Keasership Style
Christine M. Shea
University of New Hampshire
The Effect of Leadership Style on Performance Improvement on a Manufacturing Task
In spite of the considerable amount of empirical work that has been conducted on leadership, there has been no research published to date that has used an experimental methodology to investigate the effect of leadership style on followers’ performance improvement on a manufacturing task over time. In view of the recent attention given to continuous improvement as a means of achieving improved competitiveness, it would be useful to explore the effect of leadership style on the improvement of follower performance over time. This article reports the results of a study that investigates the effect of leadership style on the qualitative and quantitative performance of a manufacturing task over a series of four trials. Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory is used as a framework to develop a model that might explain the psychological mechanism whereby leadership produces its effect on followers. A growing amount of empirical evidence points to the power of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory in explaining behavior in organizations (Frayne and Latham 1987; Gist 1987; Gist, Schwoerer, and Rosen 1989; Latham and Frayne 1989; Wood and Bandura 1989; Bandura and Jourden 1991; Saks 1995). According to Bandura (1986, p. 12), ‘‘People are neither autonomous agents nor mechanical conveyors of animating environmental factors.’’ Instead, human behavior is best understood when viewed as a reciprocal system of causality where personal characteristics, environmental factors, and be( Journal of Business, 1999, vol. 72, no. 3) © 1999 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0021-9398/99/7203-0005$02.50
407
A three-factor, repeated-measures experiment tested the effect of leadership style (charismatic, structuring, and considerate) on performance improvement on a manufacturing task over four trials. Findings from a repeated-measures
University of New Hampshire
The Effect of Leadership Style on Performance Improvement on a Manufacturing Task
In spite of the considerable amount of empirical work that has been conducted on leadership, there has been no research published to date that has used an experimental methodology to investigate the effect of leadership style on followers’ performance improvement on a manufacturing task over time. In view of the recent attention given to continuous improvement as a means of achieving improved competitiveness, it would be useful to explore the effect of leadership style on the improvement of follower performance over time. This article reports the results of a study that investigates the effect of leadership style on the qualitative and quantitative performance of a manufacturing task over a series of four trials. Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory is used as a framework to develop a model that might explain the psychological mechanism whereby leadership produces its effect on followers. A growing amount of empirical evidence points to the power of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory in explaining behavior in organizations (Frayne and Latham 1987; Gist 1987; Gist, Schwoerer, and Rosen 1989; Latham and Frayne 1989; Wood and Bandura 1989; Bandura and Jourden 1991; Saks 1995). According to Bandura (1986, p. 12), ‘‘People are neither autonomous agents nor mechanical conveyors of animating environmental factors.’’ Instead, human behavior is best understood when viewed as a reciprocal system of causality where personal characteristics, environmental factors, and be( Journal of Business, 1999, vol. 72, no. 3) © 1999 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0021-9398/99/7203-0005$02.50
407
A three-factor, repeated-measures experiment tested the effect of leadership style (charismatic, structuring, and considerate) on performance improvement on a manufacturing task over four trials. Findings from a repeated-measures
References: Avolio, B. J.; Waldman, D. A.; and Einstein, W. O. 1988. Transformational leadership in a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Group and Organization Studies 13:59–80. Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 422 Journal of Business Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. Bandura, A.; Adams, N. E.; and Beyer, J. 1977. Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:124–39. Bandura, A.; Adams, N. E.; Hardy, A. B.; and Howells, G. N. 1980. Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research 4:39–66. Bandura, A., and Jourden, F. J. 1991. Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:941–51. Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. 3d ed. New York: Free Press. Frayne, C. A., and Latham, G. P. 1987. The application of social learning theory to employee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology 72:387–92. Garvin, D. A. 1984. What does ‘‘product quality’’ really mean? Sloan Management Review 26:25–43. Gist, M. E. 1987. Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review 12:472–85. Gist, M. E.; Schwoerer, C.; and Rosen, B. 1989. Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology 74:884–91. Hater, J. J., and Bass, B. M. 1988. Supervisors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 73:695–702. House, R. J. 1988. Leadership research: Some forgotten, ignored, or overlooked findings. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. T. Dachler, and C. A. Schriesheim (eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas, pp. 246–60. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. House, R. J.; Spangler, W. D.; and Woycke, J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 36:364–96. Howell, J. M. 1986. Charismatic leadership: Effects of leadership style and group productivity on individual adjustment and performance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia. Howell, J. M., and Avolio, B. J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 78:891–902. Howell, J. M., and Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43:243–69. Kirkpatrick, S., and Locke, E. A. 1996. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 81:36–51. Latham, G. P., and Frayne, C. A. 1989. Self-management training for increasing job attendance: A follow-up and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology 74:411–16. Lindsley, D. H.; Brass, D. J.; and Thomas, J. B. 1995. Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review 20:645–78. Locke, E. A.; Frederick, E.; Lee, C.; and Bobko, P. 1984. Effect of self-efficacy, goals and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 69:241–51. Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Saks, A. M. 1995. Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology 80:211–25. Shamir, B.; House, R. J.; and Arthur, M. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science 4:1–17. Smith, B. J. 1982. An initial test of a theory of charismatic leadership based on the responses of subordinates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Wood, R. E., and Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review 14:361–84.