Leadership Review - A Publication of the Claremont McKenna College Kravis Leadership Institute

Issue: Winter 2003

The Contribution of Leader Social and Emotional Skills to Leadership Effectiveness During Strategic Organizational Change

By Kevin S. Groves, Kravis Leadership Institute
Claremont McKenna College

Academic Citation: Kevin S. Groves, “The Contribution of Leader Social and Emotional Skills to Leadership Effectiveness During Strategic Organizational Change,” Kravis Leadership Institute Leadership Review, Winter 2003.

About the Author: Kevin S. Groves, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral fellow at the Kravis Leadership Institute at Claremont McKenna College. His research interests include the prediction of leadership effectiveness, the use of evaluation methodology for improving leadership training and development, and the ways in which charismatic leadership behavior affects financial and strategic performance.

Leaders in today’s organizations are confronted with the numerous challenges of creating and sustaining major organizational change. Regulatory, economic, competitive, and technological changes have forced organizations to adapt quickly and effectively, which puts a premium on executive leadership that is capable of facilitating system-wide organizational change (Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Environmental forces such as global competition, the advent of the Internet and advanced technology, and changing workforce demographics have a profound impact on the rate of change in organizations (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1999). Moreover, intense competition in the marketplace has forced many corporations to ensure survival by thoroughly reinventing themselves after years of prosperity in relatively stable environmental conditions. While an important part of the survival process is seeking new methods of securing a competitive advantage, practitioners and scholars alike have observed that the ability for an organization to change may be the lone sustainable competitive advantage. Recently, Worley, Hitchin, and Ross (1996) concluded (p. 7):

The only truly sustainable competitive advantage is the capability to make the transition from one set of strategies, structures, and processes that exploit an old advantage to another strategic orientation that exploits a new advantage, which is the capability to design and implement strategic change.

Although several organizational competencies are necessary for strategic organizational change, recent research has emphasized that leaders play a critical role as change agents during periods of organizational change (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1994). Leadership scholars have devoted extensive attention to the leader’s role in implementing change, and have identified several leader characteristics and behaviors, contextual factors, and follower characteristics that are most likely to bring about successful organizational change. Recently, renewed interest has centered on various leader characteristics that may be particularly important for facilitating organizational change. The purpose of the present investigation is to examine the effects of two specific leader characteristics -- social and emotional skills -- on leadership effectiveness during periods of strategic organizational change. Given that effective senior leadership contributes to an organization’s ability to implement strategic change, the goal of this research is to identify those leader characteristics that are critically important for facilitating strategic change and offer practical recommendations for organizations.

Type of Organizational Change
The tumultuous landscape of the current business environment suggests that most organizations face the challenge of implementing organizational changes to maintain profitability in an increasingly competitive and global market. In an effort to understand these changes and the process through which organizational change is implemented, many researchers have developed models for the various types and processes of organizational change (e.g., Levy & Merry, 1986; Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Worley, Hitchin, & Ross, 1996). For example, Nadler and Tushman (1990) posited that organizational change varies along different dimensions, including strategic and incremental change. Incremental changes are those that only affect selected components of an organization, with the purpose of enhancing organizational effectiveness within the general framework of the current strategy, mode of organizing, and existing values. In contrast, strategic changes impact the entire organization and fundamentally redefine the organization’s general framework, including strategy, culture, and core values. Furthermore, such changes challenge organizational members’ assumptions and values, and also generate strong resistance to change.

Similarly, Levy and Merry’s (1986) breakthrough work on the types and processes of organizational change provide an important model for understanding how leaders implement change in organizations. In their comparison of first- and second-order change, Levy and Merry assert that first-order change is generally characterized by changes in functional processes, including organizational structure, technology, communication systems, recognition and reward programs, and decision-making processes. According to the authors, first-order changes are implemented in the context of an organization’s existing paradigm or “metarules”, which unnoticeably shape perceptions, procedures, and behaviors. Conversely, second-order change is characterized by fundamental changes in an organization’s paradigm, mission and purpose, and culture. Second-order change includes shifts in corporate purpose which may be expressed by senior leader statements regarding “what business are we in” and the strategies for the organization’s mission and related goals and objectives. In reference to organizational culture, Levy and Merry assert that changes in beliefs, values, and norms constitute second-order change.

Furthermore, leadership scholars have investigated the role of leaders during periods of organizational change, including analysis of leader traits and behaviors that predict leadership effectiveness and the facilitation of organizational change (e.g., Conger, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1994). For instance, research has shown that the manner in which organizational change is communicated has powerful effects on followers’ receptiveness to change. Studies by Howell and Frost (1989), Holladay and Coombs (1993; 1994) found that a charismatic communication style is necessary for the content of the leader’s vision to have its powerful effects on followers. Similarly, Levy and Merry (1986) assert that a transformational leadership style is necessary for leaders attempting to implement second-order change. While empirical support exists for the relationship between leader behaviors and organizational change, the research literature lacks empirical evidence for those leader abilities, skills, or traits that may enable effective leadership during major organizational change. The present study will investigate the possible role of leader social and emotional skills as critical competencies for leaders implementing organizational change.

The Social Skills Level Of Leaders
A recent development in research on change-oriented leadership, particularly transformational and charismatic leadership, is the importance of a leader’s social intelligence, and related skills and abilities (e.g., Zaccaro, 2002; Goleman, 1995). According to Zaccaro (2002), social intelligence is a set of attributes that enable individuals to (1) perceive and accurately interpret the intricacies of social situations, (2) derive and select the appropriate behavioral responses that are likely to lead to success, and (3) enact the selected social responses. Zaccaro conceptualizes leadership as an inherently social phenomenon that requires leader role incumbents to accommodate multiple internal and external constituencies, and account for often-conflicting social demands and requirements (Zaccaro, 2002; Conger & Kanungo, 1994). These challenges are exacerbated during times of organizational change when leaders face the difficult task of convincing initially skeptical superiors, peers, and followers of the vision’s viability and their individual roles in vision implementation.

Recent research suggests that differences in leader’s social skill sets may explain differences in both leadership effectiveness and how leaders convince organizational members of the need for major organizational change. To overcome employee resistance to the implementation of strategic change or a course of action that differs markedly from the status quo, leaders often rely on several types of social skills such as self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991), social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility (Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991), and social control (Riggio, 1986). Self-monitoring is defined as the ability to monitor and control one’s expressive behaviors, including a concern for social appropriateness, a sensitivity to social cues, and the ability to control one’s behavior in response to those cues (Snyder, 1979). Similarly, Zaccaro et al. (1991) asserted that effective leaders have the ability to recognize what group members expect of them in various group contexts (social perceptiveness) and respond accordingly (behavioral flexibility). Finally, social control is the ability to regulate verbal expression and play various social roles depending upon the dynamics of the group context (Riggio, 1986).

The common theme among these skill sets is one’s ability to monitor and control expressive behaviors, identify contextual cues concerning appropriate or effective behavior, and then act accordingly. To implement major organizational change and minimize employee resistance to change, leaders must possess these skills to accommodate multiple internal and external constituencies and account for often-conflicting social demands and requirements (Zaccaro, 2002; Conger & Kanungo, 1994). In short, leaders with the ability to effectively respond to varying behavioral requirements across organizational contexts are better equipped to handle the challenges inherent in implementing major organizational change. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Leader social skills will be positively related to follower ratings of leadership effectiveness.

Hypothesis 2: Type of organizational change will moderate the relationship between leader social skills and leadership effectiveness such that leaders with greater social skills will receive higher follower ratings of leadership effectiveness during strategic organizational change.

