1. Discuss the benefits and costs of charismatic leadership.Take a moment to reflect on a leader that exhibited the benefits and/or costs of charismatic leadership in human history. Who is that person? Why do you regard him/her as charismatic?

2. Briefly describe the theory of transformational leadership proposed by Bass.

moodle.Isu.edu + Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites Free Hotmail )/ Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic / MSN MSN Entertainment MSN Money MSN SlideShow MSNBC My MSN > > Lsu Louisiana State University Module 4: Evaluating Behaviors on the Job | LSU Moodle.. co https://moodle.Isu.edu/pluginfile.php/2616410/course/se... G Grammarly 88, No. 2, 209-258 Copy- 6027-9010/03/$12.00 DOI. 10.10370021-9010.38.2.207 Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership Bernard M. Bass Bruce J. Avolio Binghamton University University of Nebraska-Lincoln Dong I. Jung Yair Berson San Diego State University Polytechnic University How do leadership ratings collected from units operating under stable conditions predict subsequent performance of those units operating under high stress and uncertainty? To examine this question, the authors calculated the predictive relationships for the transformational and transactional leadership of 72 light infantry rifle platoon leaders for ratings of unit potency, cohesion, and performance for U.S. Army platoons participating in combat simulation exercises. Both transformational and transactional contingent reward leadership ratings of platoon leaders and sergeants positively predicted unit performance. The relationship of platoon leadership to performance was partially mediated through the unit's level of potency and cohesion. Implications, limitations, and future directions for leadership research are discussed. Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly The pace of change confronting organizations today has resulted were positively correlated with supervisory evaluations of mana- in calls for more adaptive, flexible leadership. Adaptive leaders gerial performance (Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass, & Ein- work more effectively in rapidly changing environments by help- stein, 1987), recommendations for promotion (Waldman, Bass, & ing to make sense of the challenges confronted by both leaders an Yammarino, 1990), research and development project team inno- followers and then appropriately responding to those challenges. vations (Keller, 1992), and percentage of financial goals achieved Adaptive leaders work with their followers to generate creative n strategic business units (Howell & Avolio, 1993). solutions to complex problems, while also developing them to Meta-analyses conducted by Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubrama- handle a broader range of leadership responsibilities (Bennis, niam (1996) and Patterson, Fuller, Kester, and Stringer (1995) 2001). transforma Bass (1985) labeled the type of adaptive leadership described leadership and performance reported in the literature. Yet most of above transformational. The literature accumulated on testing the studies included in eta-analyses were based on transformational leadership theory has provided general support leadership and performance data collected at the same point in for the hypothesized relationships between transformational lead- time, and typically from the same source. Lowe et al. reported that ership, transactional leadership, and performance (Avolio, 1999; the effects of common source bias inflated the r ship be- Bass, 1998). For example, ratings of transformational leadership tween transformational leadership and performance reported by many previous authors. Although the estimated true score corre- lation was still positive, Lowe et al. indicated that it wa Bernard M. Bass, Center for Leadership Studies and School of Man- erably lower when ratings of leadership and performance were This article is i agement, Binghamton University; Bruce J. Avolio, Department of Man- collected from different sources. agement and College of Business Administration, University of Nebras DeGroot, Kiker, and Cross (2000) completed a third meta- ka-Lincoln; Dong I. Jung, Department of Management, San Diego State University; Yair Berson, Institute for Technology and Enterprise, Poly- analysis of the transformational and transactional leadership liter- technic University. ature, reconfirming the positive relationship between ratings of Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio served as co-principal investiga- charismatic-transformational leadership and performance reported tors in a project (Contract DASWO1-008) sponsored by the U.S. Army earlier. They also reported that the relationship between charis- Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences that supported matic leadership d performance varied w the collection of data used in this study. We thank retired Lieutenant performance were examined at an individual versus group level, General W. F. Ulmer and Colonels M. Shaler and W. M. Snodgrass for concluding that "results show an effect size at the group level of their active consultation in all phases of the project, as well as Wendy analysis that is double in magnitude relative to the effect size at the Clark. We also express our appreciation to the generals in command of the ndividual level" (DeGroot et al., 2000, p. 363). 10th Mountain and the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions for the eration, and to the officers and enlisted men. Finally, we thank Mike Although the literature on transformational and transactional Drillings, who was our contract monitor at the Army Research Institute. leadership has grown rapidly over the past 15 years, only a handful Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bruce J. of studies have examined how transformational and transactional Department of Management, 209 College of Business Adminis- leadership predict performance. For example, Howell and Avolio tration, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491. E-mail: (1993) reported that transformational, but not transactional, lead- bavolio2@unl.edu ership of financial managers positively predicted unit performance 207moodle.Isu.edu + Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites Free Hotmail / Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic / MSN MSN Entertainment MSN Money MSN SlideShow MSNBC My MSN > > Lsu Louisiana State University co Module 4: Evaluating Behaviors on the Job | LSU Moodle... co https://moodle.Isu.edu/pluginfile.php/2616410/course/se... G Grammarly 208 BASS, AVOLIO, JUNG, AND BERSON over a 