WHO TO FOLLOW? THE ROLE OF FOLLOWER VARIABLES IN RATINGS OF SOCIALIZED AND PERSONALIZED CHARISMA
Lindsay Marie Giaccani-Gomes B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2005
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
PSYCHOLOGY (Industrial/Organizational)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER 2009 WHO TO FOLLOW? THE ROLE OF FOLLOWER VARIABLES IN RATINGS OF PERSONALIZED AND SOCIALIZED CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
A Thesis
by
Lindsay Marie Giaccani-Gomes
Committee Chair
Committee Member
Committee Member
Ajij Q-q (3? 0 0 1 Date I )
ii Student: Lindsay Marie Giaccani-Gomes
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
Coordinator CAL Dr. Lisa M. Bohon Date/
Department of Psychology
iii Abstract
of
WHO TO FOLLOW? THE ROLE OF FOLLOWER VARIABLES N RATINGS OF PERSONALIZED AND SOCIALIZED CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
by
Lindsay Marie Giaccani-Gomes
This study explored under-researched follower "individual difference" variables
(Machiavellianism, Collectivism, Self-concept Clarity, and gender) that had not been previously studied together in predicting perceptions of a charismatic leader. One- hundred and twenty college students were given a survey packet containing a fictitious speech given by a CSU president, the Mach IV scale, the Individualism-Collectivism scale (INDCOL), and the Self-concept Clarity scale (SCC). The results suggested a significant relationship between Mach scores and identification of the leader motives
(personalized vs. socialized). High Machs under-identified highly socialized charismatic leaders, while low Machs over-identified highly socialized leaders. In addition, a fan- shaped interaction was found between gender and leader motive on influence. Men showed no differences in leader influence as a function of leader motive; however, women wer I ly influenced by the socialized charismatic leader.
ommmittee Chair Dr. Oriel Strickland J-, LLS,2_ Date iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to my thesis advisor Dr. Oriel Strickland, who has contributed volumes of time, effort, and knowledge throughout the development of this thesis and my educational career at California State
University, Sacramento. Without her support and guidance, this thesis would not be the document it is today.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Kim Roberts, who has continually supported me with her guidance, and who never failed to be there for me when I needed her. I would also like to thank Dr. Caio Miguel for joining my thesis committee on such quick notice. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated.
To my family and my fiance Matthew, I am forever grateful for your unwavering support and unconditional love. It is because of their motivation and faith in me that I was able to accomplish my educational goals. Without them, I would not be the person that I am today. Thank you for helping me turn my dreams into a reality.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Acknowledgments...... v List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. METHOD ...... 25 3. RESULTS...... 30 4. DISCUSSION...... 36 Appendix A. Instructional Prompt for CSU Presidential Address Excerpt ... 42 Appendix B. CSU Presidential Address Excerpt ...... 43 Appendix C. Personalized/Socialized Charismatic Leadership Scale .. 44 Appendix D. Leader Influence Scale ...... 45 Appendix E. Machiavellianism Scale ...... 46 Appendix F. Individualism/Collectivism Scale (INDCOL) ...... 48 Appendix G. Self-Concept Clarity Scale (SCC) ...... 51 References...... 53
vi LIST OF TABLES Page
1. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for Study Variables...... 31
2. Table 2 Intercorrelations among Study Variables ...... 32
3. Table 3 Mach Category by Leader Motive Category ...... 33
4. Table 4 Analysis of Variance for the Effects of Gender x Leader Motive ...... 35
vii LIST OF FIGURES Page
1. Figure 1 Means plot of Gender by Leader Motive Interaction ...... 35
viii 1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The success of an organization depends on the knowledge, skills, abilities, and motivation put forth by its employees (Conger, 1999). It is equally important that subordinates develop a meaningful and empowering relationship with their supervisors where both the employee and the supervisor play an active role in constructing the leadership relationship. To this end, research should focus on the significance of the leadership process in an effort to promote efficient organizational functioning.
Leadership theory and research articulate the notion that leaders strongly influence or cause their subordinates to perform at new heights, and that leadership is best conceptualized not as something a leader does to his or her followers, but rather as a relationship between a leader and his or her followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House,
1977; Shamir, 1991). Furthermore, if organizations make the effort to understand the employee characteristics that affect preferences for a certain type of leader, this could ultimately lead to a more productive and enjoyable working environment.
In recent years, several prominent researchers have made significant contributions in understanding leadership, specifically involving the emergence of theories of charismatic and transformational leadership (e.g. Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999;
Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977). However, few scholars have attempted to investigate the role of the followers in the charismatic leadership process as many theories of charismatic leadership have solely focused on the leader's personality 2 and behavior in the relationship (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House, 1977; Howell &
Shamir, 2005). In particular, Shamir (1991) proposed that more research is needed to examine the nature of the follower's psychological attachment to the leader. Howell
(1988) distinguished between two types of charismatic relationships (personalized vs. socialized), and argued that specific follower characteristics would play a crucial role in determining the type of relationship they develop with the leader. However, there is still a significant absence in the literature in terms of these follower characteristics. For the development of a more comprehensive charismatic leadership theory, greater recognition should be given to the follower's role (i.e. followers' self-concept variables) and personality characteristics, such as the degree of the personality trait Machiavellianism and gender differences in follower's preference for the two types of charisma
(personalized vs. socialized).
The purpose of this thesis is to extend and build upon previous research by specifically investigating some of these under-researched follower variables. After consulting the literature, the follower variables that were chosen for study were: self- concept clarity, Collectivism, Machiavellianism, and gender. These variables have yet to be explored together in leadership research as it relates to preferences for a charismatic leader. The following literature review will discuss current trends in the field regarding charismatic leadership, focusing on the distinction between socialized versus personalized charismatic leadership relationships, and will provide a theoretical background concerning the roles that individual differences variables contribute to the charismatic leadership process. 3
CharismaticLeadership
Theoretical definitions. The concept of leadership can generally be defined as a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Although the terms "charisma" and "transformational" leadership are often used interchangeably, Bass (1985) separated them, with charisma forming a part of transformational leadership. The term "charisma" has often been used in the leadership literature to describe a subset of leaders who by the force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers (Hunt, 1999).
According to Bass (1985), transformational leadership includes charisma
(providing a vision and a sense of mission, raising follower's self-expectations), intellectualstimulation (helping employees emphasize rational solutions and challenge old assumptions), and individualized consideration(developing employees and coaching). The charisma component of transformational leadership consists of providing followers with a clear sense of purpose that is energizing, provides a role model for ethical conduct, and builds identification with the leader and his or her articulated vision
(Avoilio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). The current study will focus on charismatic leadership as an element of transformational leadership.
Followers perceive the charismatic leader as one who possesses superhuman qualities and accept unconditionally the leade; 's mission and directives for action
(Willner, 1984). Furthermore, Conger and Kanungo (1987) have identified and developed 4 several behavioral components of charismatic leadership. For example, a charismatic leader is essentially opposed to the status quo and strives to change it; they have an idealized vision which is highly discrepant from status quo; their idealized vision makes him/her a likable and honorable hero worthy of identification and imitation, and they are unconventional and counter normative. A charismatic leader strongly articulates the future vision and has a motivation to lead. These leaders represent revolutionary social forces, and they are responsible for significant societal transformations (House, 1977). In addition, researchers believe that charismatic leaders can emerge in any type of business or organization (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1999; House, 1977).
Furthermore, the charismatic leader can be characterized as one who has profound and unusual effects on followers, and one who possesses a special magnetic charm or appeal. It is important to emphasize the magnetic component of charismatic leaders, which is their ability to build emotional attachment and enthusiasm among their followers, thereby making them influential and worthy of identification. In addition, charismatic leaders are thought to possess magical qualities, and a powerful aura that draws in or attracts their followers. The current thesis strives to demonstrate this unique
"magnetic pull" that charismatic leaders have on their followers. More specifically, this research attempts to identify the characteristics of followers that allow them to be drawn to and influenced by various leader motives.
