Toward A Political Theory of Leadership

The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751 796
Toward a political theory of leadership

Anthony P. Ammeter a,*, Ceasar Douglasb, William L. Gardnera, Wayne A. Hochwarterb, Gerald R. Ferrisb
a
School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA b Department of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA Accepted 9 September 2002
Abstract Leadership has been an active area of scientific investigation for over half a century, with scholars developing different perspectives on antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Conspicuous in its absence has been a conceptualization of leadership from a political perspective, despite appeals for such a theory and the widely acknowledged view of political processes in organizations. In this article, we develop a model of a political theory of leadership in an effort to address this need, and to demonstrate the versatility of such a conceptualization for understanding both leadership and social influence processes in organizations. Because we define politics in organizational leadership as the constructive management of shared meaning, we demonstrate how a political perspective does not necessarily cast leaders in a personally ambitious, manipulative role. We proceed to show how this political perspective can contribute to effectiveness through both enhanced leader outcomes and the constituencies consequences to which leaders are directing their efforts. The implications for a political theory of leadership are discussed, as are directions for future research. D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.
1. Toward a political theory of leadership A political perspective on organizations has become an increasingly accepted view in recent years. Indeed, if we can accurately characterize organizations as political arenas (Mintzberg, 1983, 1985), then it seems quite reasonable that we should be interested in the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-662-915-6748; fax: +1-662-915-7968. E-mail address: tammeter@bus.olemiss.edu (A.P. Ammeter). 1048-9843/02/$ see front matter D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc. PII: S 1 0 4 8 - 9 8 4 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 5 7 - 1
752
A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796
antecedents and consequences of the political behavior exhibited by the players inhabiting organizational environments. Certainly, some work has focused on the development of a more informed understanding of political behavior in organizations (e.g., Ferris & Judge, 1991; Mintzberg, 1983, 1985; Pfeffer, 1992, 1981; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981). However, noticeably absent in the literature are attempts to conceptualize leadership from a political perspective, despite the recognized political implications of leadership positions and appeals for such a theory (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997). The purpose of the present article is to initiate decisive steps toward the development of a political theory of leadership. We introduce a working model that specifies antecedents, consequences, mediators, and moderators, and develop some important directions for future research in testing this model. Furthermore, in establishing the nature of the political perspective, we adopt a decidedly neutral, nonpejorative view of politics, characterizing politics as neither inherently good nor bad, but rather a fact of life and a feature woven into the very fabric of organizations. Also, we revive the concept of leader style and demonstrate how it plays a pivotal role in this view of leadership. Finally, we discuss important outcomes of leader political behaviors, including leader reputation as a key aspect of leader performance.
2. Background literature 2.1. Leadership theory and research The study of leadership is one of the oldest areas of scientific inquiry in the behavioral sciences and remains very active. One need only glance through the huge volume compiled by Bass (1990) to appreciate the breadth, scope, and extensiveness of scholarly interest in leadership. However, whereas such volume of scholarship has contributed to the development of a substantial knowledge base, there are certainly gaps in our understanding of leadership processes and outcomes. Our objective in this section is not to conduct a comprehensive review of the leadership literature as a number of such thorough reviews are available in the literature (e.g., Bass, 1990; House & Aditya, 1997; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Instead, we highlight some of the specific gaps in our knowledge of leadership that merit increased attention. One such area that warrants empirical attention which has been virtually untested empirically to date, as argued by House and Aditya (1997), is the construct of leader stylethe manner in which leaders express particular behaviors (discussed further in later sections). Also, they indicated that most approaches to leadership focus almost exclusively on followers and ignore leader relations with superiors, peers, and other constituencies. House and Aditya further emphasized that theories of leadership and empirical research have not given adequate consideration to the context within which leadership is played out. Finally, Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) contended that most leadership researchers have focused on only a narrow aspect of leadership, with consideration given to merely a limited set of variables, while they ignore other potentially relevant aspects. These deficiencies suggest that theories
753
of leadership have been too narrowly focused and that potentially important variables like context, leader style, and alternative leadership constituencies have been neglected. We believe that these perceived deficiencies in our leadership knowledge base indicate that a new conceptual framework may be needed. Indeed, some of the noted deficiencies simply involve omitted variables that could shed further light on leadership dynamics. However, it is also quite possible that the fundamental assumptions of scholars examining leadership phenomena serve to drive certain approaches, as well as limit consideration of other approaches. Along these lines, House (1995) contended that traditional theories of leadership have labored under implicit assumptions of rationality and that research is needed on how political processes resonate with leadership phenomena. Similarly, House and Aditya (1997, p. 455) argued for the theoretical and empirical investigation of leader political behavior and suggest It is rather amazing that there is no theory of political leadership in complex organizations, given the fact that social psychologists have long studied power and influence processes in organizations. 2.2. Leadership and organizational politics As part of the development of our model of a political theory of leadership, we must define what we mean by leadership and organizational politics. First, when we refer to leadership, we utilize the definition proposed by House (1995, p. 413) of general leadership, that is, behavior . . .that gives purpose, meaning, and guidance to collectivities by articulating a collective vision that appeals to ideological values, motives, and self-perceptions of followers. . .. House further states that the outcomes of such behavior are heightened awareness of organizational values, unusual levels of effort, and the foregoing of self-interest of followers for the good of the collective. Although many of the political behaviors that are discussed in our model could be used for self-serving purposes by leaders, we do not focus on these aspects because such self-serving behavior is not a part of our definition of leadership. We acknowledge, however, that such behavior likely exists, and encourage interested researchers to undertake studying this as a complement to our work here. It is also likely that leadership behavior has important positive impacts on the leader (e.g., enhanced reputation due to organizational unit performance attributed to good leadership), but as these are entrained with the collective good, such behavior is functional for the collective. Thus, our focus is on the behavior intended to be of benefit to the greater collective or organization. Second, it can be argued that politics has garnered an undesirable reputation over the course of the last 20 years (Gandz & Murray, 1980; Porter et al., 1981). To the average individual, the term organizational politics is likely to conjure a host of reprehensible images that include (but are not limited to) backroom manipulation, behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and self-serving posturing. A significant body of literature (e.g., Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002; Kacmar & Baron, 1999) examining politics in organizations has adopted the view that workplace politicking is an inherently divisive phenomenon that leads to a host of adverse outcomes for both individuals and organizations.
754
According to Sederberg (1984), politics represents any purposeful attempt to generate, maintain, alter or dispose of shared meaning. These shared meanings provide normative guidelines for subsequent behavior and interpretations of incidents at work. With regard to leader behavior, Smircich and Morgan (1982) suggested that one objective of leadership is to manage meaning. More recently, Fairhurst and Sarr (1996, p. 11) suggested that framing is an art whereby leaders manage meaning and socially construct reality for themselves and followers. In this article, we take a decidedly different view of organizational politics. Instead of adopting the view that politics represents the dark side of employee behavior, we see politics as a neutral, and inherently necessary, component of organizational functioning (Pfeffer, 1981). Further, we view political behavior as activities designed to minimize the vast amount of ambiguity that occurs in organizations (Bolman & Deal, 1991), and to give meaning to organizational phenomena where uncertainty exists (Ferris & Judge, 1991).
3. Toward a political model of leadership A diagram of the model of our developing political theory of leadership is shown in Fig. 1, and it is divided into three basic components: antecedents of leader political behavior, leader
Fig. 1. Political model of leadership.
755
political behavior, and consequences of political behavior. Before going into the model in detail, we first introduce its components below. Antecedents of political behavior explain the motivation for leaders to engage in political behavior and the source of their ability (or lack of ability) to successfully engage in such behavior. Note that we use the term target to refer to the constituency or constituencies with whom the leader is attempting to manage shared meaning. We incorporate the element of time into the model by recognizing that prior episodes of leader political behavior contribute to the development of the leaders reputation, which in turn serves as a contextual input into the current episode. Leader attributes are discussed as these have an impact on the likelihood that a leader will engage in (and the extent to which he or she will successfully implement) political behaviors. Similarly, leader cognitions are expected to affect the particular influence tactics that a leader chooses. Leader social capital (resources available through social or interpersonal ties) is included in this model because of the antecedent and outcome implications of possessing social capital when engaging in key leader behaviors, such as networking and reputation building. Finally, leader interpersonal style is discussed as a critical component because it is often a deciding factor in the effective execution of influence attempts. The attributes of the target, such as demographic characteristics, status and power differences with the leader, and target personality attributes, are argued to play a key role in shaping the political behavior of the leader, as well as the targets reactions to leader political behavior. The leader political behavior portion of the model discusses the behaviors in which leaders engage when trying to enact shared meanings with constituencies. Intermediate consequences in the model include target outcomes, that is, target affect and cognitions that result from leader political behavior. Target attitudes and performance are discussed with respect to conditions under which leader behavior will have a positive or negative impact on these important outcomes. The model concludes with leader outcomes such as leader effectiveness, performance evaluation, promotion, and, finally, reputation accrual for the leader. A final outcome of the model is the impact that resultant reputation and related artifacts of the political behavior episode have on the next episode of leader political behavior.
4. Antecedents of political behavior 4.1. Incorporating time into a framework of leader political influence As evidenced by the recent Special Topic Forum on Time and Organizational Research published in the Academy of Management Review, the importance of time to the study of organizational phenomenon is gaining long overdue recognition from organizational scholars (Goodman, Ancona, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001). Leadership scholars (e.g., Hunt, 1991; Hunt & Conger, 1999; Hunt & Peterson, 1997) have likewise called for greater theoretical and empirical attention to the effects of temporal influences on leadership processes. Toward this end, we adopt a temporally based framework of leadertarget interactions in the proposed political model of leadership. In doing so, we draw heavily upon
756
the temporally based framework of team processes advanced by Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001). Team performance episodes occupy a central and critical role within the Marks et al.s (2001) framework. Episodes are defined as distinguishable periods of time over which performance accrues and feedback is available (Marks et al., 2001, p. 361). Here, we apply the same definition to our focus on episodes that encompass attempted political influence by the leader, as well as subsequent performance outcomes and target feedback. That is, an episode of leader political influence occurs when the leader directs political behavior towards a target audience, the target responds, and assorted outcomesincluding performanceaccrue. We depict the current and focal episode of leader political influence in Fig. 1 as Episode n (En). Moreover, we include the history of prior political episodes between the leader and the target where the historical context for the current episode En is the summation of past episodes involving these actors and is an important contextual variable that impacts the forms of political influence adopted by the leader in the current episode, as well as the targets response. Finally, as episodes of political behavior by the leader unfold over time and with assorted targets, the leader develops a reputation (either favorable or unfavorable) with respect to such critical elements of leadership as competence, decisiveness, trustworthiness, and/or effectiveness (Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, in press). This reputation, in turn, serves as a contextual input for the next (En + 1) episode of leader influence. 4.2. Contextual influences on political processes By definition, context represents the interrelated conditions within which something exists or occurs. In the realm of political leadership, organizational context reveals the issues that are integral to the creation of the political environment. Power is context-specific (Pfeffer, 1981), and organizations are political settings that facilitate the exchange of power (Fairholm, 1993). The importance of context is that it shapes performance standards and determines the process by which leaders acquire their roles and authority (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). The underlying logic here is that context is vital to any discussion of political activity within organizations, and, therefore, is included in the model of political leadership. In this section, we expand on the following contextual issues: organizational structure and culture, accountability, leader position, and prior political episodes as a temporal reference. 4.2.1. Organizational structure Structure provides the context that mediates the relationship between behavior and power (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993), and power is the essence of leader behavior (Yukl, 2002). From this perspective, the connection between organization structure and leadership is quite clear. Whereas leaders exercise free will in making behavioral choices, structural norms determine the appropriateness of their selection. For example, looking at just one method of describing structure, Burns and Stalker (1966) established the mechanistic and organic categories for organization structures, with each representing opposite positions on the issues of formalization and hierarchy of authority. The importance of this distinction is that each form contributes to a unique political arena that requires a different set of leader political behaviors.
