Motivation, Power and Leadership - Summary of all literature

Motivation, Power, and Leadership
Summary of Articles – 2017
Gina Fialka

,WEEK 1 – INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 CHEMERS – LEADERSHIP RESEARCH AND THEORY (2000) 3



WEEK 2 – MOTIVATION THEORIES 9
2.1 ELLEMERS – MOTIVATING INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS AT WORK 9
2.2 GAGNÉ – SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY AND WORK MOTIVATION (331-340) 14



WEEK 3 – POWER 19
3.1 GALINSKY ET AL. – FROM POWER TO ACTION (2003) 19
3.2 KELTNER ET AL. – POWER, APPROACH, AND INHIBITION (2003) 23



WEEK 4 – THE DARK SIDE OF POWER 31
4.1 EINARSEN ET AL. – DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR (2007) 31
4.2 FAST&CHEN – WHEN THE BOSS FEELS INADEQUATE (2009) 34
4.3 GEORGESEN&HARRIS – HOLDING ON TO POWER (2006) 36
4.4 MOOIJMAN ET AL. – WHY LEADERS PUNISH (2015) 40



WEEK 5 – MOOD AND EMOTIONS IN LEADERSHIP 45
5.1 LEWIS – WHEN LEADERS DISPLAY EMOTIONS (2000) 45
5.2 VAN KLEEF ET AL. – SEARING SENTIMENT OR COLD CALCULATION (2009) 48



WEEK 6 – LEADERSHIP AND DIVERSITY PLUS FUTURE AVENUES 55
6.1 HOMAN ET AL. – FACING DIFFERENCES WITH AN OPEN MIND… (2008) 55
6.2 SOMECH – THE EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE… (2006) 63
6.3 GREER&VAN KLEEF – EQUALITY VERSUS DIFFERENTIATION (2010) 69




2

,Week 1 – Introduction

1.1 Chemers – Leadership research and theory (2000)
Leadership theory has been regarded as fractured. In this article the
communalities of findings are discussed, followed by an integrative framework.

Leadership is defined as “a process of social influence in which one person is able
to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task."

Before contingency theory: Lost in the Wilderness
Before contingency theory, people looked primarily at individual characteristics
of leaders, a trend spurred by the emergence of intelligence tests.

Traits
Traits associated with leadership (e.g. dominance, assertiveness, intelligence,
physical stature, etc.) gain causal status. Early studies typically looked at a group
of leaders and followers, testing for differences on selected trait measures.
Stogdill (1948) reported some traits (such as intelligence) are associated with
differences between leaders and followers, but concluded the great diversity of
situations in which leaders functioned made it unlikely that any one trait would
be a universal predictor.

à Traits can’t predict leadership

Behaviours and styles
Unwilling to leave the individualistic explanations, researchers turned to leader
behaviour. The most extensive research programme was the set of studies
surrounding the development of the Leader Behaviour Description
Questionnaire. From this, two major factors emerged:
• Consideration: =Leaders’ intentions to support positive group morale and
follower satisfaction.
• Initiation of structure: =Leaders’ focus on building a structure for task
accomplishment.

These factors were not successful at predicting leadership effectiveness
(follower satisfaction and group performance).

à Again, no luck in predicting leadership

Legitimacy
Hollander conducted a series of studies, focussing on leadership status accrual
and legitimacy. He found that individuals in groups gain status through the



3

, demonstration of task-related competence and loyalty to group values.
‘Idiosyncrasy credits’ (group acceptance points) can be spent to influence others.

The mid-1960s to the mid-1970s: The contingency era

The contingency model
In answer to Stogdill’s call for an approach based on the interaction of leader
traits with situational parameters, Fiedler (1964-67) presented a new approach
to leadership effectiveness. Initially, he measured the leadership trait on the
basis of their views of co-workers with the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC)
scale. Fiedler later added a dimension of ‘situational favourableness/control’,
reflecting the degree to which the overall situation gave the leader a feeling of
certainty, predictability and control over group processes. Combined with group
performance and the leader’s orientation (LPC), a reliable relationship was
found.

Overview of Fiedler’s findings of leader orientation x situation
Leader’s orientation Situation

Task-oriented High or low control and predictability

Relationship oriented Moderate control and predictability


Criticism of the Contingency model:
• Constructed through an inductive method.
• Highly complex predictions.
• Assumes that a leader can’t choose both orientations when the situation
demands it.

Normative decision theory
Vroom&Yetton (1973) integrated leader’s decision strategy with situational
factors. Leaders have several decision-making strategies available to them, for
varying degrees of follower involvement. A decision tree based on situational
factors yields a certain strategy for the leader (e.g. no conflict, supportive
followers à autocratic leadership style).

There is not much research on this model, but it’s generally supportive.

Normative decision theory and the contingency model are different when it
comes to situations of very low control, where the contingency model suggests
direct action from the leader to ensure group performance, and the normative
decision theory suggests a participative strategy to build a supportive
environment over the long run.




4