VISIONARY VERSUS CRISIS-INDUCED CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP: AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST
by JOAN B. RIVERA, B.B.A., M.B.A.
A DISSERTATION IN
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved
Accepted
May. 1994 //2
// ^'^¥
I ff 7 (
Copyright 1994, Joan B. Rivera ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S
I extend deep gratitude to Dr. James G. (Jerry) Hunt, chairperson of this dissertation, for his guidance in producing a rewarding research project. His patience, assistance and scholarly advice were invaluable to me, a novice, as it allowed me to develop professionally. I also wish to thank Dr. Kim Boal for providing a model to be tested and for his thoughtful and useful input. He was never at a loss for creative ideas or solutions to problems encountered. I also thank my other committee members. Dr. David Hale and Dr. Richard McGlynn, and Dr. Gail Futoran for the unigue contributions they, too, provided. Special appreciation is due Dr. Futoran for her unselfish time and effort in providing detailed feedback on early drafts of this manuscript; for her involvement in every aspect from script development to pilot studies and data analysis; and for offering encouragement and assistance to the very end. Her continued friendship and support throughout my graduate career extended far beyond this project and will always be appreciated. My thanks also to those who were instrumental in helping me formulate a sample: Professor Grant Savage, Dudley Faver, Virgil Smith, Yvonne Smith, Fred Volker, and Professor Carlton Whitehead. I am very grateful to the business students at Texas Tech for their involvement in
• • 11 this study, and for the leaders. Captain Tom Bowe, Chris Wallace, and Chris Golden—without them I would have no dissertation. My thanks also to Dean Judi Henry and Dr. Nancy Bell; to my colleagues, Gerard Farias, Kevin Learned, Vinitia Mathews, and Rod Pineda, for their assistance; and to numerous members of the staff of the College of Business Administration. I am also grateful to my mother Angela and late father, August Benek, for instilling in me the work ethic needed to complete such a project. Last, but most importantly, I thank my husband. Randy, for his continued support throughout all of my higher education and for his willingness to accept a remote military assignment to Korea so we could move to Lubbock and I could pursue a doctorate. All through this demanding yet rewarding program Randy has been the wind beneath my wings.
• • • 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS •n • ABSTRACT vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES X
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Study 2
Two Types of Charismatic Leaders 3 The Research Question 3 Significance of the Research 4 Organization of Succeeding Chapters 5 II. LITERATURE REVIEW OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP 7 Chapter Overview 7 Theoretical Foundations for Charismatic Leadership 8 Empirical Support in the Management Literature 18 Recapping the Vision and Crisis Components of Charisma 28
A Model of Two Types of Charismatic Leaders... 42
Chapter Summary 49
III. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 59
Chapter Overview 59
Research Hypotheses 61
Chapter Summary 68
IV IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 74
Chapter Overview 74 Context: The Laboratory 74
Manipulation Checks 75 Outcome Measures 77 Research Sample 80 Procedures 85 Chapter Summary 98
V. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 101 Chapter Overview 101 Description of the Sample 101 Scale Validation 103 Manipulation Checks 105 Analyses Related to Hypotheses 108 Ad Hoc Analysis 118 Chapter Summary 12 2
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 141
Chapter Overview 141
Effects of Leadership Manipulations 141
Effects of Leader Behaviors 142
Research Design Strengths 156
Research Design Limitations 159
Future Research Directions 160
Chapter Summary 161
REFERENCES 162
V APPENDICES
A. TRANSACTIONAL LEADER SCRIPT 173 B. VISIONARY LEADER SCRIPT 182
C. CRISIS LEADER SCRIPT 192
D. APPROVAL FROM HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE ...203 E. CONSENT FORM 205 F. FIRST TASK—NO CRISIS 207 G. FIRST TASK—CRISIS 212
H. SECOND TASK—ALL TREATMENT CONDITIONS 217 I. TASK 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 220 J. QUESTIONNAIRE #1 222 K. QUESTIONNAIRE #2 227 L. TASK 2 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 232 M. CYCLES OF LEADERS, TREATMENT CONDITIONS, AND ROOMS 2 34 N. LEADER DEBRIEFING FORM 236 O. SAMPLE OF DEBRIEFINGS 239
VI ABSTRACT
This laboratory study attempts to determine whether there are two types of charismatic leadership, crisis- induced as well as visionary, by examining the effects of both types on followers. This study also investigates the existence of both types of leader charisma across time. The results of this study offer evidence that charismatic leadership differs from noncharismatic or transactional leadership. Followers' perceived performance under both types of charismatic leaders was stronger than perceived performance under transactional leadership. Followers' perceptions of charisma followed a similar pattern in that perceptions of leader charisma in both the crisis-induced charismatic and visionary charismatic conditions were stronger than perceptions of charisma in the transactional leadership condition. Only in one case, task completion, was crisis-induced charisma significantly different from (stronger than) visionary charisma. An investigation of the temporal effects of leader charisma revealed that followers' task performance (task completion) under a crisis-induced charismatic leader declined after the crisis and remained stable over time for both the visionary and transactional leaders. Also as hypothesized, followers' perceptions of charisma remained stable across time in the visionary leadership condition.
Vll Finally, task meaningfulness was found to act as a moderator on the effects of crisis-induced charismatic leadership. There was a significant interaction between task meaningfulness and leadership on task accuracy and organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). High task meaningfulness was associated with high scores on both criterion variables in the crisis-induced charismatic leadership condition.
Vlll LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Vision as it Relates to Charismatic Leadership 52 2.2 Crisis as an Antecedent of Charismatic Leadership 55 2.3 Charismatic Leadership Theories with both Vision and Crisis Components 58 3.1 Variables used in Theories and Tests of Theories of Charismatic Leadership.... 69 4.1 Manipulation Checks for Pilot Studies on Crisis-Induced and Visionary Charismatics 99 5.1 Results of Factor Analysis on Dependent Variables 12 3 5.2 Intercorrelations among Manipulation Checks 124 5.3 Intercorrelations among Perceptual Dependent Measures 12 5 5.4 Intercorrelations between and among Objective Task Performance Measures... 12 6 5.5 Correlations among Manipulation Checks and Individual-Level Dependent Variables 127 5.6 Reliabilities for Manipulation Checks and Dependent Variables 12 8
5.7 Results of Manipulation Checks 12 9
5.8 ANOVA Summary Table 13 0
5.9 Table of Means 131
5.10 Summary of Findings 133 5.11 Summary of Regression Results for Tests of Moderator Effects of Task Meaningful ness on Charismatic Leadership 13 5
IX LIST OF FIGURES
3.1 Summary of Hypotheses 72
4 .1 Diagrammatic Flow of Study 100 5.1 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Time on Task Completion - Significant Interaction.. 13 6 5.2 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Time on Perceptions of Charisma - Significant Interaction 137
5.3 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Task Meaningfulness on Task 1 Accuracy 13 8 5.4 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Task Meaningfulness on Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE) 139 5.5 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Task Meaningfulness on Task 2 Completion 140
X CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Beware charisma! . . . But to beware does not necessarily mean . . . "avoid!" (Hodgkinson 1983, p. 187)
A few years ago, during the previous U.S. administration, our nation was celebrating victory in the Persian Gulf War. As a result of his successful handling of that crisis, former President George Bush was at the peak of popularity—perhaps even viewed as "charismatic" because of his success. Today we have a new national leader. President Bill Clinton. Some people attribute his election victory over the incumbent president to his sense of vision. Although not elected by a majority of votes. President Clinton may be viewed as "charismatic" because he has expressed a vision for our nation. Our nation's political transition over the past few years is in line with a theory of charismatic leadership by Boal and Bryson (1988) who distinguish the crisis-induced charismatic leader from the visionary. Former President Bush may be classified as a crisis-induced charismatic leader because of his actions during the Persian Gulf War, but one who was unable to transform that charisma into visionary charisma. That inability may well have cost him his reelection bid in 1992. Purpose of the Studv This study examines charismatic leadership in the context of Boal and Bryson's (1988) theory. Different effects on followers of crisis-induced versus visionary leaders are hypothesized in terms of follower performance and affective outcomes. Charismatic leaders can add value to organizations by way of their positive effects on followers. These effects ultimately translate into performance of organizational members as a collectivity, which may well be above and beyond the call of duty. In this regard charismatic leadership is argued to be a form of effective leadership. Yukl (1989) asserts that "the widespread fascination with leadership may be because it is such a mysterious process" (p. 1). This mystical aura is especially relevant in the case of charismatic leadership because of its relatively slow evolution into the research limelight— having been preceded in interest by specific traits, behaviors, and contingencies associated with noncharismatic notions of leadership. Charismatic leadership, in a sense, is an amalgamation of these previous yet narrow streams of leadership research The concept of leader charisma—specifically, traits, behaviors, and crisis versus noncrisis situations—and its ultimate effects on follower performance and affective outcomes, is the focus of this research. Two Tvpes of Charismatic Leaders Boal and Bryson's (1988) theory lays the foundation for this study. They argue that charismatic leadership may be attributed to the person (in terms of actions or behaviors) as well as to the situation faced by the leader such that charisma is "induced." Because visionary charismatics connect leader actions with values, they elicit follower behavior which is consistent with followers' values.
The crisis-induced charismatic leader, on the other hand, connects leader action with solutions. He or she elicits follower behavior consistent with followers' extrinsic concerns—i.e., successful resolution of a problem. Followers perceive the leader who has guided them through a crisis as charismatic. These theorized differences in charisma are predicted to result in perceptions of visionary charisma that persist over time, whereas perceptions of crisis-induced charisma should fade once the crisis has passed.
The Research Question
This study attempts to answer the question: Can charisma exist in crisis as well as non-crisis situations facing leaders, and, if so, do the two types of charisma differ in terms of their effects on followers? The intent of examining the role of both types of charismatic leadership is to help us better understand: (a) whether both types do in fact exist; (b) the different effects they bring about; and (c) whether those effects persist over time.
Significance of the Research It is believed that distinguishing between two different types of charismatic leaders adds value to leadership theory and research. There are implications for organizations in focusing on the desirable effects or "bright side" of charisma (Howell & House in press) and in knowing that in fact there exist two different types of charisma. Most organizations would desire performance "above and beyond the call of duty" by their members. Such performance would contribute to the success of an organization. Organizations in the midst of a crisis would want leaders in place who can have positive effects on followers and elicit the type of performance needed to successfully deal with the crisis. Leaders under these circumstances would need to be skillful at detecting problems (crises) so they can influence followers' perceptions and subsequently induce extraordinary effort from organizational members. Visionary charismatic leadership, on the other hand, is no less important to organizational performance and success. Implications for organizations include sensitivity to the need for leaders who are visionary, and commitment of resources to train leaders in visionary behaviors. An investment of this nature should reap the rewards of high performing individuals and, ultimately, organizations.
Organization of Succeeding Chapters Chapter II provides a literature review of charismatic leadership that is relevant to the question of two different types of charisma. Existing theories of charismatic leadership from various disciplines are summarized first. Empirical evidence supporting organizational/management theories of charismatic leadership is also reviewed. Finally, Chapter II goes into greater detail on the visionary and crisis components of charismatic leadership as well as Boal and Bryson's (1988) theory. Chapter III outlines the variables used in the analyses and formulates hypotheses based on the Boal and Bryson model. Supporting justification for each hypothesis is also presented, along with a discussion of how the data collection instrument was developed. Chapter IV describes the research design and methodology used to test the research hypotheses. The sampling design, experimental manipulations, and the statistical methods for analyzing the data are explained. A brief discussion of both the advantages and limitations of the research design is provided. Chapter V details the statistical analyses used to test the research hypotheses in Chapter III and presents the results. Finally, in Chapter VI a discussion of the results and conclusions of the study as well as suggested directions for future research is provided. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
The word charisma was introduced into American journalism for the first time ... in Fortune magazine in 1949, when a writer used it to describe the qualities of John L. Lewis. The managing editor, scanning the first draft of the article, questioned the use of a clumsy foreign term that would be unintelligible to the reader, and struck it out. On the page proof, however, an eleven-character word was needed for the caption under Lewis's picture to justify the line, and over the loud objections of the editor, the word charismatic was inserted, because no comparable word with the same number of letters could be found. (Bell 1966, p. 704)
Chapter Overview As noted in the preceding chapter, the study reported here attempts to shed light on the question: Can charisma exist in non-crisis as well as crisis situations facing leaders, and, if so, do the two types of charisma differ in terms of their effects on followers? This chapter reviews the literature on charismatic leadership that is relevant to this investigation. This review is comprised of four sections. First, an analysis of the theories underlying charisma and charismatic leadership is presented. This review includes precursors outside of the organizational disciplines as well as the relatively recent introduction of charisma into the management and organizational literature. 8 Because charisma appears in some theories of transformational leadership (e.g., Bass 1985; Burns 1978), these theories also comprise part of this first discussion. Secondly, empirical evidence supporting the later (organizational/management) theories of charismatic leadership are reviewed. Third, two important aspects associated with charismatic leadership—vision and crisis— are outlined, and available empirical findings on each are presented. Finally, vision and crisis are further elaborated on in a theory posited by Boal and Bryson (1988), which forms the basis for this study.
Theoretical Foundations For Charismatic Leadership Origins of Charisma in Other Disciplines Despite Kotter's (1990) assertion that charisma is of little importance to leadership, charismatic leadership is currently a popular topic in the management and organizational literature. That is not to say, however, that the notion of charisma is new by any means. It has roots in other fields, including religion, sociology, and political science. The ambiguity of this phenomenon, which is apparent in this chapter's opening quote, is evidenced in the leadership literature. Charisma as it applies to leaders takes on various definitions. These include behaviors of leaders, their effects on followers, and attributions made by others (House, Howell, Shamir, Smith & Spangler 1992; Sashkin 1988) . Charisma is also defined in terms of leader traits or personal characteristics and situational factors (House 1977).
The notion of charisma goes as far back as biblical times (Shils 1968) and the New Testament when it eventually became associated with church leaders who were viewed by followers as having been bestowed by God with "divine gifts" of charisma (Bryman 1992; Conger & Kanungo 1987). The sociologist Max Weber (1924/1947) first introduced the charismatic phenomenon to organizational theorists as a form of authority based on his political analysis of the concept (Bryman 1992). Authority based on charismatic grounds is separate and distinct from the traditional (i.e., inherited) and rational-legal (i.e., rule-based) forms of authority. Weber conceptualized the charismatic leader as an exemplary, almost supernatural individual; that is, someone who was believed to be endowed with divine grace and possessed a mystical "gift." According to Weber, charismatic leaders break with tradition; they "reveal a transcendent mission or course of action which may be in itself appealing to the potential followers, but which is acted on because the followers believe their leader is extraordinarily gifted" (Weber 1924/1947, p. 358). Furthermore, he believed charismatic leaders were most likely to emerge during times of crisis. 10 The type of organization he associated with a charismatic authority structure has a built-in instability (Pugh & Hickson 1989). It took some time for Weber's notions of charisma to gain legitimacy outside the historical world of religion.
Unlike Weber, Shils (1965) argues against the distress or crisis requirement for charisma. Shils views charisma in a broader context, seeing it as more widely dispersed in society and compatible with later notions of transformational leadership (e.g.. Burns 1978). Political scientists and sociologists viewed the charismatic leader as a "change agent" (Oberg 1972) whose beliefs differed considerably from the established order, such that radical change resulted. In 1968, Tucker introduced a theory of charismatic political leadership, as did Willner (1968). Tucker (1968) believed that charisma was indeed applicable to leaders in various realms. His theory emphasized the existence of a charismatic movement for change. The leader must first attract a charismatic following and then become the center of that movement. According to Tucker, charismatic leaders and charismatic movements are inseparable.
Distressful situations provide an impetus for charismatic movements; thus. Tucker argues that charismatic leadership has unlimited applicability to social institutions. His theory includes leader characteristics of 11 vision, activism, a sense of mission, and self-confidence. Winner's (1968) theory includes leader components of vision, heroism, inspiration of followers, rhetorical ability and a powerful "aura." Just as political scientists (Shils 1965, 1968; Tucker 1968; Willner 1968, 1984) sought to extend Weber's conceptualization of charisma into their discipline, so, too, did organizational theorists attempt to apply the notion to the context of complex organizations. Etzioni (1961/1975) redefined charisma as a form of normative power that depends on the power of a person, and he distinguished between charisma of office and personal charisma. Furthermore, charisma is "the ability of an actor to exercise diffuse and intensive influence over the normative (ideological) orientations of other actors" (Etzioni 1961/1975, p. 203). Berlew (1974) viewed charisma as three forms of leader behavior intended to produce excitement: development of a common vision for an organization; the creation of opportunities for realizing goals; and building confidence in followers. Despite the theoretical discussions of charisma in the political science, sociological, and organizational disciplines through the 1970s, House (1977) asserts that up until that time there were no empirical tests of charismatic leadership theory, and he sought to do something about filling the void. 12 House's Original Theory of Charismatic Leadership
The scholar responsible for pioneering the development of an organizational, psychological theory of charismatic leadership was House (1977). His theory, which returns the focus of leadership to personal characteristics in part, is based on findings in sociology and political science as well as social psychology. Basically, House's original theory (House 1977) posits that four charismatic leader characteristics (dominance, self-confidence, need for influence, and strong conviction in the moral righteousness of one's beliefs), combined with five specific charismatic behaviors (role modeling, personal image building, goal articulation, high expectations of/confidence in subordinates, and motive arousal), will result in several effects on followers. These effects include trust in leader, similarity of beliefs to those of the leader, acceptance of the leader, loyalty for the leader, willing obedience to the leader, identification with and emulation of the leader, emotional involvement in the mission, heightened goals of the followers, and a feeling that they can accomplish the goals. Although this model does not explicitly require follower distress as a necessary condition for the emergence of charisma, House does not discount the impact of such social determinants or situational factors as stress and ideology. According to House's original theory, charismatic 13 effects, characteristics, behaviors and situational factors are all interrelated. In commenting on House's original theory, Sashkin (1977), offers a Lewinian summary of charismatic behavior being a function of personality and environment: B = f (P, E) (Lewin 1948) . House was successful in achieving what he set out to accomplish with his original theory—to guide future research so that "at some future date this theory will have led to a better theory" (House 1977, p. 207). By 1990, at least seven empirical tests of this theory of charismatic leadership (and later extensions of it) had been performed, each of which is reviewed later in this chapter. By this time, two major extensions were made to House's original model and are part of his most recent theory of charismatic leadership (House, Howell, Shamir, Smith & Spangler 1992). This later model is especially applicable to complex organizations. Motivational effects of charismatic leaders are used by Shamir, House and Arthur (1992) to extend House's original theory. They have suggested that charismatic leaders affect follower motivation by linking goals to the self-concepts of followers. This is achieved by increasing the intrinsic value of effort, increasing self-efficacy perceptions, increasing the intrinsic value of goal accomplishment, instilling faith in a better future, and by increasing followers' commitment to the leader's values and goals. Follower behavior shifts toward moral 14 aspects and a concern for the mission of the collectivity as opposed to individual self-interests. Secondly, House, Spangler and Woycke (1991) argue that several leader motives or personality characteristics will predict charismatic leader behavior. These motives include the need for power and activity inhibition (House 1977), need for affiliation, and need for achievement. The essence of House's theory is: 1. Personal characteristics (including motives) Effects on 2. Leader behaviors •» followers (incl motivation) 3. Situational factors-
The following discussion covers in more detail the carryover effects of the theoretical underpinnings of charisma from the aforementioned disciplines into the leadership literature.
Charisma in the Management and Organizational Literature
Shortly after House's original theory was published
(House 1977), Burns (1978) distinguished between two types
of political leadership—transactional and transformational
The former is based on an exchange relationship between
leaders and followers and appeals to followers' self-
interests. Followers comply with leaders' requests in return for rewards. 15 Transformational leaders, on the other hand, appeal to the needs, beliefs, and moral values of followers who transcend individual self-interests for the sake of the collectivity. As such, transformational leadership is akin to charisma, although Burns preferred the term "heroic" to "charismatic."
This review would not be complete without further coverage of the notion of transformational leadership and the work of Bernard Bass. Bass (1985) applied Burns' ideas to organizational leadership research, which resulted in a more comprehensive leadership paradigm that includes both transactional and transformational types. The study of leadership moved from interest in follower performance (in exchange for rewards) to performance beyond expectations. According to Bass (1985), charisma is one of three dimensions of transformational leadership; the others are intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Charisma requires vision and self-confidence on the part of the leader. Later, Bass (1988a) distinguished inspiration— the leader representing the follower's ego, from charisma-- the leader substituting for the follower's ideal ego. This distinction added a fourth dimension to Bass' transformational model. A fifth dimension, idealized influence, is part of Bass and Avolio's (1991) Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5). 16 Transformational leadership augments transactional leadership, which consists of two dimensions—contingent reward and management by exception. Bass argues that transactional leadership is necessary but not sufficient for (transformational) leadership to occur.
Charisma is a key component of transformational leadership; it involves providing a vision and sense of mission for, instilling pride in, and gaining respect and trust of subordinates (Bass 1990a, 1990b). Charismatic leaders induce follower performance beyond ordinary expectations.
As such, transformational leaders bring about "second order change" in followers (Avolio & Bass 1988; Bass 1985). Transformational leadership is expected to be positively related to follower effectiveness because of the intrinsic appeal of leader charisma, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and inspiration. Leaders induce follower actions that are rooted in followers' values.
Later Behavioral Theories on Charismatic Leadership The relative dearth of empirical investigation on charismatic leadership per se in the organizational literature may be due to the difficulty in operationalizing such an elusive construct. Dubin refers to leadership in general as a "rare phenomenon" (1979, p. 226). 17 Sensitive to this problem. Conger and Kanungo (1987) have developed a behavioral model of charismatic leadership. They identify the key charismatic behavioral elements as having a vision, personal risk-taking, expertise, realistic assessment of resources and constraints, articulation and impression management, use of expert and referent power, and acting as agents of radical change. These components differ in intensity and presence among charismatic leaders. Followers will attribute charisma to leaders based on this constellation of interrelated leader behaviors. These behaviors are demonstrated in different stages, as explained next. Conger (1989) refined this earlier behavioral model based on case studies of strategic leaders. His four-stage model consists of sensing opportunities and formulating a strategic vision, effectively communicating the vision and articulating motivation, building trust in the vision among subordinates, and finally, empowering others or demonstrating how to achieve the vision. Although "vision is the cornerstone of the charismatic leader" (Conger 1989, p. 36), Conger stresses that the four behaviors are interrelated. High follower commitment to the leader, via bonding that occurs between leader and followers, is an outcome of this four-stage process. Conger acknowledges that charismatic leadership may be situational in that crises are conducive to the emergence of a leader as 18 a change agent. Finally, attributions of certain leader behaviors are key to followers' perceptions of charisma. The essence of the behavioral model (Conger 1989; Conger & Kanungo 1987) may be depicted as: Leader Behavior > Follower Attributions and Commitment.
Summarv
This section has reviewed the theoretical underpinnings surrounding charisma and charismatic leadership. Charisma has been defined in terms of leader traits and behavior, effects on followers, and attributions made about the leader by others. Although the basic theory originated in other disciplines, charisma eventually took hold in the organizational leadership literature. Detailed empirical research on the above models by House, Bass, and Conger and Kanungo, which are part of this later stream of literature, are now discussed.
Empirical Support in the Management Literature
Empirical Support for House's Theory of Charismatic Leadership A dissertation study by Smith (1982) found support for
House's (1977) theory in that charismatic leaders were differentiated from noncharismatic leaders based on the leaders' effects on subordinates (e.g., self-assurance, higher performance, back-up support, and longer work weeks) 19 This study provided evidence that charisma could be reliably measured within an organizational setting. However, there was no difference between the two types of leaders on follower obedience. Further empirical support was provided by Howell (1986) who, also in a dissertation study, analyzed the leadership behaviors of charismatic, structuring and considerate leaders in a laboratory setting. She found that charisma could be empirically distinguished from other leadership behaviors and that charismatic leadership depends on followers' perceptions. An extension of Howell's dissertation presented in House et al. (1992) revealed that followers of charismatic leaders, as opposed to followers of considerate or structuring leaders, rarely mentioned ambiguity in their impressions of the task performed. Furthermore, they expressed feelings of inspiration, motivation, and self- confidence. Shamir et al. (1992) extended House's original model and advanced theoretical propositions of self- engagement consistent with Howell's findings. In another article based on Howell's dissertation, Howell and Frost (1989) investigated the interactive influence of three different leadership behaviors— charismatic, structuring and considerate—on two types of group productivity norms—task performance and task adjustment. Followers of charismatic leaders had 20 significantly higher task performance, as well as significantly higher task adjustment (i.e., task satisfaction), than those of a considerate leader. Followers of a charismatic leader also attributed significantly higher task adjustment to the leader than did followers of structuring leaders. Only charismatic leaders, regardless of high or low group productivity norms, produced high-performing, well-adjusted followers. Charisma was successfully studied under laboratory conditions and, in support of the original theory, charismatic leadership produced high follower performance, satisfaction, and adjustment. House, Spangler and Woycke (1991) studied charisma and the U.S. presidency using the entire population of elected American presidents through the administration of Ronald Reagan. First they investigated leader motives (affiliation, power, achievement and activity inhibition), behavioral charisma, and performance using content analysis of presidents' first-term inaugural addresses and cabinet members' biographical extracts. Charisma was defined as "the ability of a leader to exercise diffuse and intense influence over the beliefs, values, behavior, and performance of others through his or her own behavior, beliefs and personal example" (House et al. 1991, p. 3 66). Presidential behavioral charisma was found to be positively related to presidential personality (i.e., motives), cabinet 21 members' affect toward the presidents, and to overall performance. Presidential motives and performance were also found to be directly related. Furthermore, crises were positively related to behavioral charisma and to three of five performance measures. For the most part, time or number of years since the beginning of the U.S. presidency, was positively related to the other four variables—motives, charisma, performance, and crisis. Further analysis of the presidential data investigated charismatic behavior and charismatic effects. Measures of charismatic effects based on historians' ratings as well as biographical descriptions were positively related to specific leader behaviors such as self-confidence and expressing confidence in followers. Not only are leader behaviors and follower reactions applicable to measuring charismatic leadership, but so are observer assessments of leadership and its effects (House et al. 1991). The charismatic leadership behaviors of informal project champions (informal leaders) and nonchampions were investigated by Howell and Higgins (1990). Champions were distinguished from nonchampions based on five charismatic behaviors—expressing ideological goals, expressing confidence in others, displaying self-confidence, displaying unconventional behavior, and showing environmental sensitivity. These findings provide further support for House's original theory of charismatic leadership and 22 Shamir's extension (House et al. 1992; Shamir et al. 1992). They are also consistent with Conger and Kanungo's (1987) notions outlined in the preceding section. The preceding discussion provides empirical evidence for charismatic leader behaviors proposed by House's original theory as well as later extensions. The theory's predictions regarding effects on followers, with the exception of obedience to the leader, have also received support, as have the motivational propositions of the extensions. In summary, these findings give support to charismatic leadership as a phenomenon in its own right. As stated earlier in this chapter, charisma may be defined in terms of leader behaviors, leader effects on followers, or attributions made by others about a leader (House et al. 1992), as well as a trait component equivalent to a leader's personal characteristics and situational factors such as crises (House 1977).
