STUDY OF IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORY

IN A SAMPLE OF THE SPANISH MIDDLE MANAGERS

PRESENTATION

• Main reasons of this study• Theories, Theoretical Model

• Conclusions

• Important Results

• Statistical Analysis Techniques

• Data Collection Instrument

• Hypothesis

• Others Cross-Cultural Management StudiesPART I

PART II

PART III

MAIN REASONS TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INTERNATIONAL PROJECT

TO DETERMINE THOSE IMPLICIT THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL

LEADERSHIP CULTURALLY ENDORSED (61 COUNTRIES)

TO FIND SCARCE SPANISH MIDDLE MANAGER EDUCATION ABOUT

CULTURE DIFFERENCES

TO NOTE SMALL NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP USING A SAMPLE OF THE SPANISH MIDDLE MANAGERS

IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORY - Lord y Mahles (1991).

Individuals have implicit theories

about the attributes and behaviors

that distinguish leaders from others,

efective leaders from ineffective ones

VALUE/BELIEF THEORY - Hofstede (1984); Triandis (1995).

Values and Beliefs

within culture

THEORIES (I)

EffectiveInfluencialAcceptable

Granted Status+Privileges

The behaviors of individuals, groupsand institutions are enacted and viewedas legitimate, acceptable and effective

IMPLICIT MOTIVATION THEORY - Is the Theory of non-conscious motives

originally advanced by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark y Lowell (1953):

STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY - Child (1981).

Demands (Organizational Contingencies) that are imposed on organizations

THEORIES (II)

“Affiliation” “Achievement” “Power (social influence)”

The essential nature of Human Motivation can be understoodin terms of three implicit motives

Organizational Form andPractice

IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES FOR EACH

CULTURE

LEADERATTRIBUTES &

BEHAVIOR

LEADER ACCEPTANCE& EFFECTIVENESS

ORGANIZATIONALCONTINGENCIES

ORGANIZATIONALCULTURE, VALUES

& PRACTICES

SOCIETAL CULTURE, VALUES & PRACTICES

THEORETICAL MODEL

OTHERS CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT STUDIES(1960-90)

*Power Distance (Sratification), Tolerance versus Intolerance of Uncertainty, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus Feminity

1960 1970 1980 1990 Kluckholm y Strodtbeck (1961)

Haire, Guiselli y Porter (1966)

Cummings et al. (1971)

Bass y Burger (1979)

Hofstede * (1980) (1983)

Bass (1986)

McFarlin et al. (1992) Lewis (1992) Boldy et al. (1993) Trompenaars (1993) Page y Wiseman (1993) Pavett y Morris (1995)

HYPOTHESIS

“ INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LEADERSHIP STYLE

ADOPTED, THE IMPLICIT THEORY OF

ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP SHOWS THE

SOCIETAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND

PRACTICES”

INSTRUMENT: QUESTIONNAIRES ALPHA Y BETA

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: ( Factor Dimensionality Reliability Validity)

Correlation Coefficient for Multiple Item Scales, James et al. (1984)

One-way Analysis of Variance

Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC)

Generalizability Analysis, Glick (1985)

Hierarchical Analysis of Variance, Kirk (1995)

Second-order Factor Analysis

Principal Components Factor Analysis (Maximun Likelihood)

SAMPLE: 153 MIDDLE MANAGERS (91) FINANCIAL SERVICES (62) FOOD SECTOR

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

CUESTIONNAIRES

QUESTIONNAIRE ALPHA: Section 1: The way things are in your work organization (35 Items)

“ 2: Leader Behaviors (56)

“ 3: The way things generally shoyuld be in your work

(41) “ 4: Leader Behaviors (56 )

“ 5: Demographic Questions (28)

QUESTIONNAIRE BETA: Section 1: The way things are in your society (39 Items)

“ 2: Leader Behaviors (56)

“ 3: The way things should be in your society (39)

“ 4: Leader Behaviors (56 )

“ 5: Demographic Questions (28)

EXAMPLE OF PARALLEL ITEMSFOR THE CULTURE SCALES (I)

ORGANIZATIONAL AS ISThe pay and bonus system in this organization is designed to maximize:

Individual CollectiveInterests Interests

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ORGANIZATIONAL SHOULD BEIn this organization, the pay and bonus system should be designed to maxime:

Individual CollectiveInterests Interests

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EXAMPLE OF PARALLEL ITEMSFOR THE CULTURE SCALES (II)

SOCIETY AS IS

The economic system in this society is designed to maximize:

Individual CollectiveInterests Interests

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SOCIETY SHOULD BE

I believe tha economic system in this society should be designed to maxime:

Individual CollectiveInterests Interests

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CULTURE DIMENSIONS (I)

1.- UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE:

the extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by reliance on social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices to alleviate the unpredictability of future events.

2.- POWER DISTANCE:

the degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally.

3.- COLLECTIVISM I:

reflects the degree to which organizational and societal practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.

4.- FUTURE ORIENTATION:

the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future and delaying gratification.

CULTURE DIMENSIONS (II)

5.- COLECTIVISM II:

reflects the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.

6.- PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION:

the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward group members for performance improvement and excellence.

7.- HUMANE ORIENTATION:

the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friedly, generous, caring and kind to others.

8.- GENDER EGALITARIANISM:

the extent to which and organization or a society minimizes gender role differences.

9.- ASSERTIVENESS:

the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, confrontational, and aggresive in social relationships.

EXAMPLE OF LEADER BEHAVIORS

CAUTIOUS = Proceeds/performs with great care and

does not take risks

ORGANIZADED = Well organizaded, methodical, orderly

Scale (Sections 2 & 4):

1= Greatly inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader

2= Somewhat inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader

3= Slightly inhibits a person from being an outstanding leader

4= Has no impact on whether a person is an outstanding leader

5= Contributes slightly to a person from being an outstanding leader

6= Contributes somewhat to a person from being an outstanding leader

7= Contributes greatly to a person from being an outstanding leader

DESCRIPTIVE STADISTICS :

• FREQUENCIES, PERCENT OF EACH DISTINCT VALUE & CHI-SQUARE (4F)

INFERENCE STADISTICS:• CANONICAL CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS (6M)

• HOTELLING T² (3D)• FACTOR ANALYSIS

(VMAX)(4M)• STEPWISE REGRESSION (2R)• DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS (7M)

PREDICTION 1

PREDICTION2

PREDICTION 3

PREDICTION 4

PREDICTION 5

PREDICTION 6

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES (BMDP STATISTICAL PROGRAM)

PART II:

MAIN RESULTS

P 1:

“SOCIETAL VALUES WILL HAVE A POSITIVE CORRELATION WITH THE SOCIETAL PRACTICES”

CANONICA CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS RESULTSEIGENVALUE CANONICA

CORRELATIONNUMBER OFEIGENVALUES

BARTLETT´S TEST FORREMAINING EIGENVALUESCHI- SQUARE D.F. TAIL PROB.

1859.29 1482 0.00000.885520 0.94085 1 1653.66 1406 0.00000.79192 0.88990 2 1504.52 1332 0.00000.78281 0.88476 3 1359.46 1232 0.0006

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.0.00025 0.01591 37 0000 2 0.99830.00003 0.00591

P 2:

“ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES WILL HAVE A

POSITIVE CORRELATION WITH THE

ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES”

CANONICA CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS RESULTSEIGENVALUE CANONICA

CORRELATIONNUMBER OFEIGENVALUES

BARTLETT´S TEST FORREMAINING EIGENVALUESCHI-SQUARE D.F. TAIL PROB.

1775.32 1394 0.00000.85707 0.92578 1 1590.50 1320 0.00000.81688 0.90382 2 1429.23 1248 0.00030.77721 0.88159 3 1286.59 1178 0.0144

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.0.01782 0.13349 33 0.60 8 1.00000.00627 0.07918

P 3:

“ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND PRACTICES

WILL SHOW SOCIETAL VALUES AND PRACTICES”

CANONICA CORRELATIONS ANALYSIS RESULTSEIGENVALUE CANONICA

CORRELATIONNUMBER OFEIGENVALUES

BARTLETT´S TEST FORREMAINING EIGENVALUESCHI-SQUARE D.F. TAIL PROB.

31228.24 5775 0.00001.000 1.000 1 30510.98 5624 0.00001.000 1.000 2 29793.73 5475 0.00001.000 1.000 3 29076.47 5328 0.0000

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.0.004 0.0641 74 0.06 3 0.99650.001 0.0355

P 4:

“FINANCIAL MIDDLE MANAGERS PROFILE

WILL REFLECT SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FOR

THE FOOD MIDDLE MANAGERS PROFILE”

“SHOULD BE” LEVEL

A = UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

B = ASSERTIVENESS

C= GENDER EGALITARISM

D = FUTURE ORIENTATION

E = POWER DISTANCE

F = COLLECTIVISM (I)

G = HUMANE ORIENTATION

H = PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION

I = COLLECTIVISM (II)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

A B C D E F G H I

FINANCIAL FOOD

(p<0.05) y-axis means

“AS IS” LEVEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

A B C D E F G H I

FINANCIAL FOOD

(p<0.05) y-axis means

A = UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

B = ASSERTIVENESS

C= GENDER EGALITARISM

D = FUTURE ORIENTATION

E = POWER DISTANCE

F = COLLECTIVISM (I)

G = HUMANE ORIENTATION

H = PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION

I = COLLECTIVISM (II)

P 5:

“IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES WILL DEPEND ON

VALUES AND PRACTICES AS SOCIETAL AS

ORGANIZATIONAL”

* Factors: Autocratic Administrative Considerate Charismatic Humane Individualist Sincere

AUTOCRATIC

• GENDER EGALITARIANISM (O.C.)

• FUTURE ORIENTATION (S. C.)