The Emotional Skills of Leaders
In addition to social skills, researchers have also investigated the role of emotional intelligence and related emotive skills as leader characteristics that may play an important role in facilitating organizational change. According to Salovey & Mayer (1990), and later Goleman (1995), emotional intelligence represents a set of dispositional attributes (e.g., self-awareness, emotional management, self-motivation, empathy, and relationship management) for monitoring one’s and others’ feelings, beliefs, and internal states with the purpose of providing useful information to guide one’s and others’ thinking and behavior. Several empirical studies have successfully demonstrated that aspects of emotional intelligence are related to how leaders influence major organizational change. For example, Bennis (1989) showed that leaders with greater self-awareness are more likely to demonstrate determination, farsightedness, and strong convictions in his or her beliefs, while Goleman (1995) demonstrated that leaders high on emotional management are more likely to consider the needs of others over his or her personal needs (Goleman, 1995). Recently, Sosik (2001) showed that manager self-awareness was related to charismatic leadership, several work attitudes, and managerial performance.

While the aforementioned research demonstrates important facets of emotional intelligence, several studies have addressed the role of leader emotional skills and nonverbal communication as they relate to leadership effectiveness and organizational change. Studies by Howell and Frost (1989) Holladay and Coombs (1993; 1994) found that a charismatic communication style characterized by emotional expression and nonverbal communication is necessary for vision content to have its powerful effects on followers. Holladay and Coombs (1994) asserted that the combination of an effective vision and powerful vision delivery style characterized by expressive behaviors and nonverbal communication was related to perceptions of leader charisma and leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, the impact of delivery was stronger than vision content, suggesting that the manner in which vision and organizational change are communicated to followers is more important than the merit of the actual change. Finally, Groves (2002) recently found that emotional expressivity was predictive of charismatic leadership and also positively related to followers’ attitudes toward organizational change. Overall, the research suggests that leaders who appear animated and emotionally charged may be better equipped to inspire their followers during periods of organizational change through nonverbal communication and emotional skills, particularly strategic change that challenges followers’ values and assumptions. Thus, the current study will test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Leader emotional skills will be positively related to follower ratings of leadership effectiveness.

Hypothesis 4: Type of organizational change will moderate the relationship between leader emotional skills and leadership effectiveness such that leaders with greater emotional skills will receive higher follower ratings of leadership effectiveness during strategic organizational change.

METHOD

Participants, Sample Organizations, and Procedures

Participants. A total of 433 respondents, both leaders and their direct followers (e.g., direct reports, work team members, etc.) from four organizations participated in this study. The managers in the sample included 67 males (62%) and 41 females (38%), for a total of 108 leaders. The ethnic breakdown of the managers was as follows: White (n = 70, 65%), Asian-American (n = 10, 9%), African-American (n = 10, 9%), Hispanic (n = 14, 13%), and Other (n = 4, 4%). The managers were employed at their current management position for an average of 5.59 years (s.d. = 1.89). There were a total of 325 followers in this study, with 3.32 followers per manager and a range of two to seven followers. The following will provide a brief description of the four organizations in this study.

Sample organizations. Participants in the present study were drawn from four sources: a professional health sciences university, a public services and works government agency, a professional association of US medical colleges, and a community-based leadership development program. The professional health sciences university participants included 24 institutional leaders at several management levels, including senior vice-presidents (n = 4, 17%), deans (n = 5, 21%), and functional managers (n = 15, 62%). Participants from the public services and works government agency included 22 engineering managers responsible for a range of public services such as environmental services and flood control engineering. Participants from the professional association of medical colleges included 12 presidents and chief executive officers (CEOs) of US osteopathic medical schools. Finally, participants from the community-based leadership development program included 50 general managers from a wide range of local organizations, including governmental agencies, for-profit businesses, universities, and non-profit organizations.

Procedures. The procedure for questionnaire administration at the sample organizations differed slightly. For the health sciences university, government agency, and professional association of medical colleges, an invitation to participate in the study was sent via email to upper level personnel, enclosed with a questionnaire measuring organizational change and social/emotional skills (‘leader questionnaire’ hereafter). Of the 31 health science university leaders who were sent invitations, 24 agreed to participate for a response rate of 77%. Twenty-two out of 30 engineering managers from the public works agency agreed to participate for a response rate of 73%. Finally, 12 out of 18 medical college presidents and CEOs agreed to participate for a response rate of 67%. After leader participants identified the members of their departments, work groups, or units, each was sent a questionnaire measuring follower openness to organizational change, and their respective manager’s charismatic leadership behavior and leadership effectiveness (‘follower questionnaire’ hereafter).

