Also, some individuals change their values to be consistent with those of the leader.
Visions articulated by value based leaders need not be formulated
exclusively by a single leader. The collective vision may have been
initially conceived by leaders and members of the collective who preceded
the current leader. In this case, the leader is one who perpetuates the
vision by continuing to communicate it and institutionalizing it through
the establishment and maintenance of institutional means such as
strategies, policies, norms, rituals, ceremonies, and symbols.
Alternatively, organizational visions can be formulated by leaders in
conjunction with organizational members.
The effects of the articulation of and emphasis on ideological values are rather profound. Organizational members become aware of ideological values that they share with the leader and as a collective. Members identify with the collective vision and with the organization--thus a high level of collective cohesion is developed. Collaborative interactions among organizational members is enhanced. Individuals experience a sense of collective efficacy and a heightened sense of self-esteem as a result of their cohesion and the leader's expressions of confidence in their ability to attain the vision. Further, motives relevant to the accomplishment of the vision are aroused and organizational members come to judge their self- worth in terms of their contribution to the collective and the attainment of the vision.
The result is strongly internalized member commitment, and intrinsic
motivation to contribute to the organization and to the collective vision.
Members are more inclined to support changes in technology, structure and
strategies introduced by top management, which may result in an
organizational culture characterized by values oriented toward teamwork and
meeting customers', clients', constituents' and competitive needs. There
ensues a marked reduction in intra-organizational conflict and a high
degree of team effort and effectiveness. As noted above, members expend
effort above and beyond the call of duty, and sacrifice their self-interest
in the interest of the organization. As a result, individual motivation,
organizational culture, strategy and structure are likely to become aligned
with the collective vision.
A reinforcing process may also occur whereby organizational members
increase their respect for and confidence in the leader and each other
based on the resulting organizational success. As a result, their initial
confidence and motivation is further reinforced. Such effects are
consistent with the notion of romanticized leadership (Meindl, Ehrlich &
Dukerich, 1985). The resulting increased confidence in the leader in turn
gives the leader more influence and thus contributes to the leader's
ability to further influence organizational performance.
This is an “ideal type” theoretical scenario. Clearly all the aspects of this scenario will not always come to fruition in response to value based leadership. No such claim is made. Rather, it is argued that organizational members will be motivated on the basis of shared internalized values and identification with the leader and the collective, which are far more motivational than alternative bases of motivation.
It is possible that value based leaders may introduce flawed
strategies and that the result may be organizational decline or failure
rather than improvement and success. It is also possible that the leader
may stand for socially undesirable values such as ethnocentrism, racism,
persecution, dishonesty, or unfair or illegal competitive practices
(Lindholm 1990). Regardless of the strategy or values expressed by the
leader, it is argued that a relationship based on value identification
between leader and organizational members will result in increased member
commitment and motivation, as well as increased organizational cohesion.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
There is extensive empirical evidence with respect to the effects of
behaviors specified by value based leadership theory. Charismatic,
visionary, and transformational theories of leadership are precursors of
the leader behaviors specified by value based leadership theory. Tests of
these theories have been based on various operationalizations that qualify
as measures of value based leadership including interviews (Howell &
Higgins, 1990), laboratory experimentation (Howell & Frost, 1989;
Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), questionnaires (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam,
1995), and quantified archival data (House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991). In
all of these tests, the leader behavior measured consists of articulating
an organizational vision and behaving in ways that reinforce the values
inherent in the vision, thus qualifying as indirect evidence relevant to
the effects of value based leadership. Space limitations prevent a
detailed review of the evidence. However, Bass and Avolio (1993), House
and Shamir (1993), Lowe et al,. (1995), and Yukl (1994), present overviews
of these studies. With surprising consistency these empirical studies have
demonstrated consistently that value based leader behavior predicts unusual
levels of leader effectiveness directed toward enhancing organizational
performance.
Support for the effects of value based leadership is illustrated by a
recent meta-analysis of the charisma subscale of the Bass and Avolio (1989)
Multifacet Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The MLQ charisma subscale
describes relationships between subordinates and superiors. Superiors who
receive high scores on this scale are described by subordinates as having
an exciting vision of the future for the organization they lead, and being
exceptionally motivational, trustworthy, and deserving of respect.