• POWER DISTANCE (O.V.;S.V.)

• HUMANE ORIENTATION (O.C.;S.V.)

• PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION (S.V./C.)

• COLLECTIVISM (II) (O.V.;S.V./C.)

0.24*

-0.35*

0.36*

0.39*

0.26*

0.18

0.22*

-0.24*0.26*

-0.20

-0.46*

S.: SocietalO.: OrganizationalV.: ValuesC.: Practices : Regression Coef.

(p<0.05) (*p<0.01)

• FUTURE ORIENTATION (S.V.)

• COLLECTIVISM (II) (O.V.)

• POWER DISTANCE (O.V.)

• PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION (O.C.) (S.C.)

(S.V.)

ADMINISTRATIVE

CONSIDERATE

CHARISMATIC

HUMANE

SINCERE

INDIVIDUALISTIC

0.32*

0.26

0.45*

-0.31*

-0.29*

0.27*

0.28*

-0.22

0.36*

0.39*

(p<0.05)

S.: SocietalO.: OrganizationalV.: ValuesC.: Practices : regression coef.

(*p<0.01)

P 6:

“IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES WILL HAVE

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ACCORDING

TO INDUSTRIES”

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

A B C D E F G

FINANCIAL FOOD

LEADERSHIP STYLES BY SECTORS (Leadership Prototype Scales)

A = AUTOCRATIC

B = ADMINISTRATIVE

C= CONSIDERATE

D = CHARISMATIC

E = HUMANE

F = INDIVIDUALISTIC

G = SINCERE

(p<0.05) y-axis means

IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES (The most difference by sectors)

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

A B C D E F G

Atributes

A = EFFECTIVE BARGAINER

B = NON-EGALITARIAN

C = MODEST

D = FORESIGHT

E = MOTIVE AROUSER

F = EXCELLENCE O.

G = HONEST

y-axis Standardized coefficients for canonical variables

PART III:

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

SOCIETAL & ORGANIZATIONALVALUES

Performance Orientation• Gender Egalitarianism • Assertiveness• Humane O.• Power Distance • Future O.

• Collectivism (I) & (II) • Uncertainty Avoidance

CONCLUSIONS P1, P2, P3:SOCIETAL VALUES/ PRACTICES SOCIALES

ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES/PRACTICES

SOCIETAL &

ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES

*The “onion diagram”: manifestation of culture at different levels of depth (Hofstede,1991)

CHANGES: Societal,

Economical Political

CONCLUSIONS P4:MIDDLE MANAGER PROFILE BY SECTORS

(values y practices)

• RELIES ON ORGANIZATIONAL NORMS, RULES & PROCEDURES TO

ALLEVIATE UNPREDICTABILITY OF FUTURE EVENTS

• ASSERTIVENESS

• FEMINITY BEHAVIORS (inversely in values level)

• FUTURE ORIENTED

• GROUPS & INDIVIDUALS GOALS

• HUMANE ORIENTED

• PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION

• ORGANIZATIONAL LOYALTY

FINANCIAL S.

FOOD S.

• AUTOCRATIC

• ADMINISTRATIVE

• CHARISMATIC

• CONSIDERATE

• HUMANE

• INDIVIDUALISTIC

• SINCERE

• Peformance Orientation

• Gender Egalitarianism• Humane Orientation

• Power Distance• Future Orientation

• Collectivism (II)

• Uncertainty Avoidance• Colectivism (I)

CULTURE DIMENSIONS´ INFLUENCEIN LEADERSHIP STYLES

CONCLUSIONS P5:

CONCLUSIONS P6: LEADERSHIP STYLES

(Leadership Prototype Scales) • SINCERE• ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRIBUTES SOMEWHAT (2 Sectors)• CONSIDERATE• CHARISMATIC

• INDIVIDUALISTIC SLIGHTLY INHIBITS (2 Sectors)

• HUMANE HAS NO IMPACT : (Financial Sector)

CONTRIBUTES SLIGHTLY (Food Sector)

• AUTOCRATIC SLIGHTLY INHIBITS: (Financial Sector)

SOMEWHAT INHIBITS (Food Sector)

CONTRIBUTES:

• EFFECTIVE BARGAINER

• EXCELENCE ORIENTED

• IMPROVEMENT ORIENTED

• INTRA-GROUP COMPETIDOR

• UNIQUE

CONTRIBUTES:

• WIN/WIN PROBLEM-SOLVING

• HONEST

• SINCERE

• MODEST

FINANCIAL SECTORFOOD SECTOR

CONCLUSIONES P6: IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES

INHIBITS:

RISK TAKERSELF-EFFACING

INHIBITS:SELF-INTERESTARROGANTCYNICALDICTATORIALBOSSYELITIST & NON-EGALITARIAN

HYPOTHESIS

“INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LEADERSHIP STYLE

ADOPTED, THE IMPLICIT THEORY OF

ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP SHOWS THE

SOCIETAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES AND

PRACTICES”