Empirical Support for Bass Although Bernard Bass is not associated with a theory of charismatic leadership per se, his theory of transformational/transactional leadership warrants attention because it explicitly includes a charisma dimension. Prior to the publication of Bass' 1985 model, Yukl and Van Fleet (1982) studied patterns of effective behavior 23 among military leaders. In both combat and noncombat situations, inspiration (i.e., instilling pride and self- confidence in others) was determined to be important for group performance. This study is noteworthy as a precursor to Bass' inclusion of a charismatic component (which initially included inspiration) in transformational leadership; transformational leadership ultimately affects follower performance. Bass, Avolio and Goodheim (1987) examined how world class leaders differ on Bass' (1985) five leadership dimensions—two transactional and three transformational. Support was found for Bass' model in that student respondents, after reading biographical material, were able to differentiate between transactional and transformational qualities of leaders. World leaders were rated highly on the charismatic dimension of transformational leadership, although the ratings varied by leader. Leaders viewed as more charismatic (e.g., John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr.) were described as more satisfying and effective than those low on charisma. Avolio, Waldman and Einstein (1988) investigated the relationship between both transactional and transformational leadership and group effectiveness in a management simulation game. Crisis conditions existed in the simulation (e.g., labor strike), which provided leaders the opportunity to be charismatic. Items measuring the charisma 24 component of transformational leadership included trust in the leader's ability to overcome any obstacle and the leader making the follower enthusiastic about assignments. The other two transformational leadership scales tapped individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. Avolio et al. (1988) found that ratings of transformational leadership, collected independently of performance criteria, were significantly and positively related to financial performance. That is, leaders rated by subordinates as transformational, as opposed to other leader types (i.e., transactional), had higher performing teams in terms of profitability and market share. This study provides support for Bass' (1985) model. In comparing subordinates' and superiors' perceptions and evaluations of Bass' two leadership types. Hater and Bass (1988) found that subordinates saw transformational leaders as more effective (i.e., possessing an excellent ability to manage) and were more satisfied with transformational leaders than with transactional leaders. They also reported expending more work effort with transformational leaders. In addition, transformational leaders were rated more often by superiors as "top performers" than were a randomly selected group of ordinary managers. Transformational leaders were viewed differently from transactional leaders, and followers and supervisors shared opinions about 25 charismatic leaders' effectiveness. In this study the charisma factor of transformational leadership consisted of the leader instilling pride, faith and respect, seeing what is really important, and transmitting a sense of mission. Additional support for Bass' 1985 model is provided by Yammarino and Bass (1990) who studied the precursors and effects of transformational leaders among naval officers. Military performance at the U.S. Naval Academy significantly predicted transformational leadership and outcomes as rated by the officers' superiors and subordinates. Transformational leadership variables included charisma, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspiration. These measures were highly correlated and had the highest associations of leadership measures with perceived subordinate satisfaction and effectiveness. Charisma displayed the strongest relationships with the outcome variables. Six items comprised the charisma construct; for example, trust in the leader to overcome any obstacle. In a slightly different twist, the impact of transformational leaders on "extra role" (vs. in-role) performance (i.e., citizenship behaviors) was studied by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990). Their transformational leadership constructs consisted of articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering acceptance of group goals, high performance 26 expectations, providing individualized support, and intellectual stimulation. Leader transformational behaviors were found to have an indirect instead of a direct influence on employees' organizational citizenship behaviors. These leader behaviors were mediated by followers' trust in their leaders. Finally, in a study of leaders in higher education (Tucker, Bass & Daniel 1991), transformational leadership was found to "augment" (Bass & Avolio 1990) transactional leadership in terms of increased satisfaction, performance, and extra effort on the part of subordinates, such that individual as well as collective goals are achieved. The charisma component of transformational leadership was defined in terms of the leader's attributes interacting with followers' values, needs, beliefs, and perceptions.
Empirical Support for Conger and Kanungo An experimental design was used by Puffer (1990) to examine Conger's behavioral theory of charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo 1987; Conger 1989) in a decision making context. In terms of leader, situational and observer influences on attributions (Hollander & Offerman 1990), Puffer investigated decision style, outcome, and role of observer and found these "objective" factors to affect attributions of charismatic leadership. Charisma was associated with leader personal characteristics influencing 27 followers' emotional attachment to the leader. This definition is consistent with Conger (1989) who attributes charisma to those who inspire others and arouse their emotions.
Puffer (1990) found that an intuitive decision style (i.e., unconventional, risky) and the achievement of successful decision outcomes produced stronger attributions of charismatic leadership, including perceptions of expertise, than did a technical decision style or unsuccessful outcomes. In addition, those in managerial roles made stronger attributions of charismatic leadership to leaders than did nonmanagers. This study provides support for the behavioral theory of charismatic leadership. Further, charisma is perceived in terms of everyday organizational decision making and is not restricted to crisis or vision-creating conditions.
Summary
This section has reviewed empirical findings on several theories of charismatic leadership. The construct of charismatic leadership can be objectively measured and has received support. Enough questions surrounding charisma remain such that continued investigation is warranted. This discussion is continued in part in the following section, which focuses directly on two different components of charismatic leadership—vision and crisis. 28 Recapping the Vision and Crisis Components of Charisma Visionary Aspects of Charisma
A recurring theme in the preceding sections is the notion of a vision or mission as an integral part of charismatic leadership (e.g.. Conger 1989; Tucker 1968; Weber 1924/1947; Willner 1968). Berlew argues that "the first requirement for . . . charismatic leadership is a common or shared vision of what the future could be" (1974, p. 269). Charisma is viewed as a social relationship and a relevant message (vision) is the most important element of this two-way interaction (Worsley 1968). However, this is not to say that having a vision necessarily causes a leader to be charismatic in terms of personality, behavior, or effects on followers. It is conceivable that individuals who possess a vision fail to possess other attributes associated with being charismatic. In fact, Conger (1989) distinguishes between noncharismatic and charismatic types of vision. He notes how a radical vision may even threaten or repulse followers.
Definitions of Vision
As previously noted, charisma is an important dimension of transformational leadership (Bass 1985). This dimension in particular permits the transformational leader to
"articulate a vision of the future that can be shared" (Bass
1985, chapter 2). Hunt's (1991) extended leadership model 29 includes vision in his discussion of strategic transformational leadership. Conger and Kanungo (1987) define a vision as an idealized goal a leader wants followers to achieve in the future. In their discussion of transformational leadership, Avolio and Bass (1988) note that leaders must have a vision or goal if higher order change in subordinates is to occur. H. Ross Perot is used as an example of a transformational leader whose vision was key to his firm's success (Bass 1990a). Presenting a radical message or solution to followers is a pre-condition for charisma, as defined by Conger and Kanungo (1987) as well as by Trice and Beyer (1986); a radical mission may be construed as a vision on the part of the leader. Articulation of ideological goals (visions) is a behavioral component of House's (1977) theory and remains part of his most recent theory of charismatic leadership (House et al. 1992). As already noted, vision is a key component of models by Conger (1989) and Conger and Kanungo's (1987) behavioral theory of charismatic leadership. The leader's vision must be discrepant from the status quo and it must be carefully formulated and articulated for charisma to result, i.e., the followers must buy into the vision. This notion is consistent with Sashkin and associates (Sashkin & Burke 1990; Sashkin & Fulmer 1988) who use organizational culture to link vision with outcomes. 30 The strategic management literature summarizes visionary leadership in a three-stage framework: envisioning some future idea that, when effectively communicated, will empower followers into action (Westley & Mintzberg 1989). In others words, vision connects an idea to action and comes alive only when it is shared. This chapter's discussion of vision will focus primarily on the personal (visionary) characteristics or behaviors of charismatic leaders; situational factors such as crisis are discussed separately. The next section also contains literature on the communication of vision.
Visionary Leadership Theories Sashkin's (1988) discussion of visionary leadership views charisma as an effect of leader behavior, that is, an attribution or outcome as opposed to a leader attribute. In other words, leader empowerment of followers to achieve outcomes leads to follower perceptions of charisma. This notion of empowerment is critical in distinguishing the crisis-induced charismatic leader from the visionary charismatic leader. This distinction will be elaborated upon later. Similarly, Bennis and Nanus (1985) see charisma as "the result of effective leadership" (p. 224). In designing the future of organizations, Sashkin's visionary leaders seek to change organizational cultures. Three elements comprise 31 Sashkin's model: (l) one's need for power (McClelland 1975) ; use of it (Burke 1986); and cognitive skills associated with visioning; (2) the nature of the vision; and (3) implementing the vision via strategic, tactical, and personal means. In terms of personal behavior, Sashkin (1988) borrows Bennis and Nanus' (1985) five effective leader behavioral strategies: (1) focusing attention on a vision; (2) personally communicating the vision; (3) establishing trust among followers; (4) developing self-respect; and (5) risk taking or developing a sense of adventure. Sashkin and Fulmer (1985) present evidence of a positive correlation existing between a leader engaging in these five behaviors and being perceived as charismatic by subordinates. Charisma is considered an outcome or attribution made by followers about the leader. Sashkin and Fulmer's (1988) organizational leadership theory, based on Sashkin (1988), includes three components— person, situation, and behavior—at both the operational and executive leadership levels. At the executive level, vision is conceptualized in terms of a leader's time span (Jaques 1985) and planning activities. Vision ties into the creation of an organizational culture so that goals are ultimately achieved. By engaging in charismatic behaviors (both task- and relationship-oriented), a leader creates and reinforces shared beliefs that define an organization's 32 culture (Sashkin & Fulmer 1988). Culture connects leader vision with organizational outcomes. A visionary theory of organizational leadership by Sashkin and Burke (1990) discusses the visionary leader's use of power to construct organizational culture; the culture in turn empowers the leader's vision. Leaders' personal characteristics, interpersonal actions, and organizational contexts are important, as are how leaders empower followers and integrate macro and micro organizational factors. In this theory, specific leadership behavioral competencies based on Bennis and Nanus (1985), and outlined in the preceding paragraph, continue to play a role in the creation of culture. To summarize Sashkin's development of transformational leadership measures, the Leader Behavior Questionnaire (LBQ) (Sashkin & Burke 1990) includes three dimensions consisting of (1) five behaviors (clarity, communication, consistency or trust, caring, and creating opportunities); (2) three leadership characteristics (self-confidence, power, and vision); and two types of culture building leadership (organizational and cultural) (Sashkin & Rosenbach 1993). The thrust of Sashkin and associates' work is that visionaries ultimately change organizational cultures. Bennis and Nanus' (1985) conceptualize leadership as something separate from management, i.e., "Managers do things right; leaders do the right thing." Vision is at the 33 core of their Theory of Transformative Leadership; vision is defined as an image of a future state that is attainable and better than the status quo. Vision as such is appropriate to this discussion on charisma because vision presumably engages the emotional and spiritual resources of followers. Consequently, followers are pulled rather than pushed into action (Bennis & Nanus 1985). According to Hickman (1990), leaders create vision whereas managers implement the vision. Kouzes and Posner (1987) make a similar distinction between leaders and managers. They are wary of the narrow definition of charisma ("special power") and prefer the term "human expressiveness." Kouzes and Posner present a visionary leadership model that consists of five practices of exemplary leadership—that which gets extraordinary things accomplished. Their practices include challenging the process; inspiring a shared vision; enabling others to act; modeling the way; and encouraging the heart. Their visionary component entails enlisting the emotions of others in pursuit of a common purpose. It is believed to be applicable to this discussion on charismatic leadership because it includes leader behavior as well as effects on followers. Vision is a theme in Bryman's (1992) description of "New Leadership," which includes recent theories on visionary, transformational and charismatic leadership. Consistent with Bryman's label, Kotter (1982a,b) discusses 34 agenda setting and network building activities of general managers, preferring these terms to their more abstract counterparts of vision and charisma. Leaders and managers engage in complementary activities (Kotter 1990). However, via agenda setting the leader develops a long-term vision, and then uses network building to communicate the "direction" developed. Execution occurs via motivation and inspiration of subordinates, and change is the ultimate outcome.
Returning to the Visionary- Charismatic Linkage Shamir (1991) discusses six different approaches explaining charismatic leaders' effects on followers (Shamir 1991). These are the Freudian, Narcissistic, Sociological- Symbolic, Attribution, Behavioral, and Followers' Self- Concept explanations. In three of these, vision plays a role. Consistent with Weberian notions of charisma in which vision is implicit, the sociological-symbolic explanation necessitates an ideological vision as the charismatic leader is perceived to provide order and meaning to followers. Secondly, an attribution theory rooted in the model of Conger and Kanungo (1987) includes a radical vision as mediating the leader's influence on follower motivation and behavior. Finally, Shamir explains how charismatic leaders implicate the self-concepts of followers (the leader's 35 values and goals become internalized), provided the leader's message or ideological vision is of importance to followers. In a re-creation of charisma in a laboratory setting, the scripts used by charismatic leaders emphasized leader visions, and charismatic leaders affected follower performance (Howell & Frost 1989). In another study already mentioned, visionary leader behavior, which included strong convictions about ideological beliefs, distinguished project champions or innovators (who are analogous to charismatic leaders) from nonchampions (Howell & Higgins 1990). In an empirical study undertaken to determine the appropriate level of analysis for operationalizing charismatic leadership, Avolio and Yammarino (1990) operationally defined charisma as "transmits a sense of mission." Their definition is consistent with a leader possessing a vision. They found individual differences in subordinates' ratings of charismatic leaders' behaviors and effectiveness and concluded that the individual level of analysis is appropriate for the study of charismatic leadership. The use of multiple levels of analysis is consistent with Yammarino and Bass (1990) who argue for the use of multiple levels of analysis in leadership research. Table 2.1 provides a recap of these and other writers on vision as it relates to charismatic leadership. 36 Crisis and Charisma—a Debate Focusing exclusively on charismatic leadership, Boal and Bryson (1988) argue that the visionary is one of two types of charismatic leaders. Based on the preceding discussion, vision does appear to be crucial to the conceptualization of charismatic leadership. But, does vision stand alone in that regard, or do other equally crucial components exist? In an attempt to answer this question, the role of one situational factor in particular, crisis, is discussed next. A crisis is "a situation that threatens high priority goals . . . and which occurs suddenly with little response time available ..." (Jick & Murray 1982). As noted earlier, the issue of crisis as a prerequisite for charismatic leadership surfaced some time ago. Shils (19 65) disagreed that crisis was a prerequisite for charisma, as did Dow (1969) who viewed the leader or individual as separate from the context. Similarly, Shils (1968) asserts that charisma is derived from the person and not from the office or context. Although crisis is "neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause" of charismatic leadership, Willner (1984, p. 60) does acknowledge that crisis conditions may be conducive to the emergence of the charismatic political leader. House (1977) failed to reconcile this "person- situation" debate. His theory does not discount the role of 37 crisis, but instead suggests that charismatic effects are more likely to occur in times of crisis. Citing the short- term nature of most crises, Butterfield (1988) argues against referring to crisis-produced leadership as charismatic. Roberts and Bradley (1988) concluded that perceptions of charisma were restricted to crisis situations. Howell and Frost's (1989) laboratory experiment demonstrated the effects of charismatic leaders on followers independent of a crisis situation. Scott defines crisis situations as "times when conventional goals are being challenged and established procedures are not working" (Scott 1987, p. 279). Weber (1947) believed crisis was necessary for charisma, along with others who at minimum argue that crisis facilitates the establishment of a charismatic leader (e.g., Bass 1988b; Conger 1989; Conger & Kanungo 1987; Dubin 1979; House et al. 1991; Pillai & Meindl 1992; Tichy & Devanna 1986; Tucker 1968). Some scholars imply that leaders might create stress (i.e., crisis) in order to be perceived as charismatic (e.g.. Conger & Kanungo 1988; Sashkin 1977). Avolio et al. (1988) believe that crisis offers a leader the opportunity to be charismatic. Trice and Beyer (1986) outline the presence of a crisis and a radical solution to it as two of their conditions necessary for charismatic leadership to occur. Kets de Vries (1988) posits that crisis or uncertainty facilitates the emergence 38 of charismatic leadership because it creates a sense of helplessness in followers. Followers endow a leader who is empathetic to their needs with charisma so the leader is able to accomplish enormous feats (Stark 1977). Similarly, Shamir (1991) offers six explanations for the effects of charismatic leaders on followers, one of which is applicable to crisis situations. The psychoanalytic explanation allows for the role of crisis; when faced with unresolved conflicts, followers endow their leader with magical powers. Howell and Avolio (1992) discuss two types of charismatic leaders—ethical and unethical—and argue that both types impact followers during times of crisis. In the case of unethical charismatics, the leader uses the crisis to solidify his or her power base, ultimately causing followers to lose self-confidence. Conversely, the ethical charismatic leader works to enhance followers' self-esteem; crisis underscores "the leader's intention to do what is right" (Howell & Avolio 1992, p. 50). Similarly, Howell and House (in press) focus on the multidimensionality of charisma by developing a theory that separates the socialized or positive type of charismatic leader from the personalized or negative type of charismatic leader. As noted in Chapter I, the bright or positive side of charisma is the focus of the study reported here. 39 The existence of a crisis is a precondition for a latent charismatic situation, because crisis offers the opportunity for dramatic turnaround (Lepsius 1986). Lepsius uses Hitler as an example of turning a latent charismatic situation into a manifest one—Hitler offered a political escape from the crisis (worldwide depression). Bass also argues that transformational leadership (which includes charisma) is needed in times of turbulence to inspire employees. He notes that the transformational behaviors of Boeing CEO, T.A. Wilson, played a major role in Boeing's turnaround following its crisis in 1969 (Bass 1990a) . Meindl's (1990) social contagion explanation for leadership being follower-centered, allows for crisis to be related to leadership perceptions. By linking leaders to events, followers gain a sense of control over their environments. Followers' perceptions of crisis heighten the charismatic leader's appeal. Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with his fireside chats, is an example of a charismatic leader who emerged during an economic crisis— the Depression of 1929-1932—and whose charismatic staying power was still evident during yet a later (military) crisis—World War II (Schweitzer 1984). Tucker (1968) also refers to crisis-induced charisma as being situational. Using Peron's rise to power in Argentina as an example, Madsen and Snow (1991) also argue for the existence of an abrupt psychological crisis in the emergence of a 40 charismatic leader. Their argument is based on self- efficacy theory (Bandura 1977) in that stressful conditions cause followers' self-efficacy to be weakened, which in turn causes them to bond with a charismatic leader. Further, Madsen and Snow (1991) include temporality; they believe charisma fades once a crisis has passed. Existing empirical evidence supports some of the earlier theoretical arguments for the role of crisis affecting perceptions of charisma. The earlier-mentioned in-depth case study of a suburban public school system in times of turbulent change revealed that crisis (i.e., funding cuts) was an important element in the "transformative" leadership process (Roberts 1985). Charisma was a result of the crisis and was associated with how the leader effectively guided others through the crisis. The leader's vision was important in dealing with the crisis. It appears that while both aspects were important to the leader being perceived as charismatic, crisis took precedence over vision. Later, Roberts and Bradley (1988) found that in the case of this same educator-administrator, the existence of a crisis was essential for the leader to be perceived as charismatic, but her charisma did not transfer to a non-crisis situation. House et al. (1991) found crisis to be positively related to presidential behavioral charisma and presidential performance. 41 A present-day example of crisis-related charisma may be evolving in the administration of newly elected President Bill Clinton. His travels and speeches throughout the nation are focusing attention on the economic problems facing our nation and what needs to be done to turn them around. President Clinton's actions may be construed as attempts to garner support for his vision of an improved economy and better nation overall. Pillai and Meindl (1991) simulated a crisis under laboratory conditions and found: (1) higher follower ratings for charisma in crisis than in non-crisis situations; and (2) followers' ratings of charisma influenced their perceptions of leader effectiveness and satisfaction. In a second study (Pillai & Meindl 1992), followers' perceptions of a leader's charismatic appeal were influenced by performance cues (knowledge of a firm's performance, independent of leader behavior) during crisis situations. Additional support for crisis as a precondition of charisma is provided by Wilson (1985), who found that charismatic leadership emerged in a school during such a period. Table 2.2 provides a recap of these and other arguments for the importance of crisis in charismatic leadership. Based on the above arguments and findings, it appears that crisis is important to attributions of charismatic leadership. To date, however, whether there is a difference 42 between crisis-induced and non-crisis-induced charismatic leaders has not been investigated. Examining the role of charisma in non-crisis situations is a major purpose of this study.
A Model of Two Types of Charismatic Leaders Boal and Bryson (1988) attempt to bring closure to the crisis issue by introducing a "dual" theory of charismatic leadership. Their theory allows for charisma to be attributed to the person (manifested in the leader's actions or behavior) as well as to the situation—more specifically, the leader interacting with the (crisis) situation. A crisis exists when a system is needed to handle a situation for which existing resources are inadequate (Bryson 1981). Boal and Bryson (1988) distinguish the visionary charismatic leader from the crisis-induced charismatic. Lee lacocca exemplifies both types: He was instrumental in resolving Chrysler's financial troubles and is also classified as a visionary (Bryman 1992; Westley & Mintzberg 1989). The visionary leader first justifies his or her behavior and then takes action.
In the case of visionary charisma, followers' behavior
corresponds with their values (Boal & Bryson 1988). This is
possible because the visionary leader connects values and
action and thus is perceived as charismatic. The leader in
this case has influenced the followers' self-concepts, such 43 that leader vision is related to followers' values. Because followers' behavior in response to leader vision is rooted in followers' values, charismatic leadership is less likely to be transitory. For example, followers are willing to perform a task because of the intrinsic rewards associated with their action. Followers share the values implied by the leader's articulation of some desired future state or vision. Visionary charisma as such occurs during times of noncrisis and creates in followers a desire for action. Alternatively, followers' behavior may correspond to the consequences of their behavior. Under conditions of crisis, the linkage between behavior and outcomes is severed, and it is the crisis-induced charismatic leader (as opposed to the visionary) who restores the action-outcome linkage along with a sense of control in followers. First the leader takes action and then the action is justified; former President Bush's behavior during Operation Desert Storm is an example. Followers (U.S. military personnel) in this case have extrinsic concerns—the successful outcome— of their efforts. Their lives are at stake. They follow the leader because they believe that he or she knows the best way to solve a problem. Followers' response toward the leader is a function of the followers' assessment of how the leader guided them toward solving the crisis. With the crisis-induced leader, a different sort of vision applies; i.e., followers' 44 perceptions of the leader's vision is restricted to the resolution of the crisis.
Whereas Bennis and Nanus (1985) speak of a visionary leader's risk-taking factor based on his/her perceptions of the outcome of an event, here followers' responses are linked to their perceptions of the outcome. For example, former President Bush was at the height of popularity in the wake of Operation Desert Storm, but his popularity (charisma) was transitory—it was attributed to his solution of the crisis at hand. Prior to the 1992 presidential election. Bush appeared to be lacking a vision as defined in the ideological sense; he referred to "that vision thing" in at least one news interview on national television. As a result, he was not influencing the values of followers. Perhaps the absence of visionary charisma on his part contributed to public dissatisfaction and loss of faith and ultimately his re-election defeat.
Table 2.3 lists those theories of charismatic leadership that include both vision and crisis components.
The following diagram captures those portions of Boal and Bryson's (1988) model relevant to this study: 45 Person Leader Follower Behavior )"Type 1" with > Behavior >& attributions of )Charismatic Vision (Justify, leader charisma ) Leader then act) linked to follower values versus Situation Leader Follower Behavior )"Type 2" (Crisis) > Behavior >& attributions of )Charismatic (Act, then leader charisma )Leader, justify) linked to outcomes Follower attributions concern how one matches the prototype associated with a charismatic leader and may be influenced by leader characteristics (behaviors and attitudes), situational characteristics, and observer characteristics (Hollander & Offerman 1990). Thus, followers' interpretations of leaders may differ (Pfeffer 1977). The prototype of the crisis-induced leader differs from the visionary (without crisis) in the leader's response to the crisis. He/she shows "how to" solve the crisis and thus realize a vision. Boal and Bryson's (1988) model does not explicitly separate charisma from the crisis situation and the conceptualization of charisma in this study follows Boal and Bryson's theory.
A Step Toward Examining the Vision-Crisis Issue The issue of vision versus crisis—what is the role of each concerning charismatic leadership—is surfacing as a result of this review. Much of the literature has tended to emphasize only one of these two aspects. Although they focus on vision instead of charisma per se, Bennis and Nanus 46 (1985) allude to the possibility that vision and crisis are not mutually exclusive. In times of uncertainty, which may be construed as crisis, they argue that nothing is better for an organization than leaders with visionary behaviors. Similarly, Bryman argues that it may be easier to promulgate vision and active change during crises (1992). Just as crisis may lead to vision, so may vision offer a solution to crisis (Roberts 1985). Willner (1984) notes the general lack of clinical studies relating directly to charismatic leadership. However, writers extolling the vision requirement offer empirical support for their positions, as noted in Table 2.1. The role of crisis is also becoming more clearly defined as evidenced by the number of recent studies supporting the crisis component of charisma (e.g.. House et al. 1991; Pillai & Meindl 1991, 1992; Roberts 1985; Roberts & Bradley 1988; and Wilson 1985). Is one (vision or crisis) more important than the other, or can both exist in a theory of charismatic leadership? Is it the person alone (i.e., the vision component) or the person interacting with the situation (i.e., the crisis component) that really matters in identifying a charismatic leader? This study examines the essence of the model developed by Boal and Bryson (1988) positing both elements of crisis and vision in an attempt to resolve this issue. If they are correct—and as Hunt (1991) 47 implies—charismatic leadership may also be situational. Depending upon whether he or she is in the midst of a crisis, the charismatic leader may be considered visionary or crisis-induced and may have differing effects on followers.
Laboratory Studies—A Justification As previously discussed, charismatic leadership has been successfully tested under laboratory conditions by Howell and Frost (1989), Puffer (1990) and Pillai and Meindl (1991; 1992). It appears that charisma can be induced— people can be trained to exhibit such qualities (Howell & Frost 1989; Naftulin, Ware & Donnelly 1973; Sashkin 1988). In addition, crisis conditions were simulated in the laboratory by Pillai and Meindl (1991; 1992), and crisis was part of a management simulation game concerning ratings of charisma for company presidents (Avolio et al. 1988). It is not uncommon for questions to be raised about the external validity (Cook & Campbell 1976) or generalizability of laboratory studies. In response to these concerns, Mook (1983) argues for the use of laboratory settings, not to generalize findings, but instead to test theory, which is the objective of this study. The goal of this research is to see if something can happen as theorized; i.e., are there two different types of charismatic leaders. Ilgen (1986) also advocates the use of experiments along these lines. By 48 determining if some phenomenon can occur in the laboratory, we can apply the understanding gained (not the results per se) to the real world. In other words, generalizability is not the purpose of an experiment (Mook 1983). Finally, Locke (1986) reports that effect sizes found in lab studies are essentially the same as effect sizes for similar types of questions investigated in a field setting. Based on the research question being investigated here, it is believed that an experimental setting is appropriate. As noted by Taylor and Vertinsky (1981), experimental designs serve different purposes, such as advancing knowledge and permitting researchers to learn from experience. In this particular study, both of these functions are important. In response to the argument by Katz and Kahn (1978) that charismatic leadership only applies to top organizational levels, it has been shown that charismatic leadership need not be restricted to executive-level leaders (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bryman, 1992; Howell & Higgins 1990). Regardless of organizational level, it is believed that a laboratory setting is appropriate for this study, to determine if there are in fact two different types of charismatic leaders (visionaries as well as crisis-induced) based on their differing effects on followers. Although the focus of this study is not directed at top-level leaders, 49 this is not to imply that an experimental setting should be restricted to lower-level leaders. Concerns over the generalizability of laboratory studies are not restricted to charismatic leadership. In another study with a different slant on leadership, subordinates' perceptions of top-level leader prototypes classified leaders as either good or bad depending upon leader reward and punishment behaviors (Korukonda & Hunt 1989). Reward behavior elicited positive perceptions of the leader. External validity existed because the study was realistic in the sense that subordinates had brief or infrequent contact with top-level leaders. Leader behavior was controlled via memorized scripts and rehearsals; similar types of controls apply to this proposed investigation and details are provided in Chapter IV.
In conclusion, it is not the intent to attempt to reproduce all aspects of the real world in this experiment (Locke 1986) but only some essential features of charismatic and other leadership behaviors and crisis. This study is designed to capture the essential features of crisis- induced, visionary, and transactional leadership in an experimental setting.
Chapter Summary This chapter has reviewed the literature on charismatic leadership that is relevant for this research project. The 50 literatures outside the field of management were recognized first, followed by a discussion of charismatic leadership theories and supporting empirical evidence pertinent to the organizational disciplines. Visionary and crisis components of charismatic leadership were also discussed and were further elaborated on in a model positing the different roles played by each (Boal & Bryson 1988). Finally, laboratory studies examining charismatic leadership were reviewed. To reiterate the chapter opening, charisma is an ambiguous phenomenon that takes on numerous definitions in the context of charismatic leadership. In terms of this study, the charismatic leader will be defined according to leader characteristics and behaviors (e.g., self-confidence and vision) and the leader's effects on followers (e.g., task performance and affective outcomes). Leadership behavior in this research project takes the form of three different scripts to be followed by each of the leaders. The scripts simulate crisis-induced charismatic leadership, visionary charismatic leadership, and transactional leadership. Each script was developed based on the literature reviewed here so as to incorporate certain dimensions of charismatic as well as transactional leadership. The vision of the leader in a crisis as opposed to no crisis differs in that the script of the leader facing a 51 crisis adds a specific "how to" component in his or her articulation of the vision, so as to empower the followers (Sashkin 1988) to achieve the outcome desired. The bulk of the literature on visionary leadership discussed in this chapter reveals that such leadership behavior is in the form of a leader articulating a vision in such a way that followers are capable of achieving the group's goals. The leader's vision is what enables the followers to act (Kouzes & Posner 1987), rather than the leader showing followers "how to" do something. In the next chapter the variables to be used in this analysis will be defined in detail and specific research hypotheses will be formulated. 52 Table 2.1 Vision as it Relates to Charismatic Leadership
Weber 1924/1947 Vision is central; charismatic leaders reveal a "transcendent mission" to followers
Shils 1965 Vision causes charismatics to motivate followers
Tucker 1968, Vision and a sense of mission are Willner 1968 components of a charismatic leadership theory
Worsley 1968 Vision is the most important aspect of the charismatic social relationship Oberg 1972 Political charismatic leaders are (radical) change agents affecting the status quo
Berlew 1974 Development of a common organizational vision is one of three forms of charismatic behavior
House 1977 Ideological goal articulation is a behavior of charismatic leaders
Bass 1985, Leader vision is part of the charismatic Bass 1990a component of transformational Bass 1990b leadership. H. Ross Perot's vision was key to his firm's success. Charisma is defined as "provides a vision and sense of mission."
Bass & Avolio, Vision is associated with inspirational 1990 * leadership (which was later separated from charisma)
Bennis & Nanus, Vision is at the core of Transformative 1985 * Leadership theory—"leaders do the right thing." Charisma is a result of effective leadership.
Trice & Beyer 1986 Presenting a radical message is a pre condition for charisma
* empirically supported 53 Table 2.1. continued
Conger & Kanungo Formulating a (strategic) vision and 1987, 1988; effectively communicating it are key charismatic behaviors; visioning skills can be fostered.
Kouzes & Posner Inspiring vision is a practice 1987* associated with "exemplary" leadership Avolio & Bass, Vision is needed to bring about higher- 1988 order change in subordinates Boal & Bryson, Vision is one of two types of 1988 charismatic leadership. Visionaries influence followers' values and self- concepts; they create a need for action in followers and link behaviors to value systems
Roberts & Bradley, Facing a crisis, a school superintendent 1988 * had a clear strategic vision supplemented by a mission statement Sashkin 1988; Effective visionary leaders change Sashkin & Fulmer, organizational cultures in line with 1988 * their visions
Conger 1989 * Vision is the cornerstone; it must be discrepant from the status quo. Without crisis, a leader needs to induce an organizational context that fosters attributions of charisma
Howell & Frost Leaders perceived as charismatic 1989 * emphasize visions Westley & Vision empowers followers into action Mintzberg 1989 Hater & Bass 1988* Transformational leadership/charisma includes a sense of mission Howell & Higgins, Informal charismatic leaders (project 1990 * champions) expressed ideological goals-- a visionary behavior
Kets de Vries, The psychoanalytic approach to charisma 1990 says that vision awakens in followers an awareness of their own problems 54 Table 2.1. continued
Nadler & Tushman, Vision from the top—envisioning, 1990 energizing, and enabling—is a prominent theme in "magic leadership" which is akin to charisma
Podsakoff et al., Core transformational leadership— 1990 * including vision articulation— indirectly influences followers' citizenship behavior
Sashkin & Burke, Envisioning is positively correlated 1990 * with perceptions of charisma; time span is associated with vision; culture empowers visionary leaders Tichy & Devanna, Creating a vision is involved in organi 1990 (1986) * zational transformation; vision motivates and challenges
Hunt 1991 Vision is part of strategic transformational leadership
Bryman 1992 Visionary business leaders such as Steve Jobs and Mary Kay Ash are viewed as exceptional and regarded with awe; Jobs "saw" the computer as changing the world
Sashkin, Rosenbach, The charisma dimension of Bass' Leader Deal & Peterson Description Questionnaire (a version of (1993) * the MLQ) was empirically determined to be related to the LBQ (visionary leadership) personal characteristics dimensions of self-confidence, need for power, and vision. 55 Table 2.2 Crisis as an Antecedent of Charismatic Leadership
Weber 1924/1947 Charisma is most likely to occur during social distress; it is a function of the need for order
Tucker 1968 Distress provides an impetus for charismatic movements Oberg 1972 Followers' fears; leaders' ability to empathize with them; and organizational decisions involving ambiguous means and goals lead to attributions of charisma
House 1977 Charismatic effects are most likely during crisis situations Sashkin 1977 Leaders create stress to foster perceptions of charisma; Charismatic behavior is a function of the person and the environment Stark 1977 Followers' attributions of charisma make it possible for the leader to accomplish enormous feats
Dubin 1979 Charismatic leadership is most effective during crisis ("trying circumstances" p. 233)
Yukl & Van Fleet Charisma (inspiration) is associated 1982 * with group performance in both combat and noncombat situations
Schweitzer 1984 Military crisis is associated with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's charisma
Willner 1984 The heroism factor: Crisis is conducive to the emergence of a charismatic political leader
Roberts 1985*; Charisma is personal and is restricted Roberts & Bradley, to an economic crisis; it does not 1988 * transfer to a non-crisis situation
* empirically supported 56 Table 2.2. continued
Wilson 1985 * Emergence of charismatic leadership in a school facing crisis
Lepsius 1986 Crisis offers opportunity for a dramatic turnaround Trice & Beyer 1986* Crisis along with a radical solution are requirements of charismatic leadership Conger & Kanungo, Crisis facilitates emergence of a 1987, 1988; transitory charismatic leader because Conger 1989 * followers are dissatisfied with the status quo; charismatic leaders emerge as change agents during crisis Avolio, Waldman, Crisis affords opportunity to be & Einstein 1988 * charismatic; it positively affects team performance Bass 1988a; Bass & Charisma inspires employees during Avolio 1990 * turbulent times
Bass 1988b Followers are trusting and submissive during crisis
Boal & Bryson 1988 Crisis-induced charismatics restore a sense of control in followers via crisis resolution; they re-establish broken linkages between behavior and outcomes.
Kets de Vries 1988 Uncertainty creates a sense of follower helplessness Meindl 1990 Crises heighten the appeal of charismatic leaders
Tichy & Devanna, Unstable environments necessitate 1986/1990 * charismatic leaders
House, Spangler, Crisis is positively related to & Woycke 1991 * presidential behavior charisma Madsen & Snow 1991 Weakened follower self-efficacy causes followers to bond with the charismatic leader
Shamir 1991 Followers with unresolved conflict endow leaders with magical powers 57 Table 2.2. continued
Bryman 1992 Religious leaders have a charismatic impact during social upheaval—they can meet followers' needs; cult members often come from dysfunctional families; Alternatively, it may be easier to promulgate a vision and activate change during crisis. Howell & Avolio, Unethical charismatics solidify power 1992 base during crises; ethical leaders act properly and beyond their own self- interests
Pillai & Meindl, Followers rate leaders as more 1992 * charismatic during crisis than non- crisis 58 Table 2.3 Charismatic Leadership Theories with both Vision and Crisis Components
(see Tables 2.1 and 2.2 for details on each)
Weber 1924/1947 Tucker 1968
Willner 1968, 1984 Oberg 1972 House 1977 Tichy & Devanna 1986/1990 Trice & Beyer 1986 Conger & Kanungo 1987, 1988 Boal & Bryson 1988 Kets de Vries 1988, 1990 Roberts & Bradley 1988 Conger 1989 Bass & Avolio 1990
NOTE: Although Bennis and Nanus (1985) are associated primarily with a visionary theory of leadership, they do acknowledge that possessing a vision is beneficial during times of uncertainty; thus, vision and crisis are not mutually exclusive. CHAPTER III RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Chapter Overview It was established in the previous chapter that both vision and crisis are viable components of a theory of charismatic leadership. With the exception of Boal and Bryson (1988), no theory explicitly addresses a clear distinction between both components of charisma. Essentially, Boal and Bryson (1988) argue that followers of the two different types of charismatic leaders —visionary and crisis-induced—possess different psychological profiles: * While both types of leaders create order and meaning for their followers, visionary charismatics elicit follower responses that are (intrinsically) linked to the followers' values; in other words, followers' self-concepts are influenced by the leader. Followers are willing to perform a task because of the intrinsic rewards associated with their action. They share the values implied by the leader's articulation of some desired future state or vision. * In the case of crisis-induced charisma, follower reaction to the leader is (extrinsically) linked to the outcome of the situation. For example, followers such as military personnel often have extrinsic concerns—the successful outcome—of their efforts. They follow the
59 60 leader because they believe that he or she knows the best way to solve the crisis. The leader's actions are connected to crisis resolution. Charisma as it applies to this study is defined in terms of charismatic leader characteristics and behaviors and their effects on followers. The hypotheses presented in this chapter test aspects of Boal and Bryson's theory as well as aspects of theories presented in the previous chapter, in the context of vision versus crisis. Transactional leadership as defined by Bass (1985) and Bass and Avolio (1991) serves as a baseline for comparison of the two different charismatic types. Based on the literature discussed in the previous chapter, several leader traits and behaviors along with associated effects on followers stand out as being appropriate for this study for two primary reasons: (1) they can be induced in an experimental setting and written into scripts of leader behavior; and (2) the traits and behaviors selected for inclusion in this study have strong support in the literature on charismatic leadership.
Specifically, the leader characteristics and behaviors extracted from Boal and Bryson (and that appear elsewhere, e.g.. House 1977), which are incorporated into the independent variable (treatment), are self-confidence, vision, and confidence in followers (CIF). The outcome variables (i.e., effects on followers) in this study 61 include: (l) a general affective response comprised of satisfaction with, commitment to, and trust in the leader; (2) follower performance in both objective and subjective terms; (3) organization based self-esteem; and (4) task meaningfulness (all from Boal & Bryson 1988; among others, e.g., Bass 1985; Conger 1989), along with (5) perceptions of leader charisma taken from other theories and tests of charismatic leadership. Using perceptions of charisma as a dependent variable follows the notion that charisma is an attribution of leadership (Sashkin 1988). Selected variables are taken from Boal and Bryson in response to Butterfield's (1988) assertion that the theory offers a stimulus for leadership research.
Table 3.1 provides a recap of charismatic leadership theories suggesting the use of these variables. Also included in Table 3.1 is empirical evidence of studies that have tested relationships between these variables.
Research Hypotheses
Visionary versus Crisis-Induced versus Transactional Leadership Bass' (1985) conceptualization of two leadership dimensions treats transformational leadership as additive in the sense that it builds on or augments transactional leadership; i.e., transactional leadership is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the occurrence of transformational leadership. Empirical support for the 62 augmentation effects of transformational leadership on transactional leadership is offered by Bass and Avolio (1990). In other words, before being perceived as charismatic or transformational, leaders must first be perceived as transactional. Contingent reward behavior is an example of transactional leadership.
In this study transactional leadership is included as a baseline treatment condition against which both types of charismatic leadership are compared. The hypotheses that follow are grouped according to Boal and Bryson's Crisis/Non-Crisis distinction between the two types of charismatic leaders. The augmentation effects apply to all but the final set of hypotheses (H6).
The hypotheses presented in this chapter are based on a 3 by 2 experimental design; that is, there is one treatment, leadership behavior, which has three conditions: crisis- induced charisma, visionary charisma, and transactional leadership. Trials or time, the repeated measure, has two levels and is used only to shed light on possible changes in leader effects over time (i.e., the interaction term). This design is discussed in more detail in Chapter IV. All hypothesized relations are positive unless otherwise noted.
Before testing any formal hypotheses, manipulation
checks for the three different treatment conditions were performed. The manipulations tested were as follows: 63 Followers in the crisis treatment condition will have stronger perceptions of crisis than followers in the visionary and transactional leadership conditions.
Followers in the visionary treatment condition will have stronger perceptions of leader vision than followers in the crisis-induced and transactional leadership conditions.
Followers' perceptions of transactional leadership will be similar across all treatment conditions.
A significant finding for this last manipulation check gives further support to the augmentation effects of transformational leadership—that transformational leadership augments transactional leadership, which is used as a baseline measure of leadership in this study.
Leader Behaviors and Follower Performance
In terms of Boal and Bryson's theory (1988), it is argued that the crisis-induced charismatic leader's ability to re-establish the severed linkages between follower behavior and outcomes by effectively dealing with a crisis has a more immediate effect on followers than the visionary charismatic's attempt to link leader behavior to value systems of followers. This hypothesized relationship was also expected to be stronger for the Visionary Leadership- Performance linkage than for the Transactional Leadership- Performance linkage, as charismatic leaders in general are posited to induce performance beyond expectations (Bass 1985).
Hla: Followers' perceived or subjective performance under a crisis-induced charismatic leader is stronger than followers' perceived performance under a visionary 64 charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' perceived performance under a transactional leader. Hlb: Followers' task completion under a crisis- induced charismatic leader is stronger than followers' task completion under a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' task completion under a transactional leader. Hlc: Followers' task accuracy under a crisis-induced charismatic leader is stronger than followers' task accuracy under a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' task accuracy under a transactional leader.
Leader Behaviors and Follower Affective Outcomes Commitment. Boal and Bryson (1988) argue that leaders engaging in charismatic behaviors in times of crisis facilitate demonstration of commitment by followers. Trust. Because of the followers' extrinsic concerns with resolving a crisis, follower trust is expected to be stronger in the case of the crisis-induced leader. Satisfaction. It is hypothesized that leadership effects on followers in the crisis-induced treatment condition will be stronger than leadership effects on followers in the visionary condition in terms of follower affect (commitment, satisfaction, and trust) toward the leader. This is due to followers' strong extrinsic or outcome orientation during a crisis and the leader's ability to re-establish the severed linkage between behavior and outcomes (Boal & Bryson 1988) by leading followers through the crisis. 65 H2: Followers' affective ratings of a crisis-induced charismatic leader are stronger than followers' affective ratings of a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' affective ratings of a transactional leader.
Leader Behaviors and Follower Perceptions of Charisma Based on House's initial argument (1977) postulating a relationship between leader vision and favorable perceptions of the leader by followers, and not discounting the role of crisis, it is hypothesized that perceptions of charisma are stronger for the crisis-induced leader. H3: Followers' perceptions of charisma associated with a crisis-induced charismatic leader are stronger than followers' perceptions of charisma associated with a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' perceptions of charisma associated with a transactional leader.
Leader Behaviors and Task Meaningfulness Followers internalize leader values and goals and become connected to them. In addition, participation is meaningful to followers who are motivated by hope in a better future. Shamir et al. (1992) also propose that followers of charismatic leaders have a higher sense of meaningfulness associated with their role in terms of both job and emotional involvement of the followers in their work unit's mission. Because visionary leaders link goals to followers' self-concepts, it is hypothesized that: H4: The meaningfulness of tasks to followers under a visionary charismatic leader is stronger than the meaningfulness of tasks to followers under a crisis-induced charismatic leader, and both are stronger than the 66 meaningfulness of tasks to followers under a transactional leader.
Leader Behaviors and Organization- Based Self-Esteem
In line with the assertion by Shamir et al. (1992) that charismatic leaders implicate followers' self concepts, it is believed that followers' needs change from materialistic or extrinsic to higher order or intrinsic. Self-esteem and self-actualization are examples of higher order needs. According to Shamir et al., (1992) followers of charismatic leaders transcend their individual interests for the sake of the group or collectivity of which they are part. In line with these notions of a collectivity, organization-based self-esteem is used in this study. H5: Followers' organization-based self-esteem under a visionary charismatic leader is stronger than followers' organization-based self-esteem under a crisis-induced charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' organization-based self-esteem under a transactional leader.
The Temporary Nature of Crisis- Induced Charisma Hypotheses 1 through 3 posit a stronger charismatic effect on followers for the crisis-induced than the visionary charismatic leader. This is due to the extrinsic or outcome linkage presented by Boal and Bryson, which is expected to be of prime importance during a crisis, as defined in this study. As a result, it is expected that time will play a factor in the effects of each charismatic type. For example, visionary charismatics are expected to 67 have longer-lasting effects on followers because followers have internalized the leader's intrinsic values. The final hypotheses are in line with Boal and Bryson's argument. H6a(l): Followers' perceived performance on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' perceived performance on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or transactional leader. H6a(2): Followers' task completion of a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' task completion of a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or transactional leader. H6a(3): Followers' task accuracy on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis- induced charismatic leader. Followers' task accuracy on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. H6b: Followers' affective ratings (commitment, trust, satisfaction) of a leader on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' affective ratings of a leader on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. H6c: Followers' perceptions of leader charisma on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' perceptions of leader charisma on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. H6d: The meaningfulness of tasks to followers on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. The meaningfulness of tasks to followers on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. H6e: Followers' organization-based self-esteem on a second task will increase for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' organization-based self-esteem on a second task will remain 68 stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. Figure 3.1 provides a summary of all the hypotheses
Chapter Summary This chapter has presented the hypotheses to be tested in this study, along with supporting justification for each The next chapter presents details on the methodology which will be employed to test these hypotheses. 69 Table 3.1 Variables Used in Theories and Tests of Theories of Charismatic Leadership
Author Independent Dependent Year Variables Variables House, 1977 and Self-Confidence Trust later extensions Vision/goal articulation Perceptions Confidence in Performance followers (CIF) Commitment Self-concept Meaningful participation
Tested by:
Yukl and Van Fleet Confidence in + Commitment 1982 followers > Performance Roberts 1985 Vision + Commitment Self-Conf idence > Trust Roberts and Bradley Charismatic + Bonding 1988 Leadership > Pillai and Meindl Charismatic + Satisfaction 1991 Leadership >
Smith 1982 Confidence in + Trust followers > Self-assurance Howell and Frost Self-Confidence + Performance 1989 vision > CIF
Howell and Higgins Self-Confidence + Perceptions 1990 Vision > CIF Podsakoff et al.. Vision - Trust 1990 High Performance > Expectations (only) 70 Table 3.1. continued
Bass, 1985(1) Self-Confidence Trust Vision Performance Confidence in Satisfaction followers Bonding Perceptions Tested by:
Bass, Avolio and Vision + Perceptions Goodheim 1987 CIF > Yammarino and Bass Vision + Satisfaction 1990 > Performance Avolio and Vision + Perceptions Yammarino 1990 > Avolio, Waldman Charismatic + Performance and Einstein 1988 Leadership > Hater and Bass Vision + Satisfaction 1988 CIF >
Bennis and Nanus Vision 1985 Communication Trust Charisma Self-Respect Risk
Tested by: Sashkin and Fulmer Empowerment + Perceptions of 1985 (2) Self-Confidence > charisma Sashkin and Fulmer Charismatic + Creation of 1988 Behaviors > Culture Boal and Bryson Self-Confidence Trust 1988 Vision Performance Confidence in Commitment followers
Conger 1989 Self-Confidence Trust Vision Bonding CIF Commitment 71 Table 3.1. continued
(1) Bass' charisma dimension of transformational leadership includes vision, self-confidence, and instilling pride in subordinates (which later became a separate dimension of inspiration) (2) Self-confidence and vision are included in Sashkin's leader characteristics dimension of visionary leadership 72
Crisis Visionary Transactional Treatment Treatment Treatment Condition Condition Condition Hla: Subjective weakest Performance is STRONGEST Hlb: Task weakest Completion is STRONGEST Hlc: Task Accuracy weakest is STRONGEST H2: Affect toward weakest leader is STRONGEST H3: Perceptions weakest of leader charisma are STRONGEST H4: Task weakest Meaningfulness is STRONGEST H5: Organization- weakest Based Self- Esteem is STRONGEST Figure 3.1 Summary of Hypotheses 73
Previous Previous Previous Crisis Visionary Transactional Treatment Treatment Treatment Condition Condition Condition H6al: Perceived Stable Stable performance decreases H6a2: Task Stable Stable Completion decreases H6a3: Task Accuracy Stable Stable decreases H6b: Affect toward Stable Stable leader decreases H6c: Perceptions Stable Stable of charisma decrease H6d: Task Meaning Stable Stable fulness decreases H6e: Organization- Stable Stable Based Self- Esteem INCREASES
Figure 3.1. continued CHAPTER IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Chapter Overview
This chapter describes the research design of the study. The context of the research is first described, followed by a discussion of measurement of the variables tested. A description of the research sample is provided with emphasis on unit and level of analysis issues regarding data collection, as the specification of both in leadership research has not been done to the degree that is necessary for purposes of generalizing findings (Yammarino & Bass 1990). A combination of units of analyses was used.
Experimental procedures including pilot studies and data collection are then described. Figure 4.1 is a diagram summarizing the essence of the flow of this experiment and will be elaborated on throughout the following pages. This chapter also includes a discussion of the scripts used in the experiment as well as selection of leaders.
Context: The Laboratory
This research project used an experimental design with three different treatment conditions (leader behaviors).
Scripts were prepared to manipulate leader behavior and are included in Appendices A, B, and C. Transactional leadership is distinguished from visionary charismatic
74 75 leadership, and both of these are distinguished from crisis- induced charismatic leadership. Subscales from Bass and Avolio's (1991) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X (1991) were used in the development of each leader script so as to capture the necessary elements of the transactional and charismatic, particularly the visionary, leadership treatments. The crisis script was based on the transactional script and added components to induce a crisis and to reflect the leader's response to the crisis. These are discussed in the following section.
Manipulation Checks Manipulation Check for Crisis Condition As defined earlier, a crisis is a situation that threatens high-priority goals and occurs suddenly, with little response time available (Jick & Murray 1982). Bryson (1981) posits that a crisis exists when a system is needed to handle a situation for which existing resources, mechanisms, and the like are inadequate. According to Barton (1993), "A crisis is a major, unpredictable event that has potentially negative results" (p. 2); its aftermath may be significantly damaging to an organization. In this study the group of followers assigned to the crisis condition learned of an unexpected change in their task, to one that was more critical than expected. The task 76 was more critical in terms of participants being rewarded for participating in the task; an all or nothing reward system was explained to subjects in the crisis treatment condition. In addition, they had less time than the other two experimental groups to complete their assigned tasks (i.e., 20 minutes or two-thirds of the time allotted the other two treatment conditions). Manipulation checks for the existence of the crisis condition were adapted from Lentner (1972). Four items were used, including uncertainty, threats to one's goals and objectives relevant to the task, restricted time to complete task, and stress and tension experienced.
Manipulation Checks for Visionary and Transactional Leadership Conditions Manipulation checks for leader vision included four items adapted from Bass and Avolio (1991) to fit the context of the laboratory design. They included explanation of the importance of the task; transmission of a sense of vision for Texas Tech University (TTU); the suggestion that TTU's reputation is not as good as it should be; and leader expression of optimism for the future of TTU. The third item was ultimately dropped from the visionary manipulation check due to low reliability. This will be explained further in the analyses in Chapter V. Transactional leadership was measured in terms of leader contingent reward behavior; initially. 77 management-by-exception (passive) was used, but as is revealed in the next chapter, very low reliabilities resulted in the management-by-exception items being dropped. Contingent reward behavior was comprised of four-item subscales taken from Bass and Avolio's seven-item subscale (1991). This particular measure of transactional leadership is appropriate given the context of this study. Students served as subjects and expected to receive course credit for their involvement. The notion of the leader explaining what the students would receive in return for their involvement was written into all three leadership scripts.
Outcome Measures The dependent variables in this study included three measures of follower performance (one subjective and two objective); a combination of items tapping commitment to leader, trust in, and satisfaction with leader which is collectively referred to as "affect"; overall perceptions of charisma; organization-based self-esteem; and task meaningfulness to followers. These variables appear in the right-hand column of Figure 4.1. As is explained in the analyses chapter, commitment, trust and satisfaction were combined as a result of a factor analysis of the data. All variables except the two objective measures of task performance and the 78 organization-based self-esteem measure used 5-point Likert scales (l=not at all, to 5=frequently if not always). The first measure of performance, which was an individual measure, was followers' perceptions of their performance taken from the MLQ Form 5X Extra Effort subscale. It consists of three items, including: [leader] heightens my motivation to succeed; [leader] gets me to do more than I expected I could do; and [leader] motivates me to do more than I thought I could do. Follower task performance was the only group measure and was measured objectively in two ways: accuracy of each task worked on and completion rate of each task. In the crisis treatment condition completion rate was adjusted to account for the lesser amount of time subjects had to complete the first of two tasks (i.e., two-thirds of the time the other treatment conditions had for the first task). All remaining outcome variables were individual measures. As previously noted, a general measure of follower affect or general satisfaction towards the leader resulted from a factor analysis of items measuring commitment, trust, and satisfaction. Commitment to leader initially used six items adapted from Cook and Wall's (1980) measure of organizational commitment. Sample items retained include: Did you feel proud to be working with your leader? and. Would the offer of a few more course points—if you worked with a different leader—be appealing? 79 Trust in leader used two items from Podsakoff et al. (1990) and four items from Morgan (1991). Sample items retained include: Would you support your leader in an emergency? and. Do you feel your leader can be trusted?
Satisfaction with leader used both items from the MLQ Form 5X: In all, how satisfied are you with the leadership abilities of the person you are rating? and. In all, how satisfied are you with the methods of leadership used by the person you are rating to get your group's task done? Satisfaction also included one question. Did you enjoy working with your leader?, based on Bryman's (1992) discussion of charisma. Overall perceptions of charisma include six items developed specifically for this study. For example: Did your leader appear self-confident? charismatic? exceptional (Bryman 1992) or extraordinary? have a vision of the future? and, have confidence in you? These items were based on the literature review discussed in Chapter II and the recurring use of leader vision, self-confidence, and the like used in various theories and past studies of charismatic leadership. Perceptions of charisma were included as outcome variables in order to distinguish among the varying degrees of charisma present in the three different treatment conditions, as well as to examine the notion that charisma is an attribution of leader charismatic behavior. 80 Organization-based self-esteem was measured using three items adapted from Pierce, Gardner, Cummings and Dunham's (1989) Organization-Based Self-Esteem instrument. These questions relate to the work performed by the followers and also used a 5-point scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). Sample items include: I can make a difference around here; and, I am taken seriously around here. Finally, meaningfulness of tasks performed was measured using three items adapted from Hackman and Oldham's (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey. Sample items include: Can a lot of people be affected one way or another by the work which was done on the task you just performed? and. Was the work on the task you just performed meaningful to you?
Research Sample Convenience Sample The theoretical population for this research project consists of all upper-level undergraduate business students (nationwide). The population of reality consists of Texas Tech upper-level undergraduate business majors—seniors. Thus, a "selective" convenience sample was used for this research. The sample is convenient in that it consists of undergraduate college students. It is selective in the sense that it was comprised of students enrolled in seven different sections of a senior-level management course (MGT 81 4380, Administrative Policy). The vast majority of this sample consists of students who graduated at the end of the semester in which the data were collected; thus, it is believed that the sample is "sophisticated" in two regards. First, the students have had previous management courses and should have been in a good position to perform the tasks involved. Most of them would have been entering the work force as full-time employees and/or supervisors within a few weeks after the study was conducted. Second, they include a mix of College of Business Administration (COBA) students (e.g., management, accounting, etc.), which is characteristic of the capstone Administrative Policy course. The nature of the tasks they performed is in line with the strategic management concepts studied in MGT 4380, as will be explained in the Procedures section of this chapter. Enrollment in each of the seven sections was between 30 and 35 students. Instructors in four sections made the students' participation in a "University-Related Strategic Planning Project" a course requirement, worth up to 5% of their grades. The remaining sections made participation part of an extra-credit option, worth between 5% and 10% of their grades. However, as the scripts in Appendices A-C reveal (in particular, the crisis-induced leader script in Appendix C), student subjects were never guaranteed that they would 82 receive full credit for participation. The leader explained that awarding of points was tied to the subjects' task performance. Besides the course points reward aspect of participation, there was a learning payoff as well. Not only should they have learned more about charismatic leadership and the research process in general (in the debriefings), students should also have learned about the implications of national rankings of universities and how that process works, because of the nature of the tasks they performed. Finally, before the experiment was conducted the MGT 4380 instructors informed the researcher that strategic leadership concepts had already been discussed in their classes. It is believed that any hypotheses formulated by subjects about what they thought occurred during the experiment differed randomly across treatment conditions. Written approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Texas Tech University Human Subjects Committee and is included as Appendix D. An example of a consent form completed by each participant is included in Appendix E.
Power and Sample Size Power refers to the sensitivity of experiments to detect real differences when they exist, and sample size or n is normally used to control power. In addition to n, power is a function of alpha and effect size (omega 83 squared). Effect size indicates the percent of variance due to the experimental treatment (Keppel 1991).
The findings of Howell and Frost's (1989) experiment revealed effect sizes for leadership style and outcome variables (i.e., task performance) ranging from .102 to .149. Cohen (1977) labels effect sizes based on specific values for research in the social sciences. For example, .06 is considered medium and .15 is considered a large effect size (Keppel 1991, p. 72). Since is it better to be cautious and underestimate omega squared (Keppel 1991), a medium effect size (i.e., .06) was used in this study to determine appropriate sample size. According to Cohen (1977), power of .8 is reasonable in the behavioral sciences for detecting significant differences between treatment conditions. In this study (using an alpha of .05), power of .9 may be achieved with a sample size of 57 for each treatment condition, or 57 x 3 = 171 total subjects. This experiment was designed to accommodate between 180 and 210 subjects. It turned out that sample size for each condition was between 54 and 70, which should provide adequate power for this experiment for the individual level of analysis.
A cross-check of power is provided by the Pearson and Hartley Power Charts (1951). Using an average of the effect sizes reported by Howell and Frost (1989) of .13, and a sample size of 60 for each treatment condition results in 84 power between .9 and .95. Thus, it is believed that a maximum sample size of 180 achieves sufficient power to lessen the chances of Type 2 error. By reducing the potential for Type 2 error the probability of detecting differences between the treatment conditions is increased. This study had a sample size of 184 individuals or 37 groups.
