Free Download Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass
As pertaining to this referred book, you may have known why this book is waited for. However, for you that are still interested of the factors, you will certainly recognize he reasons when you begin to check out the book. Checking out the cover of Bass & Stogdill's Handbook Of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass as well as check out title will lead you understand why many individuals falling in love. Keen on guide that pertaining to the subject you are searching for could make you really feel pleased. This is exactly what will make you load that desire.
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass
Free Download Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass
Exactly how an idea can be obtained? By looking at the stars? By seeing the sea and also looking at the sea interweaves? Or by reviewing a book Bass & Stogdill's Handbook Of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass Everybody will have particular characteristic to gain the inspiration. For you that are dying of books as well as always get the inspirations from publications, it is really excellent to be below. We will show you hundreds collections of the book Bass & Stogdill's Handbook Of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass to review. If you like this Bass & Stogdill's Handbook Of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass, you can also take it as yours.
Nonetheless, absolutely nothing is difficult in this life. You could get what you actually believe want to do and obtain for something new. However, the assumption of having great behavior will certainly have many challenges. But, to conquer the problem, we give you a recommendation to start caring analysis.
Even you have guide to read only; it will certainly not make you really feel that your time is really restricted. It is not just concerning the moment that could make you really feel so wanted to sign up with the book. When you have selected the book to review, you can save the moment, even few time to constantly check out. When you think that the moment is not only for getting the book, you could take it right here. This is why we come to you to use the simple ways in getting guide.
If you have discovered the most effective factors of reading this book, why you should browse the various other factor not to read? Reviewing is not a trouble. Reviewing specifically will be a way to obtain the support in doing whatever. The faiths, politics, sciences, social, even fiction, and other themes will certainly help you to obtain much better guidance in life. Obviously, it will be appropriate based on your genuine experience, but obtaining the experience from other sources are also significant.
Bernard M.Bass has incorporated a decade of new findings on the newest theories and models of leadership; intellectual and interpersonal competence; motivation; the nature of power and Machiavellianism; charismatic and transformational leadership; leadership and women, Hispanics, and Orientals; leadership succession; substitutes; culture; and the role of leadership and organizations in dealing with stress, crisis, and disaster.
- Sales Rank: #783721 in Books
- Published on: 1990-07-23
- Ingredients: Example Ingredients
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.40" h x 1.90" w x 7.80" l,
- Binding: Hardcover
- 1184 pages
Review
Naval War College Review The author has hit the mark in this magnificent effort toward reducing the current confusion in the study of leadership...Highly recommended for reading by those who are required to practice leadership, for those who wish to seriously study it, and for those who are responsible for the teaching of the subject. -- Review
About the Author
Bernard M. Bass is Distinguished Professor of Management at the State University of New York, Binghamton, and author of numerous articles and books, including Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (The Free Press).
Excerpt. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Chapter 1
Concepts of Leadership
Leadership is one of the world's oldest preoccupations. The understanding of leadership has figured strongly in the quest for knowledge. Purposeful stories have been told through the generations about leaders' competencies, ambitions, and shortcomings; leaders' rights and privileges; and the leaders' duties and obligations.
The Beginnings
Leaders as prophets, priests, chiefs, and kings served as symbols, representatives, and models for their people in the Old and New Testaments, in the Upanishads, in the Greek and Latin classics, and in the Icelandic sagas. In the Iliad, higher, transcendental goals are emphasized: "He serves me most, who serves his country best" (Book X, line 201). The Odyssey advises leaders to maintain their social distance: "The leader, mingling with the vulgar host, is in the common mass of matter lost" (Book III, line 297). The subject of leadership was not limited to the classics of Western literature, It was of as much interest to Asoka and Confucius as to Plato and Aristotle.
Myths and legends about great leaders were important in the development of civilized societies. Stories about the exploits of individual heroes (and occasionally heroines) are central to the Babylonian Gilgamesh, Beowolf, the Chanson de Roland, the Icelandic sagas, and the Ramayana (now they would be called cases). All societies have created myths to provide plausible and acceptable explanations for the dominance of their leaders and the submission of their subordinates (Paige, 1977). The greater the socioeconomic injustice in the society, the more distorted the realities of leadership -- its powers, morality and effectiveness -- in the mythology.
The study of leadership rivals in age the emergence of civilization, which shaped its leaders as much as it was shaped by them. From its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders -- what they did and why they did it. Over the centuries, the effort to formulate principles of leadership spread from the study of history and the philosophy associated with it to all the developing social sciences. In modern psychohistory, there is still a search for generalizations about leadership, built on the in-depth analysis of the development, motivation, and competencies of world leaders, living and dead.
Written philosophical principles emerged early. As can be seen in Figure 1.1, the Egyptian hieroglyphics for leadership (seshemet), leader (seshemu) and the follower (shemsu) were being written 5,000 years ago.
In 2300 B.C. in the Instruction of Ptahhotep, three qualities were attributed to the Pharoah. "Authoritative utterness is in thy mouth, perception is in thy heart, and thy tongue is the shrine of justice" (Lichtheim, 1973). The Chinese classics, written as early as the sixth century B.C., are filled with hortatory advice to the country's leaders about their responsibilities to the people. Confucius urged leaders to set a moral example and to manipulate rewards and punishments for teaching what was right and good. Taoism emphasized the need for the leader to work himself out of his job by making the people believe that successes were due to their efforts.
