journal article Show The Academy of Management Journal Vol. 37, No. 5 (Oct., 1994) , pp. 1079-1108 (30 pages) Published By: Academy of Management https://doi.org/10.2307/256667 https://www.jstor.org/stable/256667 Abstract When a firm's chief executive officer is also the chairperson of its board, directors have opposing objectives. According to organization theory, such CEO duality establishes strong, unambiguous leadership. But according to agency theory, duality promotes CEO entrenchment by reducing board monitoring effectiveness. We developed a contingency framework to resolve these perspectives. Sampling three industries to enhance generalizability, we found that board vigilance was positively associated with CEO duality. Duality was less common, however, when CEOs had high informal power and when firm performance was high. Journal Information The Academy of Management Journal presents cutting edge research that provides readers with a forecast for new management thoughts and techniques. All articles published in the journal must make a strong empirical and/or theoretical contribution. All empirical methods including (but not limited to) qualitative, quantitative, or combination methods are represented. Articles published in the journal are clearly relevant to management theory and practice and identify both a compelling practical management issue and a strong theoretical framework for addressing it. For more than 40 years the journal has been recognized as indispensable reading for management scholars. The journal has been cited in such forums as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Economist and The Washington Post. The journal is published six times per year with a circulation of 15,000. Publisher Information The Academy of Management (the Academy; AOM) is a leading professional association for scholars dedicated to creating and disseminating knowledge about management and organizations. The Academy's central mission is to enhance the profession of management by advancing the scholarship of management and enriching the professional development of its members. The Academy is also committed to shaping the future of management research and education. Founded in 1936, the Academy of Management is the oldest and largest scholarly management association in the world. Today, the Academy is the professional home for more than 18290 members from 103 nations. Membership in the Academy is open to all individuals who find value in belonging. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Common to all definitions of leadership is the notion that leaders are individuals who, by their actions, facilitate the movement of a group of people toward a common or shared goal. This definition implies that leadership is an influence process. The distinction between leader and leadership is important, but potentially confusing. The leader is an individual; leadership is the function or activity this individual performs. The word leader is often used interchangeably with the word manager to describe those individuals in an organization who have positions of formal authority, regardless of how they actually act in those jobs. But just because a manager is supposed to be a formal leader in an organization doesn't mean that he or she exercises leadership. An issue often debated among business professionals is whether leadership is a different function and activity from management. Harvard's John Kotter says that management is about coping with complexity, and leadership, in contrast, is about coping with change. He also states that leadership is an important part of management, but only a part; management also requires planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling. Management produces a degree of predictability and order. Leadership produces change. Kotter believes that most organizations are underled and overmanaged. He sees both strong leadership and strong management as necessary for optimal organizational effectiveness. Leadership traits Theories abound to explain what makes an effective leader. The oldest theories attempt to identify the common traits or skills that make an effective leader. Contemporary theorists and theories concentrate on actions of leaders rather than characteristics. A number of traits that appear regularly in leaders include ambition, energy, the desire to lead, self‐confidence, and intelligence. Although certain traits are helpful, these attributes provide no guarantees that a person possessing them is an effective leader. Underlying the trait approach is the assumption that some people are natural leaders and are endowed with certain traits not possessed by other individuals. This research compared successful and unsuccessful leaders to see how they differed in physical characteristics, personality, and ability. A recent published analysis of leadership traits (S.A. Kirkpatrick and E.A. Locke, “Leadership: Do Traits Really Matter?” Academy of Management Executive 5 [1991]) identified six core characteristics that the majority of effective leaders possess:
Traits do a better job at predicting that a manger may be an effective leader rather than actually distinguishing between an effective or ineffective leader. Because workplace situations vary, leadership requirements vary. As a result, researchers began to examine what effective leaders do rather than what effective leaders are. Leadership skills Whereas traits are the characteristics of leaders, skills are the knowledge and abilities, or competencies, of leaders. The competencies a leader needs depends upon the situation.