Correlatesof TransformationalLeadership
Several studies have found significant correlations between transformational leadership components and organizational functioning. For example, Hater & Bass 5
(1988) found that subordinates' satisfaction with their supervisors is associated with the extent to which supervisors manifest transformational leadership. Furthermore, higher levels of transformational leadership are also associated positively with subordinates' organizational commitment, irrespective of the commitment measure used, organizational citizenship behavior, and performance (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Howell and
Avolio, 1992; Bass, 1985).
Additional support for the importance of transformational leadership stems from
Howell and Avolio's (1993) findings that branch managers' transformational leadership
(defined as charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration) predicted consolidated business performance one year later. In utilizing an experimental design to further illustrate the importance of transformational leadership as a predictor of performance, Howell and Frost (1989) found that student participants working under charismatic leaders demonstrated higher task performance than those working under considerate leaders. Most notably, the effects of charismatic leadership emerged regardless of the productivity norms. In addition, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) conducted a laboratory simulation with business students, in which they manipulated (by using trained confederates) three core aspects of charismatic leadership: vision, vision implementation through task cues, and communication style. Only vision and vision implementation affected performance outcomes and attitudes, with the exception that leader's charismatic communication style influenced follower's perceptions of charisma.
Follower variables identified in the literature 6
Many researchers in the field of leadership theory contend that leadership is a relationship that is jointly produced by leaders and followers (e.g. Hollander, 1993; Klein
& House, 1995; Howell & Shamir, 2005). Furthermore, these researchers criticize existing leadership theories for being too "leader centric" in the sense that they focus solely on the impact of the leader traits and behaviors on follower's attitudes and behaviors. This notion or idea concerning the focus on the leader is especially prevalent regarding charismatic leadership. According to Beyer (1999), theories of charismatic leadership have been accused of promoting a "heroic leadership" stereotype that describes leaders as heroic figures that are solely capable of determining the fate and fortunes of groups and organizations. Although this view of charismatic leadership is simply stated and exaggerated, it is true that currently dominant theories of charismatic leadership are leader centered, in the notion that they attribute both the positive and negative consequences of charismatic leadership mainly to the leader's personality and behavior (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House, 1977).
Furthermore, according to Howell and Shamir (2005), only a few writers have noted that followers may play a role in developing and maintaining charismatic relationships (i.e. Bums, 1978; Bass, 1985; Klein & House, 1995; Weierter, 1997). In addition, Howell and Shamir (2005) believe that the leader-centric perspective of charismatic leadership relies too heavily on the influence of leader characteristics and behaviors in producing follower's motivation, attitudes, and behaviors. They also contend that followers play a more active role in constructing the leadership relationship, 7 empowering the leader and influencing his or her behavior, and ultimately determining the consequences of the leadership relationship.
Similarly, Klein and House (1995) point to an absence in the literature on the empirical examination of followers and draw attention to the debate of whether followers enter the charismatic leadership relationship for direction or expression. In addition,
Ehrhart and Klein (2001) also contend that current charismatic leadership research focuses primarily on the traits and behaviors of charismatic leaders and the effects of charismatic leaders on the followers. Ehrhart and Klein (2001) attempted to identify the follower characteristics that might differentiate followers most attracted to a charismatic leader versus relationship-oriented and task-oriented leaders. They used participant's values and personality dimensions to predict their preferences for charismatic leadership styles. The results of their research suggest that the followers who have strong worker participation values are most likely to be drawn to charismatic leaders. These followers appear to be attracted to the collective identity and high aspirations articulated by charismatic leaders, as well as the empowerment they can enjoy with these leaders
(Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). In addition, employees who are eager to be actively involved in making decisions and who do not require a high degree of stability at work may seek to form a charismatic relationship with a leader who shows charismatic behaviors (Ehrhart
& Klein, 2001).
Weierter (1997) examined the processes that underlie the charismatic relationship with respect to follower orientation and generative social conditions. According to
Weierter (1997), followers can be defined in terms of the personality variables of self- 8 monitoring (the degree to which individuals attend to internal or external cues in monitoring behavior) and self-concept clarity (the degree to which the knowledge of an individual's self-concept is clearly defined, consistent, and stable). In addition, Weierter
(1997) contends that certain social conditions can either promote or inhibit the continuing of the charismatic message. In so doing, Weierter (1997) states that the "objective social forces that define and set the potential for charismatic relationships provide the framework within which subjective relationships are possible" (p.2).
Socialized vs. PersonalizedCharisma
Howell (1988) distinguished between socialized and personalized charismatic leaders. Socialized leaders use value internalization (inducing behavior based on value congruence) as the predominant social influence process. Personalized leaders, in contrast, rely on personal identification (including behavior based on personal attractiveness) (Howell, 1988). Based on these distinctions, Howell (1988) characterized personalized leaders as driven by a desire to satisfy personal goals and needs. These leaders express visions based on personal values and beliefs and, therefore, are not constrained by the values of the followers (Howell, 1988). Socialized leaders, on the other hand, are motivated by a desire to satisfy the goals and needs of followers, and this is reflected in their charismatic message (Howell, 1988).
Weierter (1997) also proposed two types of charismatic relationships
(personalized and socialized) that are based on the nature of the needs that the relationship fulfills for followers. According to Weierter (1997), in the personalized relationship, followers are confused or disoriented before joining the relationship, and the 9 relationship provides them with a clearer sense of self and greater self-confidence.
Furthermore, followers in the personalized charismatic relationship are dependent on and vulnerable to the leader. In the socialized charismatic relationship, followers have a clear sense of self and a clear set of values, and the charismatic relationship provides them with a means for expressing their important values within the framework of a collective action
(Weierter, 1997 as cited in Howell & Shamir, 2005). Furthermore, followers in the socialized relationship place constraints on the leader's influence, play an active role in determining the values expressed by the leader, are less dependent on the leader, and are less open to manipulation by the leader (Weierter, 1997 as cited in Howell & Shamir,
2005).
Kark and Shamir (2002) also wrote theoretical elaborations of the two types of charismatic relationships: one in which the relational self (a level of self-identity where individuals conceive of themselves in terms of their roles in relation to the leader) is activated and the primary mechanism of influence is followers' personalidentification with the charismatic leader. This dynamic is one in which the collective self (a level of self-identity where individuals' primary motivation is to enhance their group's status) is activated and the primary mechanism of influence is follower's social identification with the group or organization. Furthermore, Kark and Shamir (2002) characterized a personal identification with the leader by the attribution of desirable qualities to the leader, a definition of self in terms of the relationship with the leader, and a desire to become like the leader. On the other hand, a social identification is characterized by self-definition in 10 terms of group membership and a perception of group successes and failures as personal successes and failures (Ashforth & Mael, 1988 as cited in Howell & Shamir, 2005).
Following the definitions provided by Kark and Shamir (2002), Weierter (1997), and Howell (1988) who distinguish between a "socialized" charismatic relationship and a
"personalized" charismatic relationship, Howell and Shamir (2005) defined the personalized charismatic relationship as a relationship between followers and a charismatic leader in which follower's relational level of self is activated. Thus, this type of charismatic relationship is based primarily on followers' personal identification with the leader. In clarifying the socialized charismatic relationship, Howell and Shamir
(2005) characterize this relationship as between followers and a charismatic leader in which followers' collective self is activated. Thus, this relationship is primarily based on followers' social identification with the group or organization.
Individual difference variables
Following the framework provided by Weierter (1997), different characteristics of followers determine the type of charismatic relationship and establish the role of personal charisma (emotional and behavioral expression associated with the leader) and the charismatic message (underlying values and beliefs associated with the leader) in the charismatic relationship. Increased follower self-esteem and self-efficacy determine the extent to which the charismatic relationship is maintained or re-created (Weierter, 1997).
Therefore, the model proposed by Weierter (1997) attempts to resolve the issues raised by Shamir (1991), and Klein and House (1995) that qualities of the leader, follower characteristics, and other situational factors must be considered simultaneously with 11 mission content (or charismatic message) in order to establish its role in developing the charismatic leadership processes.