Greek concepts of leadership were exemplified by the hereos in Homer's Iliad. Ajax symbolized inspirational leadership and law and order. Other qualities that the Greeks admired and thought were needed (and sometimes wanting) in heroic leaders were (1)justice and judgment (Agamemnon), (2) wisdom and counsel (Nestor), (3) shrewdness and cunning (Odysseus), and (4) valor and activism (Achilles) (see Sarachek, 1968). (Shrewdness and cunning are not regarded as highly in contemporary society as they once were.) Later, Greek philosophers, such as Plato in the Republic, looked at the requirements for the ideal leader of the ideal state (the philosopher king). The leader was to be the most important element of good government, educated to rule with order and reason. In Politics, Aristotle was disturbed by the lack of virtue among those who wanted to be leaders. He pointed to the need to educate youths for such leadership. Plutarch, although he was involved with prosocial ideals about leadership, compared the traits and behavior of actual Greek and Roman leaders to support his point of view in The Parallel Lives (Kellerman, 1987).
A scholarly highlight of the Renaissance was Machiavelli's (1513/1962) The Prince. Machiavelli's thesis that "there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things" is still a germane description of the risks of leadership and the resistance to it. Machiavelli was the ultimate pragmatist. He believed that leaders needed steadiness, firmness, and concern for the maintenance of authority, power, and order in government. It was best if these objectives could be accomplished by gaining the esteem of the populace, but if they could not, then craft, deceit, threat, treachery, and violence were required (Kellerman, 1987). Machiavelli is still widely quoted as a guide to an effective leadership of sorts, which was the basis for a modern line of investigation with the Mach scale (Christie & Geis, 1970). A 1987 survey of 117 college presidents reported that they still found The Prince highly relevant.
In the same way, a fundamental principle at West Point today can be traced back to Hegel's (1830/1971) Philosophy of Mind which argued that by first serving as a follower, a leader subsequently can best understand his followers. Hegel thought that this understanding is a paramount requirement for effective leadership.
Universality
Leadership is a universal phenomenon in humans and in many species of animals.
Animal Origins. Leadership predates the emergence of humankind. Allee (1945, 1949, 1951) maintained that all vertebrates that live in groups exhibit social organization and leadership. High-ranking males feed more freely than do other members of the group and tend to have more ready access to females. In some cases, high status involves guard duty and protection of the herd.
Pecking Order. Individual animals dominate or submit their local spaces to others in the well-known pecking order. In one of the early experiments on animal social relations, Murchison (1935) placed roosters at opposite ends of a narrow runway and measured the distance that each advanced toward the other. As a result of successive pairings, he was able to determine a strict hierarchy of dominance. Rooster A invariably dominated all the remaining subjects. At the bottom of the hierarchy was the rooster who yielded to all the others.
Douglis (1948) removed hens from their home flocks and placed them in other flocks for short periods. The hens' pecking order in each flock was observed. It was found that a hen can become an assimilated member in at least five different flocks and have a different status in each. The hen can recognize and react to the status or esteem of as many as 27 individuals. Highly dominant hens become assimilated within three days, but hens that were not dominant required three to six weeks to become assimilated. Once established, a hierarchy tended to maintain itself.
Dominance Effects in Primates. Miller and Murphy (1956) and Warren and Maroney (1969) tested pairs of monkeys who were competing for food in an area and observed strict dominance hierarchies. Subordinate animals were more successful in obtaining low-preference, rather than middle- or high-preference, foods. Bernstein (1964) noted that when the dominant male was removed from a group of monkeys, the activities of other males increased. After the dominant male returned, he resumed his dominant status and the activities of other males decreased.
Carpenter (1963) studied societies of monkeys and apes. His general findings suggested that the leader tended to control the group's movement in its search for food and shelter, regulate intragroup status, defend the group, and maintain its integrity in its contacts with other organized groupings. When the dominant male was removed from the group, the territory covered by the group was markedly reduced. Thus, the leader enlarged the freedom of the group's movement. But the dominant male tended to be avoided by low-ranking males. In some bands, the one or two males that were next in rank stood by the leader to ward off intruders and were permitted to groom him on occasion.
Again, Mason (1964) reported that leaders among groups of monkeys and apes appeared to have the primary function of initiating progressions and determining the line of march. The dominant males quelled intragroup fights, protected the females and young, were attractive to all members, were sought out by females, and influenced the size of the group's territorial range.
Zajonc (1969) interpreted the fact that fighting disappears almost entirely in primate groups after a hierarchy of dominance has been established as evidence that such groups develop norms. The norms are learned by group members, are stable but can be changed, and are complied with by the majority of members. Koford (1963) observed that the relative dominance of two bands of monkeys that meet at an eating place is usually determined by the relative dominance of the leaders of the bands. Once the dominance of a band has been established, it is observed by the other group, even in the absence of the other leader. Experimentation and observation in natural settings suggest that groups of animals develop strongly differentiated status hierarchies that their members recognize and observe. In primate groups, leaders obtain privileges that tend to bolster their dominance. Their presence is an advantage to the group in gaining possession of a desired territory and in expanding the area of free movement for the group. However, whether these findings and similar results reported for packs of wolves and hyenas, elephant matriarchies, bands of gorillas, and pods of whales are relevant to understanding the human condition remains controversial.
