Expert answer:write a paper about global leadership
Solved by verified expert:Using Self-knowledge and awareness in your global leadership paper. It will be the
topics that will be addressed in your paper. You will prepare a 6 page double-spaced paper using APA style for format and references. Your paper should also have headings that include an introduction, headings for each major topic you discuss and a conclusion. Be sure to cite sources properly throughout your paper using APA style. End with the references used for your paper. Start by discussing global leadership in the context of the specific topics your paper will address. In your paper, describe why the topics you selected are important for effective global leadership. Using the research, provide examples to illustrate ways that the skills, knowledge and competencies are used in practice. Keep your opinions out of the paper. Rather, use the research to build a business case in defending your stance. Use Times New Roman 12 point font and be sure to use APA style for each of the following elements: Self-knowledge and awareness (prior to leading others you must first lead yourself by being aware of your values and beliefs. Understanding your beliefs and knowing where they might differ from others’ is critical to global leadership. Without this key characteristic, you will not be able to adapt to and tolerate the deep-seated beliefs of others).The reference must be the journal articles. I already give you 1, please make sure you use it and also you should use 3 more journal articles related to the global leadership in the paper.
when_does_charisma_matter_for_top_level.pdf
the_keirsey_temperament_sorter_ii.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
r Academy of Management Journal
2015, Vol. 58, No. 4, 1051–1074.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0831
WHEN DOES CHARISMA MATTER FOR TOP-LEVEL
LEADERS? EFFECT OF ATTRIBUTIONAL AMBIGUITY
PHILIPPE JACQUART
EMLYON Business School
JOHN ANTONAKIS
University of Lausanne
One stream of leadership theory suggests that leaders are evaluated via inferential observer processes that compare the fit of the target to a prototype of an ideal (charismatic)
leader. Alternatively, attributional theories of leadership suggest that evaluations depend
on knowledge of past organizational performance, which is attributed to the leader’s
skills. We develop a novel theory showing how inferential and attributional processes
simultaneously explain top-level leader evaluation, and, ultimately, leader retention and
selection. We argue that observers will mostly rely on attributional mechanisms when
performance signals clearly indicate good or poor performance outcomes. However,
under conditions of attributional ambiguity (i.e., when performance signals are unclear),
observers will mostly rely on inferential processes. In Study 1, we tested our theory in an
unconventional context—U.S. presidential elections—and found that the two processes,
due to the leader’s charisma and country’s economic performance, interact in predicting
whether a leader is selected. Using a business context and an experimental design, in
Study 2, we showed that CEO charisma and firm performance interact in predicting
leader retention, confirming the results we found in Study 1. Thus, our results suggest that
this phenomenon is quite general and can apply to various performance domains.
their organization, which is causally attributed
to them. Via these two signaling channels, selectors have some stereotypical cues about future organizational performance. Selectors, particularly
in limited information conditions, intuitively believe that the more an individual is leader-like and/
or the better the performance of their organization,
the more likely the leader will engender good future performance.
The two psychological processes are well explained
by current leadership theories. From an inferential
perspective, the degree to which a leader’s characteristics resemble a prototypical leader imbues the
target with leader-like qualities (Lord, Foti, & De
Vader, 1984). One key quality, charisma—an attribute
idealized across cultures (Den Hartog, House, Hanges,
& Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1999)—strongly predicts leader
prototypicality per se (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti,
2011) and objective outcomes (Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Another explanatory route
is that of attribution theory, which suggests that organizational performance—a presumed indicator of
a leader’s competence—determines how leaders will
be evaluated (Calder, 1977; Lord, Binning, Rush, &
Thomas, 1978; Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Thus, good
Broadly defined, organizations—whether entities or
institutions like firms or nation states (Hodgson, 2006)—
have leaders at their helms. What psychological processes explain how these top-level leaders are evaluated
and selected? We advance a novel theory by combining two—inferential and attributional—psychological
explanations. Top-level leaders are selected because of
(a) how leader-like they seem and (b) the performance of
The first version of this article was submitted to the
Academy of Management Journal on 18 September 2012
(i.e., seven weeks before the U.S. presidential election of
that year took place) and included the forecast that President Obama would be reelected. We are grateful for the
assistance of Inna Karapetiants and Yannick Rohrbasser in
coding the acceptance speeches and for the help of Molly
Molloy and Samson Zadmehran in collecting these speeches.