In recent research attempting to further investigate the role of the follower in the charismatic leadership process, Howell and Shamir (2005) view the follower in the charismatic leader-follower relationship as "a person who acknowledges the focal leader as a continuing source of guidance and inspiration, regardless of whether there is any formal reporting relationship" (p.9 9 ). Furthermore, followers who share a charismatic relationship with a leader are willing to rise above self-interest for the sake of the team or organization, to engage in self-sacrifice in the interest of the mission, to identify with the vision articulated by the leader, to show strong emotional attachment to leader, to internalize the leader's values and goals, and to demonstrate strong personal or moral commitment to those values or goals (e.g. Bass, 1985; House and Shamir, 1993; House,
Spangler, & Woycke, 1991, as cited in Howell and Shamir, 2005).
To date, empirical work has not been conducted to identify the follower variables that explain the type of leader a person is attracted to and would be influenced by. More specifically, research is needed to clarify the conditions that make it possible for a personalized or socialized charismatic leader. This research will attempt to fill this void and has applications for both organizational and societal leadership. After carefully reading of the literature, the follower characteristics that suggested the most promise for understanding charismatic leader influence were Machiavellianism, Self-concept Clarity,
Collectivism, and gender. A brief review of each follower variable will be presented in 12 the following section, with associated hypothesis given for each.
Leader Influence
Leader influence, the dependent variable of interest in this study, can be explained with regard to the processes by which charismatic leader behaviors cause profound transformational effects on followers (i.e. "This president would be able to convince me to apply to his University"). Furthermore, leadership theory and research have expressed the notion that charismatic leadership has its effects by strongly engaging follower's self-concepts in the interests of the mission articulated by the leader (Shamir,
House, and Arthur, 1993). According to charismatic leadership theory, such leaders are able to transform the needs, values, preferences, and aspirations of followers from self- interests to collective (i.e. "I would participate in a campus fundraiser if asked by the president of the University). Additionally, charismatic leaders have been shown to cause followers to become highly committed to the leader's mission, and to perform above and beyond expectations. Finally, charismatic leaders have the influential force that increase follower's aspirations to be their best self. The current study will investigate follower's perceptions of influential power with regard to personalized vs. socialized charisma.
Machiavellianism
The concept of the Machiavellian personality (based on the basic ideas and works of Niccolo Machiavelli) was introduced into the research literature by Christie and Geis
(1970). It can be defined as "a process by which the manipulator gets more of some kind of reward than he would have gotten without manipulating, while someone else gets less, at least within the immediate context" (p.106). According to Christie and Geis (1970), 13
Machiavellians do not accept the premise that people should do what they believe in, but should believe in what they do. In addition, the Machiavellian personality can be characterized as mistrust in human nature, lack of conventional morality, opportunism, and lack of affect in interpersonal relationships (Christie & Geis, 1970).
In further establishing the Machiavellian personality type, Rayburn and Rayburn
(1996) distinguish a high "Mach" as portraying a cynical view of human nature, few scruples, and are willing to step outside the bounds of formal authority. High
Machiavellians function most effectively in stressful, unstructured, and face-to-face competitive situations where their less emotionally involving impersonal "cool detachment" and latitude for improvisation are advantageous (Christie and Geis, 1970 as cited in Deluga, 2001). Machiavellianism is a social influence process embracing the use of politics, power, and expressive behaviors (Christie & Geis, 1970). Individuals exhibiting high degrees of Machiavellianism resist social influence, are amoral in controlling personal interactions and deploy deceptive interpersonal tactics (Christie &
Geis, 1970 as cited in Deluga, 2001).
It has been argued and discussed in previous research that Machiavellian behavior may be associated with charismatic leadership (House & Howell, 1992) and success in promoting personal interests. For instance, charismatic leaders and Machiavellians employ interactional expressive behaviors and emotional regulation targeted toward influencing others (Gardner & Avolio, 1998 as cited in Deluga, 2001). Likewise, both manifest confidence and conviction, even when experiencing inner doubt (House, 1977 as cited in Deluga, 2001). Furthermore, the Machiavellian leader often presents an image 14 of depersonalized "coolness under pressure" and is not distracted by interpersonal concerns, emotional issues, or social influences in bargaining situations (Deluga, 2001).
Consequently, the Machiavellian leader can devote full attention to a cognitive analysis of the situation and develop competitively advantageous strategies for winning (Christie
& Geis, 1970). Finally, Machiavellian leaders are skilled in behaviors designed to create a desired image, including perceptions of charisma (Gardner & Avolio, 1995 as cited in
Deluga, 2001).
Further exploring the relationship between Machiavellianism and leadership, in a study conducted by Geis (1978), high Machs were chosen significantly more often for a leadership position than the low Machs, and the chosen high Mach leaders led their groups to a high level of group performance. Deluga (2001) attempted to study the relationship among American presidential Machiavellianism, charismatic leadership, and rated performance in unidentified profiles describing 39 American presidents. Results indicated that Presidential Machiavellianism was positively connected with charismatic leadership and rated performance. The findings were explained in terms of similar features of Machiavellianism and charismatic leadership including high levels of expressive behavioral activity, self-confidence, emotional regulation, and the desire to influence others.
After reviewing the research concerning the link between Machiavellianism and charismatic leadership, it is evident there is still an absence of literature and research that explores the distinguishing characteristics offollowers likely to form charismatic relationships with their leaders. For the development of a more comprehensive 15 charismatic leadership theory, increased attention should be given to the follower 's degree of the personality trait Machiavellianism and their preference for the two types of charismatic leaders. No previous research relating the degree of Machiavellianism exhibited by followers and their preference for a personalized versus socialized charismatic leader has been established. The current study will extend upon current charismatic leadership literature by investigating the under-researched personality dimension of Machiavellianism, specifically in followers, in relationship to their preference for the two types of charismatic leadership relationships.
As previously discussed, socialized charismatic leadership is based on collective interests, and power is used to benefit others. These leaders emphasize the internalization of values and build commitment to the group and its interests. Socialized charismatics tend to be altruistic and work through recognized systems to achieve objectives (Deluga,
2001). In addition, socialized charismatics align their vision with follower needs and aspirations, preserve two-way communication, and emphasize strong moral standards
(Deluga, 2001). Therefore, followers in the socialized charismatic leadership relationship ultimately feel empowered and responsible.
Continuing this idea, followers in the socialized relationship place constraints on the leader's influence, play an active role in determining the values expressed by the leader, are less dependent on the leader, and are less open to manipulationby the leader.
Furthermore, based from the description of the type of follower most likely to form a socialized charismatic leadership relationship, it can be said that followers more attracted to a socialized charismatic leadership relationship will be less Machiavellian-oriented. As 16 characterized by Christie and Geis (1970), low Machs are willing to put others best interests before themselves, are not interested in manipulating others for personal gain and success, and are receptive to social influence.
Based on the preceding logic and the research presented, the following hypothesis
was developed:
Hypothesis 1: Level of follower Machiavellianism will be negatively related to
ratings of leader influence.
In further developing the predictions of the current study, by contrast, personalized charismatic leaders exercise few restraints in the use of power, because their leadership is based on self-interests. These leaders emphasize personal identification, demand devotion to themselves, and exhibit authoritarian behavior (Deluga, 2001).
Personalized charismatics use power primarily for self-serving personal gain, promote their own vision, use one-way communication, and draw on personally convenient external moral standards (Deluga, 2001). So in order to persuade followers to comply, leader influence is a function of personal approval or rejection of followers. Thus, followers in the personalized charismatic leadership relationship are obedient, submissive and dependent. According to Christie and Geis (1970), High "Machs" initiate and control the structure of interaction, are not distracted by interpersonal concerns and emotional issues, can develop competitively advantageous strategies for winning, and appeal to emotions to try and plant their ideas to influence people. Therefore, based from the description of the type of follower more likely to identify with a personalized charismatic 17 leader, it can be said that followers more attracted to apersonalized charismatic leadership relationship will be more Machiavellian-oriented.