Humans. Parenthood, a condition that unarguably cuts across cultural lines, makes for ready-made patterns of leadership. Nevertheless, the patterns of behavior that are regarded as acceptable in leaders differ from time to time and from one culture to another. Citing various anthropological reports on primitive groups in Australia, Fiji, New Guinea, the Congo, and elsewhere, H. L. Smith and Krueger (1933) concluded that leadership occurs among all people, regardless of culture, be they isolated Indian villagers, nomads of the Eurasian steppes, or Polynesian fisherfolk. Lewis (1974) concluded, from a more recent anthropological review, that even when a society does not have institutionalized chiefs, rulers, or elected officials, there are always leaders who initiate action and play central roles in the group's decision making. No societies are known that do not have leadership in some aspects of their social life, although many may lack a single overall leader to make and enforce decisions.
Leaders, such as Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and the Macabees, were singled out in the Old Testament for a detailed exposition of their behavior and relations with God and their people. God was the supreme leader of his Chosen People who clarified, instructed, and directed what was to be done through the words of his Prophets and arranged for rewards for compliance and punishment for disobedience to the laws and rules He had handed down to Moses. In Islam, the ideal caliphate leadership was based on religious law (Rabi, 1967).
In The Parallel Lives, Plutarch (1932), in about A.D. 100, tried to show the similarities between 50 Greek and Roman leaders. Latin authors, such as Caesar, Cicero, and Seneca to name just a few, wrote extensively on the subject of leadership and administration. Their influence was considerable on the medieval and Renaissance periods, which looked back to the classics for guidance. Their influence on Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has an impact on the design of the U.S. government as we know it, as did such Renaissance scholars as Montesquieu in his The Spirit of Laws (1748).
Military writings about leadership stretch from the Chinese classics to the present. Napoleon listed 115 qualities that are essentials for a military leader. Meyer (1980) called for a renaissance in the concern for military leadership, in contrast to the focus on the "over-management" of logistics. Resources must be managed by the military leader but are no substitute for effective leadership.
Theory versus Problem Orientation
The earliest social science literature on leadership was concerned predominately with theoretical issues. Theorists sought to identify different types of leadership and to relate them to the functional demands of society. In addition, they sought to account for the emergence of leadership either by examining the qualities of the leader or the elements of the situation.
Earlier theorists can be differentiated from more recent ones in that they did not consider the interaction between individual and situational variables. Also, they tended to develop more comprehensive theories than do their more recent counterparts. Between 1945 and 1960, students of leadership devoted more of their efforts to empirical research and, as a consequence, ignored various issues that the theorists regarded as important. But research on leadership became theory driven again from the 1970s onward, although these theories tended to focus on a few phenomena and were less ambitious than those of the past.
Research on leadership in some segments of the population (students, military personnel, and business managers) was heavy but sparse' on other segments (such as leaders of volunteer agencies, police officers, and health administrators). Because of the growing employment in the health, social service, and protection fields, there has been an upsurge in studies of leadership among nurses, social workers, and the police. In the same way, the increase and upgrading of minorities in the U.S. labor force has resulted in an examination of leadership among women and minorities. Cross-cultural studies of leadership have burgeoned as well.
The emerging propositions about leadership maintain their validity over time in strong cultures. Nonetheless, they also are subject to change because of cultural changes. Thus, over 50 percent of over 1,000 students from 8 U.S. universities who were surveyed about their attraction to the television series, "MASH," indicated that watching the program had modified their attitudes or behavior about organizational life. All but 5 percent considered "MASH" to be a realistic portrayal of organizational values and processes. The respondents felt an increased desire to work with superiors who treat subordinates with understanding and respect (Dyer & Dyer, 1984).
The Importance of Leaders and Leadership
Napoleon expressed his feelings about the importance of leadership in his quip that he would rather have an army of rabbits led by a lion than an army of lions led by a rabbit. Surveys of job satisfaction from the 1920s onward illustrated the importance of leadership. They uniformly reported that employees' favorable attitudes toward their supervisors contributed to the employees' satisfaction. In turn, employees' favorable attitudes toward their supervisors were usually found to be related to the productivity of the work group (see, for example, Lawshe & Nagle, 1953). Since then, countless surveys can be cited to support the contention that leaders make a difference in their subordinates' satisfaction and performance. Leaders also can make the difference in whether their organizations succeed or fail.
The usual efforts to estimate the number of leaders in the United States use census data on proprietors and officials. But Gardner (1986c) noted that although owners, managers, and officials are in the position to do so, they do not necessarily act as leaders. Cleveland (1985) estimated the number of opinion leaders in the United States and how they grew in number between 1955 and 1985. In 1955, he estimated that there were 555,000 opinion leaders, whereas in 1971, he guessed that at least 1 million Americans could be classified as opinion leaders. He considered seven out of ten public executives to be opinion leaders -- policymakers in public, philanthropic, voluntary, and large-scale "private" enterprises -- in 1971. By 1985 he estimated the number to have multiplied to 1 out of every 200 Americans.
As Cleveland (1985, p. 4) stated: There are some 83,000 government units in the United States, and about 175,000 corporations each doing more than $1 million worth of business a year. The galloping rate of growth of complexity means that a growth curve of the requirement for leaders (if anyone were clever enough to construct such an index) would show a steeper climb than any other growth rate in our political economy.
Is Leadership a Figment of the Imagination? Some critics argue that all the effects of leadership are in the eyes of their beholders. Followers attribute effects that are due to historical, economic, or social forces to leadership, as in romantic fiction (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). Other critics, such as Pandey (1976), regard leadership as a useless concept for understanding social influence. For Calder (1977), the objective contributions of the "leader" to outcomes may be more interesting than true. The extreme position taken by some attribution theorists is that organizational outcomes are determined primarily by other factors, but leaders are credited with what happened after the fact.