Support for the theoretical main effects of value based leader
behavior has been demonstrated at several levels of analysis including
dyads, small informal groups, major departments of complex organizations,
overall performance of educational and profit making organizations, and
nation states. The evidence is derived from a wide variety of samples
including military officers, educational administrators, middle managers,
subjects in laboratory experiments and management simulations, US
presidents and chief executive officers of Fortune 500 firms (Bass &
Avolio, 1993; House & Shamir, 1993; Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1996).
The evidence shows that the effects of value based leader behavior are
rather widely generalizable in the United States and that they may well
generalize across cultures. For instance, studies based on the charisma
scale of the MLQ have demonstrated similar findings in India (Periera,
1987), Singapore (Koh, Terborg & Steers, 1991), The Netherlands (Koene,
Pennings & Schreuder, 1991), China, Germany, and Japan (Bass, 1997).
In summary, the studies based on various operationalizations of value
based leadership clearly show that this genre of leadership results in a
high level of follower motivation and commitment and well-above-average
organizational performance, especially under conditions of crises or
uncertainty (Pillai & Meindl, 1991; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1995;
Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1996; Waldman, Atwater & House, 1996).
NEWLY INTEGRATED THEORIES
The value based theory of leadership integrates the precursor theories
discussed above with a number of assertions advanced in several
psychological theories of motivation and behavior. Following is a brief
review of the psychological theories that are integrated into the Value
Based Leadership Theory.
McClelland's Theories of Non-conscious Motivation
According to this theory, the motivational aspects of human beings can
be understood in terms of four non-conscious motives in various
combinations (McClelland, 1985). These motives are the achievement, power,
affiliation, and social responsibility motives. McClelland has developed a
theory of entrepreneural effectiveness based on the role of achievement
motivation, and a more general theory of leader effectiveness consisting of
theoretical assertions concerning the optimum combination of the above four
motives for effective leadership. This theory is entitled the Leader
Motive Profile Theory (LMP). In the following sections we discuss the four
motives discussed by McClelland and the LMP theory.
Achievement Motivation
Achievement motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for
achieving excellence in accomplishments through one's individual efforts
(McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958). Achievement motivated
individuals set challenging goals for themselves, assume personal
responsibility for goal accomplishment, are highly persistent in the
pursuit of goals, take calculated risks to achieve goals and actively
collect and use information for feedback purposes. Achievement motivation
is theoretically predicted to contribute to effective entrepreneurship
(McClelland, 1985) and effective leadership of small task oriented groups
(House et al., 1991). Litwin and Stringer (1968) demonstrated
experimentally that small groups led by managers who enacted achievement
oriented and arousing behaviors were more effective than groups with
managers who did not.
In management positions at higher levels in organizations, and
particularly in organizational settings where technical requirements are
few and impact on others is of fundamental importance, managerial
effectiveness depends on the extent to which managers delegate effectively
and motivate and co-ordinate others. Theoretically, high achievement
motivated managers are strongly inclined to be personally involved in
performing the work of their organization and are reluctant to delegate
authority and responsibility. Therefore, high achievement motivation is
expected to predict poor performance of high-level executives in large
organizations. House et al. (1991) found that achievement motivation of
U.S. presidents was significantly inversely related to archival measures of
U.S. presidential effectiveness.
Affiliative Motivation
Affiliative motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for
establishing, maintaining, and restoring close personal relationships with
others. Individuals with high affiliative motivation tend to be non-
assertive, submissive, and dependent on others (McClelland, 1985).
Theoretically, highly affiliative motivated managers are reluctant to
monitor the behavior of subordinates, to convey negative feedback to
subordinates even when required, or to discipline subordinates for ethical
transgressions or violations of organizational policies. Highly
affiliative motivated managers are also theoretically expected to manage on
the basis of personal relationships with subordinates and therefore show
favoritism toward some. House et al. (1991) found that the affiliative
motive was significantly negatively correlated with U.S. presidential
charismatic leadership and archival measures of U.S. presidential
effectiveness.
Power Motivation