We also appreciate helpful comments received from J. Scott
Armstrong, Jean-Philippe Bonardi, Romain Brixtel, Marius
Brülhart, Fabrizio Butera, Deanne Den Hartog, Joerg Dietz,
Marina Fiori, Philippe Monin, Dominic Rohner, Nicolas
Roulin, Mathias Thoenig, Niels Van Quaquebeke, and
Christian Zehnder on earlier versions of this manuscript.
We are very grateful, too, to associate editor Raymond
Sparrowe for his helpful editorial guidance, and also appreciate the constructive comments of the reviewers.
1051
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
1052
Academy of Management Journal
performance is thought to be an outcome of effective leadership. This tendency is so deeply rooted
that such attributions are made even when they are
not warranted (Weber, Camerer, Rottenstreich, &
Knez, 2001).
Accordingly, leaders are positively evaluated if they
act leader-like and obtain good performance. A leader
doing a “good” job will be reappointed; a leader doing
a “poor” job will be replaced (Hilger, Mankel, &
Richter, 2013). Of course, observers (particularly distant ones) cannot know everything about the leader,
if organizational performance is good or poor, or
whether the leader was responsible for the performance. Observers lack full information—yet, they
have to make a heuristic decision under conditions
of uncertainty (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
The two psychological processes reflect different
mechanisms and profoundly different approaches to
understanding leadership. The first, which is leadercentric, argues that leaders, particularly charismatic
ones, are highly influential and affect organizational
outcomes. The second, a follower-centric perspective,
states that leadership is a social construction; observers
use organizational outcomes, whether or not caused
by the leader, to decide if a leader is effective (Meindl,
1990). Current theory has not reconciled these two
processes (cf. Day & Lord, 1988; Meindl & Ehrlich,
1987). Do both matter for top-level leadership? Might
the processes “work together” in explaining leader
selection? We seek to answer these questions by
advancing a hybrid theory of leader evaluation
and, consequently, selection. We focus on top-level
leaders and how they are evaluated by selectors, because of the impact such leaders can have on collectives (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Jones &
Olken, 2005).
Our contribution is threefold. First, we will reconcile (a) inferences made about leaders’ characteristics, providing indications of how effective they
may be, with (b) attributions about the performance
of the leader’s organization, providing indications of
how effective the leaders have been (see Erickson &
Krull, 1999).1 Although inferences or attributions
about target leaders have been examined extensively
Note, we use the terms “inferences” and “attributions”
as defined by Erickson and Krull (1999) who have argued
that the terms refer to distinct decision-making processes:
Inferences concern understanding the nature of an individual whereas attributions concern the cause of an
outcome (see also Lord and Maher, 1994, who have used
the terms recognition- and inference-based processes
respectively).
1
August
in laboratory settings (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner,
1999; Howell & Frost, 1989; Rush, Thomas, & Lord,
1977), they have not been studied simultaneously or
in terms of how leaders are selected in consequential
roles. The CEO selection and succession literature
has focused on factors such as firm performance and
demographic characteristics (Datta & Guthrie, 1994,
1997), board composition and ownership (Boeker &
Goodstein, 1993), board power (Zajac & Westphal,
1996), or on understanding how new CEOs affect
strategic change in succession events (Hutzschenreuter,
Kleindienst, & Greger, 2012). Both laboratory and field
studies, however, have neglected to model how inferential and attributional processes simultaneously
affect selection decisions when attributional information is unclear.
Second, apart from bridging two disparate theories, our key contribution concerns the moderating
effect of clarity of attributional information. When
performance is clearly good (or bad), leader evaluations
will ultimately be positive (or negative) largely irrespective of the leader’s charisma. Simply put, leader
charisma matters little if outcomes attributed to the
leader send clear signals. However, in conditions of
attributional ambiguity, where performance signals
are inconclusive, this uncertainty will spur selectors to decide on the basis of inferential processes.
In other words, the charismatic leader will shine
when attributional information is nebulous.
Third, in addition to testing our theory in a more
conventional setting—the decision to retain a CEO—we
use an unconventional context to demonstrate the
general nature of our theory: the selection of a U.S.
president. This extraordinary setting provides a controlled environment allowing for a direct test of our
theory, as we explain in detail in later sections of
this paper.