Unit of Analysis The unit of analysis refers to the object of study— individual, group, organization or society (Robinson 1972). Rousseau defines level of analysis as "the unit to which the data are assigned for hypothesis testing and statistical analysis" (1985, p. 4). This study uses both group and individual units of analysis. In a typical work setting, groups of employees produce a product or service (i.e., performance), yet employees have individual perceptions of their managers. Groups of five students worked together on a task in each treatment condition; in one case a group was comprised of 4 students. Although subjects worked on tasks as a group, they answered questionnaires individually for purposes of this study. The level of explanation of hypothesized relationships is a combination of individual (e.g., for perceptual measures) and of group (e.g., performance). The individual 85 unit of analysis is consistent with most theories of charismatic leadership (e.g., Avolio & Yammarino 1990; House 1977), although Boal and Bryson (1988) do allow for the group unit of analysis.
In terms of follower performance, the group unit of analysis is consistent with the writings of Avolio et al. (1988) , Waldman, Bass and Einstein (1987), and Yammarino and Bass (1990) on transformational leadership. The latter two call for individuals as well as groups to be included in leadership research. The criterion measure of performance, both accuracy and completion rate, is at the group unit of analysis.
The remaining outcome variables in this study (subjective performance, follower affect toward leader, perceptions of charisma, organization-based self-esteem, and task meaningfulness) measure individual perceptions of leadership behavior at the individual unit of analysis. Thus, it is believed that analysis of both group performance as well as individual perceptions is justified in this study.
Procedures Tasks During the experiment subjects as well as leaders were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions. There were two groups of five members per treatment 86 condition in a room along with one leader per room (treatment condition). Due to the challenging nature of the tasks subjects performed, which required cognitive as opposed to mechanical skills, groups of five were deemed appropriate. Leaders and subjects were randomly assigned to one of two lab rooms.
For every 10 students signing up for a 2-hour session, there was one "extra" sign-up slot. The "extra" was to be used in case of a participant not showing up at the assigned time, in order to keep group size constant. Extra students worked individually on the same tasks as the groups in the experiment. However, task performance of these extra individuals was not included in the data analyzed and reported in this study. The study was designed such that two groups of five subjects each would work under the direction of one leader in a room. While the groups were working on a task or completing a questionnaire, a curtain that divides the room was kept closed. The use of two groups in one room revealed no problems in two pilot studies nor any problems during the actual experiment. Groups of subjects worked on two tasks related to university rankings as published annually by US News & World Report (USN&WR). The first task consisted of prioritizing each of 20 cost-cutting and revenue-enhancing measures 87 likely to be taken by college presidents (USN&WR. September 28, 1992, p. 101). In addition to prioritizing each action, groups justified their prioritization in one or two well- articulated sentences. This task is considered "strategic" in nature and especially appropriate for the research sample (senior-level administrative policy students), because it involves decision making activities along with potential long-term implications of various prioritization decisions. In each of the three treatment conditions at Time 1 subjects performed the same task. Treatment manipulations were created via the leader's verbal and nonverbal behaviors and, in addition, by time pressure in the crisis condition. For Time 1, the task used in the two noncrisis conditions is included in Appendix F and the task used in the crisis condition is included in Appendix G. The second task (Time 2) is identical because all subjects were exposed only to transactional leadership; the second task appears in Appendix H. In both noncrisis conditions (Time 1), subjects had 30 minutes to complete the task and were provided handouts free of any errors (see Appendix F). In the crisis-induced leadership condition, subjects had 20 minutes to complete the task and received handouts with two "planted" typographical errors in Item #2 and Item #16 which the leader corrected on the spot (see Appendix G). 88 The crisis-induced leader's script included wording to the effect that the leader's experience in the Dean of Students' Office and his familiarity with the University President's views on such measures made him believe the degree of importance associated with these two items, which he shared with the groups. This addition reinforced the notion of the leader assisting followers in a crisis.
This script reflects Boal and Bryson's (1988) contention that the leader's response to the crisis and not the situation itself determines charisma. Besides the time difference for Task 1 between the crisis and noncrisis conditions, the crisis-induced leader's behavior contained explicit elements of working with the groups of subjects to help them complete the task. Leader statements regarding awarding of course points, which is also discussed in this chapter, differed in the crisis condition. As indicated in all three scripts (Appendices A-C), this prioritizing task was framed in terms of a national competition sponsored by USN&WR to win one of three new slots for "up and coming" universities to be included in the 1993 edition of college rankings. Performance was objectively measured in two ways.
First, completion rate was based on the number of items out of 18 on the first task completed; the two items with planted errors in the crisis were omitted in all three treatment conditions in determining completion rate. 89 Second, accuracy was determined by comparing each group's categorization with actual percentages reported in USN&WR (see Appendix I); percentages greater than or equal to 50 percent were considered Primary and others were considered Secondary. This distinction was based on the results of an actual survey of deans and college presidents reported in USN&WR which appears in Appendix I. Again, on the first task, a percentage of correct responses based on 18 total was used.
All individuals completed a questionnaire individually and anonymously after working on the first task (see Appendix J). This instrument was comprised of the manipulation check measures, leader behaviors, and scales measuring followers' subjective performance, commitment to, trust in, and satisfaction with the leader, along with perceptions of charisma, organization-based self-esteem, task meaningfulness, and cohesion. Measures included in the statistical analyses conducted for the study reported here are followed by an asterisk (*) in Appendix J. As shown in Figure 4.1, the first questionnaire (Appendix J) was administered immediately after the first task. It included biographic items that do not appear on the second questionnaire (Appendix K). After completing the first questionnaire, subjects were given a 10-minute break. In the two noncrisis treatment conditions, subjects were told at the start of the 90 experiment that they would have a 10-minute break. In the crisis-induced leadership condition, subjects were told they would have a 5-10 minute break, but the leader's script later explained why a 10-minute break was in order. It was intended for the crisis-induced leader to explicitly acknowledge the pressure (crisis) the subjects experienced by telling them that they deserved a longer (10-minute) break for their efforts. Thus, provision was made for all three treatment conditions to have a 10-minute break.
As noted earlier, after the break all groups worked on an identical second task which appears in Appendix H (also see Figure 4.1). In accordance with statistics reported in USN&WR (9/28/92) , groups were asked to review eight criteria currently being used in the USN&WR rankings of national universities. Using Tech's current statistics in each of these rankings, they were asked to recommend more stringent yet reasonable targets for each to move TTU into Quartile 2 over the next 7 years (by the year 2000) . This second task is also related to strategic management notions and appropriate for the research sample because of its emphasis on long-term goals of the university. Each group had 15 minutes to work on the second task. In the second task completion rate was based on a total of 8 items. Performance accuracy was objectively measured by comparing each group's categorization with average 91 statistics on the eight criteria as reported in USN&WR for Quartile 2 schools (see Appendix L). The second task is the repeated measures part of the design and is included to see if the charismatic effects of both types of leaders are lasting. All individuals completed a questionnaire individually and anonymously after working on the second task (see Appendix K). As part of a larger study, at the end of the second questionnaire each group was asked to openly discuss and arrive at a group rating for the last six questions related to the leader in their room. The second questionnaire (Appendix K) was administered immediately after the second task (see Figure 4.1). It is essentially identical to the first questionnaire (Appendix J) except that the biographic items have been deleted and it was printed on a different color of paper—green—so that it could be clearly distinguished by the subjects from the first questionnaire they completed. Pilot studies indicated a general preference for the colored questionnaire to be green. As noted at the bottom of Figure 4.1, upon completion of the second questionnaire participants were debriefed by the researcher. The initial debriefing included a statement to the effect that the students participated in a study involving leadership of groups of student-followers. Participants were also told that the purpose of the study 92 was to determine how their perceptions were affected by the leader and the tasks. They were thanked for their participation and asked not to speak to anyone about their involvement so that they would not influence future participants. Groups were reminded that once the entire study was completed, the researcher would come into each class to provide a more detailed or final debriefing (e.g., how the leader behavior was manipulated and number of points awarded for participation) and answer any questions they might have.
Data Collection and Research Instruments
Earlier in this chapter the development of the research instruments was described (Appendices J and K include a copy of both questionnaires administered to subjects in this study). The previous section also discussed when during the experiment the instruments were administered (see Figure 4.1) . Optical scanning sheets were used for subjects to respond to the questionnaire at both times. Purchase of scantron sheets guaranteed one free reading from the university computing facilities. This facilitated the data being automatically transferred to a computer file and also lessened the chance of data input errors. 93 Scripts for Different Types of Leaders As noted earlier, scripts for each of the three leadership treatment conditions were developed after a thorough reading of the literature and were refined as a result of pilot studies. Leader behaviors as described in existing theories and past studies (discussed in Chapter II) were written to correspond with the nature of the tasks being performed by the followers. The crisis condition script was based on Boal and Bryson's (1988) conceptualization of crisis-induced charisma, which does not separate leadership from the crisis situation. As a starting point, the experimental script for the charismatic leader in Howell and Frost (1989) was obtained. Leader behaviors were scripted to fit with the variables extracted from the literature to be tested in this study. Finally, as the questionnaire was developed, scale items were selected to correspond to both leader behaviors (treatment conditions) and effects on followers. For example, the visionary charismatic leader's script contained expressions of a sense of optimism and transmission of a sense of vision for the university.
Selection of Leaders Three male students in their mid-20's to early 30's volunteered to serve as leaders in the study. In order to portray the role of a leader it was important that all of 94 the leaders were graduate students, so they would not be perceived as peers by the subjects. A related issue was their appearance of maturity. One leader had military-type leadership experience and the other two had leadership experience related to university activities (e.g., teaching lower-level leadership courses and/or holding leadership positions in campus organizations.) All three leaders alternated enacting all three leadership roles in a random sequence: crisis-induced, visionary, and transactional leader. Since the study took place at different times of the day and over a 2-week period, leaders regularly rotated the three leader roles in order to avoid confounding leader behavior with some external variable such as time of semester, practice effects, order effects and the like. Each leader performed one "cycle" of all three roles in random order and that cycle was repeated as necessary to accommodate all participants. Leader treatment conditions were also rotated across rooms; use of rooms was also initially determined randomly (see Appendix M). Subjects were randomly assigned to the three different treatment conditions.
In addition to detailed scripts, leaders had access to
videotapes of each other participating in pilot studies in
order to prepare themselves for the experiment. Rehearsals
were scheduled during the month prior to the dissertation 95 proposal defense and the beginning of the experiment to better prepare each leader for each type of behavior.
When the actual experiment began, leaders were asked to fill out debriefing sheets during the break between the first and second tasks, and at the end of each session. The leader debriefing sheets were used to note any irregularities occurring during the session. A sample form is provided as Appendix N.
Only males performed the leader roles. A review of the empirical literature on past studies of transformational and charismatic leaders revealed a predominance of male leaders. Female leaders were used in Howell and Frost's (1989) experiment and in Roberts (1985) case study of a school superintendent. In Pillai and Meindl's (1991) experiment, gender of the leader had no significant effect on ratings of charisma. It is believed that use of males was appropriate in this study.
Pilot Studies Several pilot studies were conducted to test variations of the two charismatic leader scripts. As mentioned earlier, the information gained from each pilot study was used to modify the basic scripts and the version of each script used in the actual study. These final versions are included in Appendices A, B, and C. 96 Early manipulations for inducing a crisis included a sudden change in assigned task, which was consistent with elements of surprise in the crisis literature (Jick & Murray 1982) . In one pilot case the task was changed a few minutes after subjects had commenced work on it. Based on the pilot studies, it was decided that an all or nothing reward program (regarding task quality and completion) was the most effective method of generating a crisis among subjects, along with a severe time constraint for task completion, and explicit mention of task difficulty (see Appendix C). When the project was first introduced to students, they were informed that they could earn some percentage of their course grade or earn extra credit for participating; initially no guarantees that they would earn full credit were explicitly made. In addition, it was necessary to explain to the subjects the reason for using the College of Business Administration (COBA) behavioral lab (which has one-way mirrors and a control room visible to participants) so as to dismiss any suspicions on their part that might influence the responses. Suspicions consistently arose and were expressed during the earlier pilot studies. In the actual experiment this issue was dealt with by having the researcher introduce the leader to each group of subjects, and inviting the students to tour the facility if they felt uncomfortable with the physical setting. A copy of the 97 researcher's introduction to each session and mini- debriefing following each session is included as Appendix O. Results of pilot studies of visionary leadership indicated the need for the leader to place more emphasis on the news headlines appearing on a poster in the room (i.e., pointing to it more often) and stressing changes in the status quo to affect stronger perceptions of vision. Some of the headlines read: "Self-study survey targets Tech's quality" and "College students tell state legislators that funding cuts must end." Table 4.1 lists means and standard deviations for the most recent pilot studies on crisis-induced and visionary charismatic leadership occurring prior to the actual experiment. Means presented suggest that the manipulations were effective. Acquiescence response error, the tendency of the respondent to want to agree with whatever a questionnaire item says, may be a function of one's position (i.e., the respondent) relative to an object (i.e., the leader). Mitchell (1973) describes this error as courtesy bias. An experiment by Korukonda and Hunt (1989) revealed a similar concern with bias of subjects responding toward or away from what they thought the hypotheses were. This did surface as a potential problem in the pilot study debriefings. To reduce this potential bias in the actual study respondents were assured of anonymity. In addition, the 98 leader was absent from the room while respondents completed questionnaires. At no time were the questionnaires or answer sheets in the leaders' hands; they were in an envelope placed on each group's table by the researcher before the leader and subjects entered the room. At the end of each session the researcher collected the envelopes.
Timing of the Experiment
The actual study was conducted during a 2-week period shortly after spring break. Evening and weekend sessions were held during the period April 5 through April 18, 1993, with no sessions being held during the period April 7-12, 1993, which included Easter weekend. Sign-up sheets were available to students before spring break began.
Chapter Summarv
This chapter presented the methodology used to test the hypotheses presented in the previous chapter. Scale measurement, the sampling procedure, experimental procedures and manipulations, and the research instruments used to collect the data were also discussed. 99
c t^ vo o o CO t^ f^j in m CN o CT^ IT) rH iH •H CO 4) rH 00 VD 00 U CN in o in Research Transactional Visionary Crisis Follower Questions Leadership Induced Effects Are Contingent Transactional -Individual there 2 Reward (Contingent Reward) Performance different (Perceived) types of Vision, Self- -Group charisma? Conf idence. Performance Confidence in (Objective) Followers Internal External -Affect Correspondence toward Leader Three different lea'der scripts. Task 1 -Perceptions ^ of Charisma Questionnaire #1 •Organization Based Self- Esteem, OBSE BREAK -Task Mean ingfulness Do effects on Expect followers Crisis- change over Induced time? Identical transactional Charisma to leader scripts. Task 2 weaken in all cases N' but OBSE Questionnaire #2 where it strengthens MINI-DEBRIEFING FINAL DEBRIEFING Figure 4.1. Diagrammatic Flow of Study CHAPTER V DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Chapter Overview As outlined in Chapter I, this study sought to answer the question, Can charisma exist in both crisis and noncrisis situations facing leaders, and, if so, do the two types of charisma differ in terms of their effects on followers? To answer the research question, several preliminary analyses were performed. These include a description of the sample, factor analysis, scale reliabilities, and manipulation checks of the treatment conditions. The sample will be described and the preliminary analyses will be explained before presenting the results of the analyses related to the hypotheses outlined in Chapter III. The last part of this chapter presents an ad hoc analysis that attempts to explain some of the findings reported in this study. Description of the Sample The sample in this study was comprised of 184 subjects, 59% male and 41% female, all students in seven different sections of the capstone Administrative Policy course. Ninety-three percent expected to graduate at the end of the semester during which the study was conducted; six percent 101 102 the following (summer) semester; and one percent expected to graduate at the end of the year. Thus, all expected to graduate within six months of the experiment. Ten percent had less than one year of work experience; 21% had between 1 and 2 years; 35% had between 3 and 4 years; 18% had between 5 and 6 years; and 16% had more than 6 years of work experience. Sixty-five percent ranged in age from 20-22 years; 28% were between 23 and 25; 3% were between 26 and 28; and 4% were above age 28. Ninety-eight percent of the subjects were pursuing majors in the College of Business Administration; 2% were nonbusiness majors. Fourteen percent of the sample were management majors. Of the non- management majors, there were 37% marketing majors; 28% accounting majors, 23% finance majors, 9% Management Information Systems majors, and 3% majoring in General Business. The subjects were exposed to the three treatment conditions as follows: 54 (29% of the sample) in treatment condition 1, transactional; 70 (38% of the sample) in treatment condition 2, visionary; and 60 (33% of the sample) in treatment condition 3, crisis. There were 36 groups of 5 students and one group of 4 involved in the experiment. The three leaders in this study participated in all three treatment conditions. Thirty-five percent of the students were exposed to Leader 1, 43% to Leader 2, and 22% 103 to Leader 3. When asked about any previous knowledge they had about the study, 40% responded "none," 41% "very little," 12% "some," 5% "a fair amount," and 2% responded "very much." These responses occurred randomly across treatments. Scale Validation A number of items were used from several different sources (see Chapter IV) to define key variables in the study. To determine which subset of items should be included in the tests of hypotheses, factor analysis was conducted. The initial factor analysis included all six items measuring trust, all three items measuring satisfaction, all six commitment items, all three items measuring task meaningfulness, and all three items measuring organization- based self-esteem. These scales appear in Appendix J in items 50-79, marked by asterisks. None of the three separate performance measures (extra effort and performance; task accuracy; and task completion) were included in the factor analysis, nor were the six items measuring perceptions of charisma. The perceptions of charisma items created for this study were deemed to be akin to Bass and Avolio's (1991) subscales and were included to link this research to the existing leadership literature. As noted in Chapter III, separating perceptions of charisma as such is 104 in line with Sashkin's (1988) argument that charisma is an attribution or an outcome of leader behavior. Results of factor analysis on these dependent variables indicated reduction to three factors with eigenvalues of 6.35, 2.22 and 1.26 at Time 1; and 7.20, 2.67, and .93 at Time 2. Of the total variance explained at Time 1, 59% was due to Factor 1, 21% was due to Factor 2, and 20% was due to Factor 3. At Time 2, 58% of the total variance explained was due to Factor 1, 23% was due to Factor 2, and 19% was due to Factor 3. Table 5.1 shows the results of the factor analysis. The factors are independent. Factor loadings greater than .40 are flagged by an asterisk in Table 5.1. Varimax rotation for both time periods resulted in a general affect toward leader factor comprised of three satisfaction (SAT) measures, five trust (TRST) measures, and two commitment (CMT) measures; a second factor measuring task meaningfulness comprised of the original three items; and a third factor for organization- based self-esteem, also comprised of the original three items. Intercorrelations among the manipulation checks are included in Table 5.2 and intercorrelations among these new dependent measures are included in Table 5.3. Table 5.4 contains intercorrelations between the two objective performance measures at each time period; these are group as opposed to individual measures. 105 Correlations among the manipulation checks and individual-level dependent variables only (perceived performance, general affect, perceptions, organization-based self-esteem, and task meaningfulness) are included in Table 5.5. Group-level dependent variables (both objective performance measures, task accuracy and completion) are not included since the manipulation checks are based on individual and not on group responses. Tables of correlations (Tables 5.2 through 5.5) are provided for information only, as the hypotheses in this study are addressed via Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which detects group differences based on mean values and variances. Each of the manipulation checks and dependent variables used in this study was assumed to be a unidimensional "construct." Reliability of each scale was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Internal consistency reliabilities for the scales, all of which were multiple-item scales, were considered satisfactory if they exceeded a value of .6 (Nunnally 1978). Table 5.6 reports reliabilities for the manipulation checks and dependent variables used in this study. Manipulation Checks The treatment in this study, leader behavior, had three conditions: transactional, visionary, and crisis-induced. Manipulation checks consisted of three sets of items 106 corresponding to the three types of leadership conditions, two of which serve as an initial test of Boal and Bryson's (1988) charismatic leadership theory. These are more stringent tests of the manipulations than using one item or construct. After a test of reliability of each leadership construct using Cronbach's alpha, the number of items for the visionary construct was reduced to three. As shown in Table 5.6, reliabilities for transactional leadership were .65 at Time 1 and .77 at Time 2; reliabilities for visionary leadership were .62 at Time 1 and .78 at Time 2; and reliabilities for the crisis manipulation check were .62 at Time 1 and .61 at Time 2. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the experimental manipulations. It was expected that subjects in all three conditions would have similar perceptions of transactional leadership, as all three treatment conditions contained the same elements of transactional leadership. Transactional items included contingent reward notions as follows: Did the leader make clear what you can expect, if your performance meets designated standards? Did the leader provide his assistance in exchange for your effort? Did your leader tell you what to do to be rewarded for your efforts? and Did your leader express his satisfaction when you did a good job? 107 As shown in Table 5.7, the F test was not significant. These results indicate that all subjects perceived their leader to be transactional to a similar degree. Next, it was expected that subjects in the visionary leadership condition would have stronger perceptions of visionary leadership than would subjects in the crisis and transactional leadership conditions. Items measuring the visionary manipulation included: Did the leader clearly explain the importance of this task? Did your leader transmit a sense of vision [for the university]? Did your leader express optimism [for the future of the university]? As a result of a significant F test, F (2,181)=12.11 (p < .0001), Tukey's Studentized Range revealed that in the visionary leadership condition the visionary mean (4.43) was significantly higher than the crisis (3.93) and transactional (3.85) means (see Table 5.7). These results indicate that the manipulation was effective with regard to subjects' perceptions of visionary leadership. Last, it was expected that subjects in the crisis condition would have stronger perceptions of a crisis occurring than would subjects in the visionary and transactional leadership conditions. Crisis items included: Did you find your experience uncertain? Did you feel any threat to your goals and objectives regarding your work? Was there time pressure associated with completion of the task? and Did you experience stress or tension? 108 As a result of a significant F test, F(2,181)=11.13 (p < .0001), follow-up analysis using Tukey's Studentized Range revealed that in the crisis condition the crisis mean (3.43) was significantly higher than the visionary (2.90) and transactional (2.79) means (see Table 5.7). These results indicate that the manipulation was effective with regard to subjects' perceptions of a crisis. Thus, the manipulations for the three treatment conditions were effective. Analyses Related to Hypotheses All hypotheses were tested with ANOVA. Planned comparisons were used to test for differences among the three types of leadership in terms of effects on followers after completing the first task. These are tests of main effects for the leadership treatment factor (Hla through H5) . The last set of hypotheses (H6a through H6e) also used planned comparisons to test for interactions between the leadership treatment effect and time, to determine whether leader effects change over time. However, this study made no predictions about the main effect of time. Both individual and group measures of outcome variables were analyzed. Two objective measures of performance (task accuracy and task completion) were based on the group unit of analysis. The scores for both of these performance measures were first standardized because of the varying degree of task difficulty associated with the two tasks 109 performed; the second task was less difficult than the first task. Use of z-scores for task accuracy and task performance make the scores on both tasks comparable. Nonresponse error (Assael & Keon 1982) or missing data values were minimal; approximately 20 points out of 32,2 00 possible data points filled in by the subjects were blank. A table of random numbers was used to assign a response. Use of random numbers was restricted to those within the 5- point range of responses applicable to the questions asked (Neter, Wasserman & Kutner 1989, p. 37). Otherwise, nonresponse error was not problematic. Results of hypotheses tests are discussed next. ANOVA summary results are included in Table 5.8, and means of dependent variables in all treatment conditions are included in Table 5.9. Primary Results Overview. A discussion earlier in this chapter revealed that the manipulations for the three different treatment conditions were effective. The following paragraphs discuss the analyses and results for all subsequent hypotheses. This study is a 3 by 2 experimental design. There were three levels of leadership treatment (transactional, visionary, and crisis-induced) and two levels of a repeated measure (time). Leader treatment constitutes the main 110 factor of this design, and time is used in tests of interactions. Any significant interaction between treatment and time indicates that leader treatment effects on followers change over time. Data were analyzed using the SAS ANOVA program. SAS output for ANOVA using a mixed design reveals any significant effects in three areas: between subjects (main effect for treatment), within subjects (main effect for time, or the repeated measure), and the interaction of these. The between subjects analysis tests for differences in means across the three treatment conditions or groups of subjects. These between-subjects tests correspond to Hypotheses 1-5 in Figure 3.1. This study utilized planned comparisons for the hypotheses stated in Chapter III. The Bonferroni multiple comparison statistical procedure was used for these comparisons. Use of an a priori statistical procedure is in line with Castaneda, Levin and Dunham's (1993) recommendation that the Bonferroni technique, which also adjusts for familywise error, be used as an alternative to omnibus F tests. The Tukey test used in the SAS analyses controlled for familywise error for the entire set of pairwise comparisons hypothesized. Although the results of F tests are reported in this section, analyses for treatment main effects included use of the Bonferroni procedure, regardless of outcome of the F tests. Ill The within subjects analysis tests for significance of dependent variable means due to time. Although main effects for time were not hypothesized in this study, any significant findings are reported in this chapter. The interaction tests for any changes in treatment or leader effects on dependent variables across the two time periods. Tests for interaction correspond to Hypotheses 6a- 6e in Figure 3.1. The primary advantage of using a mixed design is the reduction of error term that occurs when the within-subjects factor (i.e., time) is included. The within-subjects factor makes the F test more sensitive to the presence of treatment effects. Perceived performance. Hypothesis la states: Followers' perceived performance under a crisis-induced charismatic leader is stronger than followers' perceived performance under a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' perceived performance under a transactional leader. As shown in Table 5.8, there was a main effect of treatment on perceived performance; F (2,181) = 3.77, p < .05. Post- hoc Tukey tests revealed that perceived performance was significantly different in the visionary and transactional treatment conditions at Time 2 (p < .05). As shown in Table 5.9, the visionary mean (2.93) was larger than the transactional mean (2.38). Perceived performance was also significantly different in the crisis and transactional treatment conditions at Time 112 2 (p < .05). As Table 5.9 shows, the crisis mean was larger (2.89). No other differences were revealed. Hypothesis la is hence partially supported. Hypothesis 6a(1) states: Followers' perceived performance on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' perceived performance on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary or transactional leader. Neither time nor the interaction between treatment and time were significant (F < 1 in both cases); see Table 5.8. There was no change in perceived performance across time due to exposure to a particular leader treatment at Time 1. Thus, Hypothesis 6a(1) is not supported. Task completion. Hypothesis lb states: Followers' task completion under a crisis-induced charismatic leader is stronger than followers' task completion under a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' task completion under a transactional leader. As shown in Table 5.8, there was a main effect of treatment on task completion; F (2,34) = 13.99, p < .0001. Post-hoc Tukey tests revealed that the standardized crisis mean for task completion rate (1.22) was larger than the transactional mean (-.48) (p < .05) at Time 1 and that the crisis mean (1.22) was larger than the visionary mean (-.67) at Time 1 (p < .05); see Table 5.9. However, transactional and visionary leaders did not differ in their effects on task completion rate as predicted. Hypothesis lb is partially supported. 113 Hypothesis 6a2 states: Followers' task completion of a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' task completion of a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or transactional leader. There was no main effect of time on task completion rate, F < 1. As shown in Table 5.8, there was a significant interaction between leadership treatment and time for task completion; F (2,34) = 10.23, p < .001). Standardized means are included in Table 5.9. (Unlike the adjustment made to the Time 1 score in the crisis treatment condition, no such adjustment was made for the Time 2 score for those previously exposed to the crisis treatment condition, as all three treatment conditions were identical in Time 2). As Figure 5.1 indicates, under the crisis induced leader, the task completion rate decreases over time; raw means are reflected in Figure 5.1. Under both the visionary and transactional leaders, there was only a slight increase in the task completion rate over time. Thus, Hypothesis 6a2 is supported. Task accuracy. Hypothesis Ic states: Followers' task accuracy under a crisis-induced charismatic leader is stronger than followers' task accuracy under a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' task accuracy under a transactional leader. There was no main effect of treatment on task accuracy; F (2,34) = 2.21, n.s.; see Table 5.8. Leaders did not differ in their effects on task accuracy as predicted. Hypothesis Ic is not supported. 114 Hypothesis 6a3 states: Followers' task accuracy on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' task accuracy on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. There was no main effect of time on task accuracy, F < 1, nor were the results of the hypothesized interaction between leadership treatment and time significant for task accuracy, F (2,34) < 1 (see Table 5.8). In other words, there was no change in the effect of leader behavior on task accuracy across time. Hypothesis 6a3 is not supported. General affect towards leader. Hypothesis 2 states: Followers' affective ratings of a crisis-induced charismatic leader are stronger than followers' affective ratings of a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' affective ratings of a transactional leader. As shown in Table 5.8, there was no main effect of treatment on follower affect, F (2,181) = 1.78, n.s. Leaders did not differ in their effects on follower affect as predicted. Hypothesis 2 is not supported. Hypothesis 6b states: Followers' affective ratings (commitment, trust, satisfaction) of a leader on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' affective ratings of a leader on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. There was no main effect of time on follower affect, F < 1, nor were the results of the hypothesized interaction between leadership treatment and time significant for affect towards leader; F (2,181) = 2.44, n.s.; see Table 5.8. In other words, there was no change in the effects of leader behavior 115 on followers' affective feelings toward the leader across time. Hypothesis 6b is not supported. Perceptions of charisma. Hypothesis 3 states: Followers' perceptions of charisma associated with a crisis- induced charismatic leader are stronger than followers' perceptions of charisma associated with a visionary charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' perceptions of charisma associated with a transactional leader. As Table 5.8 shows, there was a main effect of treatment on followers' perceptions of leader charisma; F (2,181) = 5.99, p < .01. Post-hoc Tukey tests revealed that perceptions of charisma within subjects were significantly different in the visionary and transactional treatment conditions at Time 1 (see Table 5.9). The visionary mean (3.80) was larger than the transactional mean (3.44). In addition, perceptions were significantly different in both the visionary and transactional and the crisis and transactional treatment conditions at Time 2 (p < .05). The visionary mean for perceptions (3.78) was larger than the transactional mean (3.21), and the crisis mean (3.76) was also larger than transactional. However, crisis and visionary leaders did not differ in their effects on perceptions of leader charisma as predicted. Hypothesis 3 is partially supported. There was also a main effect of time on perceptions of charisma; F (1,181) = 6.43, p < .05); see Table 5.8. As shown in Table 5.9, mean values for perceptions were 3.67 116 and 3.59. Thus, perceptions of charisma decreased over time. Hypothesis 6c states: Followers' perceptions of leader charisma on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers^ perceptions of leader charisma on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. As shown in Table 5.8, there was a significant interaction between leadership treatment and time for perceptions of charisma; F (2,181) = 4.01, p < .05). Means are included in Table 5.9. As Figure 5.2 indicates, under the visionary and crisis-induced leaders, perceptions start out the same and remain the same across time. Both start out higher than perceptions under the transactional leader, but under the transactional leader, perceptions of charisma decrease over time. Thus, Hypothesis 6c is partially supported in that perceptions of visionary charisma remain stable across time. Task meaningfulness. Hypothesis 4 states: Task meaningfulness to followers under a visionary charismatic leader is stronger than task meaningfulness to followers under a crisis-induced charismatic leader, and both are stronger than task meaningfulness to followers under a transactional leader. There was no main effect of treatment on task meaningfulness; F (2,181) = 1.21; n.s.; see Table 5.8. Leaders did not differ in their effects on task meaningfulness as predicted. Hypothesis 4 is not supported. As shown in Table 5.8, there was a main effect of time on task meaningfulness; F (1,181) = 5.17, p < .05); mean 117 values for task meaningfulness were 3.99 and 3.88 (see Table 5.9); thus task meaningfulness decreased over time. Hypothesis 6d states: Task meaningfulness to followers on a second task will decrease for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Task meaningfulness to followers on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or transactional leader. The results of the hypothesized interaction between leadership behavior and time for task meaningfulness are not significant; F (2,181) < 1; see Table 5.8. In other words, there was no change in task meaningfulness across time due to a particular leader behavior treatment at Time 1. Hypothesis 6d is not supported. Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). Hypothesis 5 states: Followers' OBSE under a visionary charismatic leader is stronger than followers' OBSE under a crisis-induced charismatic leader, and both are stronger than followers' OBSE under a transactional leader. There was no main effect of treatment on organization-based self-esteem; F (2,181) < 1; see Table 5.8. Leaders did not differ in their effects on organization-based self-esteem as predicted. Hypothesis 5 is not supported. Hypothesis 6e states: Followers' OBSE on a second task will increase for those who were previously exposed to a crisis-induced charismatic leader. Followers' OBSE on a second task will remain stable for those previously exposed to a visionary charismatic or a transactional leader. Neither time nor the interaction between treatment and time were significant; F (1,181) = 2.88, n.s., and F (2,181) = 1.12, n.s.; see Table 5.8. In other words, there was no 118 change in organization-based self-esteem due to a particular leader behavior treatment at Time 1. Hypothesis 6e is not supported. Table 5.10 provides a summary of all findings. Ad Hoc Analysis Substitutes for Leadership theory (Kerr & Jermier 1978) may shed light on the weak effects of charismatic leaders revealed in this chapter. According to the theory, situational variables, including task characteristics (such as a task that is intrinsically satisfying) may moderate the leader behavior-subordinate criterion variable relationship. This occurs because situational variables may replace the leader's influence on subordinate attitudes and performance. Is it possible that the characteristics of the tasks performed in this study replace the effects of charismatic leadership? Task meaningfulness was measured in this study in terms of a meaningful task and whether other people could be affected by the work performed. Additional analyses were performed to see if task meaningfulness moderates the effects of charismatic leadership. Leadership substitutes theory has been tested empirically many times (see Howell & Dorfman 1981; Jermier & Berkes 1979; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover & Huber 1984). To date, however, there have been no tests of substitutes for charismatic leadership. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate whether a full model containing 119 task meaningfulness, leadership, and interactive effects of task meaningfulness x leadership, was superior to a reduced model containing only task meaningfulness and leadership. A dummy variable was coded for the three levels of leadership treatment. Table 5.11 contains the results of these analyses for all remaining criterion variables at both Times 1 and 2. R- squared values for the full model, the reduced model, and the difference between the two models (the interaction) are reported in Table 5.11. F* is the test statistic used to compare the full and reduced models (Neter et al. 1989, p.99) as follows: SSE Reduced - SSE Full . SSE Full F* = - . df Reduced - df Full . df Full As shown in Table 5.11, a significant interactive effect occurred in three instances (Task 1 Accuracy, OBSE at Time 1, and Task 2 Completion). The regression functions are as follows: Task 1 Accuracy = -3.82+1.25X1+8.65D1+6.72D2-2.25X1D1-1.66X1D2 OBSE = 2.42 + .36X1 + .30D1 + 1.63D2 - .lOXlDl - .44X1D2 Task 2 Completion = 1.25 - 0X1 - ODl + 8.76D2 + OXIDI - 2.42X2D2 As shown in Table 5.11, the change in R-squared for the full and reduced models are .28 (Task 1 Accuracy), .04 (OBSE), 120 and .24 (Task 2 Completion). Plots of these interactive effects are contained in Figures 5.3 through 5.5. As Figure 5.3 shows, the effect of leadership treatment on task 1 accuracy depends on task meaningfulness. Under both visionary charismatic and transactional leaders, as task meaningfulness increases, task accuracy decreases, and the decline is faster in the case of transactional leadership. On the other hand, under a crisis-induced charismatic leader, low levels of task meaningfulness are associated with low task accuracy, and as task meaningfulness increases, so does the rate of task accuracy. At the highest level of task meaningfulness, task 1 accuracy is highest under the crisis-induced charismatic leader and lowest under the transactional leader. Task meaningfulness is considered to moderate the effects of crisis-induced charismatic leadership on followers. Figure 5.4 shows that the relationship between leadership treatment and organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) also depends on task meaningfulness. Under both visionary and transactional leaders, as task meaningfulness increases, OBSE declines. OBSE is consistently higher under the visionary than the transactional leader. On the other hand, under the crisis-induced charismatic leader, OBSE increases sharply as task meaningfulness increases. At the highest level of task meaningfulness, OBSE under the crisis- induced charismatic leader is the highest and OBSE under the 121 transactional leader is the lowest. Again, task meaningfulness is considered to moderate the effects of crisis-induced charismatic leadership on followers. induced charismatic leadership. Figure 5.5 shows that the relationship between leadership treatment and task 2 completion rate depends on task meaningfulness. Under both crisis-induced charisma and transactional leadership, there is no change in task completion as task meaningfulness increases. Under the visionary charismatic leader, the task completion rate declines as task meaningfulness increases. A highly meaningful task does nothing to improve task completion, and in this case task meaningfulness does not act as a moderator. It is noted that the second task was performed under identical conditions of leadership; all three groups received the transactional leadership treatment. Figure 5.5 reflects carryover effects of the three different leadership conditions administered when the first task was performed. In summary, these analyses indicate that a critical task may act as a moderator of charismatic leadership. Under a crisis-induced charismatic leader, both task accuracy and OBSE increased as the task became more meaningful to followers. 122 Chapter Summary This chapter has reported the results of the statistical tests of the hypotheses presented in the previous chapter. A discussion of some issues related to these analyses has also been included in this chapter, along with an ad hoc analysis that attempts to explain some of the findings reported. A final listing of all significant hypothesized findings is included at Table 5.10. The next chapter offers a detailed discussion of these findings and conclusions. 123 Table 5.1 Results of Factor Analysis on Dependent Variables Time 1 Rotated Factor Pattern Variables FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 SATl 81* -6 10 CMT6 79* 0 17 TRST 6 79* 2 24 SAT 3 77* -4 9 TRST4 77* -2 19 CMTl 76* 7 -9 TRST5 74* 2 27 SAT2 74* -14 14 TRST 3 71* -8 19 TRSTl 64* 0 20 0BSE3 -3 87* -4 0BSE2 0 85* 11 OBSEl -8 69* 21 TASK2 17 7 82* TASKl 19 5 77* TASK3 21 16 60* Time 2 Variablee s RTRST6 83* 0 8 RCMT6 82* -1 22 RSAT3 81* 5 15 RCMTl 79* 11 14 RSATl 78* -9 13 RSAT2 76* -9 8 RTRST5 75* -3 32 RTRST4 74* -3 25 RTRST3 71* -8 29 RTRSTl 62* 6 30 RCMT3 28 11 8 RCMT2 25 6 8 RCMT5 -9 -6 3 R0BSE3 7 93* 10 R0BSE2 8 91* 14 ROBSEl 4 75* 19 RTRST2 4 -8 -3 RTASKl 22 19 80* RTASK2 24 20 79* RTASK3 31 26 42* RCMT4 25 14 29 * represents loadings > .40 (decimal:—z • -. s omitted• j_ j_ ) 124 Table 5.2 Intercorrelations among Manipulation Checks Manipulation Mean Check (Standard 1 Deviation) 1. Transactional 3.64 (4 items) (.86) 2. Visionary 4.10 (3 items) (.77) .43 3. Crisis 3.04 (4 items) (.84) -.16 -.19 n=184 Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Values are based on 5-point scales. 125 Table 5.3 Intercorrelations among Perceptual Dependent Measure; Dependent Mean Measures (Standard 1 (Time 1) Deviation) 1. Affect 3.77 (.84) 2. Task 3.99 Meaningfulness (.92) .37 — 3. Organization- 3.76 based self- (-95) -.05 .18 — esteem (OBSE) 4. Perceived 2.80 Performance (1.15) .62 21 .01 — 5. Perceptions 3.68 of Charisma (-83) .84 .25 -.10 .63 Mean (Time 2) (Standard 1 Deviation) 1. Affect 3.75 (.84) 2. Task 3.87 Meaningfulness (.91) 48 — 3. OBSE 3.84 (1.03) 09 .38 4. Perceived 2.76 Performance (1.15) 58 .26 .14 — 5. Perceptions 3.61 of Charisma (.88) 85 .36 .07 .68 — n=184 Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Values are based on 5-point scales. 126 Table 5.4 Intercorrelations between and among Objective Task Performance Measures Performance Mean Measure (Standard 12 3 4 Time 1 or 2 Deviation) 1. Accuracy 63.43 Time 1 (11.98) 2. Completion 106.77* Time 1 (29.01) .10 3. Accuracy 89.51 Time 2 (1.92) .22 -.28 3. Completion 98.35 Time 2 (6.58) -.05 .33 -.23 n=37 (groups) Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. * Task completion rate at Time 1 has been adjusted for the crisis condition which had two-thirds of the time allotted to the other two conditions. «o 127 in o O CO rH o CO en CO n (N vo o CM n rH in rH o CO in •0 C in in o CO o O I CO n (0 0) o Xi o o n VO n CTl in in o o o o o CM I o o o o o CM CM rH Measures Cronbach's Alpha (#items) Time 1 Time 2 Manipulation Checks Transactional (4) 65 .77 Visionary (3) 62 .78 Crisis (4) 62 .61 Dependent Variables Perceived Performance (3) .90 .92 Perceptions of Charisma (6) .84 .87 Task Meaningfulness (3) .81 .79 Organization-Based Self-Esteem (3) .86 .91 Affect toward Leader (10) .93 .94 n=184 Numbers in parentheses are number of items in each measure 129 Table 5.7 Results of Manipulation Checks Treatment Conditions Crisis Visionary Transactional Manipulation F p Checks (2,181) TRANSACTIONAL 3.84 3.49 3.62 2.66 .07 VISIONARY 3.93 4.43 3.85 12.11 .0001* CRISIS 3.43 2.90 2.79 11.13 .0001* * indicates significance n=184 (54 Transactional; 70 Visionary; 60 Crisis). 130 Table 5.8 ANOVA Summary Table Dependent Variable F (df) PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE Leader Behavior 3.77 (2,181) .025* Time .69 (1,181) .408 Leader Behavior x Time .66 (2,181) .516 TASK COMPLETION Leader Behavior 13.99 (2,34) .0001* Time 0.00 (1,34) .970 Leader Behavior x Time 10.23 (2,34) .001* TASK ACCURACY Leader Behavior 2.21 (2,34) 125 Time 0.00 (1,34) 991 575 Leader Behavior x Time .56 (2,34) GENERAL AFFECT Leader Behavior 1.78 (2,181) .171 Time .61 (1,181) .437 2.44 (2,181) .090 Leader Behavior x Time PERCEPTIONS OF CHARISMA Leader Behavior 5.99 (2,181) .003* Time 6.43 (1,181) .012* Leader Behavior x Time 4.01 (2,181) .020* TASK MEANINGFULNESS Leader Behavior 1.21 (2,181) .301 Time 5.17 (1,181) .024* Leader Behavior x Time .07 (2,181) .929 ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM (OBSE) Leader Behavior .19 (2,181) .823 2.88 (1,181) .091 Time 1.12 (2,181) .329 Leader Behavior x Time * indicates significant effect 131 Table 5.9 Table of Means Dependent Treatment Variable Condition Time 1 Time 2 Marginal Mean PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE Transactional 2.51 2.38** ***2.45 Visionary 2.96 2.93** 2.95 Crisis 2.87 2.89*** 2.88 Marginal Mean 2.78 2.73 TASK COMPLETION* Transactional -.48** .25 -.12 Visionary -.67*** -.41 -.54 Crisis 1.22** *** .25 .74 Marginal Mean .02 .03 TASK ACCURACY* Transactional -.30 -.13 -.22 Visionary .27 .40 .34 Crisis -.04 -.35 -.20 Marginal Mean -.02 -.03 GENERAL AFFECT Transactional 3.66 3.52 3.59 Visionary 3.86 3.87 3.87 Crisis 3.75 3.80 3.78 Marginal Mean 3.76 3.73 PERCEPTIONS OF CHARISMA Transactional 3.44** 3.21** ***3.33 Visionary 3.80** 3.78** 3.79 Crisis 3.77 3.76*** 3.77 Marginal Mean 3.67**** 3.59**** * z-scores **^ ***^ **** indicate differences between two means 132 Table 5.9. continued Dependent Treatment Variable Condition Time 1 Time 2 Marginal Mean TASK MEANINGFULNESS Transactional 4.12 3.98 4.05 Visionary 4.00 3.90 3.95 Crisis 3.86 3.76 3.81 Marginal Mean 3.99**** 3.88**** ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM Transactional 3.79 3 94 3.87 Visionary 3.71 3 81 3.76 Crisis 3.79 3 78 3.79 Marginal Mean 3.76 3.84 133 Table 5.10 Summary of Findings Leadership Treatment Main Effects Findings Manipulation Checks for: CRISIS: Crisis > Visionary SUPPORTED Crisis > Transactional SUPPORTED VISION: Visionary > Crisis SUPPORTED Visionary > Transactional SUPPORTED TRANSACTIONAL: no significant (SUPPORTED) differences across treatment conditions Hla PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: Crisis stronger than Transactional SUPPORTED Visionary stronger than Transactional SUPPORTED Crisis stronger than Visionary Not Supported Hlb TASK COMPLETION: Crisis stronger than Transactional SUPPORTED Crisis stronger than Visionary SUPPORTED Visionary stronger than Transactional Not Supported Hlc TASK ACCURACY: Crisis strongest; Transactional weakest Not Supported H2 GENERAL AFFECT TOWARD LEADER: Crisis strongest; Transactional weakest Not Supported H3 PERCEPTIONS OF CHARISMA: Crisis stronger than Transactional SUPPORTED Visionary stronger than Transactional SUPPORTED Crisis stronger than Visionary Not Supported H4 TASK MEANINGFULNESS: Visionary strongest; Not Supported Transactional weakest H5 ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM (OBSE): Visionary strongest; Not Supported Transactional weakest 134 Table 5.10. continued Leader Effects across Time Findings H6a(l) PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE: Decreases after crisis; stable following visionary and transactional treatment conditions Not Supported H6a(2) TASK COMPLETION Decreases after crisis; Stable following visionary and transactional treatment conditions SUPPORTED H6a(3) TASK ACCURACY: Decreases after crisis; stable following visionary and transactional treatment conditions Not Supported H6b GENERAL AFFECT TOWARD LEADER: Decreases after crisis; stable following visionary and transactional treatment conditions Not Supported H6c PERCEPTIONS OF CHARISMA: Decreases after crisis (No); stable following visionary (Yes); and Partially stable after transactional (No) Supported H6d TASK MEANINGFULNESS: Decreases after crisis Stable following visionary and Not Supported transactional treatment conditions H6e ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM: Increases after crisis; stable Not Supported following visionary and transactional treatment conditions 135 Table 5.11 Summary of Regression Results for Tests of Moderator Effects of Task Meaningfulness on Charismatic Leadership Outcome F* test F R-squared Variable statistic critical Full Reduced Change Time 1 Perceived Performance .77 3.00 .09 .08 .01 Task Completion .17 3.32 .75 .75 0 Task Accuracy 6.56* 3.32 .34 .06 .28 General Affect .31 3.00 .15 .15 0 Perceptions of Charisma .26 3.00 .11 .11 0 Organization- Based Self- Esteem (OBSE) 3.13* 3.00 .07 .03 .04 Time 2 Perceived Performance 2.56 3.00 .15 .12 .03 Task Completion 6.50* 3.32 .41 .17 .24 Task .02 Accuracy .40 3.32 .15 .13 General .27 .01 Affect .76 3.00 .28 Perceptions 0 of Charisma .27 3.00 .23 .23 .15 .02 OBSE 1.83 3.00 .17 p < .05 136 Task Completion Rate Percentage 150 140 130 120 110 100 .e Leadersnxw_ j 90 risionary ---- 80 Time 1st 2nd Task Task Figure 5.1 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Time on Task Completion Rate - Significant Interaction 137 Perceptions of Charisma 3.80 #- Vision_ary Charismatic L eadership ^^Siiiiiilnduceci 3.70 3.60 3.50 3.40 T;f-. ^fi s^ '^t, '^J ^. ^cf, 3.30 ^^. ^^ ^p 3.20 3.10 Time 1st 2nd Task Task Figure 5.2 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Time on Perceptions of Charisma - Significant Interaction Task 1 138 Accuracy Visionary Charismatic y=2.9-.41xl 0 Transactional y=4.83-xl -1 -2 Crisis-Induced -3 Charismatic y=-3.82+1.25x1 -4 0 4 5 Task Meaningfulness Figure 5.3 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Task Meaningfulness on Task 1 Accuracy 0DS7D B^K' "V, ODDD UUbJCi 139 4 .50 4 .40 Crisis-Induced Charismatic 4 .30 y=2.A2+.36xl 4 .20 4 .10 4 .00 3 .90 3 .80 3 .70 3 .60 3 .50 3 .40 Visionary Charismatic 3 .30 y=4.05-.08xl 3. .20 3. 10 3. 00 2. 90 2. 80 2. 70 2. 60 2. 50 Transactional y=3.08-.10xl 2. 40 4 5 Task Meaningfulness Figure 5.4 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Task Meaning fulness on Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE) Task 2 UO Completion 10 ^ 8 -Visionary Charismatic y=10.01-2.42x1 \ \ Crisis-Induced Charismatic y=1.25 oc Transactional X ?=1.25 0 \ -1 \x -2 -3 4 5 Task Meaningfulness Figure 5.5 Effect of Leadership Treatment and Task Meaningfulness on Task 2 Completion Rate CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION Chapter Overview This study examined charismatic leadership to investigate whether it exists in two different forms, visionary and crisis-induced, as posited by Boal and Bryson (1988). This particular research guestion was addressed by looking at the effects on followers of different types of charismatic leaders. In addition, potential temporal effects were taken into account. This chapter will discuss the findings reported in the previous chapter and offer preliminary explanations for unexpected results as well as any lack of significant results. Last, the strengths and limitations of this research will be discussed, along with suggestions for future research in this area. Effects of Leadership Manipulations As noted in Chapter III, transactional leadership was included in this experiment as a baseline treatment condition or control against which the two types of charismatic leadership were compared. The manipulation was effective because the subjects had different perceptions of the leadership treatment condition to which they were exposed. 141 142 Specifically, subjects in the crisis condition perceived a crisis, whereas subjects in the other two conditions did not. Subjects in the visionary leadership condition perceived the existence of a vision associated with their leader whereas subjects in the other two treatment conditions did not. Finally, transactional leadership was perceived equally by subjects in all three conditions. The results of this finding are consistent with Bass' (1985) assertion that transformational (i.e., charismatic) leadership augments transactional leadership. Having effective manipulations lends evidence to the contention that leaders can be trained to exhibit different styles, including charisma (see Howell & Frost 1989). Also noteworthy is the idea that a crisis situation may be simulated in an experimental setting, and a leader's behavior in that setting may be studied. Effects of Leader Behaviors The effects of leader behavior on each dependent variable will be discussed in the following order. First, the effects of both types of charismatic leadership as well as transactional leadership will be discussed, as these are of primary interest in this study. Next will be a discussion of the interaction between leadership and time as well as any effects due to time alone. 143 Three Measures of Performance Leadership effects. The first set of hypotheses predicted that followers' subjective perceptions of their performance as well as two objective measures of performance (task completion and task accuracy) would be the strongest in the crisis-induced charismatic leadership treatment condition and weakest in the transactional leadership condition. Results reported in Chapter V indicate that in the case of perceived performance and one objective performance measure, task completion, these predictions were partially supported. Specifically, there was an effect of leadership on perceived performance. Perceived performance was significantly higher under the visionary leader than transactional, and higher under the crisis-induced leader than transactional. These findings are consistent with studies that have distinguished between transformational and transactional leadership, because perceived performance in both types of charismatic leadership was higher than that under the transactional leader. However, no support was found for the prediction that perceived performance under the crisis-induced leader would be stronger than perceived performance under the visionary leader. The lack of a significant difference in perceived performance between the crisis-induced and visionary leaders may be because the crisis-induced leader's behavior and the 144 visionary leader's behavior sent a similar message to followers. Scale items for perceived performance focused on the leader motivating subjects to do more than they thought they could, heightening their motivation to succeed, and getting them to do more than they expected they could. Apparently the charisma of both types of leaders encompassed these behaviors to a similar degree. It is noted that perceived performance had the lowest mean scores of all the individual-level outcome variables. All were below 3 on a 5-point scale (see Table 5.9). This raises a question as to how involved in the experiment the subjects were. One possible explanation for such low scores on perceived performance may be that the subjects worked on both tasks as a group for which they received a group score. They may have felt less motivated because they had the group to rely on, than if they had worked individually on the tasks and received an individual score. There was also an effect of leadership on task completion. The task completion rate was highest under the crisis-induced leader, as predicted. Performance of groups in a crisis exceeded that of groups in both the visionary and transactional treatment conditions. However, task completion in the visionary condition was not different from the transactional condition as hypothesized. Thus, one type of charismatic or transformational leadership (i.e.. 145 crisis-induced) was found to be different from transactional leadership. In addition, because performance in the crisis-induced leadership condition exceeded performance under the visionary leader, it is believed that the crisis-induced leader's ability to deal with the crisis outweighed the visionary charismatic's emphasis on followers' values. Although this finding supports Boal and Bryson's (1988) description of the strong outcome orientation associated with crisis-induced charismatic leadership, it is possible that the crisis situation, as opposed to leader charisma, may be responsible for this finding. Task completion did not differ in the visionary charismatic and transactional leadership conditions. This may be due to the visionary leader's appearance of "all talk and no action." The visionary leader's script contained a large amount of "pep talk" yet not very much action to help the followers' performance. Such strong future-oriented verbal expressions without any hands-on action by the visionary leader may have had the unexpected effect of not facilitating performance. In other words, the visionary and transactional leaders are similar in that neither takes much, if any, direct action. There was no effect of leadership on task accuracy. This performance measure was neither strongest under the 146 crisis-induced leader, nor weakest under the transactional leader as hypothesized. Lack of a significant findings for task accuracy may be due to the performance measure being incapable of detecting relatively weak performance effects. Alternatively, the high task demands associated with the first task may not have been amenable to leader intervention, and the low demands of the second task also may have been unaffected by leader behavior. Interactions and temporal effects. For both perceived performance and task accuracy, there was no significant interaction between leadership and time as hypothesized. Neither perceived performance nor task accuracy declined over time in the crisis condition. Both performance measures appear to have remained consistent in all treatment conditions and the effect of the crisis-induced leader on each was not as short-lived as expected. As hypothesized, there was a significant interaction between leadership treatment and time for task completion (see Figure 5.1). Subjects with a crisis-induced leader at the outset do much better in task completion than those with either a transactional or visionary leader. However, this effect decreases over time, until there are no different effects on task completion due to leader behavior. In other words, the effects of the crisis-induced charismatic leader are short lived as predicted. Time alone did not affect 147 perceived performance, task accuracy or task completion, nor was such a main effect hypothesized. Affect toward Leader Leadership effects. Hypothesis 2 predicted that followers' affect toward their leader would be strongest in the crisis-induced charismatic treatment condition and weakest in the transactional condition. This hypothesis was not supported. Affect, which was comprised of follower commitment to, trust in, and satisfaction with the leader, was slightly above average in all treatment conditions, with means greater than 3.5 (on a 5-point scale). One possible explanation for the lack of a significant finding may be the limited amount of time subjects spent with the leader. Before the experiment actually began, the subjects were exposed, in quick succession, to several different authority figures associated with the study. The subjects spent little time initially with the leader before the first task began (approximately 15 minutes). Leaders reported several instances of subjects asking "who was our leader" after they completed the first questionnaire. However, other laboratory studies have shown powerful effects of leadership despite the use of experimental time (see Howell & Frost 1980; Korukonda & Hunt 1989). As discussed in the next section on perceptions of charisma, subjects were able to detect the existence of 148 charisma associated with the different leadership conditions. However, they reported experiencing no immediate personal feelings such as commitment to, trust in, or satisfaction with the leader. Perhaps the subjects were overly concerned with earning course points and were unaware of any bonding occurring with the leader. Another plausible explanation for the lack of a significant finding is the existence of transactional leadership in all three treatment conditions. The leaders all practiced contingent reward behavior. They made clear what the followers could expect if their performance met designated standards; they offered assistance in exchange for followers' effort; they told followers what to do to be rewarded for their efforts; and they expressed satisfaction when the followers did a good job. It is likely that regardless of the treatment condition they were in, followers were generally accepting of the leader's assurance that they would earn course points for doing the tasks assigned. This study revealed no differences in follower affect toward the leader in the various treatment conditions. Korukonda and Hunt (1989) also report that followers had similar (positive) affect toward their leader when reward behaviors were contingent as well as noncontingent. Interaction and temporal effects. There was no significant interaction between leadership and time on 149 affect as hypothesized. Affect toward leader did not decline in the crisis condition but remained relatively consistent in all treatment conditions. Thus, the effect of the crisis-induced leader on follower affect was not short lived as expected. There was no effect of time alone on follower affect, nor was a main effect of time hypothesized. Perceptions of Charisma Leadership effects. Hypothesis 3 predicted that followers' perceptions of charisma would be strongest for the crisis-induced leader and weakest for the transactional leader. As reported in Chapter V, this prediction was partially supported in that perceptions of charisma associated with the visionary treatment condition were significantly stronger than perceptions of charisma in the transactional condition. This finding is not surprising as both charismatic leader scripts contained elements of charisma, and the transactional leader script did not. Also, perceptions of charisma associated with the crisis treatment were significantly stronger than perceptions of charisma in the transactional condition. These findings are similar to those concerning perceived performance and are consistent with studies which have distinguished between transformational and transactional leadership. However, no support was found for the prediction that perceptions of charisma in the crisis 150 condition would be stronger than perceptions in the visionary condition. The lack of a significant difference in perceptions of charisma between the crisis and visionary leaders may be because the crisis leader's behavior and the visionary leader's behavior sent a similar message to followers in the leader scripts created for this design. Scale items focused on the leader's charisma (appearing exceptional, self- confident, visionary, confident in followers, and having high performance expectations of followers). Apparently both types of charismatic leaders exhibited these behaviors in a similar fashion such that the different effects predicted were not detected by the followers. Perceptions of charisma in the crisis-induced charismatic treatment condition were not the strongest as hypothesized. As the means in Table 5.9 show, the visionary treatment condition consistently has the largest mean and the transactional condition has the smallest. This finding reinforces earlier reports in the literature of a difference between transformational (i.e., charismatic) and transactional leadership. Although perceptions of charisma in the visionary and crisis-induced leadership conditions were not significantly different as predicted, outcomes of the two types of charisma do not necessarily need to differ in order to give support to the theory tested in this study. According to 151 Boal and Bryson (1988), similar effects might be expected of the two types of charisma; however, the way the effects are obtained via leader behavior is different. The nature of the crisis in this study (all or nothing insofar as earning course credit was concerned and a shorter amount of time allowed to work on the task) may have nullified attempts by the leader in the crisis condition to reassure and inspire the followers so as to guide them through the crisis. The followers' strong concern with fulfilling a course requirement may have overshadowed any specific behaviors on the part of the crisis-induced leader. Interaction and temporal effects. As hypothesized, leadership and time jointly affected perceptions of charisma (see Figure 5.2). Subjects with a transactional leader at the outset have significantly lower perceptions of charisma than those with either a crisis-induced or visionary leader. This effect decreases over time, such that perceptions of charisma under the transactional leader become significantly lower than perceptions of charisma under both the crisis- induced and visionary leaders. In other words, there is a change in perceptions of charisma across time. As Figure 5.2 indicates, crisis- induced and visionary charismatic leaders have no greater effect on followers' perceptions of charisma after the second task, but the transactional leader's effects on 152 perceptions of charisma diminish over time due to leader behavior. Only a change (decrease) in perceptions of charisma in the crisis condition was hypothesized. This decrease did not occur; the crisis-induced leader appears to have longer- lasting effects than expected. A decrease in perceptions of charisma under the transactional leader did occur. Subjects may have perceived the transactional leader to be somewhat charismatic at Time 1 because of the nature of the task performed (i.e., a national competition). Time affected perceptions of charisma, a main effect that was not hypothesized. Perceptions of leader charisma decreased over time. This is not surprising considering that all conditions were transactional (noncharismatic leadership) at Time 2. Task Meaningfulness Leadership effects. Hypothesis 4 predicted that task meaningfulness would be strongest for followers of the visionary charismatic leader and weakest under the transactional leader. This prediction failed to receive support. Tasks seemed to be highly meaningful to all subjects. As Table 5.3 shows, the grand means for task meaningfulness associated with both tasks are 3.99 and 3.87, respectively. All scores, except for the two objective performance 153 measures, were measured on a 5-point scale, and the means for task meaningfulness were the highest of the five individual-level dependent variables. It appears that in all treatment conditions, the tasks were perceived as meaningful and as having an effect on other people. Hence, leadership was unlikely to have additional effects on the subjects. This suggests that substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr & Jermier 1978) may offer an explanation for what occurred. As reported in Chapter V, additional analyses revealed that an important or critical task may act as a moderator of crisis-induced charismatic leadership on subordinate criterion variables. In other words, task meaningfulness acted more like a predictor than an outcome variable. As task meaningfulness to followers increased, under the crisis-induced leader, both organization-based self-esteem and task accuracy also increased. Instead of leadership affecting task meaningfulness, it turns out that task meaningfulness affected some of the other dependent variables. Followers under the crisis-induced leader appeared to emphasize task accuracy more than did followers in the other leadership conditions when they perceived the task to be highly meaningful. The existence of a crisis may have contributed to the task being meaningful and the followers being more concerned with accuracy than with completion of 154 the task. Once the crisis had passed, there was no change in task completion associated with varying degrees of task meaningfulness. Interaction and temporal effects. There was no significant interaction between leadership and time for task meaningfulness as hypothesized. Task meaningfulness appears to have remained consistent in all treatment conditions and the effect of the crisis-induced leader on it was not as short-lived as expected. Finally, there was a small yet significant decrease in task meaningfulness over time, a main effect finding that was not predicted. This decrease may be due to the difference in the second task performed, which was not framed in terms of a national competition. Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) Leadership effects. Hypothesis 5 predicted that followers' OBSE would be strongest in the visionary charismatic leadership treatment condition and weakest under the transactional leader. This prediction failed to receive support. Regardless of experimental condition, all subjects felt a similar degree of OBSE. This may be due to the nature of the tasks they performed, and the fact that they were led to believe that the university administration was interested in what they had to say. 155 This feeling may have surfaced early in the semester when the students were first introduced to the strategic planning project and were informed of the administration's "interest in student input" from the College of Business Administration. Perhaps the cover story used to have the students buy into participating in the study was too realistic, that they all believed that what they were doing was important, regardless of the treatment condition in which they participated. Another explanation for the lack of a significant finding is the focus of OBSE. Items measuring OBSE are follower, not leader based (e.g., I can make a difference, I am taken seriously, I am important). In all treatment conditions, OBSE was perceived as above average (greater than 3.5 on a 5-point scale). This, too, may be due to the nature of the tasks performed. Related to this alternative explanation for charisma not making a difference in OBSE is substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier 1978). As discussed previously, under the crisis-induced charismatic leader, as task meaningfulness strengthened, so did OBSE. Apparently subjects in this treatment condition felt that the nature of the tasks they performed was important and could make a difference to the organization. Task meaningfulness had a moderating effect on the relationship between leadership and OBSE. 156 Interaction and temporal effects. There was no significant interaction between leadership treatment and time for OBSE as hypothesized. The end of the crisis does not appear to have had a positive impact on subjects' OBSE as expected. It is possible that followers' extrinsic concerns associated with performing a task cause them to place more reliance on their leader than on themselves. There was no main effect of time on OBSE, nor was an effect hypothesized. Research Design Strengths This study is noteworthy for several reasons. It takes the first step in attempting to distinguish between types of charismatic leadership. Although charisma is a current topic in leadership research, the study of person versus situation-based charisma (visionary vs. crisis-induced) may add a new dimension to our understanding of charismatic leadership. Although only some of the hypotheses predicted here were supported, this research offers insights as to what refinements are needed in subsequent tests of this theory. Some of these will be discussed in the final sections of this chapter. There is still a need for continued research on the two different types of charisma. Probably the most important findings concern the manipulation checks, which present evidence that: (a) a 157 crisis situation can be induced in an experimental setting and can be credible; (b) both types of charismatic leadership can be distinguished from transactional leadership; and (c) charismatic leadership is a behavior that can be learned and hopefully used to transform both leaders and followers. Subjects perceived the existence of a crisis because of the unexpected "all or nothing" reward associated with the assigned task. There was a combination of time pressure and uncertainty that threatened their objectives. Subjects in the visionary treatment condition had a leader who clearly explained the importance of their task, transmitted a sense of vision for the university and expressed optimism for its future. Subjects in all leadership conditions experienced transactional leadership by way of contingent reward notions discussed earlier. Thus, the different leader scripts developed for this study are a useful starting point for further understanding and operationalizing the concept of charisma. Another potential contribution made is the use of multiple units of analysis. Hypotheses were supported using the group level of analysis (i.e., task completion) as well as the individual level of analysis (i.e., perceptions of charisma). The development of a meaningful, challenging task for use in laboratory studies is another important contribution 158 of this study. The tasks developed here were designed for use with upper-level undergraduates (particularly those in business schools where administrative policy courses are required) and are also appropriate for graduate students. Having meaningful, challenging tasks such as these offers hope for future researchers who are wary of performing laboratory studies because of the criticism aimed at the use of college freshmen and sophomores. The tasks created for this study can be modified in numerous ways. For example, the number of items in each task may be changed and/or the items may be reworded. Also, this study shows that meaningful tasks may be created for almost any subject population. Therefore, it is not necessary to avoid the use of college freshmen and sophomores in experimental research. It is recommended that careful thought be given to assigning tasks which are meaningful and relevant to the subject population. Last but not least, this study makes a contribution to the literature with the evidence it presents for task meaningfulness moderating the relationship between charismatic leadership and subordinate criterion variables. To date there have been no reports on investigation of substitutes or moderators for this particular type of leadership. 159 Research Design Limitations Despite the realistic nature of the task and cover story used in this experiment, there are several potential limitations associated with this study. As discussed earlier in this chapter, there is concern with the confusion some subjects expressed about who their leader was, given that they were exposed to several different authority figures associated with the research project. Although the tasks are considered to be strengths of this study, there is also concern with the difficulty of the first task used, as evidenced by the students' low performance scores on accuracy. The task, based on decisions of college presidents and deans, may be too difficult for college seniors to perform well. Perhaps the first task needs to be modified to better fit the sample's knowledge and experience level. The design of this experiment was consistent with Boal and Bryson's (1988) contention that visionary and crisis- induced charisma are different phenomena. In this study subjects were exposed to only one of three leadership treatment conditions in the first task, crisis-induced, visionary, or transactional. This raises the question as to whether it is the person or the situation in the case of a crisis which ultimately results in followers' perceptions of charisma. The person (charismatic leader) and the situation (crisis) may have been confounded in the theory tested in 160 this study. This issue is discussed further in the next section. Future Research Directions A suggestion for a follow-up study is to determine whether it is the leader's behavior in a crisis or the crisis situation that is associated with attributions of crisis-induced charisma. Specifically, the behavior and the situation need to be separated. A future study should expose followers not only to a crisis-induced leader but also to a visionary charismatic facing a crisis, and perhaps even a transactional leader in a crisis to see whether it is the person's behavior or the situation that is the driving force. Further study of the notion of substitutes for charismatic leadership is also encouraged. This research has shed some attention on this topic and moderator effects on charismatic leader behavior deserve a more complete hearing to see if the original theory of substitutes for leadership needs to be expanded. Future research also needs to address questions such as: Do different types of charismatic leadership affect factors such as cohesion of a group of followers? How do group perceptions of leadership differ from individual perceptions? Do individual and/or group perceptions of leaders change when measured across a number of time 161 periods—does one influence the other after individuals have discussed their feelings about the leader? Also, future research involving multiple levels of analysis could incorporate research methods spanning levels of analysis, such as the Varient Paradigm, which examines different ways to partition error variance (Dansereau, Alutto & Yammarino 1984) . Finally, in line with the speculations made in this chapter about lack of significant effects of leadership, future research could compare the "all talk, no action" visionary leader with the transactional leader; study charismatic leadership effects on differing degrees of task difficulty; and investigate if the nature of a crisis has an effect on perceptions of charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership sparks interest in scholars and laypersons alike. It has the potential for bringing about change. For the reasons and questions posed here, distinguishing between different types of charismatic leadership provides a fruitful area for subsequent research. Chapter Summarv The final chapter of this dissertation included a detailed discussion of the results reported in the previous chapter. Strengths and limitations of the study were presented along with a number of suggestions for future research of charismatic leadership. REFERENCES Assael, H. & Keon, J. (1982). Nonsampling vs. sampling error in survey research. Journal of Marketing. 46, 114-123. ^ Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1988). Transformational leader ship, charisma and beyond. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A.Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Einstein, W.O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Group and Organization Studies^ 13 (1), 59-80. Avolio, B.J. & Yammarino, F.J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a levels-of-analysis framework. Leadership Ouarterly. 1 (3), 193-208. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Re view, 84, 191-215. Barton, L. (1993). Crisis in Organizations. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Company. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expec tations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1988a). The inspirational processes of leader ship. Journal of Management Development. Z (5), 21-31. Bass, B.M. (1988b). Evolving perspectives in charismatic leadership. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 40-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bass, B.M. (1990a). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Orga nizational Dynamics, 18 (3) (Winter), 19-31. Bass, B.M. (1990b). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leader ship, 3d ed. New York: The Free Press. 162 163 Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development. 4, 231-272. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1991). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (Form 5X). Palo Alto, CA: Consult ing Psychologists Press. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and assessment of transformational leadership at the world-class level. Journal of Management. 13 (1), 7-19. Bell, D. (1966). Sociodicy: A guide to modern usage. American Scholar. 35, 696-714. Bennis, W.G. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Berlew, D.E. (1974). Leadership and organizational excite ment. In D.A. Kolb, I.M. Rubin, & J.M. Mclntyre (Eds.), Organizational psychology: A book of readings (2nd ed.) (pp. 265-277). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boal, K.B. & Bryson, J.M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and structural approach. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 11- 28) . Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organiza tions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bryson, J.M. (1981). A perspective on planning and crisis in the public sector. Strategic Management Jour nal, 2, 181-196. Burke, W.W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In 5. Srivastva and Associates (Eds.), Executive power: How executives influence people and orga nizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Butterfield, D.A. (1988). Commentary: Welcome back charis ma. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 67-72). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 164 Castaneda, M.B., Levin, J.R. & Dunham, R.B. (1993). Using planned comparisons in management research: A case for the Bonferroni procedure. Journal of Management. 19 (3), 707-724. — Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behav ioral sciences (rev. ed.) New York: Academic Press. Conger, J.A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mvstigue of exceptional leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review. 12 (4), 637-647. Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., & Associates (1988). Charis matic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cook, J. & Wall, T. (1980) . New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychol ogy, 53 (1), 39-52. Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1976). The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of in dustrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally; Second Ed., Dunnette & Hough (Eds.), (1991). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. Dansereau, F., Alutto, J.A. & Yammarino, F.J. (1984). Theory testing and organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Dow, T.E. (1969). The theory of charisma. Social Quarter ly, 10, 306-318. Dubin, R. (1979). Metaphors of leadership: An overview. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Etzioni, A. (1961/1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60 (2), 159-170. 165 ^^^^""L^'r.^'^'^ l^^V ^'^' (1988). superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (4), 695-702^ Hickman, C.R. (1990). Mind of a manager, soul of a Ipadpr New York: Wiley. Hodgkinson, C. (1983). The philosophy of leadership. New York: St. Martin's Press. Hollander, E.P. & Offerman, L.R. (1990). Power and leader ship in organizations: Relationships in transi tion. American Psychologist, 4_5, 179-189. House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader ship. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leader ship: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R.J., Howell, J.M. Shamir, B., Smith, B. , & Spangler, W. D. (1992). Charismatic leadership: A 1992 theory and five empirical tests. Submitted to Journal of Applied Psychology. House, R.J. Spangler, W.D. & Woycke, J. (1991) . Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psycholog ical theory of leadership effectiveness. Admin istrative Science Ouarterly. 36, 364-396. Howell, J.M. (1986). Charismatic leadership: Effects of leadership style and group productivity on indi vidual adjustment and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Howell, J.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1992). The ethics of charis matic leadership: Submission or liberation. Academy of Management Executive, 6_ (2), 43-54. Howell, J.M. & Frost, P.J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269. Howell, J.M. & Higgins, C.A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Ouarterly, 35, 317-341. Howell, J.M. & House, R.J. (In Press, 1992). Socialized and personalized charisma: An essay on the bright and dark sides of charismatic leadership. Working paper. 166 Howell, J.P. & Dorfman, P.w. (1981). Substitutes for lead ership: Test of a construct. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 714-728. Hunt, J.G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ilgen, D.R. (1986). Laboratory research: A question of when, not if. In Locke, E.A. (Ed.) Generalizing from laboratory to field settingcj, pp. 257-268, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Jaques, E. (1985). Stratification of cognitive complexity. Unpublished report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Grant Number DAJA37-80-C007. Jermier, J.M. & Berkes, L.J. (1979). Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: A closer look at the quasi- military model. Administrative Science Ouarterly, 24, 1-23. Jick, T.D. & Murray, V.V. (1982). The management of hard times: Budget cutbacks in public sector organiza tions. Organization Studies. 1 2, 141-169. Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3d Ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for lead ership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 22. 375-403. Kets de Vries, M. (1988). Prisoners of leadership. Human Relations, 41 3, 261-280. Kets de Vries, M. (1990). Prisoners of leadership. New York: Wiley. Korukonda, A. Hunt, J.G. (1989). Pat on the back versus kick in the pants. Group and Organization Stud ies, 14 (3), 299-324. Kotter, J.P. (1982a). The general manager. New York: Free Press. 167 Kotter, J.P. (1982b, Nov-Dec). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review. 60, 156-167. — Kotter, J.P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lentner, H.H. (1972). The concept of crisis as viewed by the United States Department of State, in Hermann, C.F. (Ed.) International Crises: Insights from Behavioral Research. New York: The Free Press. Lepsius, M.R. (1986). Charismatic leadership: Max Weber's model and its applicability to the rule of Hitler. In C.F. Graumann & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Changing conceptions of leadership. New York: Springer- Verlag. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. G.W. Lewin (Ed.), New York: Harper & Brothers. Locke, E.A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field: Ecological validity or abstraction of essential elements. In Locke, E.A. (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings, pp. 3-10, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Madsen, D. & Snow, P.G. (1991). The charismatic bond: Political behavior in time of crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington. Meindl, J.R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. H, (pp. 159-2 03). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Mitchell, R.E. (1973). Survey materials collected in developing countries: Sampling, measurement and interviewing obstacles to intra- and international comparisons. In Warwick, D.P. & Osherson, S. (Eds.) Comparative research methods, pp. 204-226. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mook, D.G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, April, pp. 379-387. 168 Morgan, R.M. (1991). Relationship commitment and trust in marketing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. Nadler, D.A. & Tushman, M.L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review. 32. 77-97. Naftulin, D.H., Ware, J.E., Jr., & Donnelly, F.A. (1973). The Doctor Fox lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education. 48 (7), 630-635. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. (1989). Applied Linear Regression Models (2nd Ed.) Homewood, IL: Irwin. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Oberg, W. (1972) . Charisma, commitment, and contemporary organization theory. MSU Business Topics. 20, 18- 32. Pearson, E.S. & Hartley, H.O. (1951). Charts of the power function for analysis of variance tests, derived from the non-central F distribution. Biometrika. 38, 112-130. Pfeffer, J. (1977) . The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review. 2., 104-112. Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L. & Dunham, R.B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Con struct definition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal. 32 (3) (September), 622-648. Pillai, R. & Meindl, J.R. (1991). The effect of a crisis on the emergence of charismatic leadership: A labo ratory study. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp. 235-239. Pillai, R. & Meindl, J.R., (1992). Social preconditions for change: Experimental studies on crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership. Working Paper, School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo. New York: Buffalo. 169 Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, sat isfaction, and organizational citizenship behav iors. Leadership Ouarterly^ i 2, 107-142. Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A. & Huber, V.L. (1984) . Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34. 21-63. Puffer, S.M. (1990). Attributions of charismatic leadership: the impact of decision style, outcome and observer characteristics. Leadership Ouarter- iY/ 1 (3), 177-192. Pugh, D.S. & Hickson, D.J. (1989). Writers on organizations. 4th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Roberts, N.C. (1985). Transforming leadership: A process of collective action. Human Relations. 38 (11), 1023-1046. Roberts, N.C. & Bradley, R.T. (1988). Limits of charisma. In J.A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 253-275). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Robinson, J.A. (1972). Crisis: An appraisal of concepts and theories. In Hermann, C.F. (Ed.) Internation al crises: Insights from behavioral research. (pp. 110-128). New York: The Free Press. Rousseau, D.M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross level perspec tives. In L.L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior (vol. 7, pp. 1-37) Greenwich, CT: JAI. Sashkin, M. (1977). Comments on chapter 12: The structure of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge, (pp. 212-218). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Sashkin, M. (1988) . The visionary leader. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 122-160). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 170 Sashkin, M. & Burke, W.W. (1990). Understanding and assessing organizational leadership. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 297-325). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Li brary of America. Sashkin, M. & Fulmer, R.M. (1988). Toward an organizational leadership theory. In J.G. Hunt, B. J. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 51-65). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Sashkin, M. & Fulmer, R.M. (1985). A new framework for leadership: Vision, charisma and culture cre ation. Paper presented at the Biennial Interna tional Leadership Symposia, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, July. Sashkin, M. & Rosenbach, W.E. (1993). A new leadership paradigm. In W.E. Rosenbach & R.L. Taylor (Eds.) Contemporary issues in leadership (3d ed., pp. 87- 108) Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sashkin, M. Rosenbach, W.E., Deal, T.E. & Peterson, K.D. (1993). Impact of leadership: Assessing transformati onal leadership and its impact. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Schweitzer, A. (1984). The age of charisma. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Scott, W.R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. Leader ship Ouarterly. 2 (2), 81-104. Shamir, B., House, R.J. & Arthur, M. (1992). The transformational effects of charismatic leader ship: A motivational theory. Organization Sci ence, (in press). Shils, E. (1965). Charisma, order and status. American Sociological Review, 10 (2), 199-213. Shils, E. (1968). Charisma. In D.L. Sills (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 2. New York: The MacMillan Company and The Free Press. 171 smith, B.J. (1982). An initial test of a theory of charismatic leadership based on the responses of subordinates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto. Stark, S. (1977). Toward a psychology of charisma: III. Intuitional empathy, Vorbilder, Fuehrers, tran scendence-striving, and inner creation. Psycho logical Report, 40, 683-696. Taylor, R.N. & Vertinsky, I. (1981). Experimenting with organizational behavior. In Nystrom, P.C. & W.H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational de- sign. New York: Oxford University Press. Tichy, N.M. & Devanna, M.A. (1986/1990). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley. Trice, H.M. & Beyer, J.M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organiza tions. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Re search in organizational behavior, (vol. 8, pp. 113-164). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tucker, M.L., Bass, B.M., & Daniel, L.G. (1991). Transformational leadership's impact on higher education satisfaction, effectiveness, and extra effort. Paper presented at the Center for cre ative Leadership Research Conference, Colorado Springs, CO (July). Tucker, R.C. (1968). The theory of charismatic leadership. Daedalus. 97 (3), 731-756. U.S. News & World Report (1992). America's best colleges. (September 28), 113 (12), 96-127. Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M. & Einstein, W.O. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 60, 177-186. Weber, M. (1924/1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (R.A. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press. Westley, F. & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 10, 17-32. 172 Willner, A.R. (1968). Charismatic political leadership: A theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Center of International Studies. Willner, A.R. (1984). The spellbinders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wilson, E.K. (1985). What counts in the death or transformation of an organization? Paper present ed at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociolog ical Society, Charlotte, NC. Worsley, P. (1968). The trumpet shall sound (2nd ed.). New York: Schocken Books. Yammarino, F.J. & Bass, B.M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151-169). West Orange, NJ: Lead ership Library of America. Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G.A. & Van Fleet, D.D. (1982). Cross-situational, multimethod research on military leader effective ness. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor mance , 30, 87-108. APPENDIX A TRANSACTIONAL LEADER SCRIPT 173 TRANSACTIONAL LEADER SCRIPT ^^^ Note:^ Leader may put script on index cards; (lower case bold in parentheses indicates leader movement/actions) (leader is in the room as the participants enter; pencils, scratch paper, nzune labels, marker & envelope are on students' desks; Joan will introduce project & acknowledge "intimidating" room & introduce groups to leader, get consent forms & leave) (1) Hello, I'm , a Graduate Student, doing a special project for the Dean of Students, (leader asks each participant to fill out a naone tag) Why don't you start (leader points to someone) by telling us your name and major? (leader smiles occasionally as he is speaking & after introductions he remains seated at desk; minimal eye contact) (2) Thanks for joining us in this university project which is headed by Dr. Jerry Hunt, Horn Professor in Management. Feel free to take notes as I continue my explanation. (3) (leader points to poster) As you can see from these headlines, higher education is facing severe budgetary cuts, not only in Texas but nationwide. Budget cuts affect not only tuition, but they also affect the quality of education provided—class size, number of classes offered, etc. (4) In response to these concerns, Tech conducted a self-study survey last fall. (leader points to a copy of the 12/4/92 edition of the UD, also on the poster, with the self-study headline) Students, faculty, staff & alumni were surveyed to gain information on making Tech a better university. Dr. Hunt's committee is an extension of that study. Its goal is to deal with budget cuts while preserving a quality education for our students. We have two objectives today. The first is for you as a group to come up with recommendations for revenue enhancing & cost cutting. (5) Our second objective concerns admissions standards—which have to do with accreditation. All academic units on campus are accredited to ensure that the academic curriculum & performance standards are up to professional standards. I'll provide more details on the admission standards assignment later. (6) I realize you are here in order to receive course credit in your MGT class. I'll do what I can to see that you receive as many points as possible. This is a group project so you will be graded on your group's performance. (7) Although I am not allowed to work with you directly, I'm sure that you can accomplish the tasks. While working with the Dean of Students office I have been exposed to these issues & Dr. Hunt has explained the project to me. I can give you clear instructions so that you can perform the tasks. Also, you were selected for this project because of the strategic nature of your MGT class. (8) The first assignment on university cost-cutting & revenue enhancing is part of another project—a nationwide competition Tech is entering which is being sponsored by US NEWS & WORLD REPORT (USN&WR). (9) Some of you may be familiar with US News' annual ranking of America's colleges. (leader holds up copy of the magazine, which then remains visible on desk.) Rankings ale' determined by college presidents & deans nationwide. (10) US News (leader shows copy) has 6 groups of university rankings: the top 25, quartiles l through 4, & "up & coming" schools. We currently are in quartile 3 & we have an opportunity to be placed in the "up & coming" group for 1993—a one-time shot, which would give Tech national recognition. (11) For the competition we need to provide evidence of the actual quality of work done by our students. That is your first task. (12) Here are the specifics provided by US News for working on the first assignment; they also appear on this handout. (leader gives 1 copy of 1st handout to each group—i copy of white response sheet & a copy of blue single-spaced directions for each participant) Please don't begin until I tell you to. (leader may read following directly from handout): **Here are several different cost reduction & revenue enhancing actions to be taken by college presidents. You are to categorize the 20 items listed on your handouts as either a primary or secondary priority. Write P for primary or top priority & S for lower priority items. As you go through each item, in the space below, justify in 1 or 2 well-articulated sentences, your prioritization. Explain why it is a very good idea (a P) or why it is not so good (an S). Watch your spelling & grammar throughout.** (13) This is a group project & **each** group will turn in 1 set of recommendations. (14) Your recommendations may eventually be submitted to US News if they are judged to be among the best by Tech officials. We will be competing with up to 101 other schools for 3 new "up & coming" slots. You will also be competing with other groups of Tech management students who will work on this project. A copy of your work will be given to Dr. Hunt & your MGT instructors for initial grading & awarding course credit; spelling & grammar are important, so please double check your work. For course points, you will receive a group grade. (15) When your group is finished, I will leave the room. Dr. Hunt's committee has asked that you fill out a questionnaire based on your participation today. They would like a better understanding of how you felt about being involved so that Tech may continue to get student input on other projects. Then we'll take a 10-minute break & come back to work on Part 2. (16) I've covered a lot of information here. ***D0 YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?? You need to ask now, because the competition guidelines don't allow me to answer anything but procedural questions while you are working, such as you can write in margins, can draft rationales on scratch paper, define terms such as "infrastructure", etc. (after questions, leader glances at watch) We only have so much time in this room, and will have 30 minutes for this task. That will give us enough time for the second task. You may start working now. Good Luck! (leader closes curtain eODOut half-way to give groups privacy & to allow leader to move from side to side) (Leader should wear watch) 17 8 (17) (after 10 minutes leader walks around the groups & looks over their shoulders; leader nods to show he thinks they are making progress & tells them how much time is left & returns to his desk; he does this every 10 minutes for each group) (18) (at the end of so minutes leader reopens curtain & takes up each group's collective work—white answer sheet & all blue instruction sheets; he refers to envelope on desk containing questionnaires & scantrons) (19) Please take a few minutes to answer the questions on the scantrons provided; the university committee is conducting a study of this project and on the use of graduate students to lead other students on similar projects. (Leader may refer to directions which appear on envelopes): Use the white questionnaire and answer each question individually. When your group is finished with the white questionnaires, please return them to the envelope and keep your scantron on your table—be sure you know which scantron is yours. When both groups are finished, please have someone come outside to get me. I'll give more instructions then. (leader closes curtain half-way & leaves room with all Task 1 materials until he is called back) (2 0) (leader returns & reopens curtain) Thanks for filling out the questionnaire. Before you leave for the break, I need to ask all of you not to speak to anyone about your work in here. Remember, you are competing against other groups of students for course credit. Also, you must complete the second part of the assignment in order to receive credit. (21) (leader s both groups leave room for a 10-minute 1" break) When leader & students return from break: (22) Hope you had a relaxing few minutes. Now, let's get right down to the assignment on admission standards. Again, please don't begin until I tell you to. (23) (leader distributes l copy of 2nd handout to group—i copy of white response sheet & a copy of blue single-spaced directions for each participant) (leader may read the following directly from handout:) **This shows Texas Tech's numbers for being placed in Quartile 3 by US News in 1992. As you can see, Harvard was #1 in the Top 25 & Rice was #12. UT-Austin is in the first quartile; & SMU & Texas A&M are both in the second quartile Besides us, Baylor & TCU are in the 3rd quartile & UT-Arlington is in the 4th quartile. Tech's current statistics are listed on your handout. Please use the back of the page to justify your answers in complete sentences. (24) The university's long-term goal is to move into Quartile 2 over the next 7 years—by the year 2000. We need to upgrade our criteria to achieve the goal; they need to be more stringent, yet reasonable. (25) Your recommendations will be submitted to Dr. Hunt & to your MGT instructors for grading. The committee will consider your recommendations, along with all the other groups', for inclusion in Tech's 7-Year Strategic Plan. (2 6) To give you some idea on where to begin, the handout includes the current statistics for UT-Austin, which is in Quartile 1. Remember, we are trying to get moved into Quartile 2, so try to keep your answers conservative. 180 (27) Again, I cannot participate in this task with you. ***ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?? (after questions, leader glances at watch.) You will have 15 minutes to work on this; so keep track of the time. You may begin now. Good Luck! (leader closes curtain about half-way to give groups privacy & to allow leader to move from side to side) (28) (after 5 & again after 10 minutes leader walks around each group & looks over their shoulders; he nods to show he thinks they are making progress & tells them how much time is left & returns to his desk) (29) (after 15 minutes leader takes up each group's collective work—white answer sheet & all blue instruction sheets; he refers to envelope on desk containing *more* questionnaires which are green) (30) Please take a few more minutes to answer the questions on your scantrons for the university's study of this project. They would like a better understanding of how you felt about being involved so that Tech may continue to get student input on other projects. Tech has not gotten student input like this before & they would like to use more students and graduate student leaders on these projects. (Leader may refer to directions which appear on envelopes): Use the green questionnaire this time & begin your answers with item #101 on the bottom right-hand corner of your scantron. Don't look back at your first set of answers. Answer each question individually until you get to 181 the last 6 questions. Please discuss those 6 questions only with your group—do not discuss those 6 questions with the other group—and each of you should fill in the same 6 answers for each question on your scantrons. When your group is finished with the green questionnaires, please return them to the envelope along with your scantrons & then seal the envelope. When both groups are finished, please have someone come outside to get me. I'll give more instructions then. (leader closes curtain half-way & leaves room with all Task 2 materials until he is called back) (31) (leader returns & reopens curtain) Thanks for coming in today. Again, please don't talk to anyone about what you did here today—you are competing for class points against other students. Thanks again & have a good weekend/evening! APPENDIX B VISIONARY LEADER SCRIPT 182 183 VISIONARY CHARISMATIC LEADER SCRIPT Note: Leader may put script on index cards; (lower case bold in parentheses indicates leader movement/actions) CHANGES/SUPPLEMENTS FROM TRANSACTIONAL ARE IN ALL CAPS. (leader is in room as the participants enter; pencils, scratch paper, nzone labels, marker & envelope are on students* desks; Joan will introduce project & acknowledge "intimidating" room—& introduce groups to leader, get consent forms & leave) (1) Hello, I'm , a Graduate Student, doing a special project for the Dean of Students. I'M EXCITED ABOUT BEING HERE TODAY. (leader asks each participant to fill out a nsune tag) Why don't you start (leader points to someone) by telling us your name and major? (leader smiles ALOT as he is speaking; after introductions leader ALTERNATES BETWEEN SITTING ON THE EDGE OF HIS DESK & STANDING UP TO MOVE AROUND OCCASIONALLY; HE MAINTAINS LOTS OF EYE CONTACT WITH GROUP) (2) Thanks for joining us in this university project which is headed by Dr. Jerry Hunt, Horn Professor in Management. THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE REALLY SUCCESSFUL AND I THINK WE'LL SEE A GREATER TEXAS TECH AS A RESULT 1 Feel free to take notes as I continue my explanation. (3) (leader points to poster—& EMPHASIZES it) As you can see from these headlines, higher education is facing severe budgetary cuts, not only in Texas but nationwide. Budget cuts affect not only tuition, but they also affect the quality of education provided-class size, number of classes offered, etc. (4) In response to these concerns, Tech conducted a ^^^ self-study survey last fall. (leader points to a copy of the 12/4/92 edition of the UD, also on the poster, with the self-study headline) Students, faculty, staff & alumni were surveyed to gain information on making Tech a better university. I REMEMBER READING THAT ARTICLE RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS; I FELT ALMOST RELIEVED THAT I' D BE GRADUATING SOON, BUT I DID THINK ABOUT MY YOUNGER BROTHERS/SISTERS WHO AREN'T IN COLLEGE YET, & WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT HOLD FOR THEM—OR EVEN FOR OUR KIDS. Dr. Hunt's committee is an extension of that study. Its goal is to deal with budget cuts while preserving a quality education for our students. We have two objectives today. The first is for you as a group to come up with recommendations for revenue enhancing & cost cutting. WE WANT QUALITY IN RETURN FOR TUITION HIKES. THIS PROJECT CAN ALSO BE BENEFICIAL IN OUR FUTURE. JOBS ARE TIGHT NOW, BUT IF TECH GAINS A BETTER REPUTATION, THAT MAY HELP US IN GETTING BETTER JOBS LATER. IT CAN ALSO OPEN DOORS TO GRADUATE SCHOOLS. (5) Our second objective concerns admissions standards—which have to do with accreditation. IN THE FALL WE PASSED REACCREDITATION WITH FLYING COLORS—PARTLY DUE TO THE QUALITY OF OUR STUDENTS. All academic units on campus are accredited to ensure that the academic curriculum & performance standards are up to professional standards. I BELIEVE WE CAN CONTINUE TO UPGRADE OUR STATUS AND GAIN A '^' BETTER REPUTATION. I'll provide more details on the admission standards assignment later. (6) I realize you are here in order to receive course credit in your class, i-n do what I can to see that you receive as many points as possible. This is a group project so you will be graded on your group's performance. I THINK THIS WILL BE A VERY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE! JUST KEEP ENVISIONING A BETTER FUTURE FOR TECH. (7) Although I am not allowed to work with you directly, I'm sure that you can accomplish both tasks. HAVE NO FEAR—While working with the Dean of Students office I have been exposed to these issues & Dr. Hunt has explained the project to me. I THINK THE TASKS ARE REALLY INTERESTING & I DON'T FORESEE ANY PROBLEMS. I can give you clear instructions so that you can DIVE RIGHT IN & DO A GREAT JOB ON BOTH. Also, you were selected for this project because of the strategic nature of your MGT class. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY REASON—WE KNOW THAT NOT JUST ANYONE GETS ADMITTED TO COBA UPPER-DIVISION COURSES, BUT ONLY THE 'ELITE'—LIKE YOU—WHO MEET CERTAIN ACADEMIC STANDARDS. I'M SURE YOU WILL DO WELL ON BOTH ASSIGNMENTS. (8) The first assignment on university cost-cutting & revenue enhancing is part of another REALLY IMPORTANT project—a nationwide competition Tech is entering which is being sponsored by US News & World Report (USN&WR). I THINK YOU'LL REALLY ENJOY CONTRIBUTING TO TECH'S FUTURE AND^^ I BELIEVE YOU CAN HELP TRANSFORM TECH INTO A HIGHER RANKED SCHOOL. (9) Some of you may be familiar with US News' annual ranking of America's colleges. (leader holds up copy of the magazine, which then remains visible on desk) Rankings are determined by college presidents & deans nationwide. (10) US News (leader shows copy) has 6 groups of university rankings: the top 25, quartiles 1 through 4, & "up & coming" schools. We currently are in quartile 3. WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO SEE THAT HIGHER? We have an opportunity to be placed in the "up & coming" group for 1993—a one-time shot, which would give Tech SPECIAL national recognition. TECH CAN ACHIEVE A BETTER REPUTATION, SO LET'S MAKE THE MOST OF THIS OPPORTUNITY! (11) For the competition we need to provide evidence of the actual quality of work done by our students. That is your first task. (12) Here are the specifics provided by US News for working on the first assignment; they also appear on this handout. (leader gives 1 copy of 1st handout to each group—1 copy of white response sheet & a copy of blue single-spaced directions for each participant.) Please don't begin until I tell you to. (leader may read following directly from handout): **Here are several different cost reduction & revenue enhancing actions to be taken by college presidents. You are to categorize the 20 items listed on your handouts as either a primary or secondary priority. Write P for primary or top priority & S for lower priority items. As you go ^ through each item, in the space below, justify in 1 or 2 well-articulated sentences, your prioritization. Explain why It IS a very good idea (a P) or why it is not so good (an S). Watch your spelling & grammar throughout.** (13) This is a group project & **each** group will turn in 1 set of recommendations. (14) Your recommendations may eventually be submitted to US News. if they are judged to be among the best by Tech officials. We will be competing with up to 101 other schools for 3 new "up & coming" slots. You will also be competing with other groups of Tech management students who will work on this project. A copy of your work will be given to Dr. Hunt & your MGT instructors for initial grading & awarding course credit; spelling & grammar are important, so please double check your work. For course points, you will receive a group grade. (15) When your group is finished, I will leave the room. Dr. Hunt's committee has asked that you fill out a questionnaire based on your participation today. They would like a better understanding of how you felt about being involved so that Tech may continue to get student input on other projects. Then we'll take a 10-minute break & come back to work on Part 2. (16) I've covered a lot of information here. ***D0 YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?? You need to ask now, because the competition guidelines don't allow me to answer anything but procedural questions while you are working, such as you can write in margins, can draft rationales on scratch paper, define terms such as "infrastructure", etc. (after ^^^ questions, leader glances at watch) JUST RELAX & TAKE CONTROL & YOU'LL DO A GREAT JOB. THIS IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW OFF TECH'S EMPHASIS ON EXCELLENCE. We only have so much time in this room, and will have 30 minutes for this task. That will give us enough time for the second task. You may start working now. JUST PICTURE TEXAS TECH AS A BETTER KNOWN SCHOOL! Good Luck! (leader closes curtain aQ^out half-way to give groups privacy & to allow leader to move from side to side) {Leader should wear watch} (17) (after 10 minutes leader walks around the groups & looks over their shoulders; leader nods to show he thinks they are making progress & tells them how much time is left & returns to his desk; he does this every 10 minutes for each group) (18) (at the end of 30 minutes leader reopens curtain & takes up each group's collective work—white answer sheet & all blue instruction sheets; he refers to envelope on desk containing questionnaires & scantrons) (19) Please take a few minutes to answer the questions on the scantrons provided; the university committee is conducting a study of this project and on the use of graduate students to lead other students on similar projects. (Leader may refer to directions which appear on envelopes): Use the white questionnaire and answer each question individually. When your group is finished with the white questionnaires, please return them to the envelope and keei^ Cyours Xn"b^tr ^^^1—^^ — you know whf^h scan?r^n soJon";o.f :uts?de ?o°g^? ^f ^'V^f !^ please have i-b*an rioaHr^T. «iZ ger me. I'll give more instructions all Tasiask rmateri^?1 materialsr unti*'i?^^^i'l he' half-wais calleyd &back leave) s room with (20) (leader returns & reopens curtain) Thanks for filling out the questionnaire. Before you leave for the break, I need to ask all of you not to speak to anyone about your work in here. Remember, you are competing against other groups of students for course credit. Also, you must complete the second part of the assignment in order to receive credit. (21) (leader & both groups leave room for a 10-minute break) When students return from break: (22) Welcome back—hope you had a relaxing few minutes. Now, let's get right down to the assignment on admission standards. Again, please don't begin until I tell you. (23) (leader distributes 1 copy of 2nd handout to group--i copy of white response sheet & a copy of blue single-spaced directions for each participant) (leader may read following directly from handout): **This shows Texas Tech's numbers for being placed in Quartile 3 by US News in 1992. As you can see, Harvard was #1 in the Top 25 & Rice was #12. UT-Austin is in the first quartile; & SMU & Texas A&M are both in the second quartile. Besides us, Baylor & TCU are in the 3rd quartile & UT-Arlington is in the 4th quartile. Tech's current statistics are listed on your handout. Please use the back of the page to justify your answers in complete sentences. (24) The university's long-term goal is to move into ^^° Quartile 2 over the next 7 years—by the year 2000. We need to upgrade our criteria to achieve the goal; they need to be more stringent, yet reasonable. (25) Your recommendations will be submitted to Dr. Hunt & to your MGT instructors for grading. The committee will consider your recommendations, along with all the other groups', for inclusion in Tech's 7-Year Strategic Plan. (26) To give you some idea on where to begin, the handout includes the current statistics for UT-Austin, which is in Quartile 1. Remember, we are trying to get moved into Quartile 2, so try to keep your answers conservative. (27) Again, I cannot participate in this task with you. ***ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?? (after questions, leader glances at watch.) You will have 15 minutes to work on this; so keep track of the time. You may begin now. Good Luck! (leader closes curtain about half-way to give groups privacy & to allow leader to move from side to side) (28) (after 5 & again after 10 minutes leader walks around the group & looks over their shoulders; he nods to show he thinks they are making progress & tells each how much time is left & returns to his desk) (29) (after 15 minutes leader takes up the group's collective work—white answer sheet & all blue instruction sheets; he refers to envelope on desk containing *more* questionnaires which are green) 19 1 (30) Please take a few more minutes to answer the questions on your scantrons for the university's study of this project. They would like a better understanding of how you felt about being involved so that Tech may continue to get student input on other projects. Tech has not gotten student input like this before & they would like to use more students & graduate student leaders on these projects. (Leader may refer to directions which appear on envelopes): Use the green questionnaire this time & begin your answers with item #101 on the bottom right-hand corner of the scantron. Don't look back at your first set of answers. Answer each question individually until you get to the last 6 questions. Please discuss those 6 questions only with your group—do not discuss those 6 questions with the other group—and each of you should fill in the same answers for the 6 questions on your scantrons. When your group is finished with the green questionnaire, please return them to the envelope along with your scantrons & then seal the envelope. When both groups are finished, please have someone come outside to get me. 'I'll give more instructions then. (Leader leaves with Task 2 materials) (31) (leader returns & reopens curtain) Thanks for coming in today. Again, please don't talk to anyone about what you did here today—you are competing for class points against other students. Thanks again & have a good weekend/evening! APPENDIX C CRISIS LEADER SCRIPT 192 193 CRISIS-INDUCED CHARISMATIC LEADER SCRIPT Note: Leader may put script on index cards; (lower case bold in parentheses indicates leader movement/actions) . Changes from transactional script are underlined & sometimes single-spaced. (1st # is TA script) (leader is in the room as the participants enter; pencils, scratch paper, neune leO^els, marker & envelope are on students' desks; Joan will introduce project & acknowledge "intimidating" room & introduce groups to leader, get consent forms & leave) (1) Hello, I'm , a Graduate Student, doing a special project for the Dean of Students, (leader asks each participant to fill out a ncime tag) Why don't you start (leader points to someone) by telling us your name and major? (leader smiles occasionally as he is speaking & after introductions he remains seated at desk; minimal eye contact) (2) Thanks for joining us in this university project which is headed by Dr. Jerry Hunt, Horn Professor in Management. Feel free to take notes as I continue my explanation. (3) (leader points to poster) As you can see from these headlines, higher education is facing severe budgetary cuts, not only in Texas but nationwide. Budget cuts affect not only tuition, but they also affect the quality of education provided—class size, number of classes offered, etc. (4) in response to these concerns, Tech conducted a self-study survey last fall. (leader points to a copy of the 12/4/92 edition of the UD, also on the poster, with the self-study headline) Students, faculty, staff & alumni were surveyed to gain information on making Tech a better university. Dr. Hunt's committee is an extension of that , . 194 study. Its goal is to deal with budget cuts while preserving a quality education for our students, (new 5) Something which relates directly to the committee's work on gualitv education just came to its attention a few days ago. The committee is requiring the people involved in this project to work on this last-minute, rather difficult assignment. The leaders in the different rooms drew straws & unfortunately our room ended up with this last-minute assignment. Let me explain this last-minute assignment which we really must do. Our first objective is to complete that task & then we'll do some work on admission standards, which we had all expected to do anyway—I'll have more details on that part later. (5b)=(8) This last-minute assignment on university cost-cutting & revenue enhancing is so crucial because it is part of a nationwide competition Tech has just been invited to enter by US News & World Report (USN&WR) . I've been told that we cannot afford to pass UP this opportunity, so I hope von will give it vour best shot. (6) I realize you are here in order to receive course credit in your MGT class. I'll do what I can to see that you receive as many points as possible. This is a group project so you will be graded on your group's performance. Also, remember that you were selected for this project because of the strategic nature of your MGT class. (7 diff) Dr. Hunt has just given me a thorough briefing. Also, because of my work W5+-K •-K^ r^ ^ ^9 5 luy work with the Dean of Students Office I can give you guidance to do the assignment. (9) some of you may be familiar with US News' annual ranking of America's colleges. (leader holds up copy of the magazine, which then remains visible on desk.) Rankings are determined by college presidents & deans nationwide. (10) US News (leader shows copy) has 6 groups of university rankings: the top 25, quartiles l through 4, & "up & coming" schools. We currently are in quartile 3 & we have an opportunity to be placed in the "up & coming" group for 1993—a one-time shot, which would give Tech national recognition. (11) For the competition we need to provide evidence of the actual quality of work done by our students. That is the task vou will do first. (12) Here are the specifics provided by US News for working on this particular assignment; they also appear on this handout. (leader gives l copy of 1st "incorrect" handout rwith 2 errors]to each group—l copy of white response sheet & a copy of blue single-spaced directions for each participant) Please don't begin until I tell you to. (leader may read following directly from handout): **Here are several different cost reduction & revenue enhancing actions to be taken by college presidents. You are to categorize the 20 items listed on your handouts as either a primary or secondary priority. Write P for primary or top priority & S for lower priority items. As you go through each item, in the space below, justify in 1 or 2 well-articulated sentences, your prioritization. Explain why it is a very good idea (a P) or why it is not so good(an S). Watch your spelling & grammar throughout.** (13) This is a group project & **each** group will turn in^^ 1 set of recommendations. (14) Your recommendations may eventually be submitted to US News if they are judged to be among the best by Tech officials. We will be competing with up to 101 other schools for 3 new "up & coming" slots. You will also be competing with other groups of Tech management students who will work on this project. A copy of your work will be given to Dr. Hunt & your MGT instructors for initial grading & awarding course credit; spelling & grammar are important, so please double check your work. For course points, you will receive a group grade. (14a) However, Dr. Hunt did tell me that because this is such an important assignment, he & your instructors have decided that this is an "all or nothing" deal as far as earning course points is concerned. To be eligible for course credit your group must complete the assignment in the 20 minutes allowed by US News. The committee will choose the best work from among those groups who completed the assignment—so your work must be correct. I've heard that Dr. Hunt is a bear on grammar & spelling & wants to ensure that our submissions to US News bring no embarrassment to Texas Tech. Your work will be FAXed to US News exactly as you turn it in to me. so that it meets the deadline imposed by US News. If for some reason your group does not finish, you will need to sign UP for another 2-hour session later this semester to earn your course points. (^^^ After you work for on ^.^'nutes nn i-hi. i ^^^ nnli^nt-^^^ your work & leave the room. Dr. Hunt's committee has asked that you fill out a questionnaire based on your participation today. They would like a better understanding of how you felt about being involved so that Tech may continue to get student input on other projects. Then we'll take a 5-10 minute break & see where we stand. (16) I've covered a lot of information here very ouickly. ***D0 YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?? You need to ask now; it says I'm not allowed to answer anything but procedural questions while you are working, such as you can write in margins, can draft rationales on scratch paper, define terms such as "infrastructure", etc. (16a) However, since we were given this task at the last minute, I don't think this restriction is fair to you for earning course points. I am going to make myself available to answer any kinds of questions you may have throughout this assignment. You may consult me at any time & I'll assume responsibility for this decision. (16b) (after questions, leader glances at watch) We will have 2^ minutes for this assignment, as directed by US News. You may start working now. Good Luck! (leader closes curtain about half-way to give groups privacy & to allow leader to move from side to side; he provides a clock to each group) (17-diff) (leader hovers around each group & acts supportive, but not too anxious, until 1st(either) group 198 appears to have a grasp of the assignment; leader looks over their shoulders at white handout & notices inconsistencieslin case students don'tl—p.i, item 2 says "increasing" [instead of "decreasing" enrollmenti- so leader reopens curtain & calls this to attention of both groups. He offers to flip through magazine to see if he can help clear up inconsistencies; he asks l group to read each item out loud^ which he then checks against magazine; he corrects #2 to "decreasing enrollment." He says; "From my work in the Dean of Students* office, I know that President Lawless feels strongly about capping enrollment so I would suggest that vou make that item a P." Leader continues verifying items #3-15, and then #16 (on 2nd page) he corrects "increasing" to "decreasing budgets." Leader says: "From what I've heard Dr. Lawless is less concerned with this, so I would suggest you make it an S." (new 17b) Leader says: Bov, this is a last-minute rush. Dr. Hunt would never have left these errors go unnoticed, but we've caught them all and can proceed, (leader closes curtain again) (17c) (leader walks from group to group & immediately suggests each group split items into even/odd to be worked on by different people. He constantly reminds each group how much time is left—& never remains seated at desk. He asks each group if he mav be of any help & tells them "it looks like you're rjght on track." He sits down with each group for a few minutes & tries to pitch in. After 18 minutes have passed leader reminds both groups that 2 ^^^ minutes are left. (18) (at the end of 2 0 minutes leader reopens curtain & takes up each group^s collective work—white answer sheet & all blue instruction sheets;) He says: In case vou did not get finished, turn in all your notes as well. & I'll see if I can't get Dr. Hunt to agree to giving you extra consideration because you all worked so hard, (he then refers to envelope on desk containing questionnaires & scantrons) [NOTE: clock stays w/groups throughout both sessions] (19) Please take a few minutes to answer the questions on the scantrons provided. You will recall that the committee is conducting a study of this project and on the use of graduate students to lead other students on similar projects. (Leader may refer to directions which appear on envelopes): Use the white questionnaire and answer each question individually. When your group is finished with the white questionnaires, please return them to the envelope and keep your scantron on your table—be sure you know which scantron is yours. When both groups are finished, please have someone come outside to get me. I'll give more instructions then (leader closes curtain half-way & leaves room with all Task 1 materials until he is called back) (20) (leader returns & reopens curtain) Thanks for filling out the questionnaire. Before you leave for the break, I need to ask all of you not to speak to anyone about your work in here. Remember, you are competing against other groups of students for course credit. ^-Wa_s just told that wn.kina on t^- ^^^ond nart of the_assignment should permit . . 200 you to earn course points regardless of whether vou finished the first part. (21) (leader returns) Let's take a 10-minute break; I really think you deserve it for your hard work in here. (leader & both groups leave room for a 10-minute break) When leader & students return from break: (22) Welcome back—hope you had a relaxing few minutes. Now, let's get right down to the assignment on admission standards. Again, please don't begin until I tell you to. (23) (leader distributes 1 copy of 2nd handout to group—1 copy of white response sheet & a copy of blue single-spaced directions for each participant) (leader may read the following directly from handout:) **This shows Texas Tech's numbers for being placed in Quartile 3 by US News in 1992. As you can see, Harvard was #1 in the Top 25 & Rice was #12. UT-Austin is in the first quartile; & SMU & Texas A&M are both in the second quartile. Besides us, Baylor & TCU are in the 3rd quartile & UT-Arlington is in the 4th quartile. Tech's current statistics are listed on your handout. Please use the back of the page to justify your answers in complete sentences. (24) The university's long-term goal is to move into Quartile 2 over the next 7 years—by the year 2000. We need to upgrade our criteria to achieve the goal; they need to be more stringent, yet reasonable. (25) Your recommendations & justifications will be submitted to Dr. Hunt & to your MGT 4 380 instructors for grading. The committee will consider your recommendations, along with all the other groups', for inclusion in Tech's 7-Year Strategic Plan. 20 1 (26) To give you some idea on where to begin, the handout includes the current statistics for UT-Austin, which is in Quartile 1. Remember, we are trying to get moved into Quartile 2, so try to keep your answers conservative. (27) Again, I cannot participate in this task with you. ***ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?? (after questions, leader glances at watch.) You will have 15 minutes to work on this; so keep track of the time. You may begin now. Good Luck! (leader closes curtain about half-way to give groups privacy & to allow leader to move from side to side) (28) (after 5 & again after 10 minutes leader walks around each group & looks over their shoulders; he nods to show he thinks they are making progress & tells them how much is left & returns to his desk) (29) (after 15 minutes leader takes up each group's collective work—white answer sheet & all blue instruction sheets; he refers to envelope on desk containing *more* questionnaires which are green) (30) Please take a few more minutes to answer the questions on your scantrons for the university's study of this project. They would like a better understanding of how you felt about being involved so that Tech may continue to get student input on other projects. Tech has not gotten student input like this before and they would like to use more students & graduate student leaders on these projects. (Leader may refer directly to directions which appear on envelope) 202 Use the green questionnaire this time & begin your answers with item #101 on the bottom right-hand corner of your scantron. Don't look back at your first set of answers. Again, answer each question individually until you get to the last 6 questions. Please discuss those 6 questions only with your group—do not discuss those 6 questions with the other group—and each of you should fill in the same answers for the 6 questions on your scantrons. When your group is finished with the questionnaires, please return them to the envelope along with your scantrons & then seal the envelope. When both groups are finished, please have someone come outside to get me. I'll give more instructions then. (leader closes curtain half-way & leaves room with all Task 2 materials until he is called back) (31) (leader returns & reopens curtain) Thanks for coming in today. Again, please don't talk to anyone about what you did here today—you are competing for class points against other students. Thanks again & have a good weekend/evening! APPENDIX D APPROVAL FROM HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE 203 204 ^ >p / TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY Office of Research Services 203 Holden Hall Lubbock, Texas 79409 1035 (806) 742-3884/FAX (806) 742 3892 January 28, 1993 J. G. Hunt Management/COBA CAMPUS Dear Dr. Hunt: The Texas Tech University Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects has approved your project, "University Related Strategic Planning Project." Your approval will extend for one year from January 31, 1993. You will be reminded of the pending expiration one month before your approval expires so that you may request an extension if you wish. The best of luck on your project. Sincerely, James Smith Chairperson Human Subjects Use Committee JS/law An Ajfirmative Action Instiiution APPENDIX E CONSENT FORM 205 CONSENT FOPM 2 06 "Un?versitv''L?at"r^r\'°'F "y Participation in the university Related Strategic Planning Project " i ^'^llir.iT.tVT.2'-tllT. -^P-^^'^^' ^°^ this project is She, or her authorized representative, has explained that this project has the following objectives: To elicit student input on admission standards for universities. She or her authorized representative has (l) explained the procedures to be followed; (2) described thL benefitfto be expected; and (3) described appropriate alternative procedures. It has further been explained to me that my responses will remain confidential and will only be reported collectively with other respondents. Ms. Rivera or her representative has agreed to answer any inquiries I may have concerning the procedures and she or her representative has informed me that I may contact the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects by writing them in care of the Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, or by calling 742-3884. If this project causes any physical injury to participants, treatment is not necessarily available at Texas Tech University or the Student Health Center, nor is there necessarily any insurance carried by the University or its personnel applicable to cover any such injury. Financial compensation for any such injury must be provided through the participant's own insurance program. Further information about these matters may be obtained from Dr. Donald R. Haragan, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research, 742-2184, Room 108 Administration Building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409. Date; Signature: Please PRINT your name APPENDIX F FIRST TASK—NO CRISIS 207 208 Print Your Names Here University Cost-Cutting and Revenue Enhancing Task The following are actions to be taken by college presidents. You are to categorize each of the 2 0 items listed below as either a Primary or Secondary priority. Write P for what you believe should be top-priority actions and s for lower-priority actions. As you prioritize each item, in the space below it, justify in 1 or 2 well articulated sentences your prioritization. Explain why it is a very good idea (a P) or why it is not so good (an S) . Watch your spelling and grammar throughout. 1. Attracting more applicants by lowering tuition & fees 2. Capping or reducing enrollment 3. Capping or reducing faculty salaries 4. Capping or reducing nonfacuity salaries 5. Consolidating nonfaculty positions 6. Cutting the budget for intercollegiate sports 7. Deferring maintenance of campus infrastructure 209 8. Devoting more resources and energy to fund raising 9. Increasing class size 10. Increasing teaching loads 11. Instituting a hiring freeze for nonfaculty positions 12. Postponing planned capital expenditures 13. Raising tuition and fees 14. Reducing allocations for auxiliary enterprises such as research & study centers 15. Reducing allocations for faculty & institutional research 16. Reducing budgets for faculty, sabbaticals, conferences & travel 17. Reducing faculty size 18. Reducing library and other acquisitions 19. Reducing services for the off-campus community 210 20. Reducing student services in nonacademic areas such as personal counseling, health care, athletic & social facilities 21 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ DO NOT WRITE ON THIS FORM INSTRUCTIONS FOR University Cost-Cutting/Revenue Enhancing Task The following are actions to be taken by college presidents. You are to categorize each of the 20 items listed below as either a Primary or Secondary priority. Write P for what you believe should be top-priority actions and S for lower- priority actions. As you prioritize each item, in the space below It, justify in 1 or 2 well articulated sentences your prioritization. Explain why it is a very good idea (a P) or why it is not so good (an S) . Watch your spelling and grammar throughout. 1. Attracting more applicants by lowering tuition & fees 2. Capping or reducing enrollment 3. Capping or reducing faculty salaries 4. Capping or reducing nonfaculty salaries 5. Consolidating nonfaculty positions 6. Cutting the budget for intercollegiate sports 7. Deferring maintenance of campus infrastructure 8. Devoting more resources and energy to fund raising 9. Increasing class size 10. Increasing teaching loads 11. Instituting a hiring freeze for nonfaculty positions 12. Postponing planned capital expenditures 13. Raising tuition and fees 14 Reducing allocations for auxiliary enterprises such as research & study centers 15. Reducing allocations for faculty & institutional research 16. Reducing budgets for faculty, sabbaticals, conferences & travel 17. Reducing faculty size 18. Reducing library and other acquisitions 19. Reducing services for the off-campus community 20. Reducing student services in nonacademic areas such as personal counseling, health care, athletic & social facilities End of instructions. APPENDIX G FIRST TASK—CRISIS 212 213 Print Your Names Here University Cost-Cutting and Revenue Enhancing Task nr-^cJ^^^- f°llo^i^g are actions to be taken by college ll^lt •J'"'' ^""^ ^° categorize each of the 20 items listed below as either Primary or Secondary priority. Write P for what you believe should be top-priority actions and S for lower-priority actions. As you prioritize each item, in the space below it, justify m 1 or 2 well articulated sentences your prioritization. Explain why it is a very good idea (a P) or why It IS not so good (an S). Watch your spelling and grammar throughout. 1. Attracting more applicants by lowering tuition & fees 2. Capping or increasing enrollment 3. Capping or reducing faculty salaries 4. Capping or reducing nonfaculty salaries 5. Consolidating nonfaculty positions 6. Cutting the budget for intercollegiate sports 7. Deferring maintenance of campus infrastructure 214 8. Devoting more resources and energy to fund raisii ng 9. Increasing class size 10. Increasing teaching loads 11. Instituting a hiring freeze for nonfaculty positions 12. Postponing planned capital expenditures 13. Raising tuition and fees 14. Reducing allocations for auxiliary enterprises such as research & study centers 15. Reducing allocations for faculty & institutional research 16. Increasing budgets for faculty, sabbaticals, conferences & travel 17. Reducing faculty size 18. Reducing library and other acquisitions 215 19. Reducing services for the off-campus community 20. Reducing student services in nonacademic areas such as personal counseling, health care, athletic & social facilities 216 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THIS FORM INSTRUCTIONS FOR University Cost-Cutting/Revenue Enhancing Task The following are actions to be taken by college presidents. You are to categorize each of the 20 items listed below as either a Primary or Secondary priority. Write P for what you believe should be top-priority actions and S for lower-priority actions. As you prioritize each item, in the space below it, justify in 1 or 2 well articulated sentences your prioritization. Explain why it is a very good idea (a P) or why it is not so good (an S) . Watch your spelling and grammar throughout. 1. Attracting more applicants by lowering tuition & fees 2. Capping or increasing enrollment 3. Capping or reducing faculty salaries 4. Capping or reducing nonfaculty salaries 5. Consolidating nonfaculty positions 6. Cutting the budget for intercollegiate sports 7. Deferring maintenance of campus infrastructure 8. Devoting more resources and energy to fund raising 9. Increasing class size 10. Increasing teaching loads 11. Instituting a hiring freeze for nonfaculty positions 12. Postponing planned capital expenditures 13. Raising tuition and fees 14 Reducing allocations for auxiliary enterprises such as research & study centers ^ 15 Reducing allocations for faculty S institutional research ll: increasing budgets for faculty, sabbaticals, conferences & travel 17. Reducing faculty size 18. Reducing library and other acquisitions 19 Reducing services for the off-campus community 20* Reducing student services in nonacademic areas such as personal counseling, health care, athletic & social facilities End of instructions. APPENDIX H SECOND TASK—ALL TREATMENT CONDITIONS 217 218 PRINT YOUR NAMES HERE ~ ' Admission Standards for the Future This page contains current numbers for Texas Tech which serve as the basis for our ranking in Quartile 3 as a national university. Please upgrade these criteria to target our institution for Quartile 2 status by the year 2000. Your new criteria should be more stringent than the current numbers, yet still reasonable and within reach. For each of the 8 items, justify your recommendation in a complete sentence or 2 on the back of this form. As a baseline, you may refer to UT-Austin's current criteria which places them in Quartile 1. Remember that our goal is "^o inove into Quartile 2, which is above Quartile 3 but belov.^ Quartile 1. CURRENT TTU UT-Austin Future TTU (Q 3) (Q 1) (Q 2) 1-Average SAT score 94 0 1114 2-SAT 25—75 percentile 830-1050 994-1234 3-Freshmen in top 10% of HS class 24% 49% 4-Acceptance rate 67% 69% 5-Faculty with PhD 90% 97% 6-Student/Faculty ratio 24:1 20:1 7-Freshmen retention rate 68% 84% 8-Graduation rate 35% 56 o. other information on current rankings: Top 25: #1 Harvard Quartile 3: Texas Tec:. #12 Rice Baylor TCU Quartile 1: UT-Austin Quartile 4: UT-Arlingto.n Quartile 2: SMU Texas A&M SEOTENCES?"^ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH ITEM IN 1 OR 2 COMPLETE 8. APPENDIX I TASK 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 220 221 WHAT COLLEGE PRESIDENTS THINK An exclusive U.S. News poll Each year, U.S. News conducts a poll of college presidents, deans of academic affairs and directors of admissiora. This year's subject was the financial challenges now facing many institutions of higher learning. The poll was sent to 4,081 academic officials; 2,527 answered— which is a record 62 percera response rate. Among the findings, college and university officials say they are — Items appear on VERY UKELY OR SOMEWHAT LIKELY TO . handout in the '*^^**'^?**^?f*'***^.?'^v^'*y*'»^-. i, following order i—^_—.j;; 1: :_•, < 2 Capping or reducing -ir, r -.^ > .•'-J,^t enrollment. '».- ^ a ^^^.'1: 13 Raising tuition and fees i P 9V% -j .. AttractJn^rTKKB applicants l)y'>-U; V '^•^f •'• lowering tuition and fees • - .^ V% '• Capping orreducing faculty^?;. . - \'-'-''^y}7r 3 salaries'^'*'•-• - -s'-i->. . -S 25% ^ fO Increasing teaching Vja 15 sat)badc^^confefence^t^P^ 9 Increasing dass sizei; J- i "^.-I't i;.T 70%,')y Capping or reducing nonfaculty (^ ia re*^ 4 salaries"'O^'-t' ••'it ^'r '•^••yl **7%r;-^ Consolidating nonfaculty^'-- ^'^''' ^"''^^ 5 positiorgiot r.'.>aui'r*- -'-•*<'/P- 78%j;4 Institutirigd }»ir1ng freeze fof' -•'•-,^^j' ':;•?} in fjooacademic areas such',, - • -< - :>" >4 as personal counseling;: ~1 :>-. i•-.:-',!-; ^-"n heaWx^arei athtetic andAi-i^rl-. rtt.-v| 20 sod^fadiit)e3.'rvT.-.r' ••-4V>S. 45% j c Cuttinglbe budget fb^J -.',•; ^ki^^-i^*'r'^ ° intercollegtote sports-.- - >' T 43%T^ Deferring maintenance of • ; ">-'••' 7 canTpqslnfVastructurB(.i«i >*: 99%'^ Postponing planned capital-'' :.r^'" •'** 12 expenditures':' 'T-^--' --^'' -t-'r 9TV.j: Reducing Bbrary and ottier ^T;'/^ *_^< Reducing allocatiohs ^C •7^:;;•';;^^']Jv"^ , c faculty and institutional -.^.;_*!ar:*- .; 15 „,,,earrftO~^iP>^^i^^»^^'^-.^' **^ Reducing seortces for the crfT- p. v _\ *', 19 campus comniunfty.-"^*^> - "^^ Reducing allocations for - • ...-^ .,^,^. auxiTiary enterprises such as"* ' '^\ -'X 14 research and study ..'T - ' / centers'-- ' - • -— M^^^ Devoting more resources and -, 8 energy to fund-raising r 95% ' USHiWR-BasK data; Sir«y oorxkxtBd br ^*a'*«< Facts Inc. m spmg 1992 APPENDIX J QUESTIONNAIRE #1 222 223 PLEASE no NOT WRTTE ON THIS FORM QUESTIONNAIRE #1 (white) Please follow all instructions carefully and answer questions honestly, accurately and to the best o! your ability. Please do not discuss this project with anyone: it is important that each person's responlses reflect that person's opinion and not the opinion of others. There is no wav that vour particular responses can be identified or otherwise associated with vou. Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reported collectively with other respondents. Using a #2 pencil, blacken the corresponding circle on your scantron for the scale number that represents your opinions. Be sure to completely fill in the circle that reflects your response to each item. There is no need to vmte your name or SSN on the scantron. SECTION A. Instructions: In this section we are interested in your feelings based on your experiences with your leader and with the task vou just worked on. Using the following 5-point scale, please indicate to what extent your experience fits the questions asked. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently if not alwavs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) How often: 1. Were the procedures or the policies for accomplishmg the task adequate.'' 2. Did the leader make clear what you can expect, if your performance meets designated standards? „ 3. Did you feel any threat to your goals and objectives regarding your work today'. 4 Did your leader fail to intervene until problems became senous? , . , 5'. Did you see a clear connection between what you were doing and the goals of the university committee? 6. Did things have to go wrong for him (your leader) to take acuon/ 7 Did the leader clearly explain the importance of this task? 8. Did the leader provide his assistance in exchange for your effort 1 9 Was there time pressure associated with your completion of the msk. lb Did your leader show he is a Trnn believer in "If it ain't broke, don t fix it .' 11 Did your leader transmit a sense of vision for Texas Tech Universir\'! 12. Did your leader teU you what to do to be rewarded for your efforts > 13. Did you experience any stress or tension? 14 Did your leader express his sadsfaction when you did a good job! 15*. Did your leader suggest that Texas Tech's reputation is not as good as it should be? 16. Did your leader appear charismatic? 17 Did vou find your experience uncertain? 18: Did your leader express optimism for the future of Texas Tech University? [4-5-1] 224 E^i^^i^n^r^n'*"''"''"'* ^'l '^^''" ''°"^' dcscripdve Statements about leaders. We hL fVe™i V th^7 perceptions of your leader. Using the foUowing 5-point scale, please indicate how frequendy the leader m your room exhibited the behavior described: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently if not always (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) The leader in my room: 19. Makes personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. 20. Talks to us about his most important values & beliefs. 21. Sets high standards. 22. Remains calm during crisis situadons. 23. Emphasizes the importance of being committed to our behefs. 24. Envisions exciting new possibihties. 25. Instills pride in being associated with him. 26. Specifies the imponance of having a strong sense of purpose. 27 Talks optimistically about die future. 28 Goes beyond his own self-interest for the good of our group. 29 Considers the moral and ethical consequences of his decisions. 30 Expresses his confidence that we will achieve our goals. 31 Provides reassurance that we will overcome obstacles. 32 Displays conviction in his ideals, beliefs & values. 33 Provides continuous encouragement. 34 Displays extraordinary talent & competence in whatever he undertakes. 35 Takes a stand on difficult issues. 36 Focuses my attention on "what it takes" to be successful. 37. Displays actions which build my respect for him. 38. Clarifies the central purpose underlying our actions. 39. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 40. Displays a sense of power & confidence. 41. Talks about how trusting each other can help us to overcome our difficulties. 42. Arouses awareness of what is essential to consider. 43. Motivates me to do more than I thought I could do. 44. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. 45. Articulates a compelling sense of vision of the future. 46. Heightens my motivation to succeed. 47. Behaves in ways that are consistent with his expressed values. 48. Shows determination to accomplish what • ,he sets out to do. 49. Gets me to do more than I expected I could do. For the following two questions, use the scale that appears below each question. 50. In all, how satisfied are you with the leadership abilities of the person you are rating? * (a) very (b) somewhat (c) neither (d) fairly (e) very dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied nor satisfied satisfied dissatisfied 51. In all, how satisfied are you with the methods of leadership used by die person you are * rating to get your group's task done? (a) very (b) somewhat (c) neitiier (d) fairly (e) very dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied nor satisfied satisfied dissatisfied 225 For the next set of questions, please use the following scale: (^) (b) (c) (d) (e) Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently /i\ /^x if not always ^^> (2) (3) (4) (5) To what extent: 52. Did your leader appear to be an exceptional leader? ^ 53. Did you enjoy working with your leader? ^ 54. Did you feel proud to be working with your leader? ^ 55. Would you support your leader in an emergency? ^ 56. Were there moments when you felt like leaving the room because of the leader? ^, 57. Do you have a divided sense of loyalty toward your leader? * 58. Do you feel your leader can be trusted? 59. Were the members of your group cooperative with each other*^ 60. Would you hesitate to change to another leader even if your group didn't interact verv * well? 61. Did your leader appear self-confident? 62. Do you feel your leader has integrity? * 63. Do you feel that your group members knew they could depend on each other? 64. Did you feel like part of your group? * 65. Is your leader someone you can depend on to do the right thing? * 66. Did the members of your group work together as a team? 67. Did your leader appear to have a vision of the future? 68. Is your leader someone you have confidence in? * 69. Did your leader have high expectations for your group's performance? 70. Would the offer of a few more course points-if you changed to a different leader-be * appealing? 71. Did your leader express his confidence in your abihty to do the assignment? 72. Would you recommend this leader to a good friend? * 73. Was the task you just performed one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done? * 74. Can a lot of people be affected one way or another by the work which was done on the task you just performed? * 75. Was the work you did on the task you just performed meaningful to you? * 76. How many of your fellow group members did you consider to be a friend before you worked together today? (a) one (b) two (c)three (d)four SECTION C. Instructions: Think of the assignment you just worked on. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 77. I can make a difference. ^ 78. I am taken seriously around here. ^ 79. I am important around here. 226 SsS^th^S^p '^^%^^^^" ^^"^^"^ biographic and related questions about the oSn BlTr?pn T^^\ ^""^ "^^ following questions, use die scale that appeal^ below each question Blacken the orcle on your scantron for the choice tiiat applies to you. For die last nnfv nr «« on^'l^^^'V^ ^^^^j^' ^^^ ^^^^ ^s^^^' ^^ '"ost, two questions-either 88 only, or 88 and 89; or 88 and 90. 80. How much prior knowledge did you have about what would occur here today"? (a) none (b)veryHtde (c) some (d) a fair amount (e) very much 81. What is your room code? (a) 1 (b) 2 (c) 3 82. What is your age (years last birthday)? (a)<20 (b) 20-22 (c) 23-25 (d) 26-28 (e) over 28 83. What is your gender? (a) Female (b) Male 84. How many years of work experience do you have? (Convert pan-rime to equivalent full-time). (a) < 1 year (b) 1-2 years (c) 3-4 years (d) 5-6 years (3) > 6 years 85. When do you expect to graduate? (a) May 93 (b) Aug 93 (c) Dec 93 (d) May 94 (e) later tlian May 94 86. Who is your instructor for MGT 4380 (Admin Policy)? If neither a,b,c, or d, please blacken e (a) Boal (b) Faver (c) Ms. Yvonne Smith (d) Mr. Virgil Smith (e)none of these 87. Who is your instructor for MGT 4380? (If you answered a,b,c, or d for #86, please blacken d (a) Savage (b) Volker @ 8am (c) Volker (a) 9:30 am (d) neither Savage nor Volker 88. Are you a MANAGEMENT major? (a) Yes (b) No If you answered YES to #88, please STOP here. 89. If not a Management major, which of the following is your major? (a) Accounting (b) Finance (c) General Business (d) MIS (e) Marketing 90. If none of the above choices is your major, is your major outside the College of Business? (a) Yes (b) No X Thanks for responding to these questions. Please take a moment to be sure you have responded to all items (1-87), and whatever items apply to your major. ALSO. BE SURE THAT NO OUESTION HAS MORE THAN ONE ANSWER FILLED IN. When you are finished, will each of you please return die WHITE questionnaire to the brown envelope on your table, but do not seal the envelope. Then turn your scantron face down on the table-and remember which scantron is yours. When bodi groups are finished, ask the leader to return. APPENDIX K QUESTIONNAIRE #2 227 228 PLEASE no NOT WRITE ON THIS FORM QUESTIONNAIRE #2 (green) Please follow all instmctions carefully and answer questions honesdy, accurately and to the best of your ability. Please do not discuss this project with anyone: it is important that each person's responses reflect that person's opinion and not the opinion of others. There is no wav that vour particular responses can be identified or otherwise associated with vou. Your responses will remain confidential and will onlv be reported collectively with other respondents. Using a #2 pencil, blacken the corresponding circle on your scann-on for the scale number that represents your opinions. Be sure to completely fill in the circle that reflects your response to each item. There is no need to write your name or SSN on the scantron. SECTION A. Instructions: In this section we are interested in your feelings based on your experiences with your leader and with the task vou just worked on. Using the following 5-point scale, please indicate to what extent your experience fits the questions asked. BEGIN \MTH ITEM #101 ON THE FRONT OF YOUR SCANTRON; #91-100 SHOULD BE BLANK, & DEPENDING ON YOUR MAJOR #89 AND/OR #90 MA^ ALSO BE BLANK. DO NOT REFER BACK TO YOUR EARLIER ANSWERS, AS SOME QUESTIONS ARE DIFFERENT. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently if not alwavs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) How often: 101. Were the procedures or die pohcies for accomphshing die task adequate! 102. Did die leader make clear what you can expect, if your performance meets designated standards? \ A n 103. Did you feel any direat to your goals and objectives regarding your work today. 104 Did your leader fail to intervene until problems became serious? 105. Did you see a clear connection between what you were doing and the goals of the university committee? 106. Did tilings have to go wrong for him (your leader) to take action! 107. Did die leader clearly explain die importance of diis task? 108. Did die leader provide his assistance in exchange for your effort? 109 Was diere time pressure associated widi your completion of die task _ 110 Did your leader show he is a fum believer in "If it ain't broke, don t tix it ! 111 Did your leader transmit a sense of vision for Texas Tech University! 112. Did your leader teU you what to do to be rewarded for your efforts I 113. Did you experience any stress or tension? 114. Did your leader express his satisfaction when you did a good job.' 115. Did your leader suggest tiiat Texas Tech's reputation is not as good as it should be. 116. Did your leader appear charismatic? 117. Did you find your experience uncertain? ^ , T T • •. n 118. Did your leader express optimism for the future of Texas Tech University [4-5-2] 229 SECTION B. Instructions: This section contains descriptive statements about leaders We are interested in your perceptions of your leader. Using die foUowing 5-point scale, please indicat how frequendy die leader in your room exhibited the behavior described. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently if not always (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) The leader in my room: 119. Makes personal sacrifices for the benefit of odiers. 120. Talks to us about his most important values & beliefs. 121. Sets high standards. 122. Remains calm during crisis situations. 123. Emphasizes the importance of being committed to our beliefs. 124. Envisions exciting new possibihties. 125. Instills pride in being associated with him. 126. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 127. Talks optimistically about the future. 128. Goes beyond his own self-interest for the good of our group. 129. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of his decisions. 130. Expresses his confidence that we will achieve our goals. 131. Provides reassurance that we will overcome obstacles. 132. Displays conviction in his ideals, beliefs & values. 133. Provides continuous encouragement 134. Displays extraordinary talent & competence in whatever he undertakes. 135. Takes a stand on difficult issues. 136. Focuses my attention on "what it takes" to be successful. 137. Displays actions which build my respect for him. 138. Clarifies the central purpose underlying our actions. 139. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. 140. Displays a sense of power & confidence. 141. Talks about how crusting each odier can help us to overcome our difficulties. 142. Arouses awareness of what is essential to consider. 143. Motivates me to do more than I thought I could do. 144. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. 145. Articulates a compelling sense of vision of the future. 146. Heightens my motivation to succeed. 147. Behaves in ways diat are consistent widi his expressed values. 148. Shows determination to accomplish what \ he sets out to do. 149. Gets me to do more than I expected I could do. For the following two questions, use the scale that appears below each question. 150. In all, how satisfied are you widi die leadership abihties of die person you are rating? (a) very (b) somewhat (c) neither (d) faidy (e) very dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied nor satisfied satisfied dissatisfied 151. In all, how satisfied are you with the mediods of leadership used by die person you are rating to get your group's task done? (a) very (b) somewhat (c) neidier (d) fairly (e) very' dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied nor satisfied satisfied dissatisfied 230 For the next set of questions, please use the following scale: Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently /i\ /^x 'f not alwavs (^^ (2) (3) (4) (5) - To what extent: 152. Did your leader appear to be an exceptional leader? 153. Did you enjoy working widi your leader? 154. Did you feel proud to be working with your leader? 155. Would you support your leader in an emergency? 156. Were diere moments when you felt like leaving die room because of the leader? 157. Do you have a divided sense of loyalty toward your leader? 158. Do you feel your leader can be trusted? 159. Were the members of your group cooperative with each odier? 160. Would you hesitate to change to anodier leader even if your group didn't interact vcr\ well? 161. Did your leader appear self-confident? 162. Do you feel your leader has integrity? 163. Do you feel that your group members knew they could depend on each other? 164. Did you feel like part of your group? 165. Is your leader someone you can depend on to do the right diing? 166. Did the members of your group work togedier as a team? 167. Did your leader appear to have a vision of the future? 168. Is your leader someone you have confidence in? 169. Did your leader have high expectations for your group's performance? 170. Would the offer of a few more course points—if you changed to a different leader--be appealing? 171. Did your leader express his confidence in your abihty to do die assignment? 172. Would you recommend this leader to a good friend? 173. Was the task you just performed one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done? 174. Can a lot of people be affected one way or another by the work which was done on die task you just performed? 175. Was the work you did on the task you just performed meaningful to you? 176. How many of your fellow group members did you consider to be a friend before you worked together today? (a) one (b) two (c)three (d)four SECTION C. Instructions: Think of the assignment you just worked on. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 177. I can make a difference. 178. I am taken seriously around here. 179. I am important around here. 231 SECTION D^ Instructions: YOU WILL WORK ON THE LAST 6 QUESITONS AS A GROUP. Discuss each question with the other people at vour table only and, as a group, decide on a response to each item. Each person should fdl in die same response on dieir questionnan-e for all 6 items. When both groups are finished, please ask the leader to return. For the next set of questions, please use the following scale: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently if not alwavs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) To what extent: 180. Did your leader appear self-confident? 181. Did your leader appear to have a vision of the future? 182. Did your leader have high expectations for your group's performance? 183. Did your leader express his confidence in your abihty to do the assignment? 184. Did your leader appear charismatic? 185. Did your leader appear to be an exceptional leader? Thanks again. Please take a moment to be sure you answered all items (#101-1S5; your group should have responded to #180-185 as a group). ALSO, BE SURE THAT NO OUESTION HAS MORE THAN ONE ANSWER. Again, items 91-100 (and maybe 89 and/or 90, depending on your major) on the fi*ont of your scanu-on should be blank. Last, please return the GREEN questionnaires AND your scantrons to the brown envelope and then SEAL the envelope and leave it on the table. When bodi groups are finished, ask the leader to return. APPENDIX L TASK 2 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 232 233 PRINT YOUR NAMES HERE Admission Standards for the Futu re -3 w^^?^ contains current numbers for Texas Tech which ser as^ the basis for our ranking in Quartile 3 as a nation university. Please upgrade these criteria to target o institution for Quartile 2 status by the year 2000. Your n criteria should be more stringent than the current numbers, y still reasonable and within reach. For each of the 8 ite.T justify your recommendation in a complete sentence or 2 on the ba of this form. As a baseline, you may refer to UT-Austin's current criier which places them in Quartile 1. Remember that our goal is tc ::\o into Quartile 2, which is above Quartile 3 but below Quartile 1. CURRENT TTU UT-Austin Future TTU* (Q 3) (Q 1) (Q 2) 1-Average SAT score 940 1114 1059 2-SAT 25-75 percentile 830-1050 994-1234 942-1179 3-Freshmen in top 10% of HS class 24% 49% 36% 4-Acceptance rate 67% 69% 73% 5-Faculty with PhD 90% 97% 92% 6-Student/Faculty ratio 24:1 20:1 16:1 7-Freshmen retention rate 68% 84% 82% 8-Graduation rate 35% 56% 58% Other information on current rankings: Top 25: #1 Harvard Quartile 3: Texas Tech #12 Rice Baylor TCU Quartile 1: UT-Austin Quartile 4: UT-Arlington Quartile 2: SMU Texas A&M *Mean of 46 listings in Quartile 2, USN&WR APPENDIX M CYCLES OF LEADERS, TREATMENT CONDITIONS, AND ROOMS 234 235 Day/Date LEFT (123) Ldr RIGHT (123) Ldr M, 4/5 5:30 (1) CW 6:00 (3) TB 7:30 (2) CW Tu, 4/6 6:00 (2) TB 6:30 (3) CW 8:00 (3) TB 8:30 (1) CW Tu, 4/13 6:30 (2) CW 6:00 (1) TB 8:30 (3) CW 8:00 (2) TB W, 4/14 5:30 (3) TB 7:00 (2) CG Sa, 4/17 10:00 (1) CG 12:30 (3) CG Su, 4/18 1:00 (1) CW 12:00 (2) CG 3:00 (2) CW 4:00 (1) TB TB r 11 rr 1 CW 11 rr 11 11 CG r 11 r (3) 4 left; 2 right 6 Cr (2) 4 left; 3 right 7 Vi (1) 3 left; 3 right 6 Ta APPENDIX N LEADER DEBRIEFING FORM 236 237 LEADER DE-BRIEFING .qHF.P.T ' Date: Time: 1. Leader TB CC CB 2. Condition T Vi Cr 1st Task: 3. Did students take notes during introduction? Left Y / N Right Y / N 4. How many questions did they ask about 1st task? Left: Right Comments:______ Your answer(s): 5. Any obvious reactions from groups? Left Y / N Right Y / N Comments: Start time for 1st task 7. Finish time for 1st task: Left Right Did the groups finish? Left Y / N Right Y / N 8. Any part of script ad-libbed? ^ 9. Any part of script left out? (Joan will be in faculty lounge during break) Note: If a 4-person group, anything different than with a 5-person group? 238 2nd Task 3. Did students take notes during introduction? Lett Y / N Right Y / N 4. How many questions did they ask about 2nd task? Left Right Comments: Your answer(s): 5. Any obvious reactions from groups? Left Y / t: Right Y / N Comments: 6. Start time for 2nd task: 7. Finish time for 2nd task: Left Right Did the groups finish? Left Y / N Right Y / N 8. Any part of script ad-libbed? 9. Any part of script left out? 10. Any other comments about entire session? Thanks! Note: If a 4-person group, anything different than -.vitp. a 5-person group? ^^______APPENDIX O SAMPLE OF DEBRIEFINGS 239 240 STRATEGIC PLANNING PROJECT - Intro 1. I'm TA for Dr. J.G. Hunt—he's on university committee studying admission standards 2. Committee seeks student input on this topic—especially from senior-level BA students ready to graduate; committee is also using graduate students (Tom/Chris, your "leader") to explain project to you as you work for course points 3. Work will be graded primarily by Dr. Hunt and your instructor; I will review it as well. 4. THANKS for coming in! 5. Mirrors are intimidating; hope your "tour" put you at ease; there is no taping, no cameras, no one watching from the control room; later groups will tip-toe through; I may be in & out if necy ***we want all of you to be at ease in these rooms**^ 6. Please complete green Consent Form to participate in university project; watch for sockets on floor. MINI De-BRIEF 1. THANKS for participating. 2. Purpose: to participate in a study of leadership styles using graduate student leaders to guide student followers in tasks. This is my dissertation. 3. We are interested in how your perceptions here were affected by your leader and by the work you did. 4 . PLEASE DO NOT TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT TODAYj_ for several reasons: a. so you don't influence future participants b. course points still at stake, until all students have gone through all sessions (JGH & instructors have final say) 5. If asked by others what went on, please say "We worked on admission standards, just like they said we would." 6. Beginning next Monday, after all groups are done with project, I'll come into Admin Policy classes to answer any questions, provide full details, and report scores earned on your work. 7. Please cooperate with me by not discussing what happened here. THANKS AGAIN!!!