Running head: LEADER MOTIVES AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP. Leader Motives, Charismatic Leadership, and Subordinates Work Attitude in the Profit and

Leader Motives 1 Running head: LEADER MOTIVES AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP Leader Motives, Charismatic Leadership, and Subordinates’ Work Attitude in t...
Author: Angel Hoover
8 downloads 1 Views 395KB Size
Leader Motives 1 Running head: LEADER MOTIVES AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Leader Motives, Charismatic Leadership, and Subordinates’ Work Attitude in the Profit and Voluntary Sector

Annebel H.B. De Hoogh Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands Deanne N. Den Hartog Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands Paul L. Koopman Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands Henk Thierry and Peter T. Van den Berg Tilburg University, The Netherlands Joost G. Van der Weide and Celeste P.M. Wilderom Twente University, The Netherlands

We thank management consultancy firm SvM in helping us to collect part of the data. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Annebel H.B. de Hoogh, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Free University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Leader Motives 2 Abstract This multi-method study examined leaders’ motives, charismatic leader behavior, and subordinates’ work attitude for CEOs (N = 73) of small and medium-sized organizations in two sectors, namely the profit and voluntary sector. Interviews with CEOs were coded for motive imagery. Direct reports rated CEO charismatic leader behavior (n = 125) and their own work attitudes (n = 262) using questionnaires. As expected, charismatic leadership was positively related to subordinates’ positive work attitude. Perceived charismatic leadership was also positively related to coded power motivation. The tendency to use power in a morally responsible way was differentially related to charismatic leadership for CEOs of profit and voluntary organizations.

Keywords: Leader motives, Charismatic leadership, Profit and voluntary sector

Leader Motives 3 Leader Motives, Charismatic Leadership, and Subordinates’ Work Attitude in the Profit and Voluntary Sector Over the past 20 years, a considerable amount of theory and research has focused on charismatic or transformational leadership. Such leaders articulate an attractive vision for the organization and behave in ways that reinforce the values inherent in that vision. Followers become highly committed to the goal of the collective and perform beyond expectation (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; House, 1977). Many empirical studies and a number of meta-analyses demonstrate positive relationships between charismatic leadership and a wide range of outcome measures, ranging from financial measures of business unit performance to subordinates’ attitudes, such as affective organizational commitment (e.g., Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001). Many researchers concerned with charismatic leadership hold that personal characteristics or traits play an important role in the emergence of charismatic leadership (e.g., Bryman, 1992; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Jacobsen & House, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2000). House and Howell (1992) discussed personality traits that seem likely to differentiate charismatic leaders from non-charismatic leaders, including self-confidence, need for social influence, social responsibility, cognitive achievement orientation, energy, enthusiasm and creativity. They concluded that research in this area was limited and fragmented. In response, various personality characteristics have recently been investigated in relation to charismatic leadership. This research shows that pro-activity, locus of control, selfconfidence, dominance, extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience are related to charismatic leadership (e.g., Crant & Bateman, 2000; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Judge & Bono, 2000; Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001; Ross & Offermann, 1997). A set of personal dispositions that, to date, has attracted less attention in charismatic

Leader Motives 4 leadership research is leaders’ motives, such as the power motive and the tendency to use power in a morally responsible way, the affiliation and the achievement motive. In research, these motives have received considerable support as predictors of general leader effectiveness (e.g., Kirkpatrick, Wofford, & Baum, 2002; McClelland & Burnham, 1976; 2003; Spangler & House, 1991). House integrated these motives into his theory of charismatic leadership, by proposing that they may act as antecedents of charismatic leadership (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997; House & Howell, 1992; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991). However, empirical evidence on this proposition is scarce. The available evidence comes from a study focusing on U.S. presidents (House et al., 1991) and suggests that leader motives are indeed linked to perceived charisma. Whether such motives are also related to perceived charismatic leadership in different types of organizations is not yet clear. Also, the methodology to assess motive structures (especially the tendency to use power in a morally responsible way) improved in recent years. Therefore, the present study adds to the literature by examining whether and how motives are related to perceived charismatic leader behavior and subordinates’ positive work attitude in two types of organizations, namely organizations in the profit and voluntary sector. In addition, rather than solely relying on survey measures, the study combines survey data with data derived from interviews. Implicit Motives Over several decades, McClelland, Atkinson, and other researchers have investigated three basic motives; the power, the affiliation and the achievement motive (e.g., Atkinson, 1958; McClelland, 1975, 1985a, 1985b). These motives are drawn from Murray’s (1938) human motivation taxonomy and are suggested to represent the most important dimensions of human motivated behavior (Atkinson, 1958). The power motive is defined as the desire to have impact on other people, to affect their behavior or emotions (Winter, 1992a). The