To help managers refine these skills, leadership‐training programs typically propose guidelines for making decisions, solving problems, exercising power and influence, and building trust. Peter Drucker, one of the best‐known contemporary management theorists, offers a pragmatic approach to leadership in the workplace. He believes that consistency is the key to good leadership, and that successful leaders share the following three abilities which are based on what he refers to as good old‐fashioned hard work:
In Drucker's words, “Effective leadership is not based on being clever, it is based primarily on being consistent.” Very simply put, leading is establishing direction and influencing others to follow that direction. Keep in mind that no list of leadership traits and skills is definitive because no two successful leaders are alike. What is important is that leaders exhibit some positive characteristics that make them effective managers at any level in an organization. Leadership styles No matter what their traits or skills, leaders carry out their roles in a wide variety of styles. Some leaders are autocratic. Others are democratic. Some are participatory, and others are hands off. Often, the leadership style depends on the situation, including where the organization is in its life cycle. The following are common leadership styles:
A good participative leader encourages participation and delegates wisely, but never loses sight of the fact that he or she bears the crucial responsibility of leadership. The leader values group discussions and input from team members; he or she maximizes the members' strong points in order to obtain the best performance from the entire team. The participative leader motivates team members by empowering them to direct themselves; he or she guides them with a loose rein. The downside, however, is that a participative leader may be seen as unsure, and team members may feel that everything is a matter for group discussion and decision.
Many experts believe that overall leadership style depends largely on a manager's beliefs, values, and assumptions. How managers approach the following three elements—motivation, decision making, and task orientation—affect their leadership styles:
Keep in mind that managers may exhibit both task and employee orientations to some degree. The managerial grid model, shown in Figure and developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, identifies five leadership styles with varying concerns for people and production:
The Managerial Grid model suggests that competent leaders should use a style that reflects the highest concern for both people and production—point (9, 9), team‐oriented style. Power versus authority Effective leaders develop and use power, or the ability to influence others. The traditional manager's power comes from his or her position within the organization. Legitimate, reward, and coercive are all forms of power used by managers to change employee behavior and are defined as follows:
Keep in mind that different types of position power receive different responses in followers. Legitimate power and reward power are most likely to generate compliance, where workers obey orders even though they may personally disagree with them. Coercive power most often generates resistance, which may lead workers to deliberately avoid carrying out instructions or to disobey orders. Unlike external sources of position power, personal power most often comes from internal sources, such as a person's special knowledge or personality characteristics. Personal power is the tool of a leader. Subordinates follow a leader because of respect, admiration, or caring they feel for this individual and his or her ideas. The following two types of personal power exist:
The most common follower response to expert power and referent power is commitment. Commitment means that workers share the leader's point of view and enthusiastically carry out instructions. Needless to say, commitment is preferred to compliance or resistance. Commitment helps followers overcome fear of change, and it is especially important in those instances. Keep in mind that the different types of power described in this section are interrelated. Most leaders use a combination of these types of power, depending on the leadership style used. Authoritarian leaders, for example, use a mixture of legitimate, coercive, and reward powers to dictate the policies, plans, and activities of a group. In comparison, a participative leader uses mainly referent power, involving all members of the group in the decision‐making process. Which term refers to the formal lines of authority in an organization?Bureaucracy. The administrative systems within an organization, such as the formal policies and procedures of the business. It includes the formal rules, regulations and procedures of the organization.
Which organization is believed to have been the first to develop an organizational structure?History. In 1855, railway general superintendent Daniel McCallum (1815-1878) designed what is thought to be the first modern organizational chart. It was an illustrated diagram of the New York and Erie Railway. McCallum had it drawn up by draftsman and civil engineer George Holt Henshaw (1831-1891).
How does chain of command influence delegation of authority?Delegating authority is a lot easier when there's a chain of command in place because it clearly tells employees who to give their orders to and who to take their orders from. In this way, it becomes possible for senior managers to delegate tasks and responsibilities to a subordinate where necessary.
What is chain of command in security?DESCRIPTION. The chain of command is the system used to ensure that each individual receives instructions for a. particular task from only one supervisor. It is an authority and accountability chain from the highest. office or position within the chain to the lowest element.
|