With respect to our contributions, it is important
to briefly differentiate attributional ambiguity from
Weberian (1947) notions of crisis, which can refer to (a)
bad organizational performance or (b) times of turbulence or environmental volatility (Waldman, Ramirez,
House, & Puranam, 2001), and this irrespective of
organizational performance signals. Our focus is on
the clarity of performance signals, which concerns
the absence of a clear negative or positive organizational performance signal and does not necessarily
reflect environmental volatility. Charisma has been
shown to matter most for firm performance in conditions of perceived environmental turbulence
(Waldman et al., 2001); thus, the charismatic leader
is seen as a savior for an organization operating in
a risky environment. This phenomenon is different
2015
Jacquart and Antonakis
from what our theory sets out to explain. Our model
suggests that charisma will matter most for leader
selection when organizational performance is ambiguous, irrespective of environment volatility.
In the next section, we build a general theory of
leader selection—independent of the context in
which we test it—by discussing how leaders are
evaluated from a social–cognitive perspective. We
focus on evaluations resulting from attributions on
performance cues and from inferences based on
prototypes of ideal leaders. As concerns the latter,
we argue that charisma is a key characteristic of
such prototypes and that it will likely matter a great
deal in situations of attributional ambiguity. Then,
we highlight how our theory explains leader evaluation (i.e., retention and/or selection) in a political
(Study 1) and in a business (Study 2) context.
EVALUATION OF LEADERS
Attributions of Leadership and Performance Cues
Building on Jones and Davis’ (1965) correspondence inference theory, Calder (1977) argued that
attributions begin with observations of (a) the leader’s
behaviors and (b) their outcomes (e.g., organizational performance). The outcome is attributed to
the leader if behaviors are distinctive and not situational dependent. Thus, attributions are likely made
when both behaviors and their effects are observable;
however, departing from Jones and Davis (1965),
Calder (1977: 197) suggested that “individuals may
also rely heavily on knowledge about effects which
are associated with a person, even though the requisite behavior for these effects has not been observed.”
Theoretically, observers reason in a probabilistic
way; they observe an event and attribute a cause to
it, if the event is representative of the cause (Tversky
& Kahneman, 1974). For example, organizational
performance is representative of the leader’s competence; good organizational performance is attributed
to effective leadership (Binning, Zaba, & Whattam,
1986; Calder, 1977; Lord & Maher, 1994). Observing
unambiguous effects is sufficient to make attributional
judgments (Calder, 1977), and this in a heuristic way.
In the case of close leaders (an information-rich situation), judgments are probably made in a more controlled way, especially when the context of the
judgment is seen as important (see Martinko, Harvey,
& Douglas, 2007).
This attribution phenomenon is general. In a study
of U.S. oil companies, CEO compensation was observed to increase following rises in firm profit, even
1053
though profits depended on oil price fluctuations,
which are mostly exogenous to the actions of any
single CEO (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2001). Business
press articles about a U.S. airline deconstructed and
reconstructed the CEO’s image to match the evolution
of the firm’s performance (Chen & Meindl, 1991).
These attributions apply, too, in the selection of CEOs,
wherein selectors scrutinize the organizational performance of the presiding CEO to see whether he or
she should remain in office. If organizational performance is deemed to have been below par, outside
candidates will be considered (Hilger et al., 2013),
who, in turn, will have the performance of their
companies scrutinized (Khurana, 2002). This process parallels what occurs in professional sports, in
which context coaches are often fired following
prolonged poor team performance.
Interestingly, organizational performance is attributed to leaders even when performance is known to
depend on exogenous factors (Weber et al., 2001).
Thus, some scholars (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987) state
that leadership might simply be socially constructed
and does not matter for organizational outcomes. Of
course, although performance signals bias leaders’
evaluations, leaders still impact organizational performance (Jones & Olken, 2005; Lowe et al., 1996).
In summary, the extent to which organizational
performance is positive (or negative) will determine
whether selectors will be positively (or negatively)
predisposed to the leader; this evaluation, in turn,
affects whether the leader is re-selected. Thus, an
incumbent leader will only be retained if performance has been good (Hilger et al., 2013).
Hypothesis 1. Organizational performance signals
will predict leader selection
Note that we use the term “selection” in a broad
sense to include leader selection and re-selection
(for incumbents) in cases of contests or retention at
the helm of an organization or institution.