Based on the preceding logic and the research presented, the following hypothesis
was developed:
Hypothesis la/b: There will be a fan-shaped interaction between follower
Machiavellianism and leader motive such that influence will be greatest among
High Machs and a personalized leader, and lowest among High Machs and a
socialized leader.
Self-concept Clarity
In further discussing the role of the follower in the charismatic leadership relationship, Howell and Shamir (2005) explain how the follower's self-concept may affect the formation of the charismatic relationship. According to Campbell (1990), the construct of self-concept clarity can be defined as the "extent to which the contents of the individual's self-concept are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and temporally stable" (p.53 9 ). This construct is related to, but not identical with, self esteem, which is the "evaluative component of the self-concept" or "the degree to which people perceive their identities and characteristics as good or desirable" (p. 101 ) (Gecas,
1982, as cited in Howell and Shamir, 2005).
Both self-concept clarity and self-esteem are at least partially stable characteristics of individuals (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Followers with high self-esteem are also characterized by high self-concept clarity, however, followers with low self- esteem are typically not characterized by a well-defined negative view of themselves but, 18 rather, by a high level of uncertainty, instability, and inconsistency of their self-concept
(Campbell, Trapnell, Heine, Katz, Lavallee, & Lehman, 1991). In an effort to examine and investigate personality correlates of self-concept clarity, Campbell et al., (1996) found that the Self-Concept Clarity Scale (SCC) was substantially correlated with measures of self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (SES) and the Texas Social
Behavior Inventory (TSBI)) (average r =.61); people higher in clarity were higher in self-esteem. Because these correlations replicate the results of earlier studies that used unobtrusive measures of clarity (Baumgardner, 1990; Campbell, 1990), they provide evidence for the SCC Scale's construct validity (Campbell et al., 1996). Therefore, followers with high self-esteem are also characterized by high self-concept clarity.
Howell and Shamir (2005) suggested that the followers' self-concepts are powerful determinants of their behavior that significantly affects whether they form a relationship with a personalized charismatic leader versus a socialized charismatic leader.
Traditionally, the charismatic leadership literature has implied that followers with low self-esteem and low concept-clarity are more susceptible to the influence of charismatic, political and religious leaders (i.e. Freemesser & Kaplan, 1978). Furthermore, Erikson
(1980) suggests that individuals with identity diffusion (a notion very similar to low- concept clarity) are particularly susceptible to the influence of charismatic leaders (as cited in Howell & Shamir, 2005). Howell and Shamir (2005) contend that the charismatic relationship does not imply that charismatic leadership appeals only to individuals with low self-concept clarity but, rather, that the level of self-concept clarity will determine 19 the nature of the relationship formed with the leader (i.e personalized vs. socialized).
This notion has yet to be tested empirically.
Based on the preceding theoretical work, empirical research, and logic, the
following hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 2: There will be a negative relationship between self-concept clarity
and evaluations of the leader's influence.
This effect may be moderated by the type of charismatic leader, socialized or personalized. According to Howell and Shamir (2005), individuals with high self-concept clarity are likely to have a high motivation for self-expression and to attach high importance to self-consistency. They are also likely to be motivated to protect and enhance their already high self-esteem. Therefore, they may respond to leaders who link goals and required behaviors to valued components of their self-concepts, particularly their values and social identities (Howell & Shamir, 2005). These individuals' relationships with the leader will be based on the extent to which the leader embodies and advocates their salient identities and values and shows how the missions reflects these identities and values (Howell & Shamir, 2005).
Hypothesis 2a: There will be a fan-shaped interaction of self-concept clarity and
leader motive on influence, such that those with higher self-concept clarity will
provide lower ratings of the personalized charismatic leader and higher ratings of
the socialized charismatic leader. 20
Collectivism
As elaborated by Triandis (1995), there are several defining attributes of collectivism that result in a number of predictable tendencies in behavior. Collectivists define themselves as parts or aspects of a group. Furthermore, collectivists have personal goals that overlap with the goals of their in-groups, and if there is discrepancy between the two sets of goals, they consider it obvious that the group goals should have priority over their personal goals (Triandis, 1995). Among collectivists, social behavior is best predicted from norms and perceived duties and obligations. Relationships are of the greatest importance to collectivists, and even if the costs of these relationships exceed the benefits, individuals tend to stay with the relationship (Triandis, 1995).
In addition to describing the attributes of collectivism, Triandis (1995) highlighted that it is important to make the distinction between vertical and horizontal collectivism. Horizontal collectivism is a cultural pattern in which the individual views the self as an aspect of an in-group (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995). That is, the self is merged with the members of the in-group, all of whom are extremely similar to each other. In this pattern, the self is interdependent and the same as the self of others
(Singelis et al., 1995). Therefore, equality is the essence of this pattern.
Vertical collectivism is a cultural pattern in which the individual views the self as an aspect of an in-group, but the members of the in-group are different from each other, some having more status than others (Singelis et al., 1995). The self is interdependent and different from the self of others. Inequality is accepted in this pattern, and people do not 21 see each other as the same. Serving and sacrificing for the in-group is an important aspect of this pattern (Singelis et al., 1995).
Therefore, collectivists are likely to form a charismatic relationship with a leader who advocates, embodies, and represents the identity and values of the group (i.e. socialized charismatic relationship) (Howell & Shamir, 2005).
Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive association such that collectivists will
provide higher ratings of the charismatic leader.
Hypothesis 3a: There will be a fan-shaped interaction of the effect described
above, such that collectivists will report the highest influence for the socialized
charismatic leader and the lowest for the personalized leader.
The final follower variable under consideration in this study is gender. Research in the leadership domain has documented numerous gender differences, including leader emergence, leader behaviors, social role behaviors, and follower preferences. The following section will provide a brief review of the gender literature and present associated hypotheses.
Gender
It is evident that current empirical works has yet to explore potential gender differences in the degree to which followers exhibit Machiavellianistic personality traits and its relation to their preference in forming a personalized versus a socialized charismatic leadership relationship. Furthermore, a limited amount of research has attempted to investigate organizational outcomes and gender differences in
Machiavellianism. 22
Miesing and Preble (1985) compared the different business ideologies, including
Machiavellianism, and tested them with 487 MBA students. The results of their study revealed that postgraduates and those with work experience were less Machiavellian in approach, compared to undergraduates and those without work experience. In addition, women compared to men, and those with some religious convictions were found to be less Machiavellian in their dealings. Hegarty and Sims (1978) identified
Machiavellianism as one of the personality variables that was a significant covariate in graduate business student's ethics studies. Their findings indicate that individuals identified as Machiavellian-oriented had less ethical behavior than other study participants. Furthermore, this research also investigated the relationship between gender and Machiavellian orientation and found that males are more Machiavellian oriented than females. Topol and Gable (1990) investigated the Machiavellian orientation in relation to job satisfaction and job success. The results of their study found that discount store managers are no more Machiavellian than other executives. In addition, female executives have a lower Machiavellian orientation than their male counterparts, and executives in higher-level management positions are less Machiavellian than those in lower positions.
Based on previous research by Miesing and Preble (1985), Hegarty and Sims
(1978), and Topol and Gable (1990), the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 4: Male followers will be more Machiavellian-oriented than female
followers. 23
Following the research presented, it can be deduced that men tend to produce higher Mach scores than do females. Furthermore, it is previously hypothesized that followers who are more Machiavellian-oriented will be more attracted to or prefer a personalized charismatic leadership relationship. Additionally, based on previous research, it can be inferred that women tend to score lower on the Mach scale than do men. Moreover, it is previously hypothesized that followers who are less Machiavellian- oriented will be more attracted to or prefer a socialized charismatic leadership relationship. Thus, based on reason and past literature, the subsequent hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 4a: There will be a cross-over interaction between gender and leader
motive on influence such that women will be more influenced by the socialized
leader (and less by the personalized), whereas men will be more influenced by the
personalized leader (and less by the socialized).
It is evident that leaders and followers both play an active role in developing the charismatic leadership relationship. Furthermore, additional attention concerning the follower's role in shaping the charismatic leadership process can ultimately create more efficient organizational functioning and positive organizational outcomes. In continuing the notion that increased consideration is needed in regard to the characteristics of the follower in the charismatic leadership relationship, the current thesis will attempt to investigate the roles of self-concept clarity, Individualism/Collectivism,
Machiavellianism, and gender. More specifically, these variables will be investigated as 24 they relate to which type of charismatic leadership relationship (personalized vs. socialized) is preferred. 25
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
The participants in this study were 120 psychology undergraduate students (97 female, 22 male, 1 decline to state) attending California State University, Sacramento.
Employment length for the participants ranged from 7 months to 55 years (M= 7.45 years, SD = 6.76 years). The participants' age ranged from 20 to 65 years old (M = 25 years, SD = 7.14 years). The ethnicity of the participants included: African American
(6.7%), Asian (23.5%), Caucasian (52.1%), Hispanic (10.1%), and Other (7.6%).
Procedure
Upon entering the laboratory room, participants were given an informed consent form as well as verbal and written instructions for completing the packet of questionnaires. The signed consent forms were collected and placed into a manila envelope in order to maintain the participant's confidentiality. The participants first read a cover story that they would be asked to evaluate an excerpt of a CSU campus
Presidential address. In fact, the excerpt was fictitious, and was used to present a message of a leader attempting to be charismatic, and having unclear motives underlying the message (see Appendix B for the excerpt of the speech). The instructions given to participants explained that "The Board of Trustees is interested in evaluating the performance of the CSU presidents... We would like to obtain your reactions to an 26 excerpt of a recent speech given by a CSU president. The name of the president and the campus has been blacked out to ensure privacy."
CSU PresidentialSpeech. In an effort to portray the motives of two types of charisma in a fictitious Presidential address to the students, the charismatic leader's message was described by utilizing personality characteristics as adopted by Howell and
Shamir (2005), Howell (1988), Weierter (1997), and Kark and Shamir, (2002). The socialized personality tactics were described in the speech by the following example,
"Our community and organizations can only continue to thrive and flourish with the innovative workforce that our campus produces. It is my priority as President of this
University to make sure that each and every voice is heard, and that you have the necessary tools and guidance to reach your educational goals."
The personalized personality tactics portrayed in the presidential speech were described by the following example, "I want you all to know that even though our budget is diminishing, I will make it my commitment to research all potential finding sources and grants that will directly benefit the vision that I have for our educational system here at CSU. Furthermore, I will do everything in my power to protect everyone's position here at CSU (including my own), as you and I are vital for our campus to continue to provide a quality educational experience."
After reading the depiction of the CSU president, participants were administered a series of questionnaires, described in the Materials section below. In addition, a background information sheet was administered to the participants asking them to provide their age, gender, ethnicity, and length of work experience. 27
The study took approximately 30 minutes. The participants were thanked upon completion of the survey packet and thoroughly debriefed, at which point they were allowed to ask any questions regarding the true nature of the study. An apology was given to the participants in the debriefing script for the use of deception, but it was explained to be critical to the realism and perceived importance of their evaluations of a leader. The students received one-half hour of research credit in their courses for their participation and were treated in accordance with the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (American Psychological Association, 2002).
Materials
Personalized/SocializedCharismatic Leadership Scale. To measure the participants' perception of the leader's motives, the Personalized/Socialized Charismatic
Leadership Scale (Dehghan, 2000) was adapted to fit the context of the present study.
This measure assesses the participant's perceptions of socialized versus personalized motives in the President's mission, vision, and message that he/she delivers. Sample items include, "This person utilizes his/her resources and political power to reach his/her personal goals" and "This person's goals are for the betterment of people around him/her."
Leader Influence. The leader's influence over the participant was measured using an adaptation of the Leader Influence scale by Dehghan (2000) in which followers were asked to respond to statements regarding their own personal perceptions of the President.
Example items include, "This president would be able to convince me to apply to his 28
University" and "I would volunteer my time in order to help this president in his/her efforts at this University."
Machiavellianism. The "Mach IV" scale is a measure that is designed to tap a person's general strategy for dealing with people, especially the degree to which he or she feels other people are easy to manipulate in interpersonal situations (Christie & Geis,
1970).
Items are given in a standard-category Likert-type format ("agree strongly" being scored 7, no answer 4, and "disagree strongly" 1). During the original construction of the
Mach scale, a constant score of 20 was added to make the lowest possible
Machiavellianism score 40, the highest 160, and the neutral or midpoint score 100, as described by Christie and Geis (1970). Examples of "Mach IV" items are "The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear" and "One should take action only when sure it is morally right."
Individualism-Collectivism(INDCOL). The current study focused solely on the collectivism portion of INDCOL measure. The Individual-Collectivism (INDCOL) measure is designed to distinguish between vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism in participants (Singelis et al., 1995). Whereas the horizontal dimensions refer to equality among individuals, the vertical dimensions stress inequality and hierarchical relationships (Singelis et al., 1995). To perceive each other as similar, to share common goals, interdependence, and sociability are features of horizontal collectivism (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). While the emphasis of in- group integrity, the readiness to sacrifice personal goals for the sake of the in-group, and 29 support for in-group competition with out-groups is characteristic of vertical collectivism
(Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Each statement requires an evaluation by means of a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The dimensions of vertical and horizontal collectivism are each assessed by eight items combined to form 16 items of the 32-item Individual-Collectivism (INDCOL) measure.
Example collectivism items include: "The well-being of my co-workers is important to me" (horizontal collectivism), and "I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group" (vertical collectivism).
Self-Concept Clarity Scale (SCC). The Self-Concept Clarity Scale (SCC) developed by Campbell et al. (1991) was designed to measure three highly intercorrelated factors (average r = .52) reflecting generalized clarity, goal-directedness, and decisiveness. Example items on the SCC Scale are "My beliefs about myself often conflict with one another" and "I spend a lot of time wandering about what kind of person I am."
BackgroundInformation Sheet. At the conclusion of the survey packet, a background information sheet requesting the participants' age, gender, ethnicity, and length of work experience was administered. 30
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities (coefficient alphas) for each of the variables in the study are presented in Table 1. As illustrated below, the items on the
Leader Influence scale had strong internal consistency as evidenced by the Cronbach's alpha value of .93. Furthermore, the personalized charismatic leadership items (a = .85) and the socialized charismatic leadership items (a = .86) were shown to be very reliable in measuring the participants' perceptions of personalized vs. socialized charisma. The
Machiavellianism scale yielded a marginal estimate regarding the reliable measurement of the construct (a = .66). The Individualism/Collectivism scale also obtained a fairly low estimate regarding the internal consistency of both the individualistic (a = .67) and collectivistic items (a = .67). The reliability estimate for the Self-Concept Clarity (SCC) scale was strong, indicating high internal consistency among these items (a = .88). 31
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics andReliabilities for Study Variables
Variable # of Items Alpha N M SD Length of Employment (years) 144 7.45 6.76
Age (years) 149 24.64 6.62
Leader influence 7 .93 152 3.74 1.35
Personalized Leadership 4 .85 151 3.94 1.46
Socialized Leadership 4 .86 150 4.66 1.22
Machiavellianism 20 .66 149 3.06 0.45
Individualism 16 .67 153 3.43 0.38
Collectivism 16 .67 152 3.42 0.36
Self-Concept Clarity 12 .88 151 3.61 1.06
Intercorrelations for each of the variables in the study are presented in Table 2. A significant negative correlation was found between personalized charismatic leadership and leader influence, r = -.54, p < .01. A significant positive correlation was found between socialized charismatic leadership and leader influence, r =.64,p < .01.
Furthermore, personalized charismatic leadership was significantly negatively related to socialized charismatic leadership, r = -.69,p < .01. Machiavellianism was significantly positively correlated with Individualism (r = .18, p < .05). Additionally,
Machiavellianism was found to be significantly negatively related to Collectivism (r = -
.26,p <.01), and Self-Concept Clarity (r = -.42,p < .01). 32
Table 2
Intercorrelationsamong Study Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Leader influence 1.00
2. Personalized Leadership -.54** 1.00
3. Socialized Leadership .64** -.69** 1.00
4. Machiavellianism -.05 .09 -.14 1.00
5. Individualism -.05 .11 -.03 .18* 1.00
6. Collectivism .13 -.03 .10 .26* -.11 1.00
7. Self-Concept Clarity -.06 .02 .03 -.42** -.06 -.14 1.00
*P<.0 5 . **P<.Ol.
Tests of Hypotheses
The following section will present the tests of hypotheses for this study. For the clarity of presentation, each hypothesis will be stated with the accompanying test statistic.
Hypothesis 1 stated that level of follower Machiavellianism would be negatively related to ratings of leader influence. The results of the correlational analysis did not support hypothesis 1, which showed that Machiavellianism was not significantly negatively related to leader influence (r = -. O5,p > .05).
Supplemental Analysis for Hypothesis One
Although Mach scores were not correlated with the influence measure, it was decided to check the association between Machiavellianism and perception of leader motives, since the personalized leader was by definition a self-interested, manipulative 33 person. Results were supportive of this follow-up analysis: there was a significant relationship between Mach scores and identification of the leader motives (personalized vs. socialized). Consistent with this notion, the chi-square analysis (Table 3), shows that high Machs under-identified highly socialized leaders, whereas low Machs over- identified highly socialized leaders, x2(6, N = 120) = 13.82,p = .03.
Table 3
Mach Category by Leader Motive Category
Leader Motive Category
High High Moderate Moderate Mach Category Personalized Socialized Personalized Socialized
High Mach
n 10 8 11 14
Medium Mach
n 9 7 3 18
Low Mach
n 9 17 5 9 Note. N = 120
Hypothesis 2 stated that there would be a negative relationship between self- concept clarity and evaluations of the leader's influence. The results of the correlational analysis did not support hypothesis 2, which indicated virtually no association between the clarity of the participant's self-concept and their evaluation of the leader's influence
(r = -.06, p > .05). Furthermore, hypothesis 2a stated that there would be a fan-shaped interaction of self-concept clarity and leader motive on influence. The results of the 34 analysis of variance test revealed no support for the interaction of self-concept clarity and leader motive on influence, F(6, 108) = .95, p > .05.
Hypothesis 3 stated that there would a relationship between collectivism and leader influence. The results of the correlational analyses revealed that there was not a significant positive relationship (r = .l 3, p > .05). Furthermore, Hypothesis 3a stated that there would be a fan-shaped interaction between collectivism and leader motive. The results showed that the interaction effect was non-significant, F(6, 107) = 1.73, p > .05.
According to hypothesis 4, male followers would be more Machiavellianistic than female followers. Chi-square test results revealed no support for hypothesis 4, thus, males were not significantly more Machiavellian-oriented than females, X2(2 , N = 119) = 1.03, p
= .60. Furthermore, hypothesis 4a stated that there would be a cross-over interaction between gender and leader motive on influence such that women would be more influenced by the socialized leader (and less by the personalized). In contrast, men were predicted to be more influenced by the personalized leader (and less by the socialized).
Analysis of variance test results show partial support for hypothesis 4a, except the nature of the interaction was, fan-shaped rather than crossover, F(3, I 1) = 4.58, p < .01 (See
Table 4). 35
Table 4
Analysis of Variancefor the Effects of Gender x Leader Motive on Influence
Source SS df MS F p
Leader Motive Category (A) 1231.24 3 410.41 8.06 .00**
Gender (B) 1.05 1 1.05 .02 .89
AXB 698.86 3 232.95 4.58 .01**
Error 5649.54 111 50.90
Total 10889.41 118
Note. **p <. 01
A graphical representation of this relationship is shown in Figure 1 below. Here, the means demonstrate that men showed no difference in influence measures as a function of leader motive; however, women were significantly more influenced by the socialized charismatic leader.
35
25 20 15 10 5 0 High Moderate Moderate High Personalized Personalized Socialized Socialized
Males . Females
Figure 1. Means plot depicting gender by leader motive interaction. 36
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to build upon prior research by focusing on the role that followers played in constructing the leadership relationship. More specifically, this study extended the literature base by including follower "individual difference" variables that had not been previously studied together in predicting reactions to a description of a charismatic leader. These variables included Machiavellianism, Collectivism, Self- concept Clarity, and gender as they affected perceptions of a charismatic leader.
Several of the relationships suggested by the literature were not supported in this study. For instance, level of follower Machiavellianism was not significantly related to ratings of leader influence, as predicted.
Interestingly, however, a significant relationship was identified in a follow-up analysis between Mach scores and identification of the leader's motive. More specifically, followers categorized as high Machs under-identified highly socialized leaders, whereas followers scoring low on Machiavellianism over-identified highly socialized leaders. These findings suggest that one's own motivations in terms of a world view may affect the motivations one ascribes to a leader. Future research is needed to replicate this finding, and would lend support to the validity of the relationship between these variables.
Concerning self-concept clarity and follower collectivism, the propositions of
Howell and Shamir (2005) were not supported in this study. Results indicated no 37 significant relationships for these variables. It is possible that, if there is a true relationship between these variables, it was not detected due to measurement error in these variables (a point that is elaborated below).
In examining the relationship between Machiavellianism and gender, the findings of this study showed no relationship, thus contradicting previous findings in the literature.
More specifically, the findings of this study are not in line with research conducted by
Miesing and Preble (1985), Hegarty and Sims (1978), and Topol and Gable (1990) which showed that females were less Machiavellian-oriented than their male counterparts.
However, empirical evidence was found to support an interaction between gender and leader motive on leader influence. The results showed that, while men showed no difference in influence measures, females ascribed significantly higher influence ratings to the socialized charismatic leader than the personalized charismatic leader.
There are several limitations to the current study. The primary limitation concerns the potential lack of external validity of the study's results. The participants were all psychology undergraduate students at California State University, Sacramento reading a speech given by a fictitious University President. It cannot be ascertained whether or not the results would apply to real life charismatic leadership processes within the context of organizations. In addition, there was an unequal gender distribution of participants in this study with females being very over-represented (Females = 97, Males = 22).
However, the participant pool (i.e. college students) was carefully considered when developing the story about the type of leader (i.e. university president) and creating the content of the leader's speech and message (i.e. current economic downturn, budget 38 cuts, and increased student fees). These decisions were made in an effort to increase the realism and relevance of the study to participants. Therefore, the participants may have been more likely to critically attend to the leader's message and to attribute realism and perceived importance to their evaluations of the presidential address.
Another major limitation of the current study is the non-experimental research design. Cause and effect relationships between follower self-concept related variables, perceptions of leader motives, and influence cannot be inferred due to the correlational nature of the study's design. In other words, it is not clear which variables occurred first in the process, or if there is another, untested variables that is creating an effect "behind the scenes".
A final category of concern for this study's methodology included some of the measures utilized in this study. All of the questionnaires were self-report measures, which can introduce threats to internal validity regarding self-report biases (i.e. social desirability, nay-saying, etc.) or problems with common method variance, which could make an appearance of positively correlated survey items.
Another criticism of the survey design was that some of the measures showed unexpectedly low internal consistency. For instance, the Machiavellianism scale (a = .66) and the Individualism/Collectivism measure (a = .67) both obtained fairly low reliability coefficients, indicating possible problems with inconsistency of their measurements. This would make it difficult to detect any true relationships among study variables due to measurement error. 39
The authors of these two scales have addressed the problems in measuring these constructs. As explained by Christie and Geis (1970), Machiavellianism is a multi- faceted construct making it a challenge to tap a person's general strategy for dealing with and manipulating people in interpersonal situations. Furthermore, according to Singelis et al. (1995), the developers of the INDCOL measure, low reliabilities are common (alphas rarely exceed .70). Accurately measuring culture would require obtaining a great deal of information from each participant. Unfortunately, the constructs are too broad for easy measurement. As recognized by Cronbach (1990), the broader the construct, the lower the fidelity.