Organizational leaders who are perceived to be exerting leadership on organizational performance are merely the subjects of misperceptions, some critics contend. That is, organizational outcomes are objectively determined by environmental and organizational factors in which leadership, at best, can play only a minor role. For instance, M. C. Brown (1982, p. 1) concluded that "once other factors influencing effectiveness are accounted for, it is likely that leadership will have little bearing on organizational performance."
Pfeffer (1977) took a similar but not as extreme position: Leadership is a sense-making heuristic to account for organizational performance and is important primarily for its symbolic role in organizations. Leaders are selected or self-selected to fulfil the fate of the organization and are highly constrained by organizational and external factors. Therefore, they can have only a limited impact on organizational outcomes compared to external factors. Leaders are able only to react to contingencies, to facilitate the adjustment of the organization in its context, and to alter that environment to some limited extent. Also they have no control over many factors that affect organizational performance and they typically have unilateral control over few resources.
Despite these constraints, management and leadership seem to have a substantial effect on some organizational outcomes. Thus, when Lieberson and O'Connor (1972) examined the effects of top management on the success of 167 firms over a 20-year period, they found that the effects depended on which outcomes were considered. Managers had the greatest effect on profit margins but the least effect on sales; they also were of less consequence in capital-intensive industries. In the same way, Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) showed that the mayors of 30 U.S. cities had considerable influence only on those budgetary issues, such as libraries and parks, that were not in the domain of important special-interest groups, such as the police, fire fighters, and highway maintenance personnel. In all, Pfeffer concluded that since people want to achieve the feeling that they are in control of their environment, they find it useful to attribute outcomes of their group and organizational performance to leaders, rather than to the complex internal and external environmental forces that actually are most important. Meindl and Ehrlich (1987) showed that if performance outcomes of firms were attributed to the leadership of the top management, rather than to the employees, market conditions, or the government, the judges gave better evaluations of the outcomes. Meindl and Ehrlich attributed this finding to the judges' assumption that leaders have a reliable and potent impact on outcomes.
Even when the true causes of outcomes were logically not determinable, Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich (1985) showed that there was a tendency to view leadership as the likely cause of the outcomes. This study and the one by Meindl and Ehrich (1987) were thought to demonstrate that leadership is more of a romantic notion than a phenomenon that truly affects group and organizational outcomes.
Then there is evidence that would-be followers, subordinates, and groups of employees are so constrained by technology, rules, job requirements, and organizational policies that there is little discretionary room for a superior or leader to make much of a difference in how things get done (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Furthermore, subordinates may have much more effect on the behavior of their superiors than vice versa (Goodstadt & Kipnis, 1970).
Miner (1975, p. 200) was ready to abandon the concept of leadership, stating that "the concept of leadership itself has outlived its usefulness. Hence, I suggest that we abandon leadership in favor of some other, more fruitful way of cutting up the theoretical pie." In 1982a, Miner recanted this statement but still maintained that the concept has limited usefulness because so much of the empirical research has been on emergent leadership in small groups, rather than within more complex organizations. For Miner, the fragile, distressed, leadership that arises in the small, temporary group to develop, maintain, and enforce the norms of the group may have little relevance for leadership in the impersonal "task system" of the traditional organization.
Leaders Do Make a Difference. Despite the skepticism about the reality and importance of leadership, all social and political movements require leaders to begin them. As Tucker (1981, p. 87) put it, "in the beginning is the leadership act. A 'leaderless movement' is naturally out of the question." This does not mean that formal, institutionalized leadership is required. In fact, no leader in an institutional form appeared in the numerous peasant revolts from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries in Southern Germany. The same was true for journeymen's strikes during the eighteenth century. Leadership remained informal and egalitarian. Only in the middle of the nineteenth century did definite leaders, such as Ferdinand Lasalle, emerge. Lasalle placed himself at the head of the German workers' movement and worked out its explicit ideology, along with the myth that he founded the movement (Groh, 1986). This behavior is consistent with most cases of institutional development: Leaders determine the direction they will take. The historical records of the early British Royal Society of the seventeenth century illustrate that its secretaries were responsible for who joined the society and what kinds of science were sponsored (Mulligan & Mulligan, 1981).
Indeed, leadership is often regarded as the single most critical factor in the success or failure of institutions. For instance, T. H. Allen (1981) argued that the school principal's leadership is the most important factor in determining a school's climate and the students' success. Sylvia and Hutchison (1985) concluded that the motivation of 167 Oklahoma teachers depended considerably on their perceptions of the quality of their relationships with their superiors. And Smith, Carson, and Alexander (1984) found that among the 50 Methodist ministers they studied, some were more effective leaders than were others. The effectiveness of these ministers was evidenced by the differential impact that their ministries had on church attendance, membership, property values, and contributions to the church.
In the business and industrial sector, Maccoby (1979, p. 313) concluded, from his observations of the manager as a game-playing politician, that the need of firms to survive and prosper in a world of increasing competition, of technological advances, of changing governmental regulations, of changing worker attitudes, requires "a higher level of leadership than ever before." When an organization must be changed to reflect changes in technology, the environment, and the completion of programs, its leadership is critical in orchestrating the process (Burke, Richley, & DeAngelis, 1985). Mintzberg and Waters (1982) examined the evolution of a retail firm over a 60-year-period and found that a senior executive could successfully reorient the firm by intervening to change previous strategies and organizational structures. In the same way, Day and Lord (1986) noted that when confounding errors are controlled in studies of the effects of executive succession, differences in executive leaders can explain as much as 45 percent of their organizations' performance. Agreeing with Chandler (1962), they stated that historical analyses of changes of leadership over significant periods have shown that leadership has a profound influence on an organization. Concurrent correlational analyses of a sample of executives and their organizations at the same point in time reach similar conclusions, although the effects are not as strong.