The questionnaire administration procedure for the community-based leadership development program differed slightly. After identifying the names and mailing addresses of 162 local business leaders who had participated in the program during the last three years, each was sent a package that included an invitation to participate in the study, the leader questionnaire, and five separate envelopes that each included the follower questionnaire. The leaders were instructed to deliver the separate envelopes to their respective followers (e.g., direct reports, work group team members, etc.). Of the 162 leaders who received the packet of materials, 50 agreed to participate for a response rate of 31%. The overall response rate for all sample organizations was 45%.

MEASURES

Organizational Change
In order to assess the type(s) and significance of change at the sample organizations, leaders were asked to characterize the changes that occurred at their respective organization during the past year. On a scale ranging from “extremely significant” (1) to “little or no changes” (5), leaders were asked to characterize the significance of organizational change along the following dimensions: structural (e.g., reorganization, changes in reporting relationships), technological (e.g., new equipment, computer systems), procedural (e.g., new work processes, policies, practices), personnel (e.g., new position, job function(s)), and cultural (e.g., changes in philosophy, values, expected behavior). Leaders were also asked to identify and describe the single type of organizational change that had the greatest impact on their respective team, department, or work unit. Leaders’ responses were content analyzed to determine whether the changes were strategic or incremental, and create a dichotomous variable for strategic organizational change. Consistent with previous research on strategic change (Nadler and Tushman, 1990; Worley, Hitchin, & Ross, 1986), changes that involved major transformations of the organization’s purpose or mission and related goals/objectives, or changes in culture and core values were coded as strategic change. Conversely, changes that did not involve fundamental transformation of purpose/mission or organizational culture were coded as incremental or non-strategic change.

Social and Emotional Skills
Leader social and emotional skills were measured by an abbreviated version of Riggio’s (1989) Social Skills Inventory, which assesses an individual’s repertoire of social and emotional interpersonal skills. On a Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all like me” (1) to “exactly like me” (5), leaders were asked to provide a self-report of their social and emotional skills. An example item includes, “I can easily adjust to being in just about any social situation.” The overall reliability of the 35-item SSI was acceptable, with a Cronbach alpha of .72. The final alphas for the six SSI sub-scales are the following: social expressivity (4 items, a = .77), social sensitivity (5 items, a = .75), social control (5 items, a = .75), emotional expressivity (10 items, a = .70), emotional sensitivity (5 items, a = .72), and emotional control (6 items, a = .70).

Leadership Effectiveness
Leadership effectiveness was assessed using Agle’s (1993) six-item leader accomplishment scale that addresses leader performance regarding strategic and management objectives. On a Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7), followers were asked to rate the extent to which their leader accomplished the goals and objectives of the organization. An example item includes, “My manager has achieved his/her management objectives in the past year.” The reliability of the overall leadership effectiveness scale was acceptable, with an alpha of .93.

Control Variables
Leader tenure, gender, and organization were used as control variables in the present study. Because a manager’s prior work experience is often strongly related to leadership effectiveness, number of years at the current position was used as a control variable. Leader gender was also controlled because prior research has shown that women tend to have greater social and emotional skills than men (Riggio, 1986). Finally, given the range of organizations and industries from which the leaders were drawn, the sample organizations were dummy coded and included as control variables.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses
The leader was chosen as the unit of analysis for the present study. Items that measured the social and emotional skill dimensions were averaged to create scale scores for each leader participant. Consistent with previous research on charismatic leadership (e.g., Waldman et al., 2001), follower ratings of leadership effectiveness were operationalized at the group level of analysis. To justify the aggregation of follower ratings, intraclass correlations and within/between analysis of variance (WABA) procedures (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984) were utilized. WABA procedures indicated that the variation in leadership effectiveness ratings was primarily between groups, while the intraclass correlation was .73. Overall, these results provide support for the aggregation of follower ratings to create a group measure of leadership effectiveness.