757
In a summary of the differences between mechanistic and organic organizations, House (1991) discussed two issues that are noteworthy: hierarchical differentiation (i.e., the degree of status stratification) and the tightness of coupling (i.e., the degree of interdependence between operating units). Mechanistic structures are more formalized than organic structures and therefore have more hierarchical differentiation and are more tightly coupled, which limits power-striving activities (House, 1991). Leaders operating in organic structures will have greater power-striving opportunities because a reduction in structure creates uncertainty, and uncertainty stimulates political activity (Porter et al., 1981). Thus, in organic structures, securing work unit resources and recognition may require greater political activity. In this vein, as a consequence of organizational structure, leader political activity will vary. 4.2.2. Organizational culture An organizations culture is the behavior in and of an organization (Ott, 1989), which consists of the values, beliefs, and behavioral norms that are shared by its members (Detert, Schroeder, & Mauriel, 2000), drives actions and relationships (Lucas, 1987), and creates a broad set of organizational cues that form the bases for rules, procedures, and communications that constrain leadership (Waldman, 1993). Through its existence and influence on behavior, organization culture frames and shapes the use of leader behaviors. In a political approach to leadership, culture has an important role due to its complementary relationship with organizational politics (Lucas, 1987). Organization members reify both organizational politics and culture; however, both are difficult to quantify because of their perceptual nature. This is problematic for leaders who must adopt political behaviors that align with the established political norms, because their behaviors must match the situational assessments of their followers. The reality and presence of cultures effect on the political influence process is apparent from a recent study of the use of upward influence in promoting gender issues in organizations. Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, and Dutton (1998) reported that female managers considered salient norms, such as whether the organization showed support for gender-equity issues, before proactively promoting gender-equity issues to upper management. In this study, female managers made a cultural assessment before making an attempt to influence top management. Understanding of top management values and openness to change provides cues to a firms culture, which must factor into the development of political behavioral norms. 4.2.3. Accountability Accountability is the need to justify decisions to some audience, and it is considered the glue that binds social systems together (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Accountability is important to rule and norm enforcement, because it is a link between decision-makers and the organizations to which they belong (Tetlock, 1985). In contrast to responsibility, which strictly reflects an internal feeling, accountability takes on different forms and affects leader behavior. The overarching goal of accountability mechanisms is to control action and to improve individual and organizational performance. In the context of political leadership, accountability mechanisms motivate leaders with the threat of being required to explain their actions
758
to others within the organization. The primary task of managers is to make organizational activities sensible and meaningful with an acceptable social definition (Pfeffer, 1981). Research suggests that knowledge of accountability compels people to devote more cognitive effort to information processing (Tetlock, 1985). As a consequence of being held accountable, individuals are more thoughtful in their decision-making activities, which may lead to better decisions. 4.2.4. Leader position Position within an organizations hierarchy is a source of power and influence. According to Mintzberg (1983), access to information and access to influential others contributes to political influence, and a leaders hierarchal rank and centrality are positional characteristics that moderate political influence and leader behaviors. Rank is the most obvious source of a leaders power and influence. As Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001, p. 12) argued, the hierarchical context of leadership has profound effects on the personal, interpersonal, and organizational choices that can be made. Specifically, rank influences the issues and people leaders engage, as well as the protocol of those encounters. Research also indicates that organizational politics occurs more often at higher organizational levels (Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1980), which is indicative of the availability of resources and information. Centrality, like rank, is a product of the organizations structure. However, unlike rank, its benefits are not entirely based on hierarchical level. Centrality is contingent upon ones position in the intra-organizational social network, and it is related to influence and power (Brass, 2001). The power associated with centrality stems from an individuals relationship with multiple resource flows (Brass, 1984). In this vein, leaders in highly centralized positions have greater access to resources, but more importantly, they have greater access to well-connected others. Todays organizations often feature flexible structures that rely on project and crossfunctional teams to address specific organizational needs. Team leaders and members gain connectivity when projects are critical to organizational success and provide the opportunity for political activity. Individuals use either political behaviors focused on self-interest (i.e., personalized political behaviors) or political behaviors focused on organizational issues (i.e., socialized political behaviors) (House, 1991). Thus, the increased use of specialized teams generates more opportunity for political activity by team leaders and members for personal and organizational improvement. 4.2.5. History of prior leadership episodes As previously described, the proposed model reflects a temporally based, episodic framework for examining the political processes whereby leaders exert influence. The premise here is that both the leader and the target enter each situation with knowledge of P prior leadership episodes; that is, they each possess [ (Past episodes up to and including En 1)], and that this serves as a reference point for placing the current episode in context. Indeed, the leadermember exchange (LMX) literature suggests that the quality of prior interactions between the leader and target members has a profound effect on the kinds of
759
influence tactics selected by the leader in the current episode, as well as the members reactions (Boyd & Taylor, 1998; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden & Mitchell, 1989; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). The construct of leader reputation represents the cumulative product of the leaders actions and subsequent results within the organization. Consequently, in the model, the leaders reputation serves as a key input into the context and the starting point for the next episode of leader political influence. 4.3. Leader attributes 4.3.1. General mental ability One class of job performance predictors that has been actively researched for years is intelligence, cognitive ability, or what Schmidt and Hunter (1998) referred to general mental ability (GMA). Schmidt and Hunters review suggested that GMA tends to be the single most valid predictor of future job performance and learning, which has been noted by others as well (Ree & Earles, 1992). GMA is a well-researched construct, with impressive cumulative evidence of its capacity to predict job performance. However, the direct influence of GMA has been called into question when noncognitive variables have been proposed to challenge its predictive effectiveness (McClelland, 1993; Ree & Earles, 1992; Sternberg & Wagner, 1993). Indeed, instead of posing arguments promoting a single predictor, contemporary thinking seems to favor consideration of predictors that can supplement the contribution of GMA, which might include personality measures and social skills (Guion, 1983; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Wagner, 1997). Because skilled political behavior depends so heavily on interpreting social situations and then enacting proper responses, it is likely that GMA will interact heavily with personality and social skill to produce individuals with more or less capability to engage successfully in political behaviors. 4.3.2. Personality measures Examination of personality attributes that are most directly organizationally relevant indicates that certain personality characteristics can be linked to political behaviors. These attributes include self-esteem, self-verification, Machiavellianism, need for power, and locus of control (Biberman, 1985; House, 1988; Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989). Biberman (1985) reported that individuals are more likely to engage in political behavior to the extent that they are higher in self-esteem. It is not clear if simply desiring to become a successful or worthy individual will trigger political behavior to achieve this end. In fact, as noted by Swann and colleagues, some individuals strive for self-verification rather than enhanced self-liking or self-competence and would rather engage in interactions with others whose outcomes tend to support their preconceived views of themselves (Bosson & Swann, 1999). In such instances, it would be expected that individuals high in need for self-verification would engage in political behavior only if doing so was consistent with their self-view. Machiavellianism may also be a characteristic that predicts propensity to engage in political behavior. In Bibermans (1985) study of MBA students and office politics, Machiavellianism correlated so highly with the office politics scale that they appeared to
760
measure the same construct. One would not expect Machiavellianism to be correlated with a desire to share meaning with constituents; rather, it would likely be consistent with a desire to distort meaning to suit the designs of the Machiavellian individual. Thus, although Machiavellianism might be correlated with some aspects of political behavior, we would expect these to be predominantly self-serving rather than other-serving behaviors. One personality characteristic that has been found to be especially relevant to leadership and organizational politics is need for power (nPow). McClelland (1985) describes this need as a nonconscious motive that varies across individuals, and in strength within a particular person, depending on environmental cues. Persons high in nPow tend to assume an activist role in their work environment, and act to shape outcomes arising from key decisions. In his 1977 theory of charismatic leadership, House posited that extremely high levels of nPow explain why charismatic leaders develop the requisite persuasive abilities to influence others. In support of this argument, researchers have shown that an exceptionally high nPow is a distinguishing attribute of charismatic leaders (House & Howell, 1992). Overall, this literature suggests that a strong desire to influence others and change the status quo is a core motive driving the behavior of leaders in general and charismatic leaders in particular. Finally, Bibermans (1985) study also found that locus of control was predictive of propensity to engage in political behaviors. His subjects reported that they tended to engage in office politics more than others they viewed as less competitive than themselves. Leaders high in internal locus of control would be expected to feel that they are in control of their situations and to be active in influencing the outcomes of the interactions around them. 4.4. Political will Mintzberg (1983) argued that to be effective in organizations, which he characterized as political arenas, individuals needed to possess both the desire and interest in engaging in politics (i.e., political will), and the intuitive savvy necessary to be good at it (i.e., political skill). Ferris Fedor, and King (1994) believed this was important as well, and referred to it as propensity to behave politically. In addition, House and Baetz (1979, p. 461) noted that effective leadership requires a disposition to be influential. They suggested that (t)his disposition may well result in some universal influence-oriented behaviors. House (1977) argued that outstanding leaders scored higher on the need for social influence scale. In essence, we suggest that a necessary antecedent condition contributing to leader political behavior is the desire or inclination to exercise influence and manage shared meaning in ways that further leader and organizational objectives. 4.5. Leader cognitions: information processing by the leader With the cognitive revolution in psychology (Fiske & Taylor, 1990), ample evidence of the fundamental importance of information processing to social relations, including leadership (Lord & Maher, 1993; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Green & Mitchell, 1979) and organizational politics (Ferris et al., 1989), has been generated. Central to our discussion of leader
761
information processing are three basic forms of knowledge structures: leader identity, power mental models (PMM), and political scripts. 4.5.1. Leader identity To Schlenker (1985, p. 68), identity involves a theory (schema) of an individual that describes, interrelates, and explains his or her relevant features, characteristics, and experiences. This theory of self includes images that specify pertinent self-constructs (e.g., leader, executive branch manager) and establish ones standing on particular dimensions (e.g., creative, powerful). To Schlenker (1985, p. 67), the self-concept is an identity, which is invoked when one attempts to answer a personal question about the self posed by oneself. Self-identification involves fixing and expressing ones own identity, privately through reflection about oneself and publicly through self-disclosures, selfpresentations, and other activities that serve to project ones identity to audiences (Schlenker, 1985, p. 68). As individuals interact with other persons in particular situations, selected components of their self-schemata are instantiated to construct their situated identity. Schlenker (1985, p. 68) defined ones situated identity as a theory of self that is wittingly or unwittingly constructed in a particular social situation or relationship. Thus, a situated identity is jointly constructed by the actor (leader) and audience (e.g., followers, rivals, and third parties) in situ, and includes factors that take into consideration the challenges being confronted by both. Basically, our situated identity reflects who we are to others and ourselves in a given situation, and serves as a guide for subsequent behaviors. For leaders, their situated identity will shape, among other things, (1) the interaction goals they seek to achieve and (2) the types of political tactics they consider to be appropriate and effective means for influencing the target (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). 4.5.2. Power mental models A second type of knowledge structure that plays a critical role in determining the leaders ` situated identity and the expected utility of various forms of influence vis-a-vis a target audience involves his or her conceptions of personal, work unit, and target power. Fiol, OConner, and Aguinis (2001, p. 225) recently introduced the construct of PMM to describe organized mental representations of ones own and others power that tend to lead to relatively predictable behaviors within a particular context. They made a fundamental distinction between identity PMMs, which specify ones beliefs about the amount and type of power held by oneself or ones group, and reputation PPMs, which represent ones beliefs about the power held by other persons or groups. Although PMMs, by definition, exist in peoples minds, they are not formed in cognitive isolation (Fiol et al., 2001). To the contrary, they reflect the power bases that accrue to individuals, groups, and organizations through social interaction (Giddens, 1993). The antecedents (e.g., functional organizational position, control of resources, and network centrality) that instantiate PPMS serve as cues that generate attention and foster the initial development of these mental models. Such cues do not operate directly to produce PPMs. Instead, they are interpreted through various cognitive mechanisms (e.g., judgmental
762
heuristics, causal attributions, and self-verification processes) that filter and frequently distort information (Fiske & Taylor, 1990). Once elicited, PPMs influence the political behavior of leaders, group members, and outsiders, who in turn interpret these behaviors and subsequent outcomes through cognitive mechanisms, potentially altering their identity and reputation PPMs (Fiol et al., 2001). For leaders, the identity PPMs they develop for themselves and/or their work group, and the reputation PMMs the hold for the target they seek to influence, play important roles in determining the political tactics they deem to be most appropriate and likely to secure desired outcomes. Consider, for example, a newly appointed CEO of a software firm who seeks to obtain the commitment of a talented group of programmers from an R&D unit that has a welldeserved reputation for innovation. As a result of its successes, the R&D unit has been richly rewarded with access to critical resources (e.g., capital, equipment, and state-of-the art technology), and garnered considerable influence within the firm. Based on her extensive administrative experience with a rival firm, personal achievements in the industry, structural position, and a favorable self-assessment of her managerial abilities, the CEOs identity PMM is likely to reflect her perceptions that she possesses considerable reserves of position and personal power. Her reputation PPM for the R&D unit is likely to reflect the high levels power that have accrued to the group based on its centrality, visibility, and the expertise of it members. Under these circumstances, the leader may conclude that the best way to secure the support and enthusiasm of the R&D unit for the project is through inspirational appeals that highlight the inherent intellectual challenge involved (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987), as opposed to hard tactics of influence that may alienate the programmers (Yukl, 2002). 4.5.3. Political scripts and strategies Cognitive scripts are conceptual memory structures of events, objects, roles, sentiments, conditions, and outcomes that occur sequentially within familiar situations and tasks (Gioia & Poole, 1984). By specifying the anticipated roles and sequence of events for each party involved in a political interaction episode, a political script can serve as a guide for political leader behavior and probable target reactions (Block, 1987). Depending on the particular target and circumstances, specific lower-order scripts or tracks may be selected that are most congruent with the targets past experiences, perspective, and objectives (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Wofford & Goodwin, 1994). Leaders with superior social skills may be adept at making subtle but effective changes in the political script that reflect an understanding of the targets goals and interests. Strategies are constructed when preexisting scripts are either unavailable or unacceptable, by interweaving general information about goal-directed behavior with specific information about the situation (Wofford & Goodwin, 1994). Over time, a strategy of political influence that is repeatedly and successfully executed may be encoded in memory as a script for future reference (Gioia & Poole, 1984). Strategy formulation enables a leader to adapt to novel situations that call for a change in behavior. Once again, we expect socially skilled leaders to be adept at quickly formulating effective strategies for political influence in novel situations.
763
4.6. Leader social capital Social capital includes the resources available to an individual through that persons social or interpersonal ties, where these resources can be used to ones benefit in an organizational setting (e.g., Coleman, 1988). Individuals with good social and political skills build up extensive stores of social capital through their adeptness at developing and using diverse networks of people (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000). For example, Luthans, Hodgetts, and Rosenkrantz (1988), in their examination of successful managers, found networking to be, by far, the most dominant activity on which these managers spent time. In their study, networking activities included behaviors of interacting with outsiders and socializing/ politicking, or the use of social and political skills to get ahead. By the sheer force of their social effectiveness skills, leaders tend to easily develop friendships and build strong, beneficial alliances and coalitions. Politically skilled individuals enjoy a favorable social identity and reputation PMMs (Fiol et al., 2001) among those in their network, resulting in significant and tangible benefits, such as gaining favorable reactions to ones ideas, enhanced access to important information, and increased cooperation and trust (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000). They know when to call on others for favors, and are perceived as willing to reciprocate in kind. In addition, they inspire commitment and personal obligation from those around them, which can be leveraged as a source of additional influence and power, and becomes a resource that maintains and even increases in value. 4.7. Leader interpersonal style Leader style has been discussed as a potentially important factor in leader effectiveness. It is regarded as the manner in which leaders express particular behaviors, which likely contributes to the targets interpretation of and subsequent effectiveness of such behaviors. House and Aditya (1997) suggested that whereas leader style appears to have relevance and potential importance for leadership theory, with no empirical research to date, conclusions about its role and effectiveness are unknown. In related work, Bolman and Deal (1991) argued that the effectiveness of leaders ultimately is judged on the basis of their style, and Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) discussed the manner or style with which power and influence is demonstrated by leaders as being critically important. In their examination of charismatic leadership, Gardner and Avolio (1998, p. 43) suggested that . . .how leaders say what they say may sometimes be just as important, or even more important, than what they say. We suggest that leader interpersonal style essentially is captured in a set of social effectiveness constructs that share some common domain space, but maintain sufficient uniqueness to exist as independent constructs. We briefly review some of these measures of leader interpersonal style, and the role that they would play in this theory. Then, we focus specifically on political skill as one particular operationalization of leader interpersonal style that might bear more serious examination in a political theory of leadership.
764
4.7.1. Social effectiveness The ability to effectively read, understand, and control social interactions has been of interest to behavioral scientists for quite some time. Early work focused on a construct introduced more than 80 years ago by Thorndike (1920, p. 228) referred to as social intelligence, which he defined as the ability to understand men and women, boys and girls to act wisely in human relations. Argyle (1969) suggested that social skill is reflected in the effective exercise of persuasion, explanation, and other influence mechanisms that reveal the ability to control others. Also, Meichenbaum, Butler, and Gruson (1981) noted that social skill reflects the capacity and knowledge of both what to do and when to display different behaviors, as well as control and flexibility in exhibiting such behaviors. Similarly, Hooijberg, Hunt, and Dodge (1997) illustrate the importance of the combination of cognitive, social, and behavioral complexity in their comprehensive Leaderplex Model. The social effectiveness construct can be construed as a somewhat broad category including a number of specific operationalizations that carry different labels, including social intelligence, emotional intelligence, practical and successful intelligence, sociopolitical intelligence, social skill, political skill, interpersonal acumen, self-monitoring, social com petence, ego resiliency, and functional flexibility (Ferris, Perrewe, & Douglas, 2002). Despite the realization that they might share some degree of domain space, Ferris et al. (2002) regarded all of these constructs as reflections of the broad category of social effectiveness, which is currently regarded as critically important to success in jobs and careers, and for leaders. Argued (and empirically demonstrated, in many cases) to reflect a separate set of abilities independent of GMA, social effectiveness has been found to be essential for managerial effectiveness (Kilduff & Day, 1994; Luthans et al., 1988). Furthermore, research has shown a lack of social effectiveness to be one of the leading causes of management derailment (Van Velsor & Leslie, 1995). 4.7.2. Political skill As we have seen, the focus on social effectiveness is particularly relevant in organizational settings as we have tried to increase our understanding of phenomena such as leadership and interpersonal influence. However, whereas research in these areas has increased dramatically during the past several decades, much is still unknown, particularly in how interpersonal effectiveness actually transpires (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997). Although the foregoing section discussed the general social effectiveness concept as well as specific construct manifestations that fall under that general concept, we argue that political skill is one of the few constructs that has emerged which was developed to explicitly address social influence skills in work settings (e.g., Ferris, Perrewe, Anthony, & Gilmore, 2000; Perrewe, Ferris, Frink, & Anthony, 2000). By design, our initial conceptualization contends that the political skill construct is not totally dissimilar from other previously outlined social effectiveness constructs. Thus, we view political skill as an interpersonal style construct, which combines interpersonal perceptiveness or social astuteness with the capacity to adjust ones behavior to different and changing situational demands in a manner that inspires trust, confidence, and genuineness, and effectively influences and controls the responses of others. We suggest that people
765
high in political skill not only know precisely what to do in different social situations (e.g., selecting the most situationally appropriate political or influence behaviors), but exactly how to do it with a sincere, engaging manner that disguises any ulterior motives and inspires believability, trust, and confidence, and renders the influence attempt successful. This does not simply involve the demonstration of particular behaviors that might be regarded as contributing to effective interpersonal interactions. Instead, political skill allows people to create synergy among discrete behaviors that transcends the simple sum of the parts. Leaders can then realize a set of interpersonal dynamics that enables them to reach higher levels of personal and career success through the appropriate selection and execution of political behaviors (Ferris et al., 2000). In addition, political skill has been suggested to build resistance and protection in individuals, and essentially serve as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of stress, particularly for managers and executives (Perrewe et al., 2000). 4.8. Target attributes Attributes of the target audience play a key role in shaping the political behavior of the leader, as well as the targets reactions. Essentially, the attributes of the target, leader, and context serve to define the situation and provide a backdrop within which the political behavior of the leader and the targets response take place (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Goffman, 1959; Liden & Mitchell, 1989). Key target attributes discussed here are status/ power and personality attributes. 4.8.1. Target status/power Both the influence (Yukl, 2002) and the impression management (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 2002; Schlenker, 1980) literatures have consistently demonstrated that the relative power and status of the audience are major determinants of the types of tactics the actor chooses to direct toward the target. With respect to influence tactics, Yukl and Tracey (1992) proposed a model that posits the type of tactic selected for a particular influence attempt. The assumption underlying this model is that agents will favor tactics that are socially acceptable, are at a minimum feasible given the power of the agent relative to the target, are not overly costly in terms of resources (e.g., time, effort, opportunity costs, and lost resources) required for their execution, and expected to be effective in securing the interaction objective given the level of expected target resistance (Yukl, 2002). Based on this model, Yukl and Tracey predicted that the influence tactics of pressure, exchange, ingratiation, and legitimation would be directed more often in a downward and lateral direction, since these tactics are more consistent with the power base of a superior in relation to a subordinate, rather than vice versa. The literature on impression management likewise demonstrates the fundamental role that the status and power of the target exerts on actor presentations. In general, this research suggests that actors are more self-aware and concerned about their images (Gardner & Martinko, 1988a, 1988b; Leary & Kowalski, 1990) in the presence of audiences who possess personal attributes (status) or resources (power) that the actor values (Jones & Wortman,
766
1973; Schlenker, 1980) and will use some tactics with higher status/power targets (e.g., ingratiation), and other tactics with lower status/power targets (e.g., intimidation). Based on these literatures, it is clear that the status and power of the target constitute key factors that determine the type of political behavior exhibited by the leader. 4.8.2. Personality Target personality characteristics would also be expected to influence a leaders propensity to engage in certain types of political behavior and the success of this political behavior. Two organizationally relevant examples, need for affiliation (nAff) and propensity to trust, are discussed here. For nAff (need for affiliation; an individuals desire to pursue and remain in positive and supporting interpersonal relationships; McClelland, 1966), it is possible that targets high in nAff will be more amenable to influence behaviors enacted by the leader in an attempt to enter into or maintain close personal relationships with the leader. If the leader is aware of this, he or she can utilize this need to place greater and greater demands on the individual. At the same time, he or she can expend relatively fewer cognitive resources designing politically correct requests for this kind of target. This does not necessarily mean that the leader uses the target, it simply recognizes that the target and the leader might be able to engage in friendly interactions with fewer political overtones than a dyad where the target does not have any need for friendly interactions. Targets low in nAff would likely require the leader to fully utilize their political savvy and rely on cognitive and fact-based appeals rather than emotional appeals. Much of the success of leader political behavior (or almost any leader behaviors for that matter) hinges on targets trust that the leader is acting in good faith. As a component of the trustors disposition, propensity to trust, influences the development of trust and subsequent trust evaluations of a target (Wrightsman, 1964). In a meta-analysis of research on trust in leadership, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) summarize the many empirically supported effects of trust in leaders on workplace outcomes such as satisfaction and organizational commitment as well as the effect of trust in leaders as a moderator of the effect of workplace characteristics and job/organizational outcomes. The importance of a baseline level of trust is made apparent by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995), who proposed that the trust rating of a target will incorporate the trustors propensity to trust. Similarly, measuring behavior directly in the workplace, Currall and Judge (1995) found that willingness to engage in trusting behavior with another was affected in part by the dispositional trusting personality of the trustor. Thus, we should expect that a target with a high propensity to trust will, all other things being equal, have a higher likelihood of responding favorably to the political behavior of a leader than will a target with a lower propensity to trust.
5. Leader political behavior Previous sections detailed skills, propensities, and motives for political behavior by leaders in organizations. This section sharpens this discussion by focusing on various forms of
767
political behaviors that are used by leaders in pursuit of desired outcomes. From the outset, it is important to recognize that the literature on social influence processes that may provide insights into leader political behavior is extensive and fragmented. As Ferris, Hochwarter, et al. (in press) pointed out, the literature on social influence processes encompasses a number of interrelated topics that share considerable conceptual overlap, but are nevertheless often treated as distinct in the literature. These topics include influence tactics, impression management and self-presentation, organizational politics, networking, and symbolic management. A comprehensive review of these topics is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. Instead, we focus on behaviors from across these diverse bodies of the literature that appear to be especially relevant to leadership. To better understand the criteria we used to determine the relevance of social influence tactics to leadership, it is useful to consider our perspective on the functionality of alternative forms of influence. As noted at the outset, we have adopted a neutral perspective on politics, arguing that they reflect a reality of organizational life, and that political behaviors may be functional or dysfunctional, depending on how they are used, and whose interests are being considered. Hence, many self-serving behaviors that are functional for an individual may be dysfunctional for the group and/or organization. Although such behaviors may serve to protect the individuals reputation and interests, such outcomes are often achieved at the expense of the organizations best interests. To us, such instances of self-serving behavior do not constitute leadership. To the contrary, a prerequisite for leadership is that the actors behavior must be driven by the interests of at least one key constituent, as opposed to purely self-serving objectives. That is, the actors behavior must be functional for one or more of the constituencies he or she represents to be considered leadership. Note that such behavior may or may not be considered functional from the perspective of the organization as a whole. For instance, whereas the efforts of a manager to hoard scare resources (e.g., capital, personnel, and equipment) for his department may result in suboptimization from an organizational perspective, his work unit clearly benefits. Using this criterion, we examine a variety of social influence behaviors that appear to be especially relevant to a political theory of leadership in the sections that follow. We begin by considering three basic levels of political action (Cobb, 1986) at which leaders operate: (1) the individual level, (2) the coalition level, and (3) the network level. Next, we examine three general categories of political behavior that cut across these levels: (1) proactive political behaviors, (2) reactive political behaviors, and (3) symbolic and nonverbal forms of influence. We also consider the ways in which combinations of tactics can be used by leaders to increase their effectiveness. While not meant to be an exhaustive accounting of the relevant behaviors, those examined provide a focal anchor for the antecedents and the outcomes of political leader behavior. 5.1. Three levels of political action Cobb (1986) identified three basic levels of political action within organizations as appropriate levels for assessing alternative avenues for effective organizational development
768
interventions. We believe these three levels also provide insights regarding the types of political behaviors leaders use to influence key constituencies. We discuss the distinguishing characteristics of leader political behavior at each of these levels below. 5.1.1. The individual level This level encompasses the political behaviors that leaders direct toward other individuals through one-on-one relationships. Much of the theory and research on influence tactics conducted by Kipnis and associates (Kipnis, Schmidt, and Willkinson, 1980), and subsequently by Yukl and his colleagues (Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl, Falbe, & Young, 1993; Yukl, Kim, & Falbe, 1996), has focused primarily, but not exclusively, on the tactics individuals use to influence one another. Moreover, LMX focuses on the unique, dyadic relationships that formal leaders form with individual members of their work units (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). As the LMX literature makes clear, leaders often develop special, close relationships with trusted followers. While the leader may rely predominantly on his or her position power to influence low LMX members, alternative forms of influence become important for high LMX members. Indeed, for high LMX relationships, leaders may use personal bases of power, such as expert and referent power (French & Raven, 1959) more extensively as they become part of the leaders inner circle. Of course, it is important to recognize that the influence exchange between leaders and members is a two-way process, as members act to impress and build a favorable relationship with the leader (Liden & Mitchell, 1988, 1989). Beyond direct reports, leaders represent their work units as they seek to influence a wide variety of individuals representing various internal and external organizational constituents, including superiors, peers, customers, regulators, and suppliers (Mintzberg, 1973, 1983; Tsui, 1984). Indeed, the desire to enhance their power and influence serves as a primary motivation behind leaders efforts to build an extensive interpersonal network (Kotter, 1985; Luthans et al., 1988). Importantly, a leaders influence at the individual level, serves as the foundation for the political behaviors applied at the coalition and network levels, as described below. 5.1.2. The coalition level Beginning with the frame-breaking work of Cyert and March (1963), organizational scholars have developed an increasing appreciation for the pervasiveness of coalitions as mechanisms of political influence within organizations (e.g., Allen, Madison, Porter, Renwick, & Mayes, 1979; Fairholm, 1993). Far earlier, however, politically savvy leaders were aware of the utility of building coalitions by convincing peers, subordinates, superiors and/or outsiders to join forces to pursue their common interests (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 1991; Deluca, 1999). As a benefit to the organization, in contrast to individual level tactics that are often driven by hidden agendas, DeLuca (1999) argued that coalitions are more visible and hence more likely to discourage unethical conduct because they require the cooperation and approval of multiple organizational actors. Additional benefits of coalitions identified by DeLuca include: (1) convergent validity, as agreement among coalition members with varied perspectives lends credibility to the importance of the issue and the need for action; (2) task legitimization,
769
as individuals who would otherwise refrain from political action come to recognize the legitimacy of their concerns and the importance of addressing them; and (3) increased maneuverability arising from the combined resources and abilities of the coalition members. As recognition of the importance of coalitions as forms of political influence has grown, confusion regarding the construct has likewise increased. In an effort to remedy this situation, Stevenson, Pearce, and Porter (1985, p. 261) defined a coalition as an interacting group of individuals, deliberately constructed, independent of the formal structure, lacking its own internal formal structure, consisting of mutually perceived membership, issue oriented, focused on a goal or goals external to the coalition, and requiring concerted member action. They argued that all eight of these criteria must be present in order for a group to be a coalition. This definition provides several important insights regarding coalitions that are useful in understanding how leaders use them to achieve influence. First, the members of the coalition must communicate about the coalition issue(s) and any coordinated actions they contemplate. Although it is not necessary for all of the coalition members to be present during issue-related communications, it does mean that two or more individuals who share a common interest, but fail to discuss it and act independently, are excluded (Stevenson et al., 1985). A second and related criterion is that the members exhibit agreement on coalition membership; that is, they have similar perceptions of who is, and who is not, a member. The implication for leaders seeking to build and guide a coalition is that they must make coalition members aware of one another and their shared interests, and coordinate their interactions and issue-related activities. These actions relate to the third criterion: the coalition must be deliberately constructed. Leaders who build coalitions do so consciously out of an explicit recognition of the members joint interests and the heightened influence that an engineered alliance can potentially achieve. Fourth, the coalition is independent of the organizations formal structure. Thus, by definition, a managers work unit (e.g., department, committee, task force, and division) is not a coalition, since it is formally designated and sanctioned by the organization, and the manager already possesses the legitimate authority to represent the groups interests. To the contrary, coalitions are formed when members common interests have not been explicitly acknowledged, and no formal and sanctioned means for expressing their concerns and exerting their combined influence is available. In practice, however, it may sometimes be difficult to separate formally mandated responsibilities from coalitional objectives (Stevenson et al., 1985, p. 261). Fifth, coalitions lack a formal internal structure due to their transitory nature. Coalitions are typically formed to address a specific issue or set of issues, and often disband once they receive a response from the targeted decision maker(s) (Stevenson et al., 1985). As a consequence, an informal role structure, rather than a formal hierarchy of authority, is likely to develop. Although persons who are instrumental in constructing the coalition typically play critical leadership roles within the coalition, it is important to recognize that these roles are never formalized. As such, effective social skills and persuasive abilities are required for a leader to guide a coalition in desired directions. The final three criteria are that the coalition be issue-oriented, externally focused, and demonstrate concerted member action. As suggested above, leaders who build coalitions do
770
so to unite persons who share similar views and interests regarding a particular issue or set of issues to jointly influence an external party. In some cases, the leader may be proactive in forming a coalition to originate a proposal or initiate action to take advantage of perceived opportunities that would benefit the members. In other cases, the leader may seek to construct a coalition in reaction to proposals or actions initiated by others (Stevenson et al., 1985). 5.1.3. The network level A network is an association of individuals and groups tied together into an interconnected system. The ties can be characterized as linkages (e.g., affiliation bonds, authority, and task relationships) and/or channels through which resources flow (e.g., information through the grapevine) (Cobb, 1986, p. 490). As noted during the discussion of political action at the individual level, politically savvy leaders devote considerable attention to the development of relationships with a broad array of subordinates, peers, superiors, and outsiders. The net product of these activities is the development of an extensive interpersonal network that the leader can utilize to gather information and mobilize support (Kotter, 1985), often in the form of coalitions, as described above. Many studies have shown that networking strategies lead to positive outcomes such as the building of social capital, acquisition of resources and opportunities, and reputational strength (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000; Burt, 1997; House, 1995). Luthans et al. (1988) maintained that networking is the dominant activity of real managers. In discussing what one does when networking, they described strategies that include socializing/politicking, interacting with outsiders, and mentoring. Socializing and politicking refer to the informal conversations and chit-chat that are used to communicate and share gossip, rumors, and engage in passive or active leader impression management and influence behaviors, usually inside the organization. Interacting with outsiders involves building ties to constituencies outside the organization. These two strategies involve the two key environments for networkingwithin the organization and the organizations external environment. Each is important as both environments contain constituencies that leaders need to disseminate information and meaning to and that have resources the leader may need or want to control. Mentoring is a more intensive form of networking where the leader creates a very strong dyadic relationship that, if done properly, leads to a very strong tie with a potential ally to extend a leaders influence within the organization (Luthans et al., 1988; Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, in press). Note that mentoring relationships across organizations are less common, but can be very effective in extending outside influence. The mentored subordinate also stands to gain from this relationship due to their fast-track inclusion into the mentors existing network or set of networks. As context is an important antecedent to political behavior, certain contextual characteristics have an impact on the success of networking strategies. Centrality and rank or position within an organization will affect the immediate paths of access that a leader has, both to gain social capital and to reach targets of political behavior (Brass, 1984, 1985; Pfeffer, 1992). Individual difference variables will likewise impact the extent and nature of networking activities pursued by the leader. For example, a recent study by Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass (2001) demonstrated that high as opposed to low self-monitors were more likely to occupy
771
central positions in social networks within organizations. Moreover, for high (but not low) self-monitors, longer service within the organization was associated with occupancy of strategically beneficial network positions. When coupled with Luthans et al.s (1988) findings, these results lend support for the notion that politically sophisticated leaders will develop extensive networks, while simultaneously moving themselves into central and strategically advantageous positions. 5.2. Proactive leader political behaviors Having examined the three levels of political action within organizations, we now turn our attention to specific forms of political behavior that leaders use to achieve social influence. To do so, we follow the lead of Valle and Perrewe (2000) who, building on the work of prior authors (Arkin, 1981; Tedeschi & Melberg, 1984), make a distinction between proactive and reactive political behaviors. Proactive leader political behaviors consist of those actions the leader assertively undertakes in response to a perceived opportunity to influence a target and secure desired outcomes for one or more collective bodies he/she represents. In contrast, reactive leader political behaviors are initiated in response to a perceived threat to the collective(s) in order to minimize or forestall the adverse consequences; such behaviors are examined in the next section. We consider the insights regarding proactive political behaviors provided by the impression management, influence tactic, and organizational politics literatures below. 5.2.1. Impression management One of the most commonly used taxonomies for classifying impression management behaviors is provided by Jones and Pittman (1982). A common attribute of the tactics they identify is that they are proactive. Specifically, the self-presentation strategies of exemplification, self-promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, and supplication are each used proactively to solicit attributions that they are morally worthy, likable, competent, dangerous and helpless, respectively. Moreover, the first four attributions correspond to the identity images of trustworthy, moral, attractive, esteemed, and powerful, each of which are likely to be viewed as desirable to a leader (House & Aditya, 1997). Partial support for this assertion is provided by Schutz (1995), who found that political leaders appearing on television talk shows relied heavily on self-presentations that portrayed them as worthy, successful, and innovative. In this section, we consider how the exemplification, self-promotion, intimidation, and ingratiation tactics can be used to achieve a leaders political objectives. We also consider two additional promotional tactics identified by Gardner and Avolio (1998) as being of particular value to leaders: vision promotion and organizational promotion. In our opinion, the supplication tactic, which involves efforts to solicit an attribution of helplessness from an audience in order to secure their aid, will be of relatively little value to leaders. Hence, it is not discussed further. The impression management tactic that has been most commonly associated with effective leadership is exemplification. Indeed, the concept of leading by example is often presented
772
as a highly desirable and noble form of leadership by both academics and practitioners. For example, nonvocal sports figures who illustrate their dedication to the team through their reliability, work ethic, and citizenship behaviors are typically admired and described as role models. Tedeschi and Norman (1985, p. 301) define exemplification as behavior which presents the actor as morally worthy and may also have the goal of eliciting imitation by others. Because the attributes of integrity, honesty, and moral worthiness represent ideals that are almost universally valued, exemplifiers present themselves as exceptionally trustworthy and morally responsible persons. Importantly, Jones and Pittman (1982) identify Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi as prototypical exemplifierstwo individuals who have come to be revered and admired as particularly effective and noble world leaders. Ample recognition of the importance of exemplification to transformational and charismatic leaders is also provided in the academic literature (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; House, 1977; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Indeed, by modeling exemplary behaviors that often involve personal sacrifices, leaders can effectively illustrate the type of dedication, commitment, and self-sacrificing behavior that is expected of followers. Moreover, to the extent that a leaders behavior is consonant with followers values and objectives, followers may experience elevated levels of admiration, respect, and positive affect for the leader. For example, the followers of our prototypical exemplifiers, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi, exhibited extraordinary levels of trust in their leaders and commitment to the cause. Many were also inspired to emulate the leaders behavior by making great personal sacrifices for the collective good. Empirical support for the relationship between exemplification and perceptions of transformational leadership is provided by Gardner and Cleavenger (1998) in a psycho-historic study of world-class leaders. As expected, world class leaders who were perceived by raters as using the exemplification tactic more extensively were judged to be more transformational, effective, and capable of satisfying follower needs. We expect leader interpersonal style to moderate the effectiveness with which leaders use exemplification to elicit desired behaviors from followers. Support for this assertion is provided by Turnley and Bolinos (2001) investigation of the moderating role that selfmonitoring plays in the impression management process. Specifically, they found that high as opposed to low self-monitors who reported using exemplification were more effective at securing the desired image of dedicated from a target audience, while avoiding the undesired image of feels superior. The implication of this finding is that socially skilled leaders are more likely to be effective at securing the favorable images (e.g., dedicated, morally worthy, committed, trustworthy, and honest) that can accrue from exemplification, while avoiding the less favorable images (e.g., aloof, hypocritical, condescending, and selfdeluding). In addition to being the most ubiquitous impression management tactic (Jones & Pittman, 1982), ingratiation has received the most extensive attention from scholars. Its utility is also well-recognized within the influence tactic (Yukl & Falbe, 1990) and organizational politics literatures (Allen et al., 1979; Zanzi, Arthur, & Shamir, 1991). The goal for ingratiators is to make the target like them and attribute desirable qualities to them, such as warmth, attractiveness, charm, and humor (Schlenker, 1980). Jones (1964), an early scholar of
773
ingratiation, specified four basic tactics: self-characterization (self-descriptions that highlight personal qualities of the actor that are expected to appeal to the target), opinion conformity, other enhancement (e.g., flattery and discounting negative attributes of the target) and rendering favors. As discussed earlier, motives to ingratiate are typically greatest among low status/power actors who depend on the target (Gardner & Martinko, 1988a; Jones, 1964; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Schlenker, 1980). Hence, we expect leaders to use ingratiation tactics such as flattery or opinion conformity predominantly during interactions with superiors as opposed to subordinates. Indeed, Liden and Mitchell (1989) suggest that ingratiation is an important means whereby followers can make themselves more attractive to leaders, and thereby enhance the quality of the LMX. Still, there are likely to be occasions when leaders find ingratiation to be an appropriate and effective means for influencing followers. For example, emerging leaders who have yet to establish a reputation, may find utility in a well-timed favor or compliment that elicits positive follower affect and support (Leary, 1989). We expect leaders who rely more heavily on follower support, such as in volunteer movements, will be especially likely to flatter followers when their support is a crucial determinant of success, or when their support base appears to be waning. In their psycho-historical study of world class leaders, Gardner and Cleavenger (1998) found that leaders who were judged as using ingratiation more extensively were rated as more transformational, effective, and capable of satisfying follower needs. In contrast with the negative connotation that is often linked to ingratiation, the behaviors Gardner and Cleavenger included under the ingratiation category (e.g., making nonwork related compliments, inquiring about ones nonwork life, presenting oneself as warm and charming, praising others ideas, and helping others with their work) were viewed quite positively by the respondents. The transformational factor most closely linked to ingratiation was individualized consideration, presumably because ingratiatory behaviors communicate the leaders personal concern for and interest in followers. Importantly, these findings are consistent with Learys (1989) assertion thatwhen skillfully appliedingratiatory behaviors, such as being friendly, warm and accepting, can serve to enhance a leaders appeal to followers. Moreover, Turnley and Bolinos (2001) findings that high as opposed to low self-monitors who use ingratiation more frequently achieve the desired image of likeable while avoiding the undesired image of sycophant, lend additional support to this argument. As described by Jones and Pittman (1982), the purpose of self-promotion is to secure an attribution of competence. To acquire such an attribution, the actor may highlight some general ability level (e.g., athletic prowess and intelligence) or a specific skill (e.g., portfolio analysis). The affective reaction desired is one of respect, which may include feelings of deference or even awe. Because leader competence is obviously an important attribute for prospective followers, leaders have strong incentives to use self-promotion tactics to bolster their reputation as a person with great abilities. Once again, however, real dangers await leaders who overuse this tactic. Indeed, a self-promoters paradox is apparent, since persons with high abilities typically are reluctant to boast, preferring to let their achievements speak for themselves. As a consequence, audiences tend to discount performance claims made directly by the actor (Schlenker, 1980).
774
Given the shortcomings associated with blatant self-promotion, socially skilled leaders might prefer more subtle forms of self-promotion, such as pursuing challenges they are sure they can overcome, fostering and perpetuating myths about their accomplishments, and failing to disclose information on factors that may have contributed to their success (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1989; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; House, 1977). Consistent with the notion that socially skilled leaders are more effective in using self-promotion to secure favorable images, Turnley and Bolino (2001) found that high as opposed to low performing actors achieved the desired image of competent when using self-promotion more often, while simultaneously avoiding the undesired image of conceited. Gardner and Avolio (1998) assert that two additional forms of promotional behaviors are especially relevant to leaders, and charismatic leaders in particular: vision promotion and organizational promotion. Vision promotion involves the leaders efforts to sell the target on the merits and feasibility of the vision. Consistent with the marketers concept of promotion, leaders using this tactic seek to differentiate their vision from a less desirable alternative, such as the status quo. To do so, they highlight and expound upon the desirable features of the vision, while simultaneously portraying the alternative in an undesirable light (Block, 1987). In effect, the leaders efforts to promote the vision will produce disenchantment among followers with the current state of affairs, along with a strong commitment to pursue the vision. In their role as organizational spokespersons (Mintzberg, 1973), leaders commonly use organizational promotions to highlight the favorable features and stress the achievements of their organizations (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). Once again, such promotional efforts are typically used to sell the target (e.g., prospective or current employees, investors, and customers) on the organization and solicit their support. One manifestation of such promotions is the tendency for many leaders, and charismatic leaders in particular, to use inclusive terms such as we, our, and us, when describing organizational objectives and achievements (Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993). Such terms serve to emphasize and build the collective identity of organizational members, while encouraging nonmembers to join the team. The purpose of intimidation is to present the actor as a dangerous person who is able and willing to harm others (Jones & Pittman, 1982). The attribution sought by the intimidator is to be feared. Overt threats and incipient anger represent the most common manifestations of this strategy. Evidence of the potential pitfalls for leaders who overuse intimidation is provided by Gardner and Cleavengers (1998) study of world class leaders. Intimidation was found to be negatively related to perceptions of transformational leadership, leader effectiveness, and follower satisfaction. Because of the inconsistencies between the transformational leaders quest to empower and develop followers, and the intimidators use of coercion and manipulation, it is not surprising to find a negative association between these behaviors. Moreover, the negative relationships of intimidation with perceived leader effectiveness and follower satisfaction echo the findings from the influence literature. Specifically, research on hard pressure tactics (e.g., threats, warnings, and demands) indicates that while they are sometimes successful in securing follower compliance, they are unlikely to result in commitment, and often lead to resentment
775
that can undermine the leaderfollower relationship (e.g., Thacker & Wayne, 1995; Yukl, Kim, & Chavez, 1999). 5.2.2. Influence tactics Building on Kipnis et al.s (1980) groundbreaking research into organizational influence tactics, Yukl and his colleagues (Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl et al., 1996) developed a more extensive and refined influence taxonomy. The following proactive tactics are included: (1) rational persuasion, (2) apprising, (3) inspirational appeals, (4) consultation, (5) exchange, (6) collaboration, (7) personal appeals, (8) ingratiation, (9) legitimating tactics, (10) pressure, and (11) coalition tactics. Note that the pressure tactic is basically equivalent to the self-presentational strategy of intimidation (Jones & Pittman, 1982) discussed above. Because these tactics have been extensively researched and discussed elsewhere (Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., in press; Yukl, 2002), we focus our attention on those that theory and research suggest are most important to effective leadership. Insights into the frequency of use and relative utility of alternative influence tactics for leaders are provided by Yukl (2002). Based on findings from an extensive research program (Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl et al., 1993; Yukl & Tracy, 1992), he concluded that rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, and collaboration tend to be highly effective forms of influence, followed by apprising, ingratiation, exchange and personal appeals, which have a moderate chance of being effective; coalition tactics, legitimating tactics, and pressure were least likely to be effective. Similarly, Ferris, Hochwarter, et al. (in press) concluded from a more extensive review of the social influence literature that supervisor-focused ingratiation, rational appeals, inspirational appeals, and consultation appear to yield the most positive effects, whereas pressure (i.e., assertiveness) tends to backfire; findings for the remaining tactics were inconsistent. Yukl (2002) provides additional insights about the directional use of the tactics. Rational persuasion is widely used in upward, downward, and lateral directions, whereas inspirational appeals and pressure are typically used to achieve downward influence. Consultation, collaboration, apprising, ingratiation, exchange, and legitimating tactics are predominantly used for downward and lateral influence. Interestingly, the findings that ingratiation is directed most often subordinates and peers contradicts the previous discussion which suggested that motives to ingratiate are greatest for subordinates seeking to influence superiors (Jones & Wortman, 1973; Liden & Mitchell, 1988, 1989; Ralston, 1985). Perhaps, ingratiation was used more often in downward and lateral directions for precisely this reasonit is less obvious and less likely to arouse suspicion when directed at subordinates and peers. Finally, personal appeals and coalition tactics appear to be used at the lateral level most extensively. The preceding discussion implies that effective leaders will make extensive use of rational persuasion to influence targets across organizational levels, while utilizing inspirational appeals, consultation, and collaboration to influence subordinates, as well as the latter two tactics with peers. It is interesting to note that these tactics are the only ones likely to be sanctioned by the organization as appropriate means of influence, which undoubtedly contributes to their effectiveness. It is also noteworthy that these tactics resemble well-
776
documented forms of leadership. Specifically, inspirational appeals correspond to the inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), whereas consultation and collaboration are consistent with a participative style of leadership (Vroom & Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Nonetheless, we believe that apprising, ingratiation, exchange, and personal appeals may also be effective when used by a politically skilled leader, especially when directed at subordinates and peers. Finally, we expect only the most politically savvy leader to achieve consistent success with pressure and legitimating tactics. 5.2.3. Tactics suggested by organizational politics literature As was the case for impression management behaviors and influence tactics, several taxonomies of organizational political tactics have been advanced (Allen et al., 1979; Fairholm, 1993; Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984; Zanzi et al., 1991). Although these taxonomies encompass many of the impression management and influence tactics described above, they also delineate other types of political behaviors that are available to organizational leaders. In this section, we examine these behaviors. Moreover, we draw on the research of Fairholm (1993), Vredenburgh and Maurer (1984), and Zanzi and ONeill (2001) to make an important distinction between political behaviors that are likely to be sanctioned by the organization and nonsanctioned behaviors. Consistent with our initial definition of leadership based on House (1995) and these authors arguments, we define sanctioned political tactics as ones that are deemed to be acceptable because they are consistent with the organizations norms; that is, they are typically tolerated, expected, or even encouraged (Zanzi & ONeill, 2001). In contrast, when political behavior deviates from organizational norms, it is considered to be nonsanctioned. Not surprisingly, people typically do not want others to know that they are using nonsanctioned political tactics, since these are viewed as undesirable, unacceptable, and negative. The sanctioned political tactics identified by Zanzi and ONeill (2001) include four discussed above: networking, coalition-building, persuasion (rational), and image building. Two additional political tactics were also identified as likely to be sanctioned: use of expertise and super-ordinate goals. The former tactic refers to providing particular skills, unique knowledge, or solutions to enhance ones position (Zanzi & ONeill, 2001, p. 249). The utility of expertise as a power base for effective leadership is well recognized (French & Raven, 1959; Yukl, 2002). A related tactic involves the use of an outside expert such as an external consultant to legitimize a position favored by the leader (Dubrin, 1998; Fairholm, 1993; Zanzi et al., 1991). Interestingly, there is some disagreement among scholars regarding the ethicality of this tactic. Whereas Dubrin (1998) recommended the use of experts as an ethical political tactic that can be employed to gain support for ones position, and hence power, the respondents to Fairholms (1993) survey identified it as an ethically negative tactic when used to influence superiors. Further evidence of the ambiguity regarding the perceived appropriateness of this tactic arises from the fact that it failed to load on either the sanctioned or the nonsanctioned factor in Zanzi and ONeills (2001) study. Thus, it appears that the use of experts may be seen as both a sanctioned and a nonsanctioned form of influence, depending on the manner and circumstances in which it is used.
777
Appealing to a super-ordinate goal involves efforts to gain support for ones argument by linking it to the greater good of the organization (Zanzi et al., 1991). This tactic is especially significant from a political perspective of effective leadership. Indeed, one of the challenges for leaders is to convince constituents that the actions they advocate will facilitate the attainment of organizational goals. We have already discussed one specific manifestation of this tactic: vision promotion. In this case, the leaders vision serves as the super-ordinate goal. By promoting their vision, leaders seek to convince target audiences that the idealized future they foresee can be attained through the cooperative efforts of the collective (Block, 1987; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Nonsanctioned political behaviors identified by Zanzi and ONeill (2001) include just one tactic that has been previously discussed: intimidation and innuendoes. Other nonsanctioned political tactics they identified include manipulation, co-optation, control of information, using surrogates, organizational placements, and blaming or attacking others. For example, manipulation involves efforts to convince another party to accept your point of view by distorting reality or misrepresenting ones intentions such as through selective disclosure or objective speculation about other persons or situations (Zanzi et al., 1991). Other nonsanctioned political tactics identified by Fairholm (1993) include controlling the agenda, controlling decision criteria, using ambiguity, brinkmanship, and incurring obligations. A leader may control the agenda by determining in advance the subjects or concerns to be considered by a decision-making body; he or she may also act to keep unwanted issues or proposals off the agenda. Similarly, a leader may choose the criteria for making decisions so that desirable results will be obtained regardless of who decides. Using ambiguity involves purposefully generating unclear communications that are subject to multiple interpretations. Brinkmanship or planned disorganization (Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984) involves intentionally disturbing the organizations equilibrium to gain control over choice options. An example would be a computer systems manager who favors the introduction of a fully automated production system, but anticipates resistance from program managers due to initial costs and concerns about automation. The systems manager may allow excessive backlogs in the existing semi-automatic system to develop until the program managers have no option but to purchase the recommend information system (Fairholm, 1993). Note that this is a highly risky tactic, since the leader risks being seen as incompetent in light of the performance difficulties he or she creates or allows to develop. Finally, leaders may incur obligations from others to insure that they will do what they desire (Allen et al., 1979). This tactic is most often used with peers by generating an unbalanced exchange of capital, information, materials, friendship or psychological support. Given the inherently self-serving nature of many of the nonsanctioned tactics, we expect that they will often be used for purposes that have little or nothing to do with leadership. Nevertheless, there are also circumstances where such tactics may be used by the leader to secure desired outcomes for one or more key constituencies. For example, controlling the agenda can be an effective means whereby the leader can ensure that top priority issues receive adequate consideration without attention being diverted to less pressing concerns. Similarly, using ambiguity may be the only means whereby the leader can prevent an unpopular but nonetheless promising alternative from being prematurely eliminated. Thus,
778
we believe that there are a wide array of situations for which a leaders use of nonsanctioned political tactics may prove to be advantageous for selected constituents, and often, the organization as a whole. 5.3. Reactive leader political behaviors In contrast to the proactive tactics described above which are employed to assertively pursue desired outcomes, reactive tactics are used to protect the actors interests (Valle & Perrewe, 2000). These tactics encompass a wide array of defensive impression management tactics including accounts, disclaimers, self-handicapping, restitution, prosocial behaviors, excuses, and apologies (Gardner & Martinko, 1988a, 1988b; Schlenker, 1980; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Snyder, Higgins, and Stuckey, 1983). Although a complete discussion of the similarities and differences among these tactics is beyond the scope of this article, it is clear that all fall within a more general category that Goffman (1967) labeled facework. Here, the term face refers to the conception of the self that each person displays in particular interactions with others (Cupach & Metts, 1994, p. 3). Facework is required whenever an actor encounters a predicament, i.e., a situation in which events have undesirable implications for the identity-relevant images actors have claimed or desire to claim in front of real or imagined audiences (Schlenker, 1980, p. 125). Note that defensive impression management tactics cannot be used by a leader to acquire a desired image; they can only be used to protect their established identity by warding off or discounting unfavorable images. Ashforth and Lee (1990) have also identified a number of reactive political behaviors that organizational actors use to avoid action (e.g., overconforming, buck passing, playing dumb, depersonalizing, stretching and smoothing, and stalling) or avoid blame (e.g., buffing, playing safe, justifying, scapegoating, and misrepresenting). From their description of these tactics, however, it appears that they are most often used for purely self-serving purposes, and hence have little to do with leadership. Indeed, to constitute leadership, these reactive tactics must be used to protect, at least indirectly, the interests of a collective body the leader represents. As is the case with the proactive tactics described above, the effectiveness of reactive tactics is likely to depend on the leaders style or social effectiveness. Indeed, leaders who make excessive use of reactive tactics or employ them in an obvious fashion, may find that such tactics do more harm to their image, and in the process, the interests of the collective, than they do good (Cupach & Metts, 1994). Not only are the leaders efforts at image protection likely to fail, but both the leader and the collective may be perceived as being unwilling to assume responsibility for their transgressions. It is equally clear that reactive tactics, when skillfully used, can go a long ways toward preserving a leaders favorable image in the face of highly threatening and embarrassing incidents, and hence preserving his or her capacity to lead. 5.4. Symbolic and nonverbal forms of influence House and Podsakoff (1994) argued that outstanding leaders are very concerned about their own image, particularly with respect to the need to be perceived by followers as
779
credible, competent, and trustworthy. House (1977) suggested that outstanding leaders need to possess the ability to be verbally articulate as well as nonverbally expressive, recognizing that the effective use of facial and bodily expressions and gestures can be useful in altering the affective/emotional reactions of followers. This indicates that symbolic and nonverbal behaviors by leaders can be potentially powerful forms of influence. Strong evidence of the role that symbolism exerts on perceived leadership is provided by Emrich, Brower, Feldman, and Garland (2001). In this study, US presidents who used image-based as opposed to concept-based rhetoric (e.g., heart vs. commitment, dream vs. idea, sweat vs. toil) more extensively in their speeches received higher ratings of charisma and greatness from historians. Furthermore, Peters (1978) argued that one way managers and leaders focus attention on, and symbolize the importance of, an activity or issue is to spend time on it, which then serves as a surrogate measure of importance. Other research documents the importance of nonverbal and expressive behaviors to leadership, demonstrating the impact of eye contact, facial expression, gestures, and so forth, on reactions of others (e.g., DePaulo, 1992). Direct empirical evidence of the importance of such behaviors to leadership is provided by Awamleh and Gardner (1999) and Holladay and Combs (1994). These experiments confirmed that the nonverbal and expressive behaviors have a potent impact on perceived leadership. Awamleh and Gardner interpret these findings as reinforcing the previously noted assertion of Gardner and Avolio (1998) that what a leader says may, at times, be less important than how he or she says it, in determining follower impressions. Also, there has been some research done on how individuals can employ both verbal and nonverbal behaviors to influence the affect and emotional states of others. Some of this work has examined the effective regulation and demonstration of emotion as an influence tactic, designed to inspire emotional expression and affectivity in others (e.g., Arvey, Renz, & Watson, 1998; Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989). So, as a mechanism of influence designed to manage shared meaning, symbolic and nonverbal behaviors need to be investigated more specifically in the repertoire of leader political behaviors employed alone and in combinations with other forms political behavior. 5.5. Combinations of tactics Various authors have suggested that organizational influencers tend to use combinations of influence tactics rather than just single tactics. For example, Kipnis and Schmidt (1988) suggested that influence attempts are not always confined to the use of a single influence tactic. Rather, they found that influence attempts often consist of clusters of tactics, and developed labels for such clusters or influence styles. The shotgun influence style is characteristic of people who refuse to take no for an answer (Vecchio, 1997, p. 89), and who use varying combinations of many (e.g., assertiveness, appeals to higher authority, and coalition influence) if not all of the influence and IM tactics discussed above. Tacticians are those who primarily use rational persuasion, reason, and logic to influence others. Ingratiators focus their influence attempts on flattery and ingratiation. Lastly, bystanders are those who fail to make influence attempts, instead opting to watch rather than influence others.
780
Kipnis and Schmidt (1988) found that tacticians received the highest performance ratings, ingratiators received moderate ratings, and shotgun managers received the lowest ratings. Interestingly, bystanders, who ostensibly wielded the least influence, received moderate to high performance ratings by their supervisors. Farmer and Maslyn (1999), with two diverse samples, found strong support for the existence of the shotgun, tactician, and bystander styles, and only partial support for the ingratiator style. Falbe and Yukl (1992) found that certain combinations of influence tactics were more effective than others, and that effectiveness was determined by the potency of the individual tactics. Whether a combination was better than a single tactic depended on what tactics were combined. For example, combinations of soft tactics such as consultation, ingratiation, and inspirational appeals were usually more effective than use of a soft tactic alone. [Further]. . .the use of a soft tactic was usually enhanced when it was combined with rational persuasion (Yukl, 1998, p. 217). Interestingly, they also found that combining soft with hard tactics (e.g., pressure and coalitions) was not as effective as a soft tactic used alone. Yukl (1998, p. 218) suggested that effectiveness of a tactic combination probably depends. . .on the extent to which the component tactics are compatible with each other. . . Rational persuasion is a very flexible tactic that is usually compatible with any of the other tactics. Developed in a later section of this article, we also suggest that factors such as the reputation of both the influencer and the target(s) of influence help to facilitate such effects. 5.6. Moderator role of leader interpersonal style 5.6.1. Leader Interpersonal StyleGMA interaction Leadership theory and research generally has recognized the roles of GMA and social or interpersonal style in leader effectiveness for many years (e.g., Bass, 1990). We have discussed the importance of each of these constructs in earlier sections of this article as demonstrating main effects on leader political behavior. Additionally, we believe that leader interpersonal style interacts with GMA to affect target reactions. As noted by Ferris, Witt, and Hochwarter (2001), social skill and GMA represent largely independent but complementary constructs, essentially providing individuals with behavioral and cognitive flexibility, both of which can enhance effectiveness. This would imply that the constructs have merely additive effects on outcomes, but they argued (and found evidence to support) that performance ratings and salary would be maximized when individuals are high on both social skill and GMA. Similarly, we argue here that leader interpersonal style and GMA interact to affect target reactions such that the highest levels of these reactions are found when both interpersonal style and GMA are high. Under conditions of high interpersonal style and low GMA, leaders may be socially impressive but lack the cognitive resources to generate a sufficiently large repertoire of effective solutions to issues and problems, thus generating lower target reactions. Also, when leaders are high on GMA but low on interpersonal style, targets may be unimpressed by the decisions and actions the leaders take if they are unable to frame and present such actions in an accessible and convincing way.
781
5.6.2. Leader Interpersonal StylePersonality interaction Hogan (1991) and Hogan and Shelton (1998) argued that personality is an essentially inactive component but needs to be brought to life by social skill (we would say, political skill). In addition, Hogan defined personality as possessing an internal identity component and an external reputation component, and he argued that social skill is what translates identity into successful goal accomplishment or reputation. We argue that leader interpersonal style is the energizing component that activates personality, and thus helps to unleash its potential effects on outcomes. Therefore, we would expect to see little impact of personality traits on outcomes when leader interpersonal style (e.g., political or social skill) is low. However, we should observe stronger positive effects of personality traits on outcomes when leader interpersonal style is high. 5.6.3. Leader Interpersonal StyleInfluence Behavior interaction As Jones (1990) argued over a decade ago, we have studied influence tactics quite extensively, but we know very little about the social style component that likely explains the effective or successful execution of influence attempts. Leader interpersonal style (i.e., measures of social effectiveness like political or social skill) should facilitate the success of leader political behaviors by ensuring that the particular political behavior selected for demonstration is executed in an effective way that disguises any ulterior motives and/or allows the behavior to be interpreted in a convincing, sincere, and genuine manner.
6. Consequences of political behavior 6.1. Target outcomes Based on the targets assessment of the leaders political behavior, a variety of target outcomes may arise. These outcomes can be classified into five basic categories: target affective reactions, cognitions, behavior, attitudes, and performance. We explore each of these categories of outcomes below. 6.1.1. Target affective reactions as intermediate linkages Affective reactions to leader political behavior depend on the targets reputation PMMs and the inferences they make regarding the appropriateness of the behaviors given the organizational context. For example, to illustrate possible affective consequences as an intermediate linkage, we focus on the affective component of trust. Research on trust has found support for an affect-based component of trust; that is, sometimes trust appears to be the result of the gradual development of shared values and mutual understanding between individuals. If the leaders political behaviors are viewed by the target as inappropriate or similarly involve breaches of trust, affect-based trust will likely suffer. Outcomes of such breaches of trust include withholding or distorting information given to the supervisor (Roberts & OReilly, 1974), a weakening of the relationship between having power and being influential
782
(Frost & Moussavi, 1992), and a lessening of the incidence of organizational citizenship behaviors of employees (Atwater, 1988; Deluga, 1994). If the leaders political behaviors align with the normative behaviors expected by the target, it is likely that the targets affectbased trust level will not suffer and may even be raised by the positive information gained from the episode. 6.1.2. Target cognitions as intermediate linkages Just as leaders cognitive processes shape their definition of the situation and subsequent behavior, the cognitive processes of followers influence their interpretation of the situation and their reactions to leader behaviors (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Lord & Maher, 1993). In this section, we consider the influence of three particular types of cognitive structures and/or processes on target perceptions and responses to leaders political behaviors: target identity, implicit leadership theories, and target attributions. Recall that ones identity (Schlenker, 1985) involves a theory of self that specifies relevant self-constructs (e.g., branch manager, Canadian) and ones standing on particular dimensions (e.g., loyal and assertive). For targets of leader political behavior, their identity PMMs may interact with the reputation PMMs of a focal leader to shape their situated identity, as well as their assessment of the leaders actions. A sizeable gap between the leaders identity and reputation PMMs (Fiol et al., 2001) may cause him or her to select political tactics that are deemed to be inappropriate by the target, and thereby elicit target resistance. Indeed, greater congruence between the leaders reputation PMM and the targets identity PMM may explain why targets occupying higher-level hierarchical positions tend to consider rational persuasion and coalition tactics to be more appropriate forms of upward influence than pressure, legitimating tactics, exchange, and inspirational appeals (Yukl, 2002; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl, Falbe, & Young, 1993; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). The beliefs and assumptions that individuals hold about the characteristics of effective leaders constitute their implicit leadership theories (e.g., Eden & Leviatan, 1975; Lord, 1985). Typically, such implicit theories involve prototypes and stereotypes about pertinent traits, skills and behaviors associated with effective leaders (Yukl, 2002). According to leader categorization theory (Lord, 1985; Lord & Maher, 1993), individuals employ a prototype matching process to identify people they encounter as either leaders or nonleaders. For persons categorized as leaders, they may be further classified as effective versus ineffective and assigned to a particular leader type (e.g., political leader and religious leader). The category to which a leader is assigned is important because it impacts target expectations regarding appropriate leader behavior. The attributions targets make regarding the leaders underlying motives for political behavior have important implications in predicting a probable response (Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, & Judge, 1995). For example, if the target attributes ingratiatory leader behaviors such as flattery and favors to a desire to secure valued resources (e.g., a promotion), as opposed to genuine attraction to the target, the leader is likely to be seen as manipulative and encounter an unfavorable target response (e.g., rejection) (Jones, 1964; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Schlenker, 1980; Wortman and Linsenmeier, 1977).
783
6.1.3. Target attitudes The literature on perceptions of organizational politics (POPs) has studied the impact of political behavior on work-related attitudes of the targets of such political behavior. Specifically, this area of research examines the impact of the perceptions that targets hold of the level and form of political behavior in their work environment. The POPS literature indicates that the POP, including supervisory political behavior, has important negative relationships with job satisfaction (e.g., Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; HarrellCook, Ferris, & Dulebohn, 1999). Several of these studies also found that these relationships were moderated by level of understanding (Ferris et al., 1996; Kacmar et al., 1999); that is, targets who have a better understanding of how things work in their organization will have less of a lowering of job satisfaction due to political behaviors than will targets without this level of understanding. Similarly, Ferris et al. (1996) found that perceived control moderated the politics satisfaction relationship. Thus, we see that leader political behavior can be detrimental to target satisfaction. It is possible, however, that a skilled leader might be able to mitigate this effect by educating subordinates as to the necessity of such behavior (increasing organizational understanding) and by making them feel that they are active and valued participants in their workplace (increasing perceived control). With respect to other target attitudes, Abraham (2000, p. 269) defined organizational cynicism as a negative attitude toward ones employing organization, composed of a belief that the organization lacks integrity; it includes negative affect toward the organization and a tendency to disparaging and critical behavior toward the organization consistent with this belief and affect. Thus, leader political behavior that is deemed to be insincere, deceptive, and manipulative is likely to contribute to organizational cynicism among targets, which in turn can lead to a number of adverse work outcomes including heightened levels of job dissatisfaction, alienation, and withdrawal behaviors. Furthermore, as targets develop cynical attitudes about leaders they are likely to become highly skeptical of future leader behaviors, and thereby undermine the potential effectiveness of such behaviors. Thus, leaders who engage in political behavior might be more successful (at least in terms of target attitudes) if they take into account the expectations and understanding of the targets of this behavior. 6.1.4. Target performance Performance outcomes that have been informed by the POPS literature include target ratings of supervisor effectiveness, target self-reports of individual performance, and supervisor ratings of target performance. Kacmar et al. (1999) found a negative relationship between perceptions of political behavior and target ratings of supervisor effectiveness and target self-reports of individual performance. Interestingly, while she and her colleagues found that understanding moderated the impact of POPS on self-reported individual performance, understanding was not found to moderate the impact of POPS on supervisor effectiveness. Parker, Dipboye, and Jackson (1995) found that self-reports of perceived organizational innovativeness were also impacted by POPS. Finally, Witt (1998) found that the relationship between target perceptions of political behavior and supervisor ratings of performance was
784
partially moderated by goal congruence. That is, POPS had a detrimental effect on organizational outcomes only when goal congruence between supervisors and subordinates was low. Thus, political behavior can have a negative impact on target performance outcomes. However, it is possible that this impact can be lessened to the extent that the target and work environment characteristics for such as understanding and goal congruence are taken into account by the leader engaged in such political behavior. 6.2. Leader outcomes Leader effectiveness is gauged largely through work-related outcomes that are typically used to measure success in organizations, and such indicators contribute to the development and re-calibration over time of leader reputation. Specifically, salary progression, promotions, and performance evaluation ratings are all indices that can be used to determine the level of effectiveness and reputation in organizations. Despite this acknowledgement, there are other measures that can be used to determine ones effectiveness at work. For example, effectiveness can be enhanced if an employee achieves a certain level of power within the organization, or if the individual receives indicators of external recognition such as awards, honors, or professional certifications. 6.2.1. Performance evaluation In some situations, it is clear who the best performers are. For example, automobile dealerships and real estate companies often list their top salespeople in public outlets such as newspapers or on a website. In other cases, however, the determination of success is not as freely available or objectively measured. Many organizations rely on subjective ratings provided by an employees immediate supervisor as to evaluate job performance. Although subjective evaluations are often used to determine important individual and organizational outcomes (i.e., promotions, salary increases, and group rewards), they are prone to influence, bias, and distortion. Previous research (Ferris & Judge, 1991) has shown that the use of influence tactics can affect performance ratings even when objective indices of work effectiveness suggest no actual difference. Further, it has been suggested that individuals are often rated on the basis of beliefs, values, or effort instead of actual performance (Pfeffer, 1981). Because goals often represent a surrogate measure of effort, and a substitute index of performance, evaluations of performance may take into consideration the success of accomplishing self-set goals. As evidence, Dossett and Greenberg (1981) found that supervisors gave the highest evaluations to individuals who set the highest goals, regardless of actual objective performance. It can be argued that goals become inexplicably relevant in the context of evaluation and that they dictate the level of focus as well as the manner in which impressions are formed. Given their importance in determining performance ratings, actual performance, exclusive of impression management tactics, may take on a secondary role. If, in fact, the employees performance is consistent with a high level of self-set goals, the initial impressions of the subordinate are largely validated. Conversely, if performance is not up to standard with previously self-set goals, it is likely that the failure to be successful will be attributed to nonpersonal causes.
785
Previous research has shown that job incumbents are apt to manage their effectiveness by ensuring that they are evaluated on process measures (i.e., effort) rather than actual objective measures of job performance (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; March, 1984). In an effort to shift the focus of job performance criteria, some individuals may incorporate intentional vagueness or strategic ambiguity to improve or protect their reputation (Eisenberg, 1984; Williams & Goss, 1975). 6.2.2. Promotions and mobility The number of promotions that an individual receives can also be viewed as a measure of ones effectiveness. In actuality, the absolute number of promotions received is often viewed as secondary relative to the number received within a specific period of time. For example, receiving two promotions over the course of ones career does not capture the same tone as receiving two promotions in the span of 6 months. Consistent with the nature of the performance evaluation process, the decision to promote an employee can be influenced dramatically by subjective evaluations that often do not reflect objective reality. It is with this in mind that research has indicated that promotions represent the most political decision made in organizations (Ferris & Judge, 1991). Whether an individual is considered for promotion is also heavily biased by the early impressions formed by the evaluator. Research suggests that the impressions formed early by decision-makers have a strong influence on subsequent promotions (Cooper, Graham, & Dyke, 1993; Rosenbaum, 1989). 6.2.3. Compensation Salary represents one of the most salient indices of worth, and subsequent effectiveness at work. Not only is salary indicative of ones ability to afford material possessions, society holds those who amass an admirable salary in higher esteem than those whose salary is more modest. Research suggests that an individuals effectiveness is associated with salary increases. For example, Bartol and Martin (1990) found that managers rewarded subordinates whose expertise they relied upon with high pay raises, suggesting that a subordinates level of reputation may directly result in organizational rewards. 6.2.4. Power Society holds powerful individuals with higher regard than those viewed as weak. Pfeffer (1992) suggests that individuals seek to build records of effectiveness and reputations that allow them to be seen as powerful. Once this level of effectiveness is attained, the individual is likely to seek out other opportunities that bring more power. In this regard, the relationship between effectiveness and power may be recursive. Specifically, powerful individuals are more likely to use their influence to accomplish goals with less effort. Hence, more tasks can be completed, which serves to build ones effectiveness and reputation (Pfeffer, 1992). As evidence of a relationship between reputation and power, Gioia and Sims (1983) found that managerial reputation predicted subordinate perceptions of expert, referent, and legitimate power. Further, research suggests that people form attitudes regarding the influence of others (Fiol et al., 2001), implying that some individuals have a greater influence reputation than others. In addition, Matthews (1988) maintained that power and reputation are
786
intrinsically linked, and that ones power is more often a function of what is perceived than what in actuality exists. Referent power reflects the influence one person has on another based on attraction and identification (French & Raven, 1959). Given this definition, it is not surprising that individuals are attracted to and would like to be identified with reputable coworkers. Because social power bases are formed largely by the accumulation of information and resources, having access to powerful individuals would likely augment the reputation of those seeking power (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994; Tsui, 1984). 6.2.5. Leader reputation The foregoing discussion of leader outcomes made implicit and explicit reference to leader reputation as both affecting and being affected by such outcomes or indicators of effectiveness. In many respects, this is the culmination of the political behaviors and substantive contributions made by leaders that contributes to an overall indication of reputational effectiveness, which feeds back to contextual factors like accountability, and also the selection, use, and target interpretation of political behaviors in future episodes. For example, there is some evidence to indicate that leader reputation is related to trust, and previous work has demonstrated a reciprocal relationship between trust and reputation. In some cases, trust is allocated based on ones perceived reputation whereas reputation is enhanced with the augmentation of trust in others. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) report strong support for certain behaviors such as transformational leadership activities (e.g., demonstrating individualized concern and respect for others) that result in enhanced trust in leaders and resultant positive impact in follower job outcomes and attitudes. Politically skilled leaders would likely be savvy to these tactics and thus could be expected to benefit from their use to the extent that, for example, increased follower performance yielded increased leader reputation. Similarly, Wernerfelt (1988), examining principalagent relationships, found that principals were less likely to scrutinize the efforts of agents who had better reputations. This finding suggests that the relationship between managers and subordinates may be quite different across dyads with those possessing a greater reputation being treated more favorably than those without. From a theoretical perspective (Greenberg, 1990; Hollander, 1958), the idiosyncrasy credit view may help explain this phenomenon. For example, it has been suggested that those with greater reputations are often treated with more autonomy and given more margin for error than those with lesser reputations (Greenberg, 1990). Further, the belief that higher reputations tend to be associated with higher trust results in people with higher reputations being monitored less and generally held less accountable than those with lesser reputations (Ferris, Blass, et al., in press; Ferris, Hochwarter, et al., in press). This appears to have some quite interesting implications as we look at the incredibly low accountability mechanisms placed on high-visibility corporate executives (e.g., Enron). Indeed, we might even argue that leaders work hard at developing and maintaining their reputations, and one way to do that is to use the media as a vehicle (e.g., Deephouse, 2000; Fine, 1996) for enhancing reputationas seen by President Reagan who was a master at communication, impression management, and playing to the media (who then convey the image you want them to; e.g., Leary, 1989).
787
It is also quite important to note the reciprocal relationship between leader reputation and leader social capital. The accumulation of social capital (networks, allegiances, contacts, etc.), which can be leveraged in the future as an influence force or mechanism, has an important influence on the selection of political behaviors to utilize, and it contributes to the formation of reputation. Additionally, as leaders develop reputations, this often results in the further development of social capital resource stores, which cycle back through the model. Boyatzis (1982), Luthans et al. (1988), and others have demonstrated that networking, coalition building, and social capital building are some of the main ways we have been able to distinguish effective from ineffective managers. There seems to be little doubt that this is also a distinguishing characteristic of people with high reputations. In communication research, the effectiveness of influence attempts is a function of the individual possessing appropriate resources, and the prestige or reputation of the influencer is one of the most important resources (Klapper, 1960). Thus, the integration of influence tactics and reputation is such that ones reputation can serve as a contextual backdrop for influence in a number of ways. This backdrop may serve as both an enabler and constrainer of the effectiveness of influence attempts. Further, both the reputation of the individual making the influence attempt and that of the target(s) may affect the influence outcome. Indeed, some research to date has examined the nature of influence attempts as they play out and are interpreted against a reputational context. As Schlenker (1980, p. 193) pointed out, successful people can afford to be modest and thus acquire images of success and humility. Presumably, such behavior demonstrated against a positive and successful reputational context would be interpreted much more favorably than highly self-promoting behavior, which might raise questions in perceiver interpretation as a function of the reputational backdrop. Dixit and Nalebuff (1991) argued that reputation affects the way we interpret certain behaviors. Furthermore, Klapper (1960) noted that, as a resource of influence, reputation must be carefully considered when other forms of influence are added to ones situational behavioral repertoire. Reputation can serve to indirectly affect outcomes by causing the influencer to consider their own reputation, as well as the reputation of the parties of influence, prior to the choosing of influence behaviors. From this perspective, we suggest that the influence tactics chosen must be consistent with the reputation or the reputation will be redefined, however incrementally. Finally, the impression management implications of reputation and influence/power have been suggested by others as well. Pfeffer (1992) argued that people engage in efforts to build reputations that reflect power, which then result in those persons wielding even more power (or at least being viewed as such). Reflecting on such processes, Matthews (1988), in characterizing Washington-type politics, contended that people become powerful by doing things that make them appear powerful, which has subsequent effects on their power-broker reputations.
7. Summary and conclusions The study of leadership has witnessed significant and distinctive streams of intellectual thought. Historically, trait, behavior, and contingency theories gave way to relationship-
788
oriented, charismatic, and renewed trait approaches. Unfortunately, most theories of leadership have embraced an implicit rational model assumption of the organizational sciences field. However, recent acknowledgments of this implicit assumption, as well as consideration of alternative perspectives, have resulted in strong appeals for the development of a political theory of leadership (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997). In this article, we attempted to address these appeals and propose decisive steps toward the development of a political theory of leadership that would deal with deficiencies raised in past reviews of the literature (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Specifically, our theory emphasizes leadership traits, but it does so in a manner that delineates the behavioral manifestations of such traits and thereby elaborates a process model with intermediate linkages that can be tested in future research. Also, the proposed model highlights leader interpersonal style, a variable that has been acknowledged but sadly neglected in the past. Here, we developed the leader interpersonal style construct more fully, and suggested the critical role this construct plays in leadership processes and effectiveness. House and Aditya (1997) proclaimed this area essentially unknown because of lack of empirical work. We hoped to demonstrate how leader style could be expanded and elaborated upon to incorporate social and political effectiveness constructs which can function as both direct influences on the choice of political behaviors to exhibit in particular situations, as well as facilitators of the effective execution of those behaviors. Finally, we introduced the notion of leader reputation as an outcome variable that captures the essence of the process dynamics of the political model proposed here. The leader reputation construct emphasizes the importance of multiple constituencies, and the need to demonstrate effectiveness to each of the leaders various critical target groups. This certainly positions leadership research in this area as taking account of targets beyond the traditional and nearly exclusive focus on followers, and expands consideration to include superiors, peers, and other relevant constituencies. Overall, we believe the political theory of leadership effectively addresses some of the deficiencies of leadership theory and research discussed by House and his colleagues (e.g., House, 1995; House & Aditya, 1997). We proposed ideas contributing to a political theory of leadership in an effort to characterize the behavior of leaders in a wide variety of contexts. In so doing, we hope this characterization of leaders demonstrates that a political perspective need not reflect a destructive, manipulative, and inherently negative view of organizational phenomena. Instead, we hoped to depict that politics are simply a fact of life in organizations, and demonstrate how leaders need to work on and through others to accomplish personal and organizational goals. References
Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: bases and consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 269 292. Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979). Organizational politics: tactics and characteristics of its actors. California Management Review, 22, 77 83.
789
Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. Chicago: Aldine. Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York: Academic Press. Arvey, R. D., Renz, G. L., & Watson, T. W. (1998). Emotionality and job performance: implications for personnel selection. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 16 (pp. 103 147). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: the role of impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 23 57. Ashforth, B. A., & Lee, R. T. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: a preliminary model. Human Relations, 43, 621 649. Atwater, L. E. (1988). The relative importance of situational and individual variables in predicting leader behavior: the surprising impact of subordinate trust. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 290 310. Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the effects of vision, content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345 374. Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: how social skills can enhance entrepreneurs success. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 106 116. Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1990). When politics pays: factors influencing managerial compensation decisions. Personnel Psychology, 43, 599 614. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Biberman, G. (1985). Personality and characteristic work attitudes of persons with high, moderate, and low political tendencies. Psychological Reports, 57, 1303 1310. Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager: positive political skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bosson, J. K., & Swann, W. B. (1999). Self-liking, self-competence, and the quest for self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1230 1241. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: a model for effective performance. New York: Wiley. Boyd, N. G., & Taylor, R. R. (1998). A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader follower relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 1 26. Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518 539. Brass, D. J. (1985). Mens and womens networks: a study of interaction patterns and influence in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327 343. Brass, D. J. (2001). Social capital and organizational leadership. In S. J. Zaccaro, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: understanding the performance imperatives confronting todays leaders (pp. 132 152). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: an investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 441 470. Burns, I., & Stalker, G. M. (1966). The management of innovation (2nd ed.). London: Tavistock. Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339 365. Cobb, A. T. (1986). Political diagnosis: applications in organizational development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 482 496. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95 S120. Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637 647.
790
Cooper, W. H., Graham, W. J., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). Tournament players. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 11 (pp. 83 132). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 151 170. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091 1112. DeLuca, J. R. (1999). Political savvy: systematic approaches to leadership behind-the-scenes. Berwyn, PA: Evergreen Business Group. Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315 326. DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203 243. Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850 863. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611 628. Dixit, A. K., & Nalebuff, B. (1991). Thinking strategically: the competitive edge in business, politics, and everyday life. New York: Norton. Dossett, D. L., & Greenberg, C. I. (1981). Goal setting and performance evaluation: an attributional analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 767 779. Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theories as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736 741. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227 242. Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images and words: presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 527 557. Fairholm, G. W. (1993). Organizational power and politics: tactics in organizational leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: managing the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638 653. Farmer, S. M., & Maslyn, J. (1999). Why are styles of upward influence neglected? Making the case for a configurational approach to influence. Journal of Management, 25, 653 682. Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino, & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues, volume 1. The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179 254). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier. Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Advances in attribution theory: an organizational perspective (pp. 231 252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (in press). Personal reputation in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: the state of the science (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. (1994). A political conceptualization of managerial behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 1 34. Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (in press). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 21. Oxford, UK: JAI Press/ Elsevier.
791
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: a political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447 488. Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 101 135. Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93 116. Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skill at work. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 25 37. Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., & Douglas, C. (2002). Social effectiveness in organizations: construct validity and research directions. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9, 30 55. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143 170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1075 1082. Fine, G. A. (1996). Reputational entrepreneurs and the memory of incompetence: melting supporters, partisan warriors, and images of President Harding. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1159 1193. Fiol, M. C., OConnor, E. J., & Aguinis, H. (2001). All for one and one for all? The development and transfer of power across organizational levels. Academy of Management Review, 26, 224 242. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill. French Jr., J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research. Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 16 (pp. 1 51). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Frost, T. F., & Moussavi, F. (1992). The relationship between leader power base and influence: the moderating role of trust. Journal of Applied Business Research, 8, 9 14. Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 237 251. Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: a dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32 58. Gardner, W. L., & Cleavenger, D. (1998). Impression management strategies associated with transformational leaders at the world-class level: a psychohistorical assessment. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 3 41. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988a). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321 338. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988b). Impression management: an observational study linking audience characteristics with verbal self-presentations. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 42 65. Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: a positive critique of interpretive sociologies. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 9, 449 459. Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1983). Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of managerial behavior and reputation. Journal of Management, 9, 7 26. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goodman, P. S., Ancona, D. G., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Introduction: special topic forum on time and organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 507 511. Graen, G. B., & 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. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 247.
792
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429 458. Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: managing impressions of organizational justice. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 12 (pp. 111 157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Guion, R. M. (1983). Comments on Hunter. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory (pp. 267 275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harrell-Cook, G., Ferris, G. R., & Dulebohn, J. H. (1999). Political behaviors as moderators of the perceptions of organizational politics work outcomes relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1093 1105. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hogan, R. J. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 873 919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129 144. Holladay, S. J., & Combs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken: an exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 165 189. Hollander, E. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117 127. Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the Leaderplex Model. Journal of Management, 23, 375 408. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: the cutting edge (pp. 189 207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. House, R. J. (1988). Power and personality in complex organizations. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10 (pp. 305 357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. House, R. J. (1991). The distribution and exercise of power in complex organizations: a meso theory. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 23 58. House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 411 450). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409 473. House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: some empirical generalizations and new research. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 1 (pp. 341 423). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81 108. 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 (pp. 45 82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: a new synthesis. Newbury Park: Sage. Hunt, J. G., & Conger, J. A. (1999). From where we sit: an assessment of transformational and charismatic leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 335 343. Hunt, J. G., & Peterson, M. F. (1997). Two scholars views of some nooks and crannies in cross-cultural leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 343 354. Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W.H. Freeman. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231 262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: an attributional approach. Morriston, NJ: General Learning. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: the state of the field, links to related processes,
793
and an agenda for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 17 (pp. 1 39). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Kacmar, K. M., Bozeman, D. P., Carlson, D. S., & Anthony, W. P. (1999). An examination of the perceptions of organizational politics model: replication and extension. Human Relations, 52, 383 416. Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047 1060. Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: a structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87 108. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward influence styles: relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 528 542. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: explorations in getting ones way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440 452. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Kotter, J. P. (1985). Power and influence: beyond formal authority. New York: Free Press. Leary, M. R. (1989). Self-presentational processes in leadership. In R. A. Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 363 374). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34 47. Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572 587. Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1989). Ingratiation in the development of leader member exchanges. In R. A. Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 343 361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader member exchange: the past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47 119. Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perception, leadership perceptions and behavioral measurement in organizational settings. In L. L. Cummings, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 87 128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: linking perceptions and performance. London: Rutledge. Lucas, R. (1987). Political cultural analysis of organizations. Academy of Management Review, 12, 144 156. Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1988). Real managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Madison, D., Allen, R., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P., & Mayes, B. (1980). Organizational politics: an exploration of managers perceptions. Human Relations, 33, 79 100. March, J. G. (1984). Notes on ambiguity and executive compensation. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 53 64. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356 376. Matthews, C. (1988). Hardball: how politics is played told by one who knows the game. New York: Harper Perennial. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709 734. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121 146. McClelland, D. C. (1966, Nov./Dec.). That urge to achieve. Think, 19 32. McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. McClelland, D. C. (1993). Intelligence is not the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 5 6. Meichenbaum, D., Butler, L., & Gruson, L. (1981). Toward a conceptual model of social competence. In J. D. Wine, & D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. 36 60). New York: Guilford Press.
794
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 133 154. Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (in press). Mentoring: what we know and where we might go. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 21. Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier. Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. Parker, C., Dipboye, R., & Jackson, S. (1995). Perceptions of organizational politics: an investigation of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 5, 891 912. Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. (2000). Political skill: an antidote for workplace stressors. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 115 123. Peters, T. J. (1978). Symbols, patterns, and settings: an optimistic case for getting things done. Organizational Dynamics, 1, 3 23. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 3 (pp. 109 149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 11 (pp. 1 42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ralston, D. A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: the role of management. Academy of Management Review, 10, 477 487. Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 86 89. Roberts, K., & OReilly, C. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321 336. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1989). Organization career systems and employee misperceptions. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 329 353). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (2002). Impression management: building and enhancing reputations at work. London: Thomson Learning. Schlenker, B. (1980). Impression management: the self concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65 99). New York: McGraw-Hill. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262 274. 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. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63 113. Schutz, A. (1995). Entertainers, experts, or public servants? Politicians self-presentation on television talk shows. Political Communication, 12, 211 221. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46 62. Sederberg, P. C. (1984). The politics of meaning: power and explanation in the construction of social reality. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: a theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 25 42. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a selfconcept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577 594. Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: the management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257 273.
795
Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stuckey, R. J. (1983). Excuses: masquerades in searches of grace. New York: Wiley. Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522 552. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). The geocentric view of intelligence and job performance is wrong. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 1 4. Stevenson, W. B., Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1985). The concept of coalition in organization theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 256 268. Tedeschi, J. T., & Melberg, V. (1984). Impression management in the organization. In S. B. Bacharach, & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, vol. 3 (pp. 31 58). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293 322). New York: McGraw-Hill. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 7 (pp. 297 332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Thacker, R. A., & Wayne, S. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21, 739 756. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harpers Magazine, 140, 227 235. Tsui, A. S. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 64 96. Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images which avoiding undesired images: exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 351 360. Valle, M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Human Relations, 53, 359 386. Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail: perspectives across time and cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 62 72. Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Leadership: understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Vredenburgh, D. J., & Maurer, J. G. (1984). A process framework of organizational politics. Human Relations, 37, 47 66. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Wagner, R. K. (1997). Intelligence, training, and employment. American Psychologist, 52, 1059 1069. Waldman, D. A. (1993). A theoretical consideration of leadership and TQM. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 65 79. Wernerfelt, B. (1988). Reputation, monitoring, and effort. Information Economics and Policy, 3, 207 218. Williams, M. L., & Goss, B. (1975). Equivocation: character insurance. Human Communication Research, 1, 265 270. Witt, L. A. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: a solution to organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 666 674. Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of transactional and transformational leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 161 186. Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw, & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 133 178). Chicago: St. Clair Press. Wrightsman, L. S. (1964). Measurement of philosophies of human nature. Psychological Reports, 14, 743 751. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132 140.
796
Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219 232. Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. (1999). Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence behavior as determinants of target commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 127 143. Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309 317. Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525 535. Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (pp. 147 197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: an introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: understanding the performance imperatives confronting todays leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Zanzi, A., Arthur, M. B., & Shamir, B. (1991). The relationship between career concerns and politics in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 219 233. Zanzi, A., & ONeill, R. M. (2001). Sanctioned versus non-sanctioned political tactics. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 245 262.

Toward A Political Theory of Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Toward A Political Theory of Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward A Political Theory of Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751 796

Toward a political theory of leadership

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

Fig. 1. Political model of leadership.

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

A.P. Ammeter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002) 751796

You might also like