership focus. 5 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 ± 1832) was a German writer, pictorial artist, biologist, theoretical physicist, and polymath. 209 There is a relatively recent leadership concept, strategic leadership, which considers the relationship between leadership and external organizational outcomes. This notion has been conceptualized in terms of innate characteristics of top-level managers. The accompanying behavioral patterns have not been unveiled yet. Most of the leadership research (based on the tripod ontology) is based on studies of lower-level managers, focusing on supervisor behavior DQG KLV RU KHU LQIOXHQFH RQ VXERUGLQDWH¶ satisfaction and performance (labeled supervisory leadership). RESEARCH GAP Combining the historical-social context of organizations that (i) operate in an increasingly complex external environment and (ii) organize themselves more horizontally, with the current research context which is characterized by a focus on (i) the internal organization, neglecting the organizational context, and (ii) hierarchically differentiated research streams, led to the identification of a research gap (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Research gap A first step in bridging this gap was drawing on the existing literature and building upon concepts which fit the contemporary context and take it from there. The strategic leadership concept is most in tune with the need for a link between leadership and the external organizational context. Claims have been made that strategic leadership is applicable across all organizational levels (no hierarchical differentiation). Despite the growing interest in the topic of strategic leadership, its conceptualization and operationalization has been lacking. This dissertation entails the conceptualization, operationalization and validation of a strategic leadership model, which result in two application studies. 210 RESEARCH DESIGN Conceptualization & operationalization of strategic leadership At the heart of every set of strategic issues, a fundamental tension between apparent opposites can be identified. This dissertation presents a conceptual model for strategic leadership on the basis of two paradoxes, i.e. the paradox drawn from the strategic management literature between the (internal) organization and the (external) environment and the paradox between exploration and exploitation underlying the strategic leadership literature. Most if not all references to strategic leadership literature revolve around the tension between long-term viability of the organization which is dependent on exploring fundamentally new competencies, and short-term financial stability, which in turn is based on the exploitation of current organizational capabilities. The resulting strategic leadership model is composed of four quadrants, i.e. Organizational creativity, Business development, Client centricity and Operational efficiency along the two dimensions Exploration-Exploitation and Organization-Environment (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Strategic leadership model The diagonal quadrants (Organizational creativity versus Client centricity and Operational efficiency and Business development) are in a paradoxical relationship and bear antithetical features to one another. Solely, focusing on one of the quadrant would exacerbate the need for the other. In order to test whether strategic leadership could be measured and the extent to which strategic leadership is different from supervisory leadership, both in concept and in application, the four quadrants of the 211 strategic leadership model were operationalized in terms of behaviors. An exploratory factor analysis was undertaken on a dataset including 80 managers (rated by 513 colleagues) drawn from an international engineering firm, in order to demonstrate the four-factor structure of the strategic leadership model. Validation of strategic leadership measurement The resulting strategic leadership measurement instrument was tested with a different sample, consisting of 158 (rated by 486 colleagues) managers in leadership positions, drawn from different organizational levels and various industry contexts, to demonstrate the factor structure and internal validity of the strategic leadership measurement instrument. Lastly, the discriminant validity of the strategic leadership measurement was tested against a widely used measurement for supervisory leadership, i.e. transformational leadership, to establish the distinctiveness of the strategic leadership concept. Application of strategic leadership Following the studies aimed at operationalizing the strategic leadership model and validating the measurement, two application studies were conducted, relating strategic and supervisory leadership to different effectiveness measures. First, both leadership concepts were related to the most-widely used OHDGHUVKLSHIIHFWLYHQHVVFULWHULDLHVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQZKLFKLVODUJHO\LQWHUQDOO\RULHQWHG Second, given the very complexity of the interaction with the organizational environment, putting a lot of strain on the single leader, an alternative source for leadership was sought in terms of strategic leadership performed by the team. As such, the last application of strategic leadership considered the team as the unit of analysis, relating strategic leadership as shared by the team to the outcome of team effectiveness (including external-oriented effectiveness measures). The first application study included 182 leader-follower dyads. The latter study was based on 29 teams of managers (in total 139 managers rated by 443 colleagues). See Figure 3 for the research design. Figure 3: Research design 212 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The dissertation answers four research questions: I. To what extent are the concepts of supervisory and strategic leadership distinct? This research question is relevant in order to establish the added value of conceptualizing and operationalizing a new strategic leadership model. Supervisory and strategic leadership are conceptualizations of leadership at different levels of analysis. Whereas supervisory leadership is played out at the leader-follower level, strategic leadership is aimed at the level of the organizational system in interaction with its environment. These two conceptualizations of leadership have been kept apart by means of disciplinary boundaries, i.e. supervisory leadership being embedded in the psychology discipline and strategic leadership originating from the field of strategic management. These disciplinary traditions have remained separate; there is however no empirical evidence whether the two concepts can be identified as distinct. II. Is leadership manifested differentially across organizational levels? The extent to which organizational level is (still) an important antecedent for the manifestation and effectiveness of strategic and supervisory leadership is an unsettled concern. The term strategic leadership emerged as the responsibility of the top management team. Yet, more and more researchers argue that strategic leadership is an ability which needs to be manifested by members at all organizational levels (normative claim). Likewise, even though evidence on supervisory leadership stems from studies on lower-level managers, top-level managers also have subordinates they need to motivate. The topic of how top-level managers motivate their subordinates has remained largely unexplored. Moreover, if the manifestation of strategic and supervisory leadership behaviors shows a different relationship with organizational level, this would further support the argument that the concepts are distinct. III. To what extent is leadership effectiveness (in terms of subordinate’ job satisfaction) moderated by organizational level? The manifestation of behaviors does not tell us anything about the desirability of those behaviors at different organizational levels. There are two different perspectives on this. The continuity perspective posits that skills associated with leadership effectiveness at lower organizational levels are also important at higher organizational levels. In contrast, the discontinuity perspective theorizes that effective leadership behaviors at a certain organizational level can become ineffective for the next 213 level. SuborGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ LV RQH RI WKH PRVW ZLGHO\ used effectiveness measures in leadership research. A different impact of VWUDWHJLF DQG VXSHUYLVRU\ OHDGHUVKLS RQ VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE satisfaction would once again support the argument that these are two distinct concepts. Even more, a differential impact on VXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQDFURVVRUJDQL]DWLRQDOOHYHOVZRXOGEHDQLQGLFDWLRQ of the relative relevance of strategic and supervisory leadership for different organizational levels. IV. To what extent does shared strategic leadership predict team effectiveness? Strategic leadership is aimed at the interaction of the organization with its environment, hence the effectiveness measure cannot be captured merely by the internally oriented effectiveness measure of subRUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ Strategic leadership does not only surpass supervisory leadership in terms of levels of analysis (having an impact on team effectiveness), but potentially also in terms of unit of analysis. Within teams, there are two potential sources of leadership which are defined by ³ZKR´Hngages in leadership. The first source, the formal team leader, fits the tripod ontology and has received considerable attention and support in the literature. Leadership performed by the formal team leader has also been labeled vertical leadership, due to the hierarchical relationship between the team leader and the team members. The second source, the team, has been the focus of an emerging stream of research that views the team as a potential source of leadership, also labeled as shared leadership. The leadership literature only recently took this alternative source of leadership seriously. Given the complexity of organizational environments and the burden on single leaders, this notion of shared strategic leadership requires further exploration. RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS This dissertation contributed to the leadership literature by means of: I. Reinventing the strategic leadership concept ƒ Developing a solid conceptualization of strategic leadership (i.e. a model composed of four quadrants along two paradoxical axes, organization-environment and exploration- exploitation). ƒ Developing a stable measurement for strategic leadership behavior. ƒ Demonstrating that strategic leadership and supervisory leadership are distinct concepts. II. Providing evidence for the manifestation of supervisory and strategic leadership behavior across organizational levels. ƒ 214 Demonstrating that supervisory leadership was displayed at all organizational levels . ƒ Demonstrating that strategic leadership was manifested differentially across organizational levels. o Top-level managers were most prominent in strategic leadership behavior. Likewise, middle managers were more prominent than lower-level managers in explorationoriented strategic leadership behavior, but not in exploitation-oriented strategic leadership behavior. Middle managers were least prominent in the display of the latter behaviors (when compared to top-level and lower-level managers). III. Showing that the relationship between leadership and subordinate’ job satisfaction is not moderated by organizational level, and yet that different behaviors are less or more desirable (when considering subordinate’ job satisfaction) at certain organizational levels. ƒ Organizational level did not unequivocally moderate the relationship between leadership beKDYLRU RI WKH VXSHUYLVRU DQG VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ Yet several significant relationships were unveiled: o 0LGGOH PDQDJHUV¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH YLVLRQDU\ DQG operational efficiency behaviors of their respective supervisor. o /RZHUPDQDJHUV¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQZDVXQUHODWHGWRWKHOHDGHUVKLSEHKDYLRUVRUWKHLU respective supervisor, which may be due to the role stress of middle managers, required to fulfil both a strategic and supervisory leadership role. o Non-managHU HPSOR\HHV¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH intellectual stimulation, organizational creativity and business development behaviors of their respective supervisor. IV. Demonstrating the value of strategic leadership, shared within the team, in predicting environment-oriented team effectiveness ƒ Shared leadership was a more important predictor for team effectiveness than vertical leadership, except for team innovation. ƒ Shared leadership was particularly significant in predicting environment-oriented team effectiveness. ƒ Vertical leadership was unrelated to team effectiveness. 215 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS The strategic leadership model holds primary value as it links strategy and leadership and is distinct from the mainstream supervisory leadership concept. Strategic leadership connects different disciplines, and breaks theoretical boundaries (levels and units of analysis). No longer fixating on the internal leader-follower dyad, but opening up the leadership perspective, including the interaction of the organization with its environment. Moreover, this dissertation shows that strategic leadership concept holds promising value when considering the team as a source of leadership and that shared leadership has an impact on environment-oriented team effectiveness. The latter finding is especially interesting in the light of the societal trends, where organizations need to tailor their leadership endeavours much more to what happens outside of the organization. The findings of this research also have several practical implications, especially with regard to behaviors to be developed at different organizational levels. The concept is particularly relevant, now that organizations are delayering and strategic leadership is considered a requirement at different levels. The strategic leadership model may help organizations to use performance appraisals more effectively. Based on this, team managers could actively improve strategic and/or supervisory leadership. With regard to career opportunities, the focus can be on developing those skills and competencies needed to move from one managerial level to the next. Especially, given the increasing awareness of the role stress experienced by middle managers. Likewise, the notions of strategic and shared leadership may provide an alternative perspective for leadership development and teamwork training programs, which until today have been predominantly focusing on interpersonal influence and personal effectiveness. In this respect, the strategic leadership model and the relevant findings on shared leadership contribute greatly to leadership in practice. 216 NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING (DUTCH SUMMARY) "In der Beschränking zeigt sich erst der Meister". ("In de beperking toont zich de meester"). - Von Goethe (1749 - 1832)6 – HISTORISCH-SOCIALE CONTEXT We leven vandaag de dag in een kenniseconomie, gekenmerkt door een competitief landschap van globalisering, technologie, deregulering, en democratisering. Veel organisaties reageren op dit nieuwe landschap door horizontale verbindingen aan te gaan (over organisatiegrenzen heen). De interactie van organisaties met en te midden van hun omgeving cruciaal geworden voor organisatorische vitaliteit. Het competitieve landschap biedt kansen en bedreigingen op alle organisatieniveaus. Het functioneren van een organisatie is niet langer louter een interne inspanning (uitsluitend gericht op wat er gebeurt in een organisatie) en niet langer de exclusieve verantwoordelijkheid van topmanagers. In feite is de interactie met de omgeving zo complex en cruciaal geworden dat één (of meerdere) leider(s) aan de top van een organisatie niet langer eigenhandig een organisatie kan/kunnen sturen. Deze eigentijdse omstandigheden hebben consequenties voor de manier waarop leiderschap heden ten dage wordt geconceptualiseerd en beoefend. ONDERZOEKSCONTEXT Leiderschapsonderzoek is grotendeels ingebed in het industriële paradigma (afkomstig uit het industriële tijdperk), gedomineerd door GH ³driepoot” ontologie van i) de leider, ii) volgers, en iii) doelen. De driepoot ontologie paste goed bij de hiërarchische structuren van traditionele industriële organisaties en de relatief stabiele omgeving waarin deze organisaties zich begaven. Ondanks de vermelding van de derde poot van de driepoot, is de feitelijke inhoud van de ³doelen´ poot grotendeels intern gericht. Het meeste leiderschapsonderzoek is dan ook gericht op het dyadische niveau, de impact van de leider op volgers. Er is relatief weinig aandacht voor de organisatorische context, ofwel de manier waarop de organisatie interacteert met haar omgeving. Uiteraard blijft het motiveren van mensen een heel belangrijk aspect van leiderschap, maar gezien de huidige complexe interactie van organisaties met hun externe omgeving, is deze interne focus niet meer afdoende voor 6 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 ± 1832) was een Duits wetenschapper, toneelschrijver, romanschrijver, filosoof, dichter, natuuronderzoeker en staatsman. 217 het verklaren van de prestaties van hedendaagse organisaties. Deze organisaties vereisen zowel een interne als externe leiderschapsfocus. Er is een relatief recent leiderschapsconcept, strategisch leiderschap, waarin de relatie tussen leiderschap en externe organisatorische uitkomsten wordt beschouwd. Dit concept is beschreven in termen van karakteristieken van topmanagers. De bijbehorende gedragingen zijn nog niet in kaart gebracht. Het grootste deel van leiderschapsonderzoek is gebaseerd op managers lager in de organisatie, gericht op het gedrag van de leidinggevende en zijn of haar invloed op de werktevredenheid en prestaties van hun ondergeschikte(n) (onder de noemer supervisory leiderschap, ofwel aansturend leiderschap). ONDERZOEKSHIAAT Het combineren van een historisch-maatschappelijke context waarin organisaties zich (i) in een steeds complexere externe omgeving begeven, en als gevolg daarvan (ii) zich meer horizontaal organiseren, met een onderzoekscontext waarbij de focus ligt op (i) de interne organisatie met weinig oog voor de organisatorische context, en (ii) hiërarchisch gedifferentieerde leiderschapsconcepten, heeft geleid tot de identificatie van een onderzoekshiaat (zie figuur 1). Figuur 1: Onderzoekshiaat De eerste stap om het hiaat op te vullen bestond uit het voortbouwen op concepten uit de bestaande literatuur die passen bij de hedendaagse context. Het strategisch leiderschap concept was het meest in lijn met de idee om leiderschap te verbinden met de externe organisatorische context. Ondanks de groeiende belangstelling voor het onderwerp van strategisch leiderschap, ontbreekt een goed 218 onderbouwde conceptualisatie en een gevalideerde operationalisatie van strategisch leiderschapsgedrag. Dit proefschrift omvat zowel de conceptualisatie, operationalisatie en validatie van een strategisch leiderschapsmodel, waarvan de toegevoegde waarde is getoetst middels twee toegepaste studies. ONDERZOEKSONTWERP Conceptualisatie en operationalisatie van strategisch leiderschap Aan elk strategisch vraagstuk ligt een schijnbare tegenstelling ten grondslag. Dit proefschrift presenteert een conceptueel model voor strategisch leiderschap aan de hand van twee paradoxen, namelijk de paradox uit de strategisch managementliteratuur tussen de (interne) organisatie en de (externe) omgeving en de paradox tussen exploratie en exploitatie onderliggend aan de literatuur over strategisch leiderschap. De meeste, zo niet alle, verwijzingen naar strategisch leiderschap hebben betrekking op de spanning tussen de levensvatbaarheid van de organisatie op de lange termijn die in grote mate afhankelijk is van het verkennen van fundamenteel nieuwe competenties en markten, en financiële stabiliteit op de korte termijn, die op haar beurt is gebaseerd op de exploitatie van de huidige organisatorische capaciteiten. Het resulterende strategisch leiderschapsmodel bestaat uit twee assen Exploratie-Exploitatie en Organisatie-Omgeving, resulterend in vier kwadranten, namelijk Organisatiecreativiteit, Marktontwikkeling, Klantgerichtheid en Operationele efficiëntie (zie figuur 2). Figuur 2: Strategisch leiderschapsmodel 219 De diagonale kwadranten (Organisatiecreativiteit versus Klantgerichtheid en Operationele efficiëntie en Marktontwikkeling) hebben een paradoxale relatie. In het geval een organisatie zich richt op slechts één kwadrant, dan neemt de behoefte aan het tegenovergestelde kwadrant toe. Om te testen of strategisch leiderschap gemeten kan worden en de mate waarin het verschilt van supervisory leadership, zowel in concept als in toepassing, zijn de vier kwadranten van het strategisch leiderschapsmodel geoperationaliseerd in termen van gedrag. Een exploratieve factoranalyse is uitgevoerd op een dataset met 80 managers (beoordeeld door 513 collegae) werkende bij een internationaal ingenieursbureau, met het doel om de vier-factor structuur van het strategisch leiderschapsmodel te toetsen. Validatie van strategisch leiderschap meting Om de factorstructuur en de interne validiteit van het resulterende strategisch leiderschap meetinstrument aan te tonen, is het instrument toegepast op een andere steekproef, bestaande uit 158 managers in leidinggevende posities (beoordeeld door 486 collegae), op verschillende organisatieniveaus en uit verschillende industrieën. Om het onderscheidend vermogen van het strategisch leiderschapsconcept vast te stellen is vervolgens de discriminante validiteit van de strategisch leiderschapsmeting getoetst aan transformationeel leiderschap, een veel gebruikt concept voor supervisory leiderschap. Toepassing van strategisch leiderschap Opeenvolgend aan de operationalisatie en validatie van het strategisch leiderschapsmodel, zijn twee onderzoeken uitgevoerd naar de toepassing van het meetinstrument in relatie tot verschillende effectiviteitsmetingen. In eerste instantie zijn de twee leiderschapsconcepten, supervisory en strategisch leiderschap gerelateerd aan het meest gebruikte leiderschapseffectiviteitscriterium, werktevredenheid van ondergeschikten. Dit betreft een intern gericht effectiviteitscriterium. Ten tweede, wordt het strategisch leiderschap concept getoetst in termen van een alternatieve bron van leiderschap, namelijk het team. Door de toenemende complexiteit van de omgeving waarin organisaties acteren en de toenemende druk op enkele leiders neemt de interesse voor een bredere bron van leiderschap toe. Als zodanig betreft de laatste toepassing van het strategisch leiderschapsmodel, een beschouwing van strategisch leiderschap, gedeeld door een team, in relatie tot de effectiviteit van het betreffende team. De eerste toegepaste studie betrof 182 leider-volger dyades. De tweede en laatste studie was gebaseerd op 29 teams van managers (in totaal 139 managers beoordeeld door 443 collegae). Zie figuur 3 voor het onderzoeksontwerp. 220 Figuur 3: Onderzoeksontwerp ONDERZOEKSVRAGEN Het proefschrift beantwoordt vier onderzoeksvragen: I. In hoeverre zijn de concepten van supervisory en strategisch leiderschap gescheiden? Deze onderzoeksvraag is relevant om de toegevoegde waarde van de conceptualisatie en operationalisatie van een nieuw strategisch leiderschapsmodel aan te tonen. Supervisory en strategisch leiderschap zijn conceptualisaties van leiderschap op verschillende niveaus van analyse. Daar waar supervisory leiderschap zich afspeelt op het niveau van de leidinggevende-ondergeschikte, speelt strategisch leiderschap zich af op het niveau van de interactie van het organisatorische systeem met haar omgeving. Deze twee conceptualisaties van leiderschap zijn gescheiden gebleven langs disciplinaire grenzen, waarbij aansturend leiderschap is ingebed in de discipline van psychologie, en het strategisch leiderschapsconcept voortkomt uit strategisch management. Deze disciplinaire tradities zijn grotendeels gescheiden gebleven. Er is echter geen empirisch bewijs dat de twee concepten inderdaad als onderscheidend kunnen worden geïdentificeerd. II. Wordt leiderschap verschillend geuit op verschillende organisatieniveaus? De meningen zijn verdeeld over de mate waarin organisatieniveau (nog) een belangrijke antecedent is voor de uiting en de effectiviteit van strategisch en supervisory leiderschap. De term strategisch leiderschap is geïntroduceerd als de exclusieve verantwoordelijkheid van het top management team. Toch beweren meer en meer onderzoekers dat strategisch leiderschap een vermogen is dat geuit zou moeten worden door leden op alle organisatieniveaus (normatieve claim). Daar komt bij dat, alhoewel het bewijs voor supervisory leiderschap gebaseerd is op studies van managers op lagere niveaus, topmanagers ook ondergeschikten hebben die ze dienen te motiveren. Dit laatste onderwerp is nog onontgonnen terrein binnen het leiderschapsonderzoek. Bovendien, als de manifestatie van strategisch 221 en aansturend leiderschapsgedrag verschillend is over verschillende organisatieniveaus, is dit een verdere ondersteuning van het argument dat de concepten onderscheidend zijn. III. In hoeverre wordt effectief leiderschap (gemeten op basis van werktevredenheid van ondergeschikten) gemodereerd door organisatieniveau? De manifestatie van leiderschapsgedrag zegt niets over de wenselijkheid (effectiviteit) van deze gedragingen op verschillende organisatieniveaus. Er bestaan twee verschillende perspectieven op dit vlak. Het continuïteitsperspectief stelt dat effectieve leiderschapsvaardigheden op lagere organisatieniveaus eveneens van belang zijn op hogere organisatieniveaus. Het discontinuïteitsperspectief beargumenteert, daarentegen, dat leiderschapsgedrag dat effectief is op een bepaald organisatieniveau ineffectief kan zijn op het volgende (hogere) niveau. Werktevredenheid van ondergeschikten is één van de meest gebruikte effectiviteitsmetingen in leiderschapsonderzoek. Een verschillend effect van strategisch en supervisory leiderschap op het creëren van werktevredenheid van ondergeschikten zou opnieuw aanvullend bewijs leveren voor de stelling dat het hier om twee verschillende concepten gaat. Sterker nog, een verschillend effect op werktevredenheid van ondergeschikten is een indicatie van de relatieve relevantie van strategisch en supervisory leiderschap op de verschillende organisatieniveaus, althans als het gaat om het aansturen van ondergeschikten. IV. In welke mate heeft gedeeld strategisch leiderschap voorspellende waarde voor teameffectiviteit? Strategisch leiderschap is juist gericht op de interactie van de organisatie met haar omgeving, waarvan de effectiviteit niet enkel en alleen in intern gerichte effectiviteitsmetingen te vatten is. Strategisch leiderschap verschilt van supervisory leiderschap niet alleen in niveau van analyse (leider-volger versus organisatie-omgeving), maar ook in de mogelijkheden voor de eenheid van analyse. Binnen teams, zijn er twee mogelijke bronnen van leiderschap die gedefinieerd worden aan de hand van wie zich bezighoudt met leiderschap. De eerste bron, de formele teamleider, past in de driepoot ontologie en heeft veel aandacht gekregen in de leiderschapsliteratuur. Leiderschap uitgevoerd door de formele teamleider wordt ook wel verticaal leiderschap genoemd, als gevolg van de hiërarchische relatie tussen de teamleider en de teamleden. De tweede bron, het team, is de focus van een opkomende trend in onderzoek die het team ziet als een potentiële bron van leiderschap, onder de noemer van gedeeld leiderschap. De leiderschapsliteratuur neemt pas recentelijk deze alternatieve bron van leiderschap serieus. Gezien de complexiteit van de omgeving waarin organisaties zich begeven en de zware lasten 222 op de schouders van maar een kleine groep leiders, biedt deze notie van gedeeld strategisch leiderschap veel potentie voor verdere exploratie. BIJDRAGEN VAN HET ONDERZOEK Dit proefschrift heeft bijgedragen aan de leiderschapsliteratuur door middel van: I. De heruitvinding van het strategisch leiderschapsconcept ƒ De ontwikkeling van een solide conceptualisatie van strategisch leiderschap (dat wil zeggen een model bestaande uit vier kwadranten langs twee paradoxale assen, Organisatie-Omgeving en Exploratie-Exploitatie). ƒ De ontwikkeling van een stabiele meting voor strategisch leiderschap gedrag. ƒ De bevinding dat strategisch leiderschap en supervisory leiderschap twee verschillende concepten zijn. II. Bewijs voor de manifestatie van supervisory en strategisch leiderschapsgedrag over verschillende organisatieniveaus: ƒ De bevinding dat supervisory leiderschap werd vertoond op alle organisatieniveaus. ƒ De bevinding dat strategisch leiderschap verschillend werd vertoond op verschillende organisatieniveaus. o De bevinding dat topmanagers het meest prominent waren in het vertonen van strategisch leiderschap gedrag. De bevinding dat ook middle managers meer op exploratie gericht strategisch leiderschap gedrag vertoonden dan managers op lagere organisatieniveaus, maar dat dit niet gold voor het op exploitatie gerichte strategisch leiderschapsgedrag. Middle managers waren het minst prominent in het vertonen van het laatstgenoemde gedrag (in vergelijking met top en managers of lagere organisatieniveaus). III. Bewijs dat de relatie tussen leiderschap en werktevredenheid van ondergeschikten niet wordt gemodereerd door organisatieniveau, maar dat verschillende gedragingen in meer of minder mate gewenst zijn afhankelijk van organisatieniveau: ƒ Organisatieniveau modereert niet eenduidig de relatie tussen leiderschapsgedrag en werktevredenheid van de ondergeschikte(n). Toch was er sprake van enkele noemenswaardige significante relaties: 223 o Werktevredenheid van middle managers was significant gerelateerd aan het gedrag van hun respectievelijke leidinggevende in termen van visie en operationele efficiëntie. o Werktevredenheid van managers op lagere organisatieniveaus was niet gerelateerd aan het leiderschapsgedrag van hun respectievelijke leidinggevende. Dit kan te maken hebben met de rol stress van middenmanagers, die zowel een strategisch als supervisory leiderschapsrol dienen te vervullen. o Werktevredenheid van niet-manager medewerkers was significant gerelateerd aan het gedrag van hun respectievelijke leidinggevende in termen van intellectuele stimulatie, organisatiecreativiteit en marktontwikkeling. IV. Bewijs van de verklarende waarde van strategisch leiderschap, gedeeld binnen een team, op teameffectiviteit: ƒ Gedeeld strategisch leiderschap was een belangrijkere voorspeller van teameffectiviteit dan verticaal strategisch leiderschap, met uitzondering van de team innovatie dimensie. ƒ Gedeeld strategisch leiderschap was bijzonder belangrijk in het voorspellen van omgevingsgerichte teameffectiviteit. ƒ Verticaal strategisch leiderschap had geen effect op teameffectiviteit. BETEKENIS VAN HET ONDERZOEK Het strategisch leiderschapsmodel heeft toegevoegde waarde door strategie te verbinden leiderschap en als onderscheidend concept ten opzichte van het veelgebruikte en veel onderzochte concept van supervisory leiderschap. Strategisch leiderschap verbindt verschillende disciplines, en doorbreekt theoretische grenzen (niveaus en analyse-eenheden). Strategisch leiderschap gaat verder dan de huidige fixatie op de interne leider-volger dyade, en verbreedt het leiderschapsperspectief door de interactie van de organisatie met haar omgeving mede te beschouwen. Bovendien laat dit proefschrift zien dat het strategisch leiderschapsconcept veelbelovende waarde heeft met betrekking tot het verbreden van de leiderschapslast over teamleden en de waarde die dit heeft voor omgevingsgerichte teameffectiviteit. De laatste bevinding is vooral interessant in het licht van de maatschappelijke trend, waar organisaties meer en meer moeten inspelen op veranderingen in hun omgeving. De bevindingen van dit onderzoek hebben ook een aantal praktische implicaties, in het bijzonder in relatie tot de te ontwikkelen gedragingen op verschillende organisatieniveaus. Het strategisch leiderschapsconcept is met name van belang, gegeven dat organisaties platter worden en strategisch leiderschap steeds vaker wordt beschouwd als een verplichting op alle organisatieniveaus. Het strategisch leiderschapsmodel kan organisaties helpen om functioneringsgesprekken effectiever in te 224 zetten. Aan de hand van de resultaten van een strategisch leiderschapsmeting kunnen teammanagers actief verschillende dimensies van strategisch leiderschap ontwikkelen. Met betrekking tot carrièremogelijkheden zou de focus kunnen liggen op de ontwikkeling van strategisch leiderschapsvaardigheden en competenties die nodig zijn om van het ene managementniveau naar het volgende te gaan. Vooral gezien de toenemende bewustwording van de rol stress die wordt ervaren in de functie van middle managers. Ook de begrippen strategisch en gedeeld leiderschap kunnen een alternatief perspectief bieden voor de ontwikkeling van leiderschapsen teamwork trainingsprogramma's, die tot op heden voornamelijk zijn gericht op interpersoonlijke invloed en persoonlijke effectiviteit. In dit opzicht draagt het strategisch leiderschapsmodel en de relevante bevindingen over gedeeld leiderschap bij aan leiderschap in de praktijk. 225 226 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Hester Duursema works as a consultant for RebelGroup Executives B.V. RebelGroup is a financial, economic and strategy consultancy firm at the interface of the public and private sector. Hester functions as process and change manager amidst strategic start-up, turnaround or renewal endeavors. She finds her challenge in helping public and private organizations to come to a fruitful co-operation. As such, she advises Dutch organizations (public and private) in the water sector how they can realize opportunities in the international water market. Likewise, she contributed to the implementation of the OV (public transport) - chip card. As a process facilitator of a competition-oriented dialogue, she was co-responsible for process and project management in the establishment of an innovative Public-Private partnership for the municipality of Rotterdam in terms of area development. From a more content perspective, she has also taken the lead in a Mid-Term Review of the Access to Energy Fund of the Dutch Development Bank, FMO, and has been part of the team that has developed alternative strategic options for the autonomous administrative authority, CBR, the Dutch driving license organization. And last, she has co-developed a strategic roadmap for a home care organization in the North of the Netherlands. Next to her experience at RebelGroup, Hester Duursema has five years of experience as strategy consultant at DWM Strategy Group, guiding management teams in formulating their strategy and realizing strategic change programs. Besides this, she has co-designed and ±delivered large-scale incompany leadership- and management development programs, especially in the private sector. Hester studied International Economics at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and graduated summa cum laude in 2006. She received her Bachelor of Science degree summa cum laude at the University College Utrecht in 2004, majoring in neuroscience, medicine and chemistry, with a minor in economics and psychology. In between, she studied anthropology for half a year at Cambridge University, England. Hester lived 9 years outside of her home country. Although born in the Netherlands, she spent her childhood in South-East Asia, in Singapore and Indonesia respectively. For the last three years of secondary school she attended the Lycée International in St-Germain-en-Laye in France. 227 ERASMUS RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT (ERIM) ERIM PH.D. SERIES RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT The ERIM PhD Series contains PhD dissertations in the field of Research in Management defended at Erasmus University Rotterdam and supervised by senior researchers affiliated to the Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM). All dissertations in the ERIM PhD Series are available in full text through the ERIM Electronic Series Portal: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1 . ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) and the Erasmus School of Economics at the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR). DISSERTATIONS LAST FIVE YEARS Acciaro, M., Bundling Strategies in Global Supply Chains. Promoter(s): Prof.dr. H.E. Haralambides, EPS-2010-197-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19742 Agatz, N.A.H., Demand Management in E-Fulfillment. Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen, EPS-2009-163-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/15425 Alexiev, A., Exploratory Innovation: The Role of Organizational and Top Management Team Social Capital. Promoter(s): Prof.dr. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2010-208-STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/20632 Asperen, E. van, Essays on Port, Container, and Bulk Chemical Logistics Optimization. PRomoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2009-181-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/17626 Bannouh, K., Measuring and Forecasting Financial Market Volatility using HighFrequency Data, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.D.J.C. van Dijk, EPS-2013-273-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/38240 Benning, T.M., A Consumer Perspective on Flexibility in Health Care: Priority Access Pricing and Customized Care, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. B.G.C. Dellaert, EPS-2011-241MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23670 Betancourt, N.E., Typical Atypicality: Formal and Informal Institutional Conformity, Deviance, and Dynamics, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. B. Krug, EPS-2012-262-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/32345 Bezemer, P.J., Diffusion of Corporate Governance Beliefs: Board Independence and the Emergence of a Shareholder Value Orientation in the Netherlands. Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ing. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2009-192-STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18458 Binken, J.L.G., System Markets: Indirect Network Effects in Action, or Inaction, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. S. Stremersch, EPS-2010-213-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21186 Blitz, D.C., Benchmarking Benchmarks, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A.G.Z. Kemna & Prof.dr. W.F.C. Verschoor, EPS-2011-225-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22624 Borst, W.A.M., Understanding Crowdsourcing: Effects of Motivation and Rewards on Participation and Performance in Voluntary Online Activities, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. J.C.M. van den Ende & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2010-221-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/ 21914 Budiono, D.P., The Analysis of Mutual Fund Performance: Evidence from U.S. Equity Mutual Funds, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2010-185-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18126 Burger, M.J., Structure and Cooptition in Urban Networks, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G.A. van der Knaap & Prof.dr. H.R. Commandeur, EPS-2011-243-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26178 Camacho, N.M., Health and Marketing; Essays on Physician and Patient Decisionmaking, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. S. Stremersch, EPS-2011-237-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23604 Carvalho, L., Knowledge Locations in Cities; Emergence and Development Dynamics, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1 L. van den Berg, EPS-2013-274-S&E, Carvalho de Mesquita Ferreira, L., Attention Mosaics: Studies of Organizational Attention, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.M.A.R. Heugens & Prof.dr. J. van Oosterhout, EPS2010-205-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19882 Chen, C.-M., Evaluation and Design of Supply Chain Operations Using DEA, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. J.A.E.E. van Nunen, EPS-2009-172-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16181 Defilippi Angeldonis, E.F., Access Regulation for Naturally Monopolistic Port Terminals: Lessons from Regulated Network Industries, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. H.E. Haralambides, EPS-2010-204-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19881 Deichmann, D., Idea Management: Perspectives from Leadership, Learning, and Network Theory, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. J.C.M. van den Ende, EPS-2012-255-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/ 31174 Desmet, P.T.M., In Money we Trust? Trust Repair and the Psychology of Financial Compensations, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D. De Cremer & Prof.dr. E. van Dijk, EPS-2011232-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23268 Diepen, M. van, Dynamics and Competition in Charitable Giving, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses, EPS-2009-159-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14526 Dietvorst, R.C., Neural Mechanisms Underlying Social Intelligence and Their Relationship with the Performance of Sales Managers, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. W.J.M.I. Verbeke, EPS-2010-215-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21188 Dietz, H.M.S., Managing (Sales)People towards Performance: HR Strategy, Leadership & Teamwork, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G.W.J. Hendrikse, EPS-2009-168ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16081 Dollevoet, T.A.B., Delay Management and Dispatching in Railways, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A.P.M. Wagelmans, EPS-2013-272-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/38241 Doorn, S. van, Managing Entrepreneurial Orientation, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. J.J.P. Jansen, Prof.dr.ing. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2012-258STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/32166 Douwens-Zonneveld, M.G., Animal Spirits and Extreme Confidence: No Guts, No Glory, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. W.F.C. Verschoor, EPS-2012-257-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/31914 Duca, E., The Impact of Investor Demand on Security Offerings, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A. de Jong, EPS-2011-240-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26041 Eck, N.J. van, Methodological Advances in Bibliometric Mapping of Science, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2011-247-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26509 Eijk, A.R. van der, Behind Networks: Knowledge Transfer, Favor Exchange and Performance, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde & Prof.dr.drs. W.A. Dolfsma, EPS-2009-161-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14613 Essen, M. van, An Institution-Based View of Ownership, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. J. van Oosterhout & Prof.dr. G.M.H. Mertens, EPS-2011-226-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22643 Feng, L., Motivation, Coordination and Cognition in Cooperatives, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G.W.J. Hendrikse, EPS-2010-220-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21680 Gertsen, H.F.M., Riding a Tiger without Being Eaten: How Companies and Analysts Tame Financial Restatements and Influence Corporate Reputation, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. C.B.M. van Riel, EPS-2009-171-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16098 Gharehgozli, A.H., Developing New Methods for Efficient Container Stacking Operations, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. M.B.M. de Koster, EPS-2012-269-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/ 37779 Gijsbers, G.W., Agricultural Innovation in Asia: Drivers, Paradigms and Performance, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder, EPS-2009-156-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14524 Gils, S. van, Morality in Interactions: On the Display of Moral Behavior by Leaders and Employees, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2012-270-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/ 38028 Ginkel-Bieshaar, M.N.G. van, The Impact of Abstract versus Concrete Product Communications on Consumer Decision-making Processes, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. B.G.C. Dellaert, EPS-2012-256-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/31913 Gkougkousi, X., Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G.M.H. Mertens & Prof.dr. E. Peek, EPS-2012-264-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/37170 Gong, Y., Stochastic Modelling and Analysis of Warehouse Operations, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. M.B.M. de Koster & Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS-2009-180-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16724 Greeven, M.J., Innovation in an Uncertain Institutional Environment: Private Software Entrepreneurs in Hangzhou, China, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. B. Krug, EPS-2009-164ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/15426 Hakimi, N.A, Leader Empowering Behaviour: The Leader’s Perspective: Understanding the Motivation behind Leader Empowering Behaviour, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2010-184-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/17701 Hensmans, M., A Republican Settlement Theory of the Firm: Applied to Retail Banks in England and the Netherlands (1830-2007), Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A. Jolink & Prof.dr. S.J. Magala, EPS-2010-193-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19494 Hernandez Mireles, C., Marketing Modeling for New Products, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.H. Franses, EPS-2010-202-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19878 Heyden, M.L.M., Essays on Upper Echelons & Strategic Renewal: A Multilevel Contingency Approach, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2012-259-STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/32167 Hoever, I.J., Diversity and Creativity: In Search of Synergy, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2012-267-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/37392 Hoogendoorn, B., Social Entrepreneurship in the Modern Economy: Warm Glow, Cold Feet, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. H.P.G. Pennings & Prof.dr. A.R. Thurik, EPS-2011-246STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26447 Hoogervorst, N., On The Psychology of Displaying Ethical Leadership: A Behavioral Ethics Approach, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D. De Cremer & Dr. M. van Dijke, EPS-2011244-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26228 Huang, X., An Analysis of Occupational Pension Provision: From Evaluation to Redesign, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek & Prof.dr. R.J. Mahieu, EPS-2010196-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19674 Hytönen, K.A. Context Effects in Valuation, Judgment and Choice, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. A. Smidts, EPS-2011-252-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/30668 Jalil, M.N., Customer Information Driven After Sales Service Management: Lessons from Spare Parts Logistics, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. L.G. Kroon, EPS-2011-222-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22156 Jaspers, F.P.H., Organizing Systemic Innovation, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. J.C.M. van den Ende, EPS-2009-160-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14974 Jiang, T., Capital Structure Determinants and Governance Structure Variety in Franchising, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G. Hendrikse & Prof.dr. A. de Jong, EPS-2009-158F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14975 Jiao, T., Essays in Financial Accounting, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G.M.H. Mertens, EPS2009-176-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16097 Kaa, G. van, Standard Battles for Complex Systems: Empirical Research on the Home Network, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. J. van den Ende & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2009-166-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16011 Kagie, M., Advances in Online Shopping Interfaces: Product Catalog Maps and Recommender Systems, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.J.F. Groenen, EPS-2010-195-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19532 Kappe, E.R., The Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Marketing, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. S. Stremersch, EPS-2011-239-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23610 Karreman, B., Financial Services and Emerging Markets, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G.A. van der Knaap & Prof.dr. H.P.G. Pennings, EPS-2011-223-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/ 22280 Kwee, Z., Investigating Three Key Principles of Sustained Strategic Renewal: A Longitudinal Study of Long-Lived Firms, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. Van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2009-174-STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16207 Lam, K.Y., Reliability and Rankings, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.H.B.F. Franses, EPS2011-230-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22977 Lander, M.W., Profits or Professionalism? On Designing Professional Service Firms, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. J. van Oosterhout & Prof.dr. P.P.M.A.R. Heugens, EPS-2012253-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/30682 Langhe, B. de, Contingencies: Learning Numerical and Emotional Associations in an Uncertain World, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. B. Wierenga & Prof.dr. S.M.J. van Osselaer, EPS-2011-236-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23504 Larco Martinelli, J.A., Incorporating Worker-Specific Factors in Operations Management Models, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. J. Dul & Prof.dr. M.B.M. de Koster, EPS-2010-217-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21527 Li, T., Informedness and Customer-Centric Revenue Management, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.H.M. Vervest & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2009-146-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14525 Lovric, M., Behavioral Finance and Agent-Based Artificial Markets, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. J. Spronk & Prof.dr.ir. U. Kaymak, EPS-2011-229-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22814 Maas, K.E.G., Corporate Social Performance: From Output Measurement to Impact Measurement, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/17627 H.R. Commandeur, EPS-2009-182-STR, Markwat, T.D., Extreme Dependence in Asset Markets Around the Globe, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D.J.C. van Dijk, EPS-2011-227-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22744 Mees, H., Changing Fortunes: How China’s Boom Caused the Financial Crisis, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses, EPS-2012-266-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/34930 Meuer, J., Configurations of Inter-Firm Relations in Management Innovation: A Study in China’s Biopharmaceutical Industry, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. B. Krug, EPS-2011-228ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22745 Mihalache, O.R., Stimulating Firm Innovativeness: Probing the Interrelations between Managerial and Organizational Determinants, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. J.J.P. Jansen, Prof.dr.ing. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2012-260-S&E, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/32343 Moonen, J.M., Multi-Agent Systems for Transportation Planning and Coordination, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. J. van Hillegersberg & Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS-2009177-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16208 Nederveen Pieterse, A., Goal Orientation in Teams: The Role of Diversity, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2009-162-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/15240 Nielsen, L.K., Rolling Stock Rescheduling in Passenger Railways: Applications in Short-term Planning and in Disruption Management, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. L.G. Kroon, EPS-2011-224-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22444 Niesten, E.M.M.I., Regulation, Governance and Adaptation: Governance Transformations in the Dutch and French Liberalizing Electricity Industries, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A. Jolink & Prof.dr. J.P.M. Groenewegen, EPS-2009-170-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16096 Nijdam, M.H., Leader Firms: The Value of Companies for the Competitiveness of the Rotterdam Seaport Cluster, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder, EPS-2010-216ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21405 Noordegraaf-Eelens, L.H.J., Contested Communication: A Critical Analysis of Central Bank Speech, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses, EPS-2010-209-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21061 Nuijten, A.L.P., Deaf Effect for Risk Warnings: A Causal Examination applied to Information Systems Projects, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G. van der Pijl & Prof.dr. H. Commandeur & Prof.dr. M. Keil, EPS-2012-263-S&E, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/34928 Nuijten, I., Servant Leadership: Paradox or Diamond in the Rough? A Multidimensional Measure and Empirical Evidence, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2009-183-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21405 Oosterhout, M., van, Business Agility and Information Technology in Service Organizations, Promoter(s): Prof,dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2010-198-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19805 Oostrum, J.M., van, Applying Mathematical Models to Surgical Patient Planning, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A.P.M. Wagelmans, EPS-2009-179-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16728 Osadchiy, S.E., The Dynamics of Formal Organization: Essays on Bureaucracy and Formal Rules, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.P.M.A.R. Heugens, EPS-2011-231-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23250 Otgaar, A.H.J., Industrial Tourism: Where the Public Meets the Private, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. L. van den Berg, EPS-2010-219-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21585 Ozdemir, M.N., Project-level Governance, Monetary Incentives and Performance in Strategic R&D Alliances, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. J.C.M. van den Ende, EPS-2011-235LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23550 Peers, Y., Econometric Advances in Diffusion Models, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses, EPS-2011-251-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/30586 Pince, C., Advances in Inventory Management: Dynamic Models, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2010-199-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19867 Porras Prado, M., The Long and Short Side of Real Estate, Real Estate Stocks, and Equity, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2012-254-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/30848 Potthoff, D., Railway Crew Rescheduling: Novel Approaches and Extensions, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A.P.M. Wagelmans & Prof.dr. L.G. Kroon, EPS-2010-210-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21084 Poruthiyil, P.V., Steering Through: How Organizations Negotiate Permanent Uncertainty and Unresolvable Choices, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.P.M.A.R. Heugens & Prof.dr. S. Magala, EPS-2011-245-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26392 Pourakbar, M. End-of-Life Inventory Decisions of Service Parts, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2011-249-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/30584 Rijsenbilt, J.A., CEO Narcissism; Measurement and Impact, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A.G.Z. Kemna & Prof.dr. H.R. Commandeur, EPS-2011-238-STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/ 23554 Roelofsen, E.M., The Role of Analyst Conference Calls in Capital Markets, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G.M.H. Mertens & Prof.dr. L.G. van der Tas RA, EPS-2010-190F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18013 Rosmalen, J. van, Segmentation and Dimension Reduction: Exploratory and ModelBased Approaches, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.J.F. Groenen, EPS-2009-165-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/15536 Roza, M.W., The Relationship between Offshoring Strategies and Firm Performance: Impact of Innovation, Absorptive Capacity and Firm Size, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda & Prof.dr.ing. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/22155 F.A.J. van den Bosch, EPS-2011-214-STR, Rus, D., The Dark Side of Leadership: Exploring the Psychology of Leader Selfserving Behavior, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2009-178-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16726 Schellekens, G.A.C., Language Abstraction in Word of Mouth, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. A. Smidts, EPS-2010-218-MKT, ISBN: 978-90-5892-252-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/21580 Sotgiu, F., Not All Promotions are Made Equal: From the Effects of a Price War to Cross-chain Cannibalization, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. M.G. Dekimpe & Prof.dr.ir. B. Wierenga, EPS-2010-203-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19714 Srour, F.J., Dissecting Drayage: An Examination of Structure, Information, and Control in Drayage Operations, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS-2010186-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18231 Sweldens, S.T.L.R., Evaluative Conditioning 2.0: Direct versus Associative Transfer of Affect to Brands, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. S.M.J. van Osselaer, EPS-2009-167-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16012 Teixeira de Vasconcelos, M., Agency Costs, Firm Value, and Corporate Investment, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. P.G.J. Roosenboom, EPS-2012-265-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/37265 Tempelaar, M.P., Organizing for Ambidexterity: Studies on the Pursuit of Exploration and Exploitation through Differentiation, Integration, Contextual and Individual Attributes, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ing. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2010-191-STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18457 Tiwari, V., Transition Process and Performance in IT Outsourcing: Evidence from a Field Study and Laboratory Experiments, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck & Prof.dr. P.H.M. Vervest, EPS-2010-201-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19868 Tröster, C., Nationality Heterogeneity and Interpersonal Relationships at Work, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D.L. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23298 van Knippenberg, EPS-2011-233-ORG, Tsekouras, D., No Pain No Gain: The Beneficial Role of Consumer Effort in Decision Making, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. B.G.C. Dellaert, EPS-2012-268-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/ 37542 Tzioti, S., Let Me Give You a Piece of Advice: Empirical Papers about Advice Taking in Marketing, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. S.M.J. van Osselaer & Prof.dr.ir. B. Wierenga, EPS-2010-211-MKT, hdl.handle.net/1765/21149 Vaccaro, I.G., Management Innovation: Studies on the Role of Internal Change Agents, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2010-212STR, hdl.handle.net/1765/21150 Verheijen, H.J.J., Vendor-Buyer Coordination in Supply Chains, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen, EPS-2010-194-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19594 Verwijmeren, P., Empirical Essays on Debt, Equity, and Convertible Securities, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A. de Jong & Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2009-154-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14312 Vlam, A.J., Customer First? The Relationship between Advisors and Consumers of Financial Products, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses, EPS-2011-250-MKT, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/30585 Waard, E.J. de, Engaging Environmental Turbulence: Organizational Determinants for Repetitive Quick and Adequate Responses, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda & Prof.dr. J. Soeters, EPS-2010-189-STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18012 Wall, R.S., Netscape: Cities and Global Corporate Networks, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. G.A. van der Knaap, EPS-2009-169-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16013 Waltman, L., Computational and Game-Theoretic Approaches for Modeling Bounded Rationality, Promoter(s): Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker & Prof.dr.ir. U. Kaymak, EPS-2011248-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26564 Wang, Y., Information Content of Mutual Fund Portfolio Disclosure, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2011-242-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/26066 Wang, Y., Corporate Reputation Management; Reaching Out to Find Stakeholders, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. C.B.M. van Riel, EPS-2013-271-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1 Weerdt, N.P. van der, Organizational Flexibility for Hypercompetitive Markets: Empirical Evidence of the Composition and Context Specificity of Dynamic Capabilities and Organization Design Parameters, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2009-173-STR, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16182 Wubben, M.J.J., Social Functions of Emotions in Social Dilemmas, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. D. De Cremer & Prof.dr. E. van Dijk, EPS-2009-187-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18228 Xu, Y., Empirical Essays on the Stock Returns, Risk Management, and Liquidity Creation of Banks, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2010-188-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/18125 Yang, J., Towards the Restructuring and Co-ordination Mechanisms for the Architecture of Chinese Transport Logistics, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. H.E. Harlambides, EPS-2009-157-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14527 Zhang, D., Essays in Executive Compensation, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. I. Dittmann, EPS2012-261-F&A, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/32344 Zhang, X., Scheduling with Time Lags, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS2010-206-LIS, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/19928 Zhou, H., Knowledge, Entrepreneurship and Performance: Evidence from Countrylevel and Firm-level Studies, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A.R. Thurik & Prof.dr. L.M. Uhlaner, EPS-2010-207-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/20634 Zwan, P.W. van der, The Entrepreneurial Process: An International Analysis of Entry and Exit, Promoter(s): Prof.dr. A.R. Thurik & Prof.dr. P.J.F. Groenen, EPS-2011-234ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/23422 The Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM) is the Research School (Onderzoekschool) in the field of management of the Erasmus University Rotterdam. The founding participants of ERIM are the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE). ERIM was founded in 1999 and is officially accredited by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). The research undertaken by ERIM is focused on the management of the firm in its environment, its intra- and interfirm relations, and its business processes in their interdependent connections. The objective of ERIM is to carry out first rate research in management, and to offer an advanced doctoral programme in Research in Management. Within ERIM, over three hundred senior researchers and PhD candidates are active in the different research pro grammes. From a variety of academic backgrounds and expertises, the ERIM community is united in striving for excellence and working at the forefront of creating new business knowledge. ERIM PhD Series Research in Management Erasmus Research Institute of Management Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands Tel. Fax E-mail Internet +31 10 408 11 82 +31 10 408 96 40 [email protected] www.erim.eur.nl (www.haveka.nl) Print: Haveka Leadership is hot. In organizations all over the world – in conglomerates and neweconomy startups alike – the complaint emerges: We do not have enough leadership. A search of Google.com returns 2.290 million hits for the word “leadership” alone, whilst Amazon.com reveals 112.249 entries. And yet we need a different type of leadership than how it is conceptualized today. We are living today in a knowledge era, which is characterized by a competitive landscape driven by globalization, technology, deregulation, and democratization. Many organizations deal with this new landscape by allying horizontally, across organizational boundaries. As such, the interaction of organizations with and amidst their environment has become a crucial element for organizational vitality. Leadership research however, is (still) largely embedded in the Industrial paradigm, dominated by the tripod ontology of 1) the leader, 2) followers, and 3) goals. This internally oriented tripod ontology suited the hierarchical structures of organizations and the relatively placid environments that these organizations were operating in during that time period. We call this type of leadership supervisory leadership. There is however, a relatively recent leadership concept, strategic leadership, which does consider the relationship between leadership and external organizational outcomes. This concept has been conceptualized in terms of innate characteristics of top-level managers. The underlying strategic leadership behaviors have not yet been identified. Moreover, as strategic leadership goes beyond the leader-follower dyad, the notion opens up possibilities for more persons participating in strategic leadership, so called shared strategic leadership. In short, this dissertation: • provides a new conceptual model and measure for strategic leadership behavior • provides insight into the manifestation of strategic leadership across organizational levels • shows that teams benefit from shared strategic leadership Design & layout: B&T Ontwerp en advies (www.b-en-t.nl) Erasmus Research Institute of Management - STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP MOVING BEYOND THE LEADER-FOLLOWER DYAD