In order to test the hypotheses regarding relationships among leader social and emotional skills, leadership effectiveness, and strategic organizational change, correlational and moderated hierarchical regression analyses were utilized. Prior to performing statistical analyses, the data screening procedure recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) was conducted. Data were screened for out-of-range values, implausible means and standard deviations, univariate outliers, skewness, and kurtosis. Other assumptions were tested to ensure the accuracy of the analyses, including range restriction, heterogeneous sub-samples, and multicollinearity. The aforementioned statistical assumptions were satisfied for the variables and related analyses.

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables in this study. As expected, overall leader social and emotional skills were predictive of leadership effectiveness (r = .27, p < .01). Across the six sub-scales of social and emotional skills, only social control (r = .25, p < .05) and emotional expressivity (r = .25, p < .05) were related to leadership effectiveness. Given the need to control for leader gender, tenure, and organization, the relationship between leader social/emotional skills and leadership effectiveness was assessed by regressing leadership effectiveness onto both control and predictor variables. The final beta weights for overall social/emotional skills (ß = .24, p < .05), social control (ß = .20, p < .05), and emotional expressivity (ß = .23, p < .05) were significant in the final regression model, indicating that each of these skill sets explain unique variance in leadership effectiveness beyond the control variables. Overall, these results provide support for Hypotheses 1 and 3.

Table 1 (in PDF format)

Social, Emotional Skills and Organizational Change
Moderated hierarchical regression analyses were utilized to assess the interaction effects of leader social/emotional skills and type of organizational change on leadership effectiveness (Hypotheses 2 and 4). To test the interaction of overall leader social/emotional skills and strategic change on leadership effectiveness, leader gender, tenure, and organization were entered into the model as the first step. Steps two and three consisted of overall social/emotional skills and strategic change as main effects, respectively, and the final step included the interaction term. As Table 2 illustrates, overall leader social/emotional skills did not explain unique variance in leadership effectiveness beyond the control variables and main effects. The final beta for the overall leader social/emotional skills and strategic change interaction was not significant (ß = .05, p = .76).

Table 2 (in PDF format)

To better understand the contribution of specific social and emotional skill sets during periods of strategic change, additional moderated hierarchical regression analyses were performed using social control and emotional expressivity. These skill sets were selected for post-hoc analyses because of their respective significant relationships with leadership effectiveness. Therefore, the results of these analyses should be interpreted with caution. Table 3 shows that the interaction of social control and strategic change explained unique variance in leadership effectiveness beyond the control variables and main effects (ß = .28, p < .05). Similarly, Table 4 shows that the interaction of emotional expressivity and strategic change also explained unique variance in leadership effectiveness (ß = .24, p < .05). Overall, these results provide tentative support for Hypotheses 2 and 4.

Table 3 and Table 4 (in PDF format)

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to address critical research gaps regarding the effects of leader social and emotional skills during organizational change. In an effort to advance leadership theory by demonstrating the importance of leader social and emotional skills as change competencies, the results of this study suggest that certain skill sets facilitate a leader’s efforts to implement change in organizations, particularly strategic change. While several previous studies have addressed the relationship between dimensions of social or emotional intelligence and leadership style (e.g., Bennis, 1999; Goleman, 1995), follower attitudes (e.g., Groves, 2002), and performance (e.g., Sosik & Megerian, 1999), the present investigation is the first to provide empirical support for the contribution of specific social and emotional skills to leadership effectiveness during strategic organizational change. Namely, social control and emotional expressivity skills were particularly important for leaders attempting to make fundamental changes in their respective organization’s mission, purpose, core goals and objectives, or culture.

Social and Emotional Skills
The finding that leader social skills, especially social control, are important change agent competencies provides an important contribution to leadership theory and research. Although prior research has established the importance of several types of social skills that contribute to leadership effectiveness, such as Snyder’s (1974) self monitoring and Zaccaro et al.’s (1991) social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility, most of these studies were conducted in laboratory settings with student samples. The present investigation extends this line of research analyzing leader social skills in the context of real world leaders implementing organizational change. The present investigation showed that social control skills contributed to leaders’ ability to convince organizational members of the need for strategic change, a course of action that differs markedly from the status quo and challenges deeply held values and assumptions. Leaders with the ability to effectively respond to varying behavioral requirements across organizational contexts were better equipped to handle the challenges inherent in implementing major organizational change.