Inferences of Leadership and Person Perception
Similar to the intuitive attribution processes
described above, individuals also judge leaders by relying on heuristics. The foundations of these inferential judgments are “schemas”—cognitive knowledge
structures representing a concept along with its attributes and the relations between these attributes and
other concepts (Fiske, 1995). Schemas are developed
with repeated exposure to common attributes that
become indicative of a prototype. Once triggered,
schemas require little mental effort and convey
1054
Academy of Management Journal
configural information quickly (Fiske, 1995). Hence,
individuals use slivers of information representative of
a prototype to classify a target (see Tversky & Kahneman,
1974). Only a few indicators (e.g., of charisma) are
needed to be classified under a particular label (e.g.,
charismatic). Once classified, other indicators of the
prototype, even though not observed directly, will
be associated with the target (Cantor & Mischel,
1977). This process makes for a stable memory
structure about the target on the particular label,
directs attention, guides information encoding and
memory, and influences judgments and attitudes
(Fiske, 1995).
Hence, individuals have implicit prototypes of
leaders (Lord et al., 1984). For leadership at the
upper echelons, where there is a lack of information
about what leaders are like, observers perceive leaders
in idealized ways and are susceptible to classifying
a leader following leaders’ image-building efforts
(Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Charisma is an important element used in leader image building; from
a dramaturgical perspective, leaders construct their
charisma via impression-management techniques and
by packaging and communicating their message to
the target audience in an attractive way (Gardner &
Avolio, 1998). Such leaders are especially good communicators and use framing and scripting techniques
to project vision (Gardner & Avolio, 1998); these
leaders typify what followers expect of them (Hogg,
2001), as we discuss next.
The importance of charisma for the leadership
prototype. Charisma is a “symbolic leader influence
rooted in emotional and ideological foundations”
(Antonakis et al., 2011: 376). Such leaders are exceptionally expressive and inspiring (Gardner &
Avolio, 1998) and “manifest and symbolize desired
collective values” (Shamir, 1995: 40). They typify
the prototypicality that followers seek; they are liked
and influence followers because followers identify
with them (Hogg, 2001). These leaders are able to articulate “an ideological vision . . . [that engenders]
a sense of identity with the collectivity” (Shamir,
House, & Arthur, 1993: 585). Charismatic leaders
make extensive use of articulation and impressionmanagement skills (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). They are
persuasive and use image-building techniques to imbue themselves with charisma (House, 1977); the use of
rhetorical strategies is the key that “shapes the charismatic relationship” (Gardner & Avolio, 1998: 42). Such
leaders affect their followers through the message they
deliver (Shamir et al., 1993), which stems “from nonverbal and verbal influencing tactics that reify the
leader’s vision” (Antonakis et al., 2011: 376).
August
Charismatic leaders use specific strategies in
terms of what they say and how they say it. To create
emotional links with their followers, they state their
moral conviction, sort wrong from right, and communicate high and ambitious goals, as well as the
confidence that these can be achieved; they do this
using rich but simple descriptions that trigger
a vivid vision (Antonakis et al., 2011; Antonakis &
House, 2002; House, 1977; House & Shamir, 1993;
Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993).
Doing so requires the leader to use rhetorical techniques, including metaphors, contrasts, lists, stories,
and so forth (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Frese,
Beimel, & Schoenborn, 2003; House, 1977; Shamir
et al., 1994), termed “charismatic leadership tactics,”
which predict leader emergence and prototypicality
(Antonakis et al., 2011).
For example, the use of metaphors by U.S. presidents is correlated with ratings of charisma (Mio,
Riggio, Levin, & Reese, 2005) and with ratings of their
greatness by historians (Emrich, Brower, Feldman, &
Garland, 2001). In experimental settings, researchers
have found that perceptions of leader charisma and
effectiveness are strongly influenced by the leader
displaying a strong delivery style—both in terms of
vocal fluency and of non-verbal behaviors (Awamleh
& Gardner, 1999). These charismatic tactics can be
experimentally manipulated and have strong effects
on many outcomes (e.g., trust in the leader, affect for
the leader; Antonakis et al., 2011).
Thus, we expect that the extent to which a leader is
perceived as charismatic will affect the extent to which
this leader is perceived as leader-like and selected,
because observers have well-developed schemas that
suggest that charismatic leaders are highly effective.
Hypothesis 2. Charisma will predict leader
selection.
The ambiguity of performance signals and the rise
of the charismatic leader. Hypotheses 1 and 2 depend
on two types of information signals: performance
(i.e., outcomes) and behavioral (i.e., charismatic). We
believe that these two signals interact with each other.
The clearer the performance signal, whether positive or
negative, the less likely charisma will matter for leader
evaluation and selection. Charisma will matter les …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades