WHO TO FOLLOW? THE ROLE OF FOLLOWER VARIABLES IN RATINGS OF SOCIALIZED AND PERSONALIZED CHARISMA Lindsay Marie Giaccani-Gomes B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2005 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in PSYCHOLOGY (Industrial/Organizational) at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO SUMMER 2009 WHO TO FOLLOW? THE ROLE OF FOLLOWER VARIABLES IN RATINGS OF PERSONALIZED AND SOCIALIZED CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP A Thesis by Lindsay Marie Giaccani-Gomes Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member Ajij Q-q (3? 0 0 1 Date I ) ii Student: Lindsay Marie Giaccani-Gomes I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. Coordinator CAL Dr. Lisa M. Bohon Date/ Department of Psychology iii Abstract of WHO TO FOLLOW? THE ROLE OF FOLLOWER VARIABLES N RATINGS OF PERSONALIZED AND SOCIALIZED CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP by Lindsay Marie Giaccani-Gomes This study explored under-researched follower "individual difference" variables (Machiavellianism, Collectivism, Self-concept Clarity, and gender) that had not been previously studied together in predicting perceptions of a charismatic leader. One- hundred and twenty college students were given a survey packet containing a fictitious speech given by a CSU president, the Mach IV scale, the Individualism-Collectivism scale (INDCOL), and the Self-concept Clarity scale (SCC). The results suggested a significant relationship between Mach scores and identification of the leader motives (personalized vs. socialized). High Machs under-identified highly socialized charismatic leaders, while low Machs over-identified highly socialized leaders. In addition, a fan- shaped interaction was found between gender and leader motive on influence. Men showed no differences in leader influence as a function of leader motive; however, women wer I ly influenced by the socialized charismatic leader. ommmittee Chair Dr. Oriel Strickland J-, LLS,2_ Date iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to my thesis advisor Dr. Oriel Strickland, who has contributed volumes of time, effort, and knowledge throughout the development of this thesis and my educational career at California State University, Sacramento. Without her support and guidance, this thesis would not be the document it is today. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Kim Roberts, who has continually supported me with her guidance, and who never failed to be there for me when I needed her. I would also like to thank Dr. Caio Miguel for joining my thesis committee on such quick notice. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated. To my family and my fiance Matthew, I am forever grateful for your unwavering support and unconditional love. It is because of their motivation and faith in me that I was able to accomplish my educational goals. Without them, I would not be the person that I am today. Thank you for helping me turn my dreams into a reality. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgments........................................................................................................v List of Tables ...................................................... vii List of Figures ...................................................... viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 2. METHOD ...................................................... 25 3. RESULTS............................................................................................................. 30 4. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 36 Appendix A. Instructional Prompt for CSU Presidential Address Excerpt ... 42 Appendix B. CSU Presidential Address Excerpt ...................................................... 43 Appendix C. Personalized/Socialized Charismatic Leadership Scale .. 44 Appendix D. Leader Influence Scale ........................................... 45 Appendix E. Machiavellianism Scale ........................................... 46 Appendix F. Individualism/Collectivism Scale (INDCOL) . ....................................48 Appendix G. Self-Concept Clarity Scale (SCC) ...................................................... 51 References................................................................................................................... 53 vi LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for Study Variables................31 2. Table 2 Intercorrelations among Study Variables ...................................... 32 3. Table 3 Mach Category by Leader Motive Category ................................. 33 4. Table 4 Analysis of Variance for the Effects of Gender x Leader Motive ....... 35 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Figure 1 Means plot of Gender by Leader Motive Interaction ..................... 35 viii 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The success of an organization depends on the knowledge, skills, abilities, and motivation put forth by its employees (Conger, 1999). It is equally important that subordinates develop a meaningful and empowering relationship with their supervisors where both the employee and the supervisor play an active role in constructing the leadership relationship. To this end, research should focus on the significance of the leadership process in an effort to promote efficient organizational functioning. Leadership theory and research articulate the notion that leaders strongly influence or cause their subordinates to perform at new heights, and that leadership is best conceptualized not as something a leader does to his or her followers, but rather as a relationship between a leader and his or her followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Shamir, 1991). Furthermore, if organizations make the effort to understand the employee characteristics that affect preferences for a certain type of leader, this could ultimately lead to a more productive and enjoyable working environment. In recent years, several prominent researchers have made significant contributions in understanding leadership, specifically involving the emergence of theories of charismatic and transformational leadership (e.g. Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977). However, few scholars have attempted to investigate the role of the followers in the charismatic leadership process as many theories of charismatic leadership have solely focused on the leader's personality 2 and behavior in the relationship (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House, 1977; Howell & Shamir, 2005). In particular, Shamir (1991) proposed that more research is needed to examine the nature of the follower's psychological attachment to the leader. Howell (1988) distinguished between two types of charismatic relationships (personalized vs. socialized), and argued that specific follower characteristics would play a crucial role in determining the type of relationship they develop with the leader. However, there is still a significant absence in the literature in terms of these follower characteristics. For the development of a more comprehensive charismatic leadership theory, greater recognition should be given to the follower's role (i.e. followers' self-concept variables) and personality characteristics, such as the degree of the personality trait Machiavellianism and gender differences in follower's preference for the two types of charisma (personalized vs. socialized). The purpose of this thesis is to extend and build upon previous research by specifically investigating some of these under-researched follower variables. After consulting the literature, the follower variables that were chosen for study were: self- concept clarity, Collectivism, Machiavellianism, and gender. These variables have yet to be explored together in leadership research as it relates to preferences for a charismatic leader. The following literature review will discuss current trends in the field regarding charismatic leadership, focusing on the distinction between socialized versus personalized charismatic leadership relationships, and will provide a theoretical background concerning the roles that individual differences variables contribute to the charismatic leadership process. 3 CharismaticLeadership Theoretical definitions. The concept of leadership can generally be defined as a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Although the terms "charisma" and "transformational" leadership are often used interchangeably, Bass (1985) separated them, with charisma forming a part of transformational leadership. The term "charisma" has often been used in the leadership literature to describe a subset of leaders who by the force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers (Hunt, 1999). According to Bass (1985), transformational leadership includes charisma (providing a vision and a sense of mission, raising follower's self-expectations), intellectualstimulation (helping employees emphasize rational solutions and challenge old assumptions), and individualized consideration(developing employees and coaching).