Emotional skills also played a critical role in the leaders’ ability to implement strategic change at their respective organizations. While prior research on aspects of emotional intelligence has provided important findings, such as Sosik (2001) and Sosik and Megerian’s (1999) work on self-awareness, the current study provides empirical support for specific emotional skills that contribute to leadership effectiveness during organizational change. Leader skills in emotional expressivity, such as nonverbal behavior and the ability to spontaneously express emotions, were particularly important for leaders attempting to implement organizational changes characterized by fundamental shifts in mission/purpose, core goals and objectives, or culture. This key finding complements the work of Howell and Frost (1989) and Holladay and Coombs (1993; 1994) who found that a necessary element of effective vision delivery is emotional expression and nonverbal communication. In essence, leaders must have the ability to communicate their vision to followers in a manner that energizes commitment and minimizes resistance to change, such as appearing animated and emotionally charged when presenting their vision to the organization and prescribing roles to employees regarding the organizational changes.

Implications for Organizations
The findings from the present study suggest key implications for organizational selection, promotion, and placement processes. Given the turbulent nature of the business environment, organizations are faced with the challenge of developing an effective method of identifying those leaders most capable of implementing organizational change. Rather than relying exclusively on interviews for selection of managerial employees, which is most often the case (Dipboye, 1992), findings from the present investigation suggest that organizations would benefit from using social and emotional skill levels as selection criteria for managerial employees. Indeed, recent research has shown that using measures of specific personality and interpersonal skill dimensions greatly improves the prediction of job performance (Riggio & Taylor, 2000). Furthermore, social and emotional skill measurement may also improve assessment center techniques as a means to promote the best managers to executive-level positions. Findings from the present study suggest that traditional assessment center methods should be coupled with an assessment of participants’ social and emotional skills. Thus, organizations will capture a more accurate evaluation of participants’ ability to perform the role of change agent at the highest levels of the organization, particularly concerning strategic organizational change.

An important trend in the executive development literature is the increasing need of organizations to improve executives’ social and interpersonal skills. Social competence and interpersonal skill development have been identified by many researchers and practitioners as primary reasons for implementing executive development programs (Filipczak, 1998; Koonce, 1994). Findings from the current study suggest that social and emotional skills are critical for impacting leadership effectiveness during organizational change, especially social control and emotional expressivity skills. Consequently, organizations stand to gain much by tailoring their executive development programs to the specific needs of participants, such as creating social skill profiles for their executive personnel and providing training and development opportunities for individuals lacking certain interpersonal skill sets.

Limitations and Future Research
The cross-sectional nature of the study’s research design precludes causal conclusions regarding the relationships among the variables of interest. Although the hypothesized relationships for social/emotional skills and leadership effectiveness received empirical support in the present study, longitudinal studies examining the robustness of these relationships over time would provide stronger support for the hypotheses. Furthermore, the results of post hoc analyses on social control and emotional expressivity skills should be interpreted with caution. Clearly, the respective roles of these skill sets need further examination with additional samples. Future research on social and emotional skills as key leader change competencies would benefit from examining other measures of leadership effectiveness such as financial variables (e.g., growth in sales, return on investment, stock performance, etc.) and strategic variables (e.g., market share, industry rank, etc.). Furthermore, contextual variables such as organizational and national culture should be examined. Because cultural variables are important aspects of the leadership context, attributions of leadership effectiveness and the desirability of socially and emotionally intelligent leaders may vary across cultural contexts.

Given the rapid rate of change that characterizes today’s business environment, organizational leaders must possess the skills and abilities to facilitate major organizational change. Findings from the present study suggest that the successful implementation of change in organizations is, in part, a function of leader social and emotional skills, and that organizations should enhance their selection, promotion, and executive training and development practices accordingly. Clearly, further empirical research is needed to improve our understanding of how leader competencies may provide organizations a truly sustainable competitive advantage: the ability to implement strategic organizational change.