1-year period. Geyer and Steyrer (1998) evaluated the action or takes no action at all and would be labeled passive- leadership of managers heading Austrian branch banks, reporting avoidant or laissez-faire. Such passive leaders avoid specifying a stronger positive relationship between transformational leader- agreements, clarifying expectations, and providing goals and stan- ship and long- versus short-term performance. Geyer and Steyrer o be achieved by followers. speculated the stronger relationship between transformational Previous research has shown transactional contingent reward leadership and long-term performance may ively related to followers' commitment, transformational leaders creating a more inspired, committed, and satisfaction, and performance (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 199 cohesive culture in their banks. Hunt & Schuler, 1976; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984). Emergence of transformational leadership depends in part on the Goodwin, Wofford, and Whittington (2001) reported a positive context in which the leader and followers interact. For example, relationship between transactional contingent reward leadership Bass (1985) argued that "transformational leadership is more and organizational citizenship behavior, distinguishing transa likely to reflect social values and change while transactional leadership is more likely on setting basic expectations and goals. Goodwin et al. she in a well-ordered society" (p. 154). Most prior res that the recognition-based transactional leadership, which they ined transformational and transactional leadership in u labeled implicit contracting, was more positively related to ed publishers. operated within relatively stable conditions. Consequently, one lowers displaying organizational citizenship behaviors than was a major focus of this study was to examine how transactional and transactional leadership based on explicit contracts or a quid pro transformational leadership predicted performa quo exchange between the leader and follower. ating under conditions of high levels of uncertaint hallenge, an The components of transformational and transactional leader- stress. Leadership ratings were collected in U.S. Army platoons ship have been identified in a variety of ways, including through during normal operational assignments. These leadership ratings the use of factor analyses, observations, interviews, and descrip- were then used to predict the performance of the platoon units tions of a follower's ideal leader . Using the Multifactor Leadership operating in a 2-week complex simulation that was designed to test Questionnaire (MLQ-Form 5X; Avolio & Bass, 2002), Avolio, the unit's performance effectiveness under high levels of stress and Bass, and Jung (1999) and Antonakis (2001) identified the distinct uncertainty. e four components In addition, some researchers have argued that research on of what Avolio et al. referred to as a higher order construct of transformational and tra transformational leadership include the following: ined important mediating variables that link leadership style to Idealized influence. These leaders are admired, respected, and performance (Yukl, 1999). Therefore, we also evaluated how trusted. Followers identify with and want to emulate their leaders. ratings of transformational and transactional leadership were me- Among the th dit with followers is diated by levels of unit cohesion and potency in predicting platoon to consider followers' needs over his or her own needs. The leader the American Psych performance in near-combat conditions. shares risks with followers and is consistent in conduct with underlying ethics, principles, and values. for the personal use of Theoretical Background and Research Model Inspirational motivation. Leaders behave in ways that moti- vate those around them by providing meaning and challenge to Distinguishing Transactional and Transformational their followers' work. Individual and team spirit is aroused. En- Leadership thusiasm and optimism are displayed. The leader encourages fol- lowers to envision attractive future states, which they can ulti- Prior to the introduction of charismatic-transformational lead- mately envision for themselves. ership theory into the literature (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; House, Intellectual stimulation. Leaders stimulate their followers' ef- This document is copyrighted by 1977), most researchers referred to transactional contingent rein- fort to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, forcement as the core component of ip behavior , and approaching old situations in new w in organizations. Exhibiting transactional leadership meant that There is no ridicule or public criticism of individual members' followers agreed with, accepted, or complied with the leader in mistakes. New ideas and creative solutions to problems are solic- exchange for praise, rewards, and resources or the avoidance of ited from followers, who are included in the process of addressing disciplinary action. Rewards and recognition were provided con- ding solutions. tingent on followers successfully c ir roles and Individualized consideration. Leaders pay attention to each assignments (Podsakoff, Todo V, 1982). individual's need for ac ment and growth by acting as a coach contingent reward leadership clarifies expectations and of or mentor. Followers are developed to successively higher levels ognition when goals are achieved. The clarification of goals and of potential. New learning opportunities are created along with objectives and providing of recognition once goals are achieved supportive climate in which to grow. Individual differences in should result in individuals and groups achieving ex terms of needs and desires are recognized. of performance (Bass, 1985). In its mo ive form, labeled active management by exception, the leader specifies the standards for compliance, as well as what constitutes ineffective perfor- Transformational Leadership, Commitment, Cohesion, mance, and may punish followers for being out of compliance with and Potency those standards. This style of leadership implies closely monitor- With the introduction of transformational leadership theory into ing for deviances, mistakes, and errors and then taking corrective the literature, greater attention has now been paid to understanding action as quickly as possible when they occur. In its more passive how certain leaders are better equipped to elevate a follower's form, the leader either waits for problems to arise before taking motivation and performance to the higher levels of accomplish-Google Chrome File Edit View History Bookmarks Profiles Tab Window Help G Q 9 Wed Feb 7 9:17 PM ... A moodle.Isu.edu C Homework Help - C X Screenshot 2024-0 x Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites Free Hotmail / Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic 9/ MSN G File /var/folde... 0 8 New Chrome available : LSU Louisiana State University Module 4: Evaluating Behavior.. https://moodle.Isu.edu/plugin... G Grammarly ys form PREDICTING UNIT PERFORMANCE 211 * Google Chrome File Edit View History Bookmarks Profiles Tab Window Help G : 0 - 7 Q 2 Wed Feb 7 9:17PM of potency and cohesion before completing the MLQ-Form 5X survey for Data Aggregation and Analysis moodle. Isu.edu . . . Homework Help - Q&A from ( x either the sergeant or the platoon leader. For the final data set used in this study, the survey data used to assess leadership, potency, and cohesion For the measures of leadership, potency, and cohesion, the sample size Home - Welcome to Charter w Yahoo! (2) @ Suggested Sites Free Hotmail |Web Stice Gallery B Bing" Traffic MSN coursehe.. C 0 : New Chrome available were all completed by separate sources. was 72. Tests for aggregating survey ratings to the platoon level were conducted using James, Demaree, and Wolf's (1984) /wg procedure. Spe- Get homework help PE - Field Performance Data Collection From Expert cifically, an wg value was calculated for each scale within each of the 72 Observers platoons. Between 70% and 80% of the wg values for all survey scales fell G.pdf above the . 70 cutoff suggested by James et al. for aggregating ratings from Approximately 4 to 6 weeks after the survey data were collected, four an individual to a group level of analysis. Results of the Two analyses brigades containing 18 platoons each engaged in 11 tactical mission as follows : The mean wg value for ratings of the platoon leader's trans- ises at Fort Polk. For the four data sets of 18 platoons each, ratings formational leadership was .80; for the platoon leader's contingent reward were obtained for each platoon from two highly trained observers. A retired ratings, .87; for the platoon leader's passive-avoidant ratings, .84; for the 3IU X2 X2 : B fx colonel on our research team met with the observers several days prior to platoon sergeant's transformational ratings, .78; for the platoon sergeant's ving into the field with their platoons to brief the observers. He contingent reward ratings, .82; for the platoon sergea soon sergeant's passive-avoidant explained the type of perfor the type of performance data we wanted to collect from the ratings, .88; for unit potency, .90; and for unit cohesion, .88. observers after the 2-week simulation was simulation was completed. He assured the We examined how three co now three constructs of leadership related to potency, observers that no one's data would be identified or used for anything other cohesion, and platoon performance. The first higher order construct rep- purg than research purposes. At the end of three respective phases, totaling 1 1 resented the transformational leadership factors reported by Avolio et al. ne ts allied publishers. after the first, middle, and last missions ) , last missions), the observers com- 1999). We chose to combine the transformational factors on the basis of pleted ratings of platoon performance on scorecards created for this study. prior evidence that they represented a higher order construct, and to reduce will positively predict unit perform Generally, the 11 missions included defense, movement to contact, and he number of parameters being estimated given the small sample size leadership for platoon leaders wad platoon sergeant off ser and is not to be disseminated broadly attack of 72 platoons. The second construct represented transactional contingent The 126 observers for all 72 platoons were experienced tactical instruc- reward leadership, and the third was passive-avoidant leadership. case leaders and places sergeants will be postinges or pils tors with the ranks of captain, master sergear master sergeant, or sergeant first class. All observers received training on how to complete their evaluations. Each instructor observed a particular platoon for the first time, but all instructors Results Method had performed observational duties in the past. Their prior experience Method recorded on the field data scorecards. Their experience ranged from 3 to 30 Results presented in Table 1 include descriptive statistics, scale prior rotations, where one rotation meant they followed an individual eliabilities, and zero-order correlations among leadership, po- platoon for 11 missions. The average number of prior platoon Prior platoon rotations tency, cohesion, and unit performance. All of the reliability esti Inal 11.9 for the group of observers participa mates for the leadership and group process scales were above .70. e of the individual and us in is study. Ob For both platoon leaders and sergeants, transformational leadership LARD 3271 wyndent remained with these 72 platoons day and night. The overall interrater agreement for the pairs of observers was .75. We averaged their perfor- was positively correlated with transactional contingent reward yes orgorgi a total performance score for each platoon. Two leadership and negatively correlated with passive-avoidant lead- overall scales of each platoon's performance were used in this study. T ership. Both transforma tional and transactional contingent reward e America first assessed the platoon's performance. Raters evaluated how well the platoon had accomplished its its missions on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 leadership were positively correlated with ratings of platoon po- (much less well than could have been expected) to 4 (much more than tency and cohesion. Ratings of passive-avoidant leadership for could have been expected). In the second scale, the rater was asked to both platoon leaders and sergeants were negatively re compare the platoon's performance with the performance of all other evaluations of unit potency and cohesion. platoons the rater had observed in this field setting. A 5-point scale was Ratings of leadership for the platoon leader and sergeant were used here to measure the platoon's performance. These performance rat- moderately intercorrelated. For example, platoon leaders who were = .68) and therefore were combined in rated more transactional worked with platoon sergeants in their This article is intended solely for the pe This document is copyrighted by t subsequent analyses. The total number of ratings across the 11 missions for platoon who were rated more transactional (r = .24, p