Leader Motives 5 affiliation motive is defined as a concern for establishing, maintaining, or restoring positive affective relationships with others (Heyns, Veroff, & Atkinson, 1958). The achievement motive is defined as a concern for competition against some standard of excellence and unique accomplishment (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958). These motives were originally assessed via thematic content analysis of Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) stories. Scoring categories were developed by observing how experimental arousal of the implicit motive in question affected the contents of TAT stories (see e.g., Winter, 1973). Winter further developed and refined the original method, so that any form of imaginative running text or speech could be used as the basis for content analyses (Winter, 1991a). His methodology permits unobtrusive measurement of implicit motives in diverse texts, such as presidential speeches (e.g., Spangler & House, 1991; Winter, 1987), interview responses of political leaders (e.g., Winter, 1980), and written vision statements of CEOs (e.g., Kirkpatrick et al., 2002). Such thematic coding examines implicit motives, which tend to predict long-term spontaneous behavioral trends. They are generally unrelated to selfattributed motives as measured by questionnaires, which tend to predict immediate responses to specific situations (McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989; Spangler, 1992). The Leader Motive Profile McClelland and Burnham (1976) examined several hundred managers’ TAT scores on the motives. They found that managers whose work units reported higher work morale tended to write stories that reflected high power motivation, low affiliation motivation and a high concern for the moral exercise of power. They labeled this combination of motives the Leadership Motive Profile. McClelland and Burnham (1976, 2003) argued that leaders with such a Leadership Motive Profile (LMP) create an inspirational work climate and a sense of team spirit by engaging in social influence behavior in a responsible way, while applying rules universally and fairly.

Leader Motives 6 In separate analyses of one set of longitudinal data gathered at the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, both McClelland and Boyatzis (1982) and Winter (1991b) demonstrated the predictive validity of the LMP for managerial success. Also, Winter (1978) showed that the LMP of high-level U.S. naval officers was associated with superior performance ratings by supervisors. Spangler and House (1991) found that elements of the LMP predicted perceived greatness and social performance among U.S. presidents. Thus, the LMP research supports the idea that motives may be related to general leader effectiveness. However, it does not yet clearly explain how motives affect leader effectiveness. Leader Motives and Charismatic Leadership In their work on charismatic leadership, House and colleagues describe the elements of the Leadership Motive Profile as potential antecedents of charismatic leadership (e.g., House, 1977; House & Aditya, 1997; House et al., 1991). Specifically, they expect that leaders who are perceived as charismatic will have a high power motivation and a low affiliation motivation, and a high concern for the moral exercise of power. According to House and colleagues, to realize envisioned changes, charismatic leaders must engage in proactive social influence behavior mobilizing a critical mass of followers in the interest of the leader’s vision. House and colleagues argue that charismatic leaders need to seek influence and power and thus have a high power motivation. Since such leaders are also likely to be resisted and criticized by opposing forces within their environment who prefer the status quo or have a different vision, they may benefit from being relatively insensitive to such criticism, and thus, according to House and colleagues, from having a low affiliation motivation. This enables leaders to take forceful actions and make tough decisions without worrying about being disliked (McClelland, 1985b). A low affiliation motivation has also been linked to the universal application of rules. Leaders low on this motive may be less easily induced to make

Leader Motives 7 exceptions for the needs of individuals, which may be regarded as unfair by subordinates and create low morale (McClelland & Burnham, 1976; 2003). In contrast, leaders high on affiliation motivation may be more reluctant to discipline subordinates or to strictly monitor their behavior and convey negative feedback (McClelland, 1985b). To be effective and maintain their position, charismatic leaders need to understand and build on the needs, values, and hopes of their followers. They need to advocate a better future for their organization and for followers, emphasizing shared ideological values (e.g., Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Leaders with a high concern for the moral exercise of power will use power in an altruistic and collectively oriented manner, behave ethically, and be concerned about the consequences of their own actions on others (Winter & Barenbaum, 1985). This concern will result in leadership which induces trust and respect for the leader and commitment to the leader’s vision. In contrast, leaders with a high power motivation who tend to use power for personal rather than social needs may be seen as using their position to aggrandize themselves at the expense of others or of the organization. Therefore, House and colleagues argue that charismatic leaders need to have a high rather than a low concern for the moral exercise of power (House, 1977; House & Aditya, 1997; House et al., 1991). To investigate their theory, House et al. (1991) used Winter’s (1987) motive scores of elected U.S. presidents derived from coding motive imagery of presidential inaugural addresses. Presidential charisma was measured through content analyses of biographical extracts and editorials appearing in the New York Times after the president’s inauguration. House and colleagues found that need for power was significantly positively and the affiliation motive was negatively, but not significantly related to presidential charismatic leadership. Following McClelland (McClelland, Davis, Kalin & Wanner, 1972; McClelland, 1985b), House et al. measured the tendency to use power in a morally responsible way by

Leader Motives 8 counting the frequency of the word “not” in material written by or about these presidents. “McClelland (1985b) believed that the historical use of the word “not” in proscriptive statements in the Judeo-Christian tradition, such as “Thou shall not..,” reflects constraint on the coercive, exploitative, and self-interested use of power” (House et al., 1991, p.375). House and colleagues found that the frequency in which the word “not” was used in presidential writings was significantly related to presidential charisma. Research by Spangler and House (1991), however, demonstrated that counting the number of “nots” in presidential writings was associated with the manner in which presidents exercised power (conventional and institutional versus personal and radical) rather then tendency to use power in a morally responsible way. Therefore, they claim that House et al. (1991) found support for presidential power motive to be related to charismatic leadership, but did not investigate the relationship between charismatic leadership and the tendency use power in an altruistic and collectively oriented manner. Furthermore, the final sample size in House et al’s study is rather small (31 presidents). Also, they focused on presidential leadership rather than leadership in organizations. Whether leader motives are also related to perceived charismatic leadership in organizations is not yet clear. The present investigation was designed to test the propositions regarding the relationship between leader motives and charismatic leadership put forward by House and colleagues in an organizational context. We also attempt to overcome the aforementioned methodological limitation of previous work by using a newly developed validated coding methodology for the way in which the power motive is expressed (Winter, 1992b). Winter and Barenbaum (1985) developed and validated a new measure of concern for responsibility that moderates the expression of power motivation into either responsible or profligate channels (for an overview of validation studies see Winter, 1991b, 1992b). This measure focuses on an inner obligation to do what is right, taking responsibility for oneself

Leader Motives 9 and others, being dependable, instilling self-control and having awareness of the consequences of action as represents of the responsibility disposition. In TAT stories and running text, the responsibility disposition is indicated by images reflecting moral and legal standards of conduct, internal obligation, concern for others, concern about consequences and self-judgment (Winter, 1992b). Longitudinal research shows that a high power motive in interaction with a high concern for responsibility is associated with effective managerial performance and success (Winter, 1991b). Following the theory presented by House and colleagues and based on research on the validated coding methodology for the responsibility disposition we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1: Charismatic leadership is positively related to the power motive and negatively related to the affiliation motive. Hypothesis 2: The power motive will be more strongly related to charismatic leadership when it is combined with a high concern for responsibility than when it is combined with a low concern for responsibility. Achievement Motive The achievement motive was initially included in the charismatic leadership theory developed by House as a possible antecedent of such leadership (House, 1977; House et al., 1991). However, in later work on the personality of the charismatic leader (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997) the achievement motive is no longer presented as such, as the relationship between this motive and charismatic leadership seems less clear-cut than for other motives. Conceptually, the achievement motive could be seen as a characteristic of charismatic leaders, as highly achievement motivated leaders may inspire followers to perform beyond expectations (cf. Bass, 1985) through setting high standards and demanding excellence. However, the personal success focus inherent in achievement motivation may also cause leaders to try to retain strong control over all possible aspects of their position rather than

Leader Motives 10 delegate responsibility, and to aim for personal rather than collective success (McClelland & Atkinson, 1976; Spangler & House, 1991). Research revealed a negative relationship between the achievement motive and charismatic leadership for presidents (House et al., 1991) and no relationship between the Big five construct of conscientiousness (of which achievement is a major facet) and charismatic leadership for managers (Judge & Bono, 2000). In sum, although achievement motivation might at first glance seem to be an asset for charismatic leaders, helping them to set challenging goals, the available research suggests it does not play such a positive role and may even form a liability. Highly achievement motivated leaders may focus on personal success and control to such an extent that it goes at the expense of their ability to enable and empower others to perform well (House et al., 1991; Judge & Bono, 2000). Our study further explores this relationship and examines whether the negative relationship House and colleagues found for presidents is also found for our sample of leaders of organizations. We hypothesize that: Hypothesis 3: Charismatic leadership is negatively related to the achievement motive. Charismatic Leadership and Work Attitude Charismatic leaders are expected to infuse followers’ work with values by articulating an attractive vision, and to behave in ways that reinforce the values inherent in that vision, which will increase the perceived meaningfulness of their work to subordinates (Shamir et al., 1993). Charismatic leaders emphasize the collective and communicate the shared purpose of the collective to subordinates. This will increase their feelings involvement. Charismatic leaders show confidence in their subordinates and project self-confidence. As a result, followers’ beliefs about their ability to perform increase. This in turn will increase subordinates’ willingness to invest effort and their enthusiasm for the task at hand (e.g., House, 1996; Shamir et., 1993). As stated, previous research shows positive relations of charismatic leadership to subordinates’ effort, organizational commitment, and job

Leader Motives 11 satisfaction (e.g., Bycio, et al., 1995; De Groot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Therefore, we expect charismatic leader behavior to be significant related to subordinates’ positive work attitude, operationalized as their enthusiasm for and commitment to the organization and the work they do. Hypothesis 4: Charismatic leader behavior is positively related to subordinates’ positive work attitude. As stated above, McClelland and Burnham (1976) found that managers whose work units reported higher morale showed high power motivation, low affiliation motivation, and a high concern for the moral exercise of power. We expect that the impact of leader motives on subordinate attitudes is indirect rather than direct. Thus, we explore whether charismatic leadership perceptions play a mediating role in the relationship between leader motives and positive work attitude. As discussed in previous sections, we propose that leaders with a high power motivation, a high concern to use their power in a responsible way, a low affiliation motivation, and a low achievement motivation are more likely to be perceived as charismatic, and expect that such perceived charisma in turn is positively related to subordinate attitudes (such as morale). We expect leader motives to be indirectly related to subordinates’ positive work attitude through their relationship with charismatic leader behavior. Hypothesis 5: The power motive, the interaction between the power motive and the responsibility disposition, the affiliation motive and the achievement motive are indirectly related to subordinates’ positive work attitude through their direct relationship with charismatic leadership. The Orientation of the Organization Many researchers argue that a leader’s appeal and success depends on the situation. For example, Shamir and Howell (1999) hold that both the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership may be facilitated by some contexts and inhibited by others. In line

Leader Motives 12 with this, Winter and colleagues (e.g., Miner, 2000; Schmitt & Winter, 1998; Winter, 1987) have argued that the specific leader motives required for successful and appealing leadership may vary across situations. This may also hold for charismatic leadership. Specific motives may be more strongly related to perceptions of charismatic leadership in some contexts than in others. To date, however, there has been little attention in the leadership literature for environmental characteristics that may interact with personality characteristics to affect perceptions of charismatic leadership. In their self-concept-based motivational theory of charismatic leadership, Shamir et al. (1993) argue that in order to have their extraordinary effects, charismatic leaders need to appeal to existing elements of followers' self-concepