As Predictors of Implicit Leadership Theories

As Predictors of Implicit lead TheoriesThis get a line seeks to investigate how employed individuals body-build Implicit lead Theories (ILTs), or individualised assumptions about the characteristics of a blood loss drawing card. The existing literary productions legitimately explains that employed individuals, through favorableization and outgoing experiences with leading, get ILTs. However, such(prenominal) studies bemuse neglected to examine directly how ones past leading read hited the governance process, on that pointfore lead to a surmisal examining this formation process. As a competing guess, pendents soulfulness-to-personities give alike be assessed on the consequence to which subordinates form ILTs congruent with their knowledge personality and how having a leaders self-image affects this human relationship. Lastly, it is also predicted that subordinates sh ar a customary ele custodyt when assessing ILTs, such that they leave behinding rate p articipative leading airs mellower than any other leading manners. constitution and Past ExperiencesAs Predictors of Implicit Leadership TheoriesIntroductionEmployees intuitions, preceding stick outations, and cognitive prototypes regarding the lead process return dominated part of the leadership literature (Foti Lord, 1987 Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney, Blascovich, 1996 Larson, 1982 Lord Maher, 1993). Based on such literature, it has been determined that operative individuals, through socializing and past experiences with leaders, develop Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs), or personal assumptions about the qualitys and abilities that remember an ideal credit line leader (Epitropaki Martin, 2004 PAGE NUMBER). ILTs stem from cognitive structures, or schemas, that specify indications and behaviors that followers look at an ideal leader should exhibit. They are stored in the memory, and when followers interact with a person in a leadership position, such schemas beco me stimulated (Kenney et al., 1996). These leadership schemas provide organizational members with a cognitive basis for understanding and responding to supervisor behavior, and they are prerequisite elements of organizational sense-making (Poole, Gioia, Gray, 1989 Weick, 1995).The authorisation reference of ILTs within organizational settings has been spicylighted in the literature (Bass Avolio, 1989 Epitropaki Martin, 2004 Lord Maher, 1993 Offermann, Kennedy, Wirtz, 1994). Implicit leadership theories stimulate been represented as a recognition-based approach to leadership (Lord, 1985). Based on this approach, employees compare their implicit leadership theories with their leaders traits and behaviors (Calder, 1977). This matching process is expected to form the printing processs employees cargo hold for their leaders. Each individual develops a unique schema (which is aroundtimes referred to as a prototype) on what traits and behaviors constitute an ideal leader, spe cifically in the business world. A prototype is an abstract conception of the more than or less interpreter member or close to widely shared features of a given cognitive folk (Phillips, 1984, p. 126). These leadership prototypes are said to be formed through exposure to social events, interpersonal interactions, and prior experiences with leaders (Epitropaki Martin, 2004). Therefore, the general commentary of ILTs has led to the belief that past experiences predict the formation of such theories. a lot(prenominal) prototypes are formed by role schemas (or normative expectations) that allow followers to understand and interpret leaders traits and behaviors (Calder, 1977). As such, it is proposed that leadership is a common label applied to the traits and behaviors congruent with the observers ILTs. When a person exhibits potential leadership characteristics (as defined by the ILT), subordinates assess the potential leader for distinctiveness (as in distinct leadership attri p lainlyes and behaviors) regarding that behavior (Calder, 1977). If the behavior is distinguishable from the behaviors of other convention members, and so leadership whitethorn be attri simplyed to the person.Similarly, it has been suggested that the intuition of leadership involves the activation of a leader category (Phillips Lord, 1981). As such, a persons attributes and/or behaviors are compared to first leader characteristics, activating the leader category if there is a match between attributes and the prototypical attributes and behaviors. In this regard, Lord and his associates (e.g., Lord, 1985 Lord Maher, 1993 Phillips Lord, 1981) begin turn overd to the ILT field. On the basis of Roschs (1978) theory of cognitive mixture, such literature suggested a categorization theory to leadership and argued that leadership perceptions form a number of hierarchically create schemas or cognitive categories, each of which is represented by a set of prototypes.Additionally, onc e a person is categorized as a leader, the activated leader prototype causes followers to selectively at play to, encode, and retrieve schema-consistent nurture and to provide consistent information where such information does not exist (Phillips Lord, 1981 cited in Kenney, Blascovich, Shaver, p.411). Moreover, Lord and others (Lord et al., 1984 Phillips Lord, 1982) have open that people use categories to differentiate between leaders and non-leaders and between in aim(p) and in good leaders, which take cares essential to the formation of ILTs.Other cognitive categorization theories (e.g., Barsalou, 1985 Smith Medin, 1981) however, argue that classification occurs as observers compare stimuli with ideals or specific examples stored in memory. An ideal includes characteristics that category members should exhibit if they are to serve as a representative to the category (Barsalou, 1985). As such, a category members prototypicality increases with its semblance to the category s ideal. Therefore, in some cases, categories may be organized around ideal prototypes rather than typical prototypes. For example, a follower might judge a leader based on an ideal notion (ILT) when evaluating whether a leader is quotable of forge (Barsalou, 1985). Similarly, the closer the input signal is to a categorys ideal, or the more category exemplars the stimulus resembles, the more presumable the observer will carve up the stimulus as a member of that category (Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney, Blascovich, 1996). In this example, the category is a leader who is worthy of influence.It has also been argued that there is a possible feedback loop between employees categorization of a supervisor as congruent to the implicit leadership profile and their perceptions of the supervisors behavior (Lord Maher, 1993). Leadership categorization processes can have an influence on perceptions of developed leader behavior, but they are also likely to be affected by a persons general day-to -day experiences with a handler. It might be through their exposure to their actual leaders behaviors that employees engage in a categorization process and make active comparison between their actual supervisor and the implicit profile stored in memory. Furthermore, perceivers may then rely on existing categorizations and evaluations of congruity to progress simplify the processes required to recognize leadership in others. Once someone is categorized as close or distant to a perceivers ILTs, the relevant leadership schema generates further assumptions about the persons behavior, modify perceptions of that behavior. Additionally, once people attach a label to an object, person, or event, this process of categorization guides how they interpret much of the subsequent information they encounter concerning that object, person, or event. Over time, this additional information tends to strengthen the original categorization (Lord Maher, 1993).Measure of ILTs and Effects on ValidityT o date, there is no single and widely accepted euphony of implicit leadership theories. Several researchers have developed independent lists of traits to measure ILTs, but such lists are rarely replicated in other research, and they often use different clusters of traits. However, attributes such as intelligent, honest, dynamic, and motivated seem to exist in all the lists elicited, and a distinction between overbearing (prototypic) and negative (anitprototypic) traits has been made by most researchers (Epitropaki Martin, 2004 Offermann, Kennedy, Wirtz, 1994). In addition, ILT trait lists can be fairly long, as in Lord et al.s (1984) home base of 59 items, the Schein Descriptive Indexs (SDI Schein, 1973) 92 item scale, and Offermann et al.s (1994) scale of 41 items (Epitropaki Martin, 2004). Other scales include the Campbell Leadership indicant (CLI Campbell, 1991), Kenney et al.s (1996) Leaders Described as Worthy of Influence, and House et al.s (1999) Culturally Endorsed Im plicit Leadership Theories (CILTs).It is important to phone line here that leadership instruments as a whole have used both traits and behaviors to measure the construct. specifically, the trait approach emphasizes attributes of leaders such as personality, motives, values, and skills, whereas the behavior approach emphasizes the splendour of what leaders actually do (e.g., activities, responsibilities, business offices, etc. Yukl, 2002.). However, behavioral theories are often considered a stronger approach in leadership literature, and thus will be the approach taken in the present study. Specifically, a meta-analysis examining the Ohio State leadership behaviors of Consideration and Initiating mental synthesis symmetrys illustrated important support for the validity of Initiating Structure and Consideration in leadership research (Judge, Piccolo, Ilies, 2004).Generalizability of ILTsA kind of individual difference variables have been considered as potentially being related to ILTs. The present study chiefly examines personality as individual differences in relation to ILTs. If individual differences do not affect ILTs, then the ILTs would be generalizable crosswise different groups of people. Such generalizability has been examined in relation to some groups of people, including sexual activity, type of role or job, and culture.However, the generalizability of ILTs is supported by contradictory evidence. Generalizability findings have mainly focused on the areas of consistency across gender (Deal Stevenson, 1998 Offermann et al., 1994), consistency from students to professional samples (Offermann et al., 1994), and consistencies across cultures (Bryman, 1987 House et al., 1999). All three areas are for the most part supported across the generalizability studies, as findings support claims that ILTs remain unaffected by individual and contextual differences, and the grad to which employees resort to categoric thinking and use ILTs as a map to m ensurate their actual supervisors behavior does not variegate as a function of context or individual differences (Epitropaki Martin, 2005).However, other findings argue that some variations do exist. For example, even though men and women have similar perceptions of prototypic leaders, men rated traits such as aggressive, competitive, and feelings not easily hurt elevateder than women did, and women rated traits such as being aware of others feelings, helpful, and self-confident higher than men did (Deal Stevenson, 1998). In other words, one groups ILT is not necessarily the same as another groups.In addition, there is much discrepancy in ILT ratings in the cross-cultural literature on leadership. For instance, Gerstner (1994) compared leadership prototypes of a business leader across some(prenominal) countries using an attribute-rating task. Results indicated that there are reliable differences in the prototypical leadership perceptions of members from the various countries sa mpled. Such findings were built upon other literatures asserting that perception is not solely an innate, physiological function of the cognitive process, but is also a submitive process reflecting the self, including cultural background (Markus Kitayama, 1991). Likewise, it was also previously found that characteristic traits of a leader in one culture may be really different from prototypical traits in another culture (Shaw, 1990). Additionally, Hofstede (1976) has proposed that the more similar two individuals are in terms of nationality, the more likely they are to perceive their social environment similarly. Overall, therefore, the generalizability claims of ILTs appear inconclusive, but disposed(p) information may be lacking. As such, further investigation should be undertaken.Additionally, other hypotheses by Eptriopaki and Martin (2005) examined the degree to which people use ILTs as a benchmark to make sense of their supervisors behavior, and suggested that it might ch ange as a function of context. For instance, a limited capacity model has been applied to leadership perceptions and leader behavior ratings (Epitrokpaki Martin, 2005 Lord Maher, 1990). This model acknowledges peoples limited memory capacity and their reliance on general cognitive reduction mechanisms (such as ILTs), particularly in conditions of high cognitive load. Furthermore, it was also proposed that employees in jobs of high demand will rely more on their ILTs to rate the quality of the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship they develop with their manager (Epitropaki Martin, 2005). It was further proposed that employees in exchanges of short duration would rely more on their ILTs to rate the quality of the relationship they develop with their supervisors than those in exchanges of long durations. Such variations have not been examined further, and there is still a clear rent for future examination of all demographical variables. When considering the formation of ILTs, the present proposal will hold cultural differences constant, as only U.S. residents will serve as participants. Ethnicity and gender differences will be chastenessled.As described above, the explanation and illustration of ILTs often refers to past experiences playing a role in the formation of such theories. However, studies have neglected to examine directly how ones past leaders have affected the formation process. The first hypothesis in the present study attempts to explain how the role of past experiences affects the ILT formation process by examining ratings of subordinates most and least effective leaders. Therefore, the following is hypothesized about the effects of experience on predicting implicit leadership theories assumption 1 confederates past experiences with various types of leaders will predict their implicit leadership theories. ILTs will be more strongly related to descriptions of ones most effective leader than to descriptions of ones least effective leader. The Formation of ILTs spread out The Effects of PersonalityThe present study also examines how ILTs could be formed by personality. Historically, results of investigations relating personality traits to leadership have been inconsistent and often disappointing. Most reviews of the literature have concluded that the trait approach has go out of favor among leadership researchers. The original source of skepticism with the trait approach is often attributed to Stogdills (1948) powerful review. Although Stogdill did find some consistent relations, he concluded, The findings suggest that leadership is not a matter of still status or of the mere possession of some combination of traits (Stogdill, 1948, p. 66). As Bass (1990) noted, after Stogdills (1948) review, situation-specific analyses took over, in fact, dominating the field of leadership theory and research (p. 59). Many attempts have examined the personality traits in effective leaders (Hogan, 1994 Judge Bono, 2000 Tett Burn ett, 2003), but the translation of what comprises an effective leader may be partly amenable for theory abandonment. Perhaps this is because there are unique differences among individuals personalities, it seems likely that individuals implicit leadership theories, or their expectations of an effective leader, will be differ from person to person, and these differences could be related to personality of the person whose ILT is examined.The ILTs approach reflects a resurgence of matter to in leadership traits, but the emphasis is now placed on the perceptual processes underlying the conceptualization of leadership. When defining ideal leadership, it is important to remember that ones personality may affect what behaviors he or she thinks are most effective for leading others (Cucina, Vasilopoulos, Sehgal, 2005).A similar case has already been argued for the role that supervisors implicit theories play on achievement appraisals (Borman, 1987 Cronbach, 1955 Uggerslev Sulsky, 2008 ). For instance, it has been found that raters often use their own distinctive dimensions to evaluate the performance of their employees (Borman, 1987). Such evidence has led to the implementation of frame-of-reference (FOR) training, or a training program that helps raters hold a common understanding of how to rate an organizations performance dimensions. FOR training has been shown to help increase the accuracy of performance ratings, thereby countering the effects of supervisors implicit theories of performance. Therefore, if it has been found that supervisors have implicit theories based on their own personal performance ideology, it only seems logical that subordinates could too have their own personal theories on the performance of leaders. cordial Perceptions based on SimilaritySome of the ILT literature has suggested that implicit theories can provide stability to dyadic relationships when they fulfill a similarity paradigm (Epitropaki Martin, 2001 Turban et al., 1990). Fo r instance, the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) states that similarity between individuals with regard to personal attributes or other characteristics is linearly related to interpersonal attraction, such that similarity gives rise to attraction temporary hookup dissimilarity engenders repulsion. In the context of outcomes, it has been argued that interpersonal attraction fosters supervisor-subordinate compatibility and in turn, performance. For instance, the resulting interpersonal connection encourages accurate perception of supervisor performance expectations and, consequently, improved subordinate performance (Deluga, 1998).In addition, there is evidence that perceptions of similarity, both in a general sense (Wexley Pulakos, 1983) and with regard to specific attributes such as demographic characteristics (Epitropaki Martin, 2001), attitudes (Phillips Bedeian, 1994), values (Ashkanasy OConnor, 1997), competency (Kim Organ, 1982) and personality traits (Bauer Green, 1996 Keller, 1999), have been associated with perceptions of leader-member exchange quality. Moreover, it has been found that subordinates who regard themselves as being similar to their supervisors communicate more with them, and are rated as higher performers than those who do not (Turban et al., 1990). This may describe the previously mentioned gender differences found in terms of individual ratings on effective leader attributes. Other relationships, like mentorships, have also evidenced success based on attraction due to the similarity of race and gender, and perceived similarity of beliefs and attitudes (Turban, Dougherty, Lee, 2001). Overall, perceived similarity in a dyad (such as a supervisor-subordinate pair) is often related to favorable or pleasurable outcomes.Social Perceptions and Self-Serving BiasesIndividuals often believe that what they do, or how they contribute at expire, is important. For instance, literature on positive self-illusions suggests that indi viduals may prefer leaders similar to the self, because such individuals tend to hold unrealistic, positive illusions of the self (Taylor Brown, 1988). Assuming that becoming a leader and leadership are construed as socially desirable, individuals may keep unrealistic expectations of assuming a leadership position and project their own traits onto idealized leadership images. In other words, as individuals tend to view themselves in an overly positive manner, believing that they themselves could be leaders, they may be most satisfied and most likely to want to continue working with leaders who are similar to them (Taylor Brown, 1988). They might judge such leaders to be more effective, which is similar to ILT perceptions.The social cognition literature also suggests that individuals engage in self-serving biases when describing attributes that are necessary for performance (Cucina, Vasilopoulos, Sehgal, 2005). It has been suggested that individuals tend to indicate that their own personality traits are those that are necessary for successful performance. Research in this world initially (Lewicki, 1983) examined self-serving biases when looking at prototypes of social categories. It was evidenced that if an individual has a favorable impression of a target (e.g., a leader), then he or she will be more likely to assume that the target has the same characteristics as ones self. In addition, she will ascribe her own strengths and positive attributes to the target. date there is currently no available literature on self-serving biases and implicit leadership theories, several studies have examined how self-serving biases affect ratings of leadership orientation (Dunning, Perie, Story, 1991 McElwee, Dunning, Tan, Hollman, 2001). In these studies, participants tended to rate leaders as goal- or people-oriented depending on which orientation the participant possessed. Interestingly, such self-serving biases were only present when rating leadership performance, a s opposed to leadership creativity (Dunning, Perie, Story, 1991). In addition, liking the target leader was not found to interpose or moderate the relationship between orientation of the leader and orientation of the participant (McElwee, Dunning, Tan, and Hollman, 2001).Perhaps the trait activation model (Tett Burnett, 2003) can assist in explaining how people develop the previously discussed self-biased belief systems, and consequently, their expectations. For instance, match to the trait activation model, a person will rate specific behaviors high on importance for successful performance, because those specific behaviors (and their underlying personality trait) are what make him or her effective. Because of such beliefs, those behaviors become determine by the individual. For example, a conscientious person will likely engage in organizational behaviors and work in a methodical fashion, because that is what he or she thinks is necessary in order to perform successfully on a job.When a persons traits are valued by ones organization (or perhaps ones leader), the person will probably experience more satisfaction with the job (Tett Burnett, 2003). In return, an individual may expect a leader to have similar traits as the self if these traits are seen as valuable and related to performance. Applying this rationale, it is hypothesized that a self-serving belief system will affect the formation of followers implicit leadership theories in terms of trait-based principles. Such a hypothesis lies on the foundation that personality is the underlying driving force behind how individuals behave, or why certain types of behaviors are valued. In other words, it is speculated that a subordinate will rate how an effective leader should perform (i.e., ILT), based on implicit assumptions about the behaviors that make the subordinate most effective. It is proposed that followers will hold implicit leadership theories based on a self-serving bias that is, a bias that succ essful people are like themselves. Thus, followers will expect an effective leader to exhibit behaviors congruent with the followers own personalities.Hypothesis 2 Subordinates personalities will affect the formation of their implicit leadership theories. As such, subordinates will rate leaders who exhibit behaviors that correspond to their own personality traits as more effective than leaders whose behaviors do not correspond to the subordinates personality traits.SpecificallySubordinate conscientiousness is positively associated with rating a business leader high on initiating structure.Subordinate agreeableness is positively associated with rating a business leader high on consideration.Subordinate extraversion is positively associated with rating a business leader high on inspiring commitment.Subordinate agreeableness is positively associated with rating a business leader high on participative style.The rationale for this hypothesis rests on inferences about the relationships b etween specific personality traits and specific (leader) behaviors. Regarding Hypothesis 2a, the correspondence between scoring high on conscientiousness and rating a business leader high on initiating structure stems from the constructs explanations. For instance, because those who notice high on conscientiousness are said to have high levels of thoughtfulness, with good impulse control and goal-directed behaviors (Goldberg, 1992), it seems feasible to assume that such persons would assign high ILT ratings for leader dimensions like initiating structure. Initiating structure refers to leader behaviors such as encouraging the use of uniform procedures and maintaining definite standards of performance (Stogdill, 1963), leader behaviors that parallel the definition of conscientiousness.Similarly, because those who score high on agreeableness are said to have high levels of trust, altruism, kindness, affection, and other prosocial behaviors, it is predicted that such persons would ha ve high ILT ratings for the leader dimension of consideration. Consideration refers to leader behaviors such as treating all group members as ones equal and looking out for the personal welfare of group members, behaviors that seem to parallel the definition of agreeableness. Similarly, it is also predicted that those who score high on agreeableness will have high ILT ratings for the leader dimension participative style. Leaders with a participative style consult with their subordinates when facing problems and ask them for suggestions concerning how ideas should be implemented (Northhouse, 2004).Lastly, because those who score high on extraversion are said to have high levels of excitability, sociability, assertiveness, emotional expressiveness, and optimism, it is predicted that such persons would assign high ILT ratings for leader dimensions like inspiring commitment. Inspiring commitment refers to the leader behaviors of proposing change with great enthusiasm and exerting optimi sm when describing a difficult activity or mission for a work unit (Yukl, 1998). These behaviors seem to parallel the definition of extraversion.Leadership Self-ImageSelf-schemas are sets of cognitive structures that provide for individual expertise in particular domains of social behavior (Markus, Smith, Moreland, 1985). As schematicism increases in a conceptual domain, such as leadership, so does sensitivity to the behavior of others in that domain. Thinking of oneself as a leader may make ones own characteristics more salient for resolve leaders.As a result, it will be important to note whether or not individuals see themselves as leaders, because it may affect if they expect a leader to be like them. That is, if the people think of themselves as leaders, then the Hypotheses 2 are more likely to be true. If, on the other hand, the person has no self-image as a leader and does not ever want to be a leader, the self-serving hypothesis might be less true. It would not be very self -serving to see another person being effective at something (e.g., leadership) as similar to oneself if leadership plays no part in ones self-image. Therefore, the relationships in Hypotheses 2 should be moderated by ones self-image regarding leadership.Hypothesis 3 Subordinate leadership self-image will moderate the relationship between subordinate personality and formation of implicit leadership theories. The relationship between personality and the formation of implicit leadership theories will be stronger when subordinates have a leadership self-image.A proposed model that is consistent with the preceding hypotheses can be viewed in Figure 1. By examining how ILTs may be formed, especially if ones past experience plays a role, important implications could be explored. For instance, Eptiropaki and Martin (2005) noted the potential role ILTs could play in the socialization of newcomers. As such, ILTs can potentially have a significant impact on the development of interpersonal rel ationships during the organizational socialization process (Eptiropaki Martin, 2005, p. 673). Subsequently, current training programs of leadership could seriously benefit by including some form of ILTs training to increase managers awareness of their subordinate ILTs.Figure 1. The effects of personality and experience on predicting implicit leadership theories.Experience with Behaviors of Multiple LeadersPersonality of SubordinatesImplicit Leadership TheoryLeadership Self-ImageDemographic ConsiderationsPreviously mentioned generalization issues will be considered when conducting the study. Gender effects on ILTs are of interest in past research, as are age and experience. Younger and less experienced employees might have different conceptions of ideal leadership from employees with more experience and more exposure to organizational leaders (Brown Lord, 2001). Age, schooling level, occupational title, and years employed will therefore be examined and controlled if necessary. In addition, ethnicity will be recorded, but the sample will be limited to United States residents to avoid previously found cross-cultural differences.Participative LeadershipEven though there are often individual differences among people, maybe working individuals just generally prefer a participative leader over a certain type of leadership that is based on their personalities or past experiences. For instance, practicing participative leadership offers a variety of potential benefits, including likelihood to increase the quality of conclusion-making (Scully, Kirkpatrick Locke, 1995), to contribute to the quality of employees work life (Somech, 2002), and to increase employees motivation (Locke and Latham, 1990), commitment (Armenakis, Harris, Mossholder, 1993), and satisfaction (Smylie, Lazarus, Brownlee-Conyers, 1996), all of which suggest that subordinates fight well to participation leadership.Participative leadership is based on the process of joint decision-making by two or more parties in which the decisions have future effects on those making them. The amount of participation by any individual is the amount of influence he or she has on the decisions and plans agreed upon (Vroom, 1959). Specifically, participative leadership involves the efforts of a supervisor to encourage and facilitate participation by subordinates when making decisions that could have been made by the manager alone. Participative leadership can take many forms, such as revising a tentative decision after receiving protests, asking for suggestions before making a decision, or allowing others to make a decision subject to a supervisors final authorization (Yukl, 2002). Field and House (1990) examined the validity of the Vroom-Yetton decision-making model of leadership, and found it was validated for managers, but not for subordinates. Although they were not explicitly studying ILTs, their results suggest that because the model was developed and validated on managers perceptions of leader styles in relation to their perceptions of effectiveness, it is biased towards managers implicit leadership theories. Subordinates in their study, however, perc