In a review of experiments in the United States on the productivity of workers between 1971 and 1981, Katzell and Guzzo (1983) concluded that supervisory methods seemed particularly effective in increasing output. In Sweden, Westerlund (1952a) observed that the high-quality performance of supervisors improved that attitudes and performance of telephone operators. Also in Sweden, Ekvall and Arvonen (1984) found that leadership styles accounted for 65 percent of the variance in organizational climate in the 25 units they studied. Virany and Tushman (1986) stated that the senior managers of better-performing minicomputer firms were systematically different from those of firms that performed poorly. The senior management in the better firms had had previous experience in the electronic industry and was more likely to include the founder of the firm who still served as chief executive officer. Although most attention has been paid to industrial leaders as developers and builders, Hansen (1974) pointed out that the success with which a firm, such as the Ford Motor Company, closed a plant without much human dislocation depended on effective leadership.
Leadership has been considered a critical factor in military successes since records have been kept; that is, better-led forces repeatedly have been victorious over poorly led forces. Thus, not unexpectedly, morale and cohesion among Israeli and U.S. enlisted soldiers correlated with measures of the soldiers' confidence in their company, division, and battalion commanders (Gal & Manning, 1984).
Personnel of the Mississippi Cooperative Extension reported that they felt less job stress if they saw their supervisors displaying more leadership in structuring the work to be done and showing concern for the subordinates' needs (Graham, 1982). In a study of 204 innovations in state programs, Cheek (1987) found that the governors came up with 55 percent of the innovations and the agencies with only 36 percent.
Studies by Tucker (1981), Hargrove and Nelson (1984), and Hargrove (1987) concluded that the style and performance of a U.S. president makes a big difference in what happens to legislation, policy, and programs. Successful presidents are more sensitive to the inherent politics of policy-making. They define and publicize the policy dilemmas facing the country and earn widespread public and Congressional support for their positions. They construct their policy agendas with the felt needs of the country in mind and create political support for their agendas; they also realize that timing is important (Tucker, 1981). But like Jimmy Carter, they can fail if they push for what they deem to be right but what is not politically feasible and if they favor comprehensive integrated solutions, rather than incremental steps (Hargrove, 1987). Presidents can make decisions that are not implemented because they or their assistants do not follow them up. For example, as part of the agreement to resolve the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy ordered the removal of U.S. missiles from Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union. Six months later, he was astonished to learn that the missiles were still in place (Manchester, 1988). Although presidents spend relatively little time trying to make major reorientations in policy, they have an important impact on the smaller substantive decisions that affect the larger overall strategies (Neustadt, 1980). History may be drastically altered by a sudden change in presidents. Before leaving Washington, D.C., for his fateful trip to Texas in November 1963, Kennedy signed the first order for a phased withdrawal from Vietnam. On assuming office after Kennedy's assassination, Lyndon Johnson rescinded the order. The war continued for another decade.
According to Richard Nixon's "Silent Majority" speech in 1969, presidents may have to take an unpopular stand, but when they do, they can strengthen acceptance by explaining their reasons, soliciting support, and winning approval (Satire, 1975). Presidents also provide symbolic support for the development of norms, values, and beliefs that contribute to subsequent national and organizational development (Sayles, 1979). As Gardner (1988a) noted, for a society to function, its people must share beliefs and values regarding the standards of acceptable behavior. Leaders can revitalize those shared beliefs and help keep the values fresh. "They have a role in creating the state of mind that is the society" (Gardner, 1988a, p. 18). They conceive and articulate goals that move people from their own interests to unite for higher ends.
Often, the effects of leadership are indirect. For example, Katzell (1987) showed through a path analysis that although supervisors' direct influence on their subordinates was modest, they exerted indirect influence and increased the employees' morale by providing rewards, relating rewards to performance, and treating employees equitably; the increased morale, in turn, improved the employees' performance.
Jongbloed and Frost (1985) modified Pfeffer's (1977) reasoning to argue that leaders still have an important general role to play. What leaders really manage in organizations are the employees' interpretations or understanding of what goes on in the organizations. The leaders manage meanings and, therefore, exert a strong impact on organizational outcomes. Jongbloed and Frost showed how the laboratory director in one Canadian hospital, compared to another in a second hospital with the same formal assignments and the same absence of control of issues, successfully lobbied for the importance of pathology and convinced the hospital administrators to allocate more funds for operations and budget than were allocated in the second hospital.
The importance of leadership is attested by academic and lay interest in leadership as a subject for development, training, and education (Campbell, 1977). Although U.S. college presidents believe that our educational institutions are reluctant to incorporate leadership education into their curricula (Cronin, 1984), the college landscape is not bleak. Gregory's (1986) survey of all known U.S. degree-granting institutions of higher learning uncovered 53 that offered an academic course on leadership, 70 that made it possible to major or concentrate in the subject, 181 that incorporated the study of leadership in an academic course or a student-affairs program, and 81 that offered the subject in continuing education or professional programs.
Leadership as a Subject of Inquiry
The importance of leadership is also demonstrated by its place in social science research. According to Mitchell (1979) and DeMeuse (1986), leadership has been one of the frequent subjects of empirical research, concentrating on the antecedents of leaders' behavior and the factors that contribute to its effectiveness. Leadership is a featured topic in almost every textbook on organizational behavior (McFillen, 1984-87). The scholarly books on leadership number in the hundreds, and articles, reports, and essays number in the thousands.