REFERENCES

Agle, B. R. & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1994. Charismatic chief executive officers: Are they more effective? An empirical test of charismatic leadership theory. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings.

Agle, B. R. 1993. Charismatic chief executive officers: Are they more effective? An empirical test of charismatic leadership theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.

Arbuckle, J. L. 1997. Amos Users’ Guide Version 3.6. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. 1996. Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 827-832.

Bass, B. M. 2002. Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of transformational leaders. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership: 105-118. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. 1998. A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 43-54.

Bennis, W. 1989. On becoming a leader. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. 1964. The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Block, P. 1981. Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Carl, D. E. & Javidan, M. 2001. Universality of charismatic leadership: A multi-nation study. Academy of Management Best Paper.

Conger, J. A. 1992. Learning to lead: The art of transforming managers into leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637-647.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1994. Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 439-452.

Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 145-179.

Curphy, G. J. 1990. An empirical study of Bass’ 1985 theory of transformational and transactional leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 1984. Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dipboye, R. L. 1992. Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing.

Dirks, K.T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. 1996. Psychological ownership in organizations: Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 9: 1-23.

Downton, J. V. 1973. Rebel leadership. New York: Free Press.

Filipczak, B. 1998. The executive coach: Helper or healer?. Training, 35: 30-36.

Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. 1996. A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78: 271-287.

Fulmer, R. M. 1997. The evolving paradigm of leadership development. Organizational Dynamics, 73: 59-70.

Gardner, W. L. & Avolio, B. J. 1998. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 32-58.

Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Halverson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Riggio, R. 2002. Charismatic leadership in crisis situations: The role of social intelligence. Working paper, Rice University, Houston, TX.

Hooijiberg, R. 1996. A multi-directional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral flexibility. Human Relations, 49: 917-946.

House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge: 189-207. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the US presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,36: 364-396.

Howell, J. M. & Frost, P. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 243-269.

Howell, J. M. & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated- business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 891-902.

Kelley, H. H. 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15: 192-240.

Kessler, B. M. 1992. How to prevent executive derailment. Human Resources Professional, 5: 44-47.

Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. 1996. Direct and indirect effects on three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 36-51.

Koonce, R. 1994. One on one. Training & Development, 48: 34-40.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. 1987. The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlrich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. 1985. The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 78-102.

Meindl, J. R. & Ehlrich, S. B. 1987. The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30: 91-109.

Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. 1994. Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22: 59-80.

Muchinsky, P. M. 2000. Psychology Applied to Work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning.

Nadler, D. A. & Tushman, M L. 1990. Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, Winter: 77-96.

Pawar, B. S. & Eastman, K. K. 1997. The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22: 80-109.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3: 1-52.

Riggio, R. E. 1986. Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 649-660.

Riggio, R. E. & Taylor, S. J. 2000. Personality and communication skills as predictors of hospice nurse performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15: 351-359.

Ritchie, R. J. 1994. Using the assessment center method to predict senior management potential. Special Issue: Issues in the assessment of managerial and executive leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46: 16-23.

Robbins, S. P. & Coulter, M. 2002. Management. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Roberts, N. C. & Bradley, R. T. 1988. Limits of charisma. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness: 253-275. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of levels in organizational research: Multi-levels and cross level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: 43-72. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9: 185-211.

Sathe, V. 1985. Culture and related corporate realities: Changing organizational culture. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M.B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4: 577-594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 387-409.

Shamir, B. 1992. Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22: 386-407.

Snyder, 1974. The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 526-537.

Sosik, J. J. & Megerian, L. E. 1999. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Group and Organization Management, 24: 367-390.

Sosik, J. J. 2001. Self-other agreement on charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Management, 26: 484-511.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 134-143.

Waldman, S. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. 1990. Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Studies, 15: 381-394.

Weber, M. 1947. Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

Yammarino, F. J. & Dubinsky, A. J. 1994. Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47: 787-811.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. 1993. Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4: 81-102.

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. 1991. Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology,76: 308-315.

Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. 1991. Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 2: 317-342.

Zaccaro, S. J. 2002. Organizational leadership and social intelligence. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership: 29-54. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Past Issues

E-mail this page