Despite these limitations, this study fills a significant void in the literature in regards to the differentiating characteristics of followers likely to be attracted to and influenced by different types of charismatic leadership. Howell and Shamir (2005) called for an inclusion of follower characteristics that might influence followers' receptivity to personalized or socialized charismatic relationships, such as their level of moral development of their values. The current thesis showed a new empirical link between
Machiavellianism and identification of the leader's motive. Followers high in
Machiavellianism under-identified socialized motives in the leader, whereas followers low in Machiavellianism over-identified socialized motives in the leader. Therefore, it is possible that one's own moral outlook may affect one's receptiveness to different messages portrayed by a leader. This is a fascinating line of research that might be used to explain the rise and fall of charismatic leaders according to cultural norms. 40
The results of this study also demonstrated a very interesting interaction between gender and leader motive on influence. Men showed no differences in influence as a function of their identification of a socialized versus personalized leader, suggesting that this is not an important leadership cue for them. However, women were significantly more influenced by the socialized charismatic leader than the personalized charismatic leader. Future research could attempt to replicate this finding and explore its meaning. It may be that gender roles for females socialize them to be more inclusive of others during play (e.g. Tannenbaum, 2000), whereas gender roles for men do not encourage this preference.
There are other possible reasons for the observed relationship. For instance,
Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, and King (2002) examined the relationships between multiple life roles, psychological well-being, and managerial skills in two studies of managerial women. The results of their study suggested that the roles women play in their personal lives provide psychological benefits, emotional advice and support, practice at multitasking, relevant background, opportunities to enrich interpersonal skills, and leadership practice that enhance effectiveness in management. Future research could investigate the benefits of multiple roles in male versus female followers in predicting their preferences for developing a personalized versus socialized charismatic leadership relationship.
The current study has filled a significant void in the charismatic leadership literature in terms of gender and moral differences in followers' preference for personalized versus socialized leadership relationships. Further research is to apply the 41 current study's results to "real world" charismatic leadership processes within the context of an organization. The results of this study suggest that followers differ in their attraction to leaders of differing motives. These findings imply that employees in organizations play an active role in determining the type of leadership relationship they form with their supervisors. Researchers and organizations alike need to focus their attention and efforts on the development of efficient followers as well as effective leaders in forming successful leader/follower relationships. 42
APPENDIX A
Instructional Prompt for CSU Presidential Address Excerpt
Instructions: The Board of Trustees is interested in evaluating the performance of the CSU Presidents. One source of information is the impact on students. We would like to obtain your reactions to an excerpt from a recent speech given by a CSU President. The name of the President and the campus has been blacked out to ensure privacy. Please carefully consider the President's message and provide your evaluations on the surveys following the speech. 43
APPENDIX B
CSU Presidential Address Excerpt
President's Spring 2009 Address California State University
Good afternoon students, my fellow colleagues, and members of the community. I thank you for coming today and welcome you back for another exciting semester! To begin, I would like to take the time to discuss the current economy and how it is affecting the goals and vision that I have for this University. The Governor of California has recently proposed a tight budget in response to the billion dollar shortfall that the state is expected to have over the next few years. What this means for the California State University system is increased student tuition and fees, and decreased funding for campus projects and programs. In my personal attempt to combat the fiscal deficit of our state and maximize the amount of funding used for you, the students, with your support and feedback I will begin implementing cost-saving measures including limiting the amount of travel, and unnecessary purchases. Furthermore, I will do everything in my power to protect everyone's position here at CSU (including my own), as you are vital for our campus to continue to provide a quality educational experience. I realize that we are facing tough economic challenges given the increase in student fees and the decrease in financial aid. However, I want you all to know that even though our budget is diminishing, I will make it my commitment to research all potential funding sources and grants that will directly benefit the students and the vision that I have for our educational system here at CSU. My fellow peers, students, and friends, it is my mission to preserve and protect our higher education system as our need for educated graduates is increasingly important. Our community and organizations can only continue to thrive and flourish with the innovative workforce that our campus produces. It is my priority as President of this University to make sure that each and every voice is heard, and that you have the necessary tools and guidance to reach your educational goals. No matter what challenges the current economic downturn poses to the CSU system, we must work together to make it through this financial crisis. I encourage your feedback and ideas and I thank all of you for your continued support! 44
APPENDIX C
Personalized/Socialized Charismatic Leadership Scale
Instructions: The following are a series of descriptive phrases. Read each one carefully, and indicate the extent to which you believe that adjective or phrase describes the person in the address by circling the corresponding number.
Strongly Disagree Mildly Neutral Mildly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. This person is empowering to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 people around him/her. 2. This person advocates goals which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 encourage his/her University. 3. This person prefers to foster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 dependence and discourages independent thinking. 4. This person engages in activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that mainly benefits him/herself. 5. This person's goals are largely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 self-serving. 6. This person utilizes his/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 resources and political power to reach his/her personal goals. 7. This person's goals are for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 betterment of people around him/her. 8. This person utilizes his/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 resources and political power to reach the University's goals. 45
APPENDIX D
Leader Influence Scale
Instructions: The following are statements regarding your personal reactions to this president. Read each statement carefully. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement by circling the corresponding number.
Strongly Disagree Mildly Neutral Mildly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1 I would participate in a campus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 fundraiser if asked by this President. 2 I would take part in student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 government if asked by this President. 3 I would be a new student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 orientation leader if approached by this President. 4 This president would be able to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 convince me to apply to his University. 5 I would volunteer my time in order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to help this president in his/her efforts at this University. 6 I would research potential private 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 donations to the University if asked by this President. 7 I would encourage my friends to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 apply to this University. 46
APPENDIX E
Machiavellianism Scale (Mach IV)
Instructions: Read each statement, decide if you agree or disagree and the strength of your opinion, and then circle the appropriate number to the right of each statement. Give your opinion on every statement. If you find that the numbers to be used in answering do not adequately indicate your own opinion, use the one which is closest to the way you feel. Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Slightly Somewhat Strongly
1 Never tell anyone the real reason you +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 did something unless it is useful to do so. 2 The best way to handle people is to +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 tell them what they want to hear. 3 One should take action only when +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 sure it is morally right. 4 Most people are basically good and +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 kind. 5 It is safest to assume that all people +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance. 6 Honesty is the best policy in all cases. +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3
7 There is no excuse for lying to +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 someone else. 8 Generally speaking, men won't work +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 hard unless they are forced to do so. 9. All in all, it is better to be humble and +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 honest than to be important and dishonest. 1 When you ask someone to do +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which carry more weight. 47
I Most people who get ahead in the +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 world lead clean, moral lives. 1 Anyone who completely trusts +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 anyone else is asking for trouble. 13 The biggest difference between most +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught. 1 Most men are brave. +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 15 It is wise to flatter important people. +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 1 It is possible to be good in all +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 respects. 1 Barnum was wrong when he said +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 there's a sucker born every minute.
1E It is hard to get ahead without cutting +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 corners here and there. 1 People suffering from incurable +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death. 20 Most men forget more easily the +3 +2 + 1 -1 -2 -3 death of their father than the loss of their property. 48
APPENDIX F
I Individualism/Collectivism Scale (INDCOL)
Instructions: The following statements describe a variety of beliefs and values. There are no right or wrong answers. We would like to know much do you think these statements are true for you. Please circle 5 if you Strongly Agree that the statement is true for you. Mark 1 if you Strongly Disagree that the statement is not at all true for you. You can circle any value in between 1 and 5 that better express your opinion.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1 When another person does better 1 2 3 4 5 than I do, I get tense or aroused. 2 When a co-worker gets a prize, I 1 2 3 4 5 would feel proud. 3 My happiness depends very much on 1 2 3 4 5 the happiness of those around me. 4 Whathappensto me is my own 1 2 3 4 5 doing. 5 Without competition, it is not 1 2 3 4 5 possible to have a good society. 6 I likemyprivacy. 1 2 3 4 5 7 If a relative were in financial 1 2 3 4 5 difficulty, I would help within my means. 8 I prefer to be direct and forthright 1 2 3 4 5 when discussing with people. 9 Children should be taught to place 1 2 3 4 5 duty before pleasure. 10 It annoys me when other people 1 2 3 4 5 perform better than I do. 11 I like sharing little things with my 1 2 3 4 5 neighbors. 12 It is important that I do my job better 1 2 3 4 5 than others. 13 I am a unique individual. 1 2 3 4 5 49
14 The well-being of my co-workers is 1 2 3 4 5 important to me. 15 I enjoy working in situations 1 2 3 4 5 involving competition with others. 16 One should live one's life 1 2 3 4 5 independently of others.
17 We should keep our aging parents 1 2 3 4 5 with us at home.
18 I would sacrifice an activity I enjoy 1 2 3 4 5 very much if my family did not approve of it. 19 To me, pleasure is spending time 1 2 3 4 5 with others.
20 Competition is the law of nature. 1 2 3 4 5
21. I usually sacrifice my self-interest 1 2 3 4 5 for the benefit of my group.
22. I hate to disagree with others in my 1 2 3 4 5 group.
23. Children should feel honored if their 1 2 3 4 5 parents received a distinguished award.
24. Winning is everything. 1 2 3 4 5
25. I often "do my own thing". 1 2 3 4 5
26. I feel good when I cooperate with 1 2 3 4 5 others.
27. It is important to maintain harmony 1 2 3 4 5 within my group.
I- 50
28. Some people emphasize winning; 1 2 3 4 5 I'm not one of them. 29. I would do what would please my 1 2 3 4 5 family, even if I detested that activity. 30. I enjoy being unique and different 1 2 3 4 5 from others in many ways. 31. When I succeed, it is usually because 1 2 3 4 5 of my abilities. 32. Before taking a major trip, I consult 1 2 3 4 5 with most members of my family and many friends.
I
I
i i I
I
i
I
I i
i i i i i i 51
APPENDIX G
Self-Concept Clarity Scale (SCC)
Instructions: Circle the number to the right of each statement that most closely represents how true it is of you.
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree
1 My beliefs about myself often 1 2 3 4 5 conflict with one another.
2 On one day I might have one opinion 1 2 3 4 5 of myself and on another day I might have a different opinion. 3 I spend a lot of time wandering about 1 2 3 4 5 what kind of person I really am.
4 Sometimes I feel I am not really the 1 2 3 4 5 person that I appear to be.
5 When I think about the kind of 1 2 3 4 5 person I have been in the past, I'm not sure what I was really like. 6 I seldom experience conflict between 1 2 3 4 5 the different aspects of my personality. 7 Sometimes I think I know people 1 2 3 4 5 better than I know myself.
8 My beliefs about myself seem to 1 2 3 4 5 change frequently.
9 If I were asked to describe my 1 2 3 4 5 personality, my description might end up being different from one day to another day. 10 Even if I wanted to, I don't think I 1 2 3 4 5 would tell someone what I'm really like. 52
11 In general, I have a clear sense of 1 2 3 4 5 who I am and what I am.
12 It is often hard for me to make up my 1 2 3 4 5 mind about things because I don't really know what I want. 53
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code
of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1988). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy
of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational
Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. OrganizationalDynamics, 13(3), 26-
40.
Beyer, J. M. (1999). Two approaches to studying charismatic leadership: Competing or
complimentary? The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 575-588.
Bums, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. JournalofPersonality
and Social Psychology, 59, 538-549.
Campbell, J. D., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Trapnell, P. D. (1991, August).
Development and validation of a self-report scale of self-concept clarity. Paper 54
presented at the annual conference of the American Psychological Society,
Washington, DC.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D.
R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural
boundaries. Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology, 70, 141-156.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic
Press.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations. An
insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 145-179.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-
647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Corzine, J., Buntzman, G., & Busch, E. (1999). Machiavellianism in the U.S. bankers.
InternationalJournal of OrganizationalAnalysis, 7, 72-83.
Dehghan, H. (2000). The effects of leader motives, leader effectiveness, and gender on
charismatic leadership outcomes. Unpublished master's thesis, California State
University, Sacramento. 55
Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for
charismatic leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 339-
363.
Drory, A., & Gluskinos, U. M. (1980). Machiavellianism and leadership. Journalof
Applied Psychology, 65, 8 1-86.
Ehrhart, M. G., Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers' preference for charismatic
leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 153-179.
Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Freemesser, G. F., & Kaplan, H. B. (1976). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior: The case
of the charismatic religious movement. Journalof Youth and Adolescence, 5, 1-9.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Charismatic leadership: The role of impression
management. Not-published.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic leadership relationship. A
Dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33.
Geis, F. L. (1978) Machivellianism. New York: Wiley.
Gemmill, G., & Heisler, W. (1972). Machiavellianism as a factor in managerial job
strain, job satisfaction, and upward mobility. Academy of Management Journal,
15, 51-62.
L 56
Grams, W., & Rogers, R. (1990). Power and personality: Effects of Machiavellianism,
need for approval, and motivation on use of influence tactics. Journalof General
Psychology, 117, 71-82.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisor's evaluations and subordinates' perceptions
of transformational leadership. Journalof Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.
Hegarty, W., Sims, H. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An
experiment. Journalof Applied Psychology, 63, 451-457.
Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational
features of leadership. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory
and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 29-47). San Diego: Academic
Press.
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: Southern
Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S.
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of charismatic, visionary, and
I 57
transformational leadership theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.),
Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in
organizations. In J. A. Conger and K. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismaticleadership
and the elusivefactor in organizationaleffectiveness (pp. 213-236). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission
or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6, 43-54.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A lab study of charismatic leadership.
OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.
Howell, J. M., Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership
process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review,
30, 96-112.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership's transformation of the field:
An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129-144.
Jaffe, E., Nebenzahl, I., & Gotesdyner, H. (1989). Machiavellianism, task orientation,
and team effectiveness revisited. PsychologicalReports, 64, 819-824.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming
relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio
and F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformationaland charismaticleadership: The
roadahead (pp. 67-91). Oxford: Elsevier Science. 58
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journalof
Applied Psychology, 81, 36-5 1.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of
analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 183-198.
Miesing, P., & Preble, J. (1985). A comparison of five business philosophies. Journalof
Business Ethics, 4, 465-476.
Mostafa, M. (2007). A study of Machiavellian orientation among marketing students in
Egypt. College Student Journal, 41, 223-238.
Rayburn, M., & Rayburn, L. (1996). Relationship between Machiavellianism and type A
personality and ethical orientation. Journalof Business Ethics, 15, 1209-1219.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and
predictions. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81-104.
Siegel, J. (1973). Machiavellianism, MBA's and managers: Leadership correlates and
socialization effects. Academy of ManagementJournal, 16, 404-411.
Singelis, T., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and
vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism. Cross CulturalResearch,
29, 240-275.
Topol, M., & Gable, M. (1990). Machiavellianism and the discount store executives.
InternationalReview of Retail, Distributionand Consumer Research, 1, 71-85. 59
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and
vertical individualism and collectivism. Journalof Personalityand Social
Psychology, 74, 118-128.
Waldman, D. A., & Yamrnmarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-
management and levels-of- analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24,
266-285.
Weber, T., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on
attitudinal and financial outcomes. A field experiment. Journalof Applied
Psychology, 81, 827-832.
Weierter, S. J. M. (1997). Who wants to play "follow the leader"? A theory of
charismatic relationships based on routinized charisma and follower
characteristics. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 171-193.
Wiliner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismaticpolitical leadership. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
L