Several different schools of thought have prevailed simultaneously since leadership first was studied. The early sociological theorists tended to explain leadership in terms of either the person or the environment. Later researchers tended to view leadership as an aspect of role differentiation or as an outgrowth of social interaction processes. Recently, the nave theories of leadership we hold have been considered most important in explaining what is going on. But this is as it should be. Theory and empirical research should move forward together, each stimulating, supporting, and modifying the other. Neither can stand alone. An elegant theory without prospects of elegant data gathering makes for a sketchy theory. Early in a line of investigation, crude data and theory may be useful. Later, as understanding develops and practice improves, more stringent standards are required (Bass, 1974).
Assumptions
The research discussed in the following chapters is based on a wide variety of theoretical assumptions. Despite differences in the philosophies that guide them and the research methods used, there is remarkable convergence of findings on many problems. This convergence, when it occurs, can be regarded as strong evidence of the validity of the findings.
An almost insurmountable problem is the question of the extent to which we pour old wine into new bottles when proposing "new" theories. For instance, Julius Caesar's descriptions of his leadership style in the Gallic Wars in the first century B.C. are clear, succinct endorsements of the need for what Blake and Mouton (1964) conceived as "9-9" style --y without prospects of elegant data gathering makes for a sketchy theory. Early in a line of investigation, crude data and theory may be useful. Later, as understanding develops and practice improves, more stringent standards are required (Bass, 1974).
Assumptions
The research discussed in the following chapters is based on a wide variety of theoretical assumptions. Despite differences in the philosophies that guide them and the research methods used, there is remarkable convergence of findings on many problems. This convergence, when it occurs, can be regarded as strong evidence of the validity of the findings.
An almost insurmountable problem is the question of the extent to which we pour old wine into new bottles when proposing "new" theories. For instance, Julius Caesar's descriptions of his leadership style in the Gallic Wars in the first century B.C. are clear, succinct endorsements of the need for what Blake and Mouton (1964) conceived as "9-9" style -- a style that Fleishman (1953a) described in terms of high initiation and consideration and that in the year 2500 some new theorist will give a new name. When does a field advance? Are we beyond Caesar's understanding of how to lead infantry shock troops?
My hope in this book is to catalog what is known about leadership and to suggest some of the things that we do not know and should try to find out. Although I agree with Burns (1978, p. 2) that "leadership is one of the most observed...phenomena on earth," I disagree with Burns that "it is one of the least understood."
The Meaning of Leadership
The word leadership is a sophisticated, modern concept. In earlier times, words meaning "head of state," "military commander," "princeps," "proconsul," "chief," or "king" were common in most societies; these words differentiated the ruler from other members of society. A preoccupation with leadership, as opposed to headship based on inheritance, usurpation, or appointment, occurred predominantly in countries with an Anglo-Saxon heritage. Although the Oxford English Dictionary (1933) noted the appearance of the word "leader" in the English language as early as the year 1300, the word "leadership" did not appear until the first half of the nineteenth century in writings about the political influence and control of British Parliament. And the word did not appear in the most other modern languages until recent times.
Defining Leadership
There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept. Moreover, as Pfeffer (1977) noted, many of the definitions are ambiguous. Furthermore, the distinction between leadership and other social-influence processes is often blurred (Bavelas, 1960; Hollander & Julian, 1969). The many dimensions into which leadership has been east and their overlapping meanings have added to the confusion. Therefore, the meaning of leadership may depend on the kind of institution in which it is found (Spitzberg, 1986). Nevertheless, there is sufficient similarity among definitions to permit a rough scheme of classification. Leadership has been conceived as the focus of group processes, as a matter of personality, as a matter of inducing compliance, as the exercise of influence, as particular behaviors, as a form of persuasion, as a power relation, as an instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of interaction, as a differentiated role, as initiation of structure, and as many combinations of these definitions.
Leadership as a Focus of Group Processes
Early on, definitions of the leader tended to view the leader as a focus of group change, activity, and process. Cooley (1902) maintained that the leader is always the nucleus of a tendency, and (that) all social movements, closely examined, will be found to consist of tendencies having such nuclei. Mumford (1906-07) observed that "leadership is the preeminence of one or a few individuals in a group in the process of control of societal phenomena." Blackmar (1911) saw leadership as the "centralization of effort in one person as an expression of the power of all." Chapin (1924b) viewed leadership as "a point of polarization for group cooperation." According to L. L. Bernard (1927), leaders are influenced by the needs and wishes of the group members; in turn, they focus the attention and release the energies of group members in a desired direction. Regarding the dominance of the leader's personality M. Smith (1934) commented that "the social group that express its unity in connected activity is always composed of but two essential portions: the center of focal activity, and the individuals who act with regard to the center." For Redl (1942), the leader is a central or focal person who integrates the group.
As a nation develops, it needs a centralized locus for its operation which can only be achieved by a single leader (Babikan, 1981). All important decisions and their implementation center on the cult of the leader even when, as in parliamentary democracies, actual decision making is diffuse. The leader embodies the collective will. This single leader sorts out the essential problems, offers possible solutions, establishes priorities, and launches developmental operations.
J. F. Brown (1936) maintained that "the leader may not be separated from the group, buy may be treated as a position of high potential in the field." Following in the same tradition, Krech and Crutchfield (1948) observed that "by virtue of his special position in the group he serves as a primary agent for the determination of group structure, group atmosphere, group goals, group ideology, and group activities." For Knickerbocker (1948), "when conceived in terms of the dynamics of human social behavior, leadership is a function of needs existing within a given situation, and consists of a relationship between an individual and a group."
This emphasis on the leader as the center, or focus, of group activity directed attention to group structure and group processes in studying leadership. On the one hand, some of the earliest theorists, such as Cooley and Mumford, were sophisticated in their concept of leadership. On the other hand, several of the definitions placed the leader in a particularly fortuitous, if not helpless, position, given the inexorable progress of the group. Leaders were thought to have to stay one pace ahead of the group to avoid being run over. Centrality of location in the group can permit a person to control communications, and hence is likely to place him or her in a position of leadership, but centrality, in itself, is not leadership.
Leadership as Personality and Its Effects
The concept of personality appealed to several early theorists, who sought to explain why some persons are better able than are others to exercise leadership. A. O. Bowden (1926) equated leadership with strength of personality: "Indeed, the amount of personality attributed to an individual may not be unfairly estimated by the degree of influence he can exert upon others." Bingham (1927) defined a leader as a person who possesses the greatest number of desirable traits of personality and character. According to L. L. Bernard (1926), "Any person who is more than ordinarily efficient in carrying psychosocial stimuli to others and is thus effective in conditioning collective responses may be called a leader"; the leader must possess prestige and "must know what stimuli will condition adequate responses for his purposes and develop a technique for presenting these stimuli." Tead (1929) regarded leadership as a combination of traits that enables an individual to induce others to accomplish a given task.
The personality theorists tended to regard leadership as a one-way effect: Leaders possess qualities that differentiate them from followers. But these theorists did not acknowledge the extent to which leaders and followers have interactive effects by determining which qualities of followers are of consequence in a situation. What theorists now see is that the personal qualities of a would-be leader determine his or her esteem in the eyes of potential followers. Some personality traits, such as ascendancy or social boldness, more often than not go hand in hand with being esteemed and attaining leadership, but social boldness is not leadership. At the extreme, in times of crisis, followers endow a highly dominant figure who is empathic to their critical needs with charisma. The hero's personality then makes it possible for him or her to perform enormous feats of leadership (Stark, 1970).
Leadership as the Art of Inducing Compliance
Munson (1921) defined leadership as "the ability to handle men so as to achieve the most with the least friction and the greatest cooperation....Leadership is the creative and directive force of morale." According to F. H. Allport (1924), "leadership...is personal social control." B. V. Moore (1927) reported the results of a conference at which leadership was defined as "the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation." Similarly, Bundel (1930) regarded leadership as "the art of inducing others to do what one wants them to do." According to T. R. Phillips (1939), "leadership is the imposition, maintenance, and direction of moral unity to our ends." Warriner (1955) suggested that "leadership as a form of relationship between persons requires that one or several persons act in conformance with the request of another." For Bennis (1959), "leadership can be defined as the process by which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a desired manner."
The compliance-induction theorists, perhaps even more than the personality theorists, tended to regard leadership as a unidirectional exertion of influence and as an instrument for molding the group to the leader's will. They expressed little recognition of the rights, desires, and necessities of the group members or of the group's traditions and norms. This disregard for the followers and the group was rejected by various other theorists, who sought to remove, by definition, any possibility of legitimating an authoritarian concept of leadership. Yet, regardless of the sentiments of some behavioral scientists, one cannot ignore that much leadership is authoritarian, directive, and even coercive. Its effects are seen in public compliance but not necessarily in private acceptance.
Leadership as the Exercise of Influence
Use of the concept of influence marked a step in the direction of generality and abstraction in defining leadership. J. B. Nash (1929) suggested that "leadership implies influencing change in the conduct of people." Tead (1935) defined it as "the activity of influencing people to cooperate toward some goal which they come to find desirable." Stogdill (1950) termed it "the process of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement."
Shartle (1951a, 1951b) proposed that the leader be considered an individual "who exercises positive influence acts upon others" or "who exercises more important influence acts than any other members of the group or organization." Similarly, Tannenbaum, Weschler, and Massarik (1961) defined leadership as "interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals." This definition was expanded by Ferris and Rowland (1981), who conceived of the leadership-influence process as a contextual influence that has an impact on subordinates' attitudes and performance through effects on the subordinates' perceptions of their job characteristics.
The interactive aspect became apparent as leadership was linked by definition to influence processes. Haiman (1951) suggested that "direct leadership is an interaction process in which an individual, usually through the medium of speech, influences the behavior of others toward a particular end." According to Gerth and Mills (1953), "leadership...is a relation between leader and led in which the leader influences more than he is influenced: because of the leader, those who are led act or feel differently than they otherwise would." For Cartwright (1965), leadership was equated with the "domain of influence." Katz and Kahn (1966) considered "the essence of organizational leadership to be the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with routine directions of the organization." They observed that although all supervisors at the same level of organization have equal power, they do not use it with equal effectiveness to influence individuals and the organization. In the same way, Hollander and Julian (1969) suggested that "leadership in the broadest sense implies the presence of a particular influence relationship between two or more persons."
According to Hemphill (1949a) and Bass (1960), an individual's effort to change the behavior of others is attempted leadership. When the other members actually change, this creation of change in others is successful leadership. If the others are reinforced or rewarded for changing their behavior, this evoked achievement is effective leadership. The distinctions between attempted, successful, and effective leadership are important because the dynamics of each are quite different.
The concept of influence recognizes the fact that individuals differ in the extent to which their behaviors affect the activities of a group. It implies a reciprocal relationship between the leader and the followers, but one that is not necessarily characterized by domination, control, or induction of compliance by the leader. It merely states that leadership exercises a determining effect on the behaviors of group members and on activities of the group. The definition of influence also recognizes that leaders can influence group members by their own example. The Israeli lieutenant leads with the call, "Follow me." Leaders serve as models for the followers. As Gandhi suggested: "clean examples have a curious method of multiplying themselves" (quoted in Paige, 1977, p. 65).
Defining effective leadership as successful influence by the leader that results in the attainment of goals by the influenced followers, that is, defining leadership in terms of goal attainment (to be discussed later in the chapter) is particularly useful, for it permits the use of reinforcement theory to understand leader-follower behavior.
Limited to Discretionary Influence. Numerous theorists wanted to limit leadership to only that influence which is not mandated by the leader's role. As noted before, Katz and Kahn (1966) defined leadership as an influential increment over and above compliance with the routine directives of the organization. J. A. Miller (1973a) saw leaders exerting influence "at the margin" to compensate for what was missing in the specified process and structure. Jacobs and Jaques (1987) conceived and viewed leadership in complex organizations as "discretionary action directed toward dealing with unanticipated events that otherwise would influence outcomes of critical tasks at the actor's level" (as did Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 1980). It is influence over and above what is typically invested in the role -- influence beyond what is due to formal procedures, rules, and regulations. Thus, managers are leaders only when they take the opportunity to exert influence over activities beyond what has been prescribed as their role requirements.
Leadership as an Act or Behavior
One school of theorists preferred to define leadership in terms of acts or behaviors. For L. F. Carter (1953), "leadership behaviors are any behaviors the experimenter wishes to so designate or, more generally, any behaviors which experts in this area wish to consider as leadership behaviors." Shartle (1956) defined a leadership act as "one which results in others acting or responding in a shared direction."
Hemphill (1949a) suggested that "leadership may be defined as the behavior of an individual while he is involved in directing group activities." Fiedler (1967a) proposed a somewhat similar definition:
By leadership behavior we generally mean the particular acts in which a leader engages in the course of directing and coordinating the work of his group members. This may involve such acts as structuring the work relations, praising or criticizing group members, and showing consideration for their welfare and feelings.
Leadership as a Form of Persuasion
Both Presidents Eisenhower and Truman emphasized the persuasive aspect of leadership. According to Eisenhower, "leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done, and then to get others to want to do it" (quoted in Larson, 1968, p. 21). According to Truman (1958, p. 139), "a leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don't want to do, and like it." And for Lippmann (1922), such persuasiveness is long lasting: "The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and the will to carry on." Several theorists defined leadership as successful persuasion without coercion; followers are convinced by the merits of the argument, not by the coercive power of the arguer. Neustadt (1960) concluded, from his study of U.S. presidents, that presidential leadership stems from the power to persuade. Schenk (1928) suggested that "leadership is the management of men by persuasion and inspiration rather than by the direct or implied threat of coercion." Merton (1969) regarded leadership as "an interpersonal relation in which others comply because they want to, not because they have to." According to Cleeton and Mason (1934), "leadership indicates the ability to influence men and secure results through emotional appeals rather than through the exercise of authority." Copeland (1942) maintained that
leadership is the art of dealing with human nature....It is the art of influencing a body of people by persuasion or example to follow a line of action. It must never be confused with drivership...which is the art of compelling a body of people by intimidation or force to follow a line of action.
Odier (1948) differentiated between the value and the valence of a leader. Valence is the power of a person to act on the feeling or value of another person or group of persons, of modifying (strengthening or weakening) it in one fashion or another. Thus, valence is defined not by the value of the leader's personality but by the quality of the influences he or she exerts on the members of a group. Koontz and O'Donnell (1955) regarded leadership as "the activity of persuading people to cooperate in the achievement of a common objective."
Persuasion is a powerful instrument for shaping expectations and beliefs -- particularly in political, social, and religious affairs. The definition of leadership as a form of persuasion tended to be favored by students of politics and social movements and by military and industrial theorists who were opposed to authoritarian concepts. It was also the province of rhetoricians and communications theorists. Research on persuasion, persuasibility, and communications has paralleled research on leadership (W. Weiss, 1958). Persuasion can be seen as one form of leadership. Much of what has been learned from studies of persuasion can be incorporated into an understanding of leadership.
Leadership as a Power Relation
Most political theorists, from Machiavelli through Marx to the academic political scientists of the twentieth century, have seen power as the basis of political leadership. Social psychologists J. R. P. French (1956) and Raven and French (1958a, 1958b) defined leadership in terms of differential power relationships among members of a group. For the latter, interpersonal power -- referent, expert, reward based, coercive, or legitimate -- is conceived "as a resultant of the maximum force which A can induce on B minus the maximum resisting force which B can mobilize in the opposite direction." Similarly, Janda (1960) defined "leadership as a particular type of power relationship characterized by a group member's perception that another group member has the right to prescribe behavior patterns for the former regarding his activity as a member of a particular group."
M. Smith (1948) equated leadership with control of the interaction process. Thus, "the initiator of an interaction, A, gives a stimulus to the second participant, B. A asserts his control by interfering with B's original course of action."
Power is regarded as a form of influence relationship. It
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass PDF
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass EPub
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass Doc
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass iBooks
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass rtf
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass Mobipocket
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass Kindle
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass PDF
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass PDF
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass PDF
Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial ApplicationsBy Bernard M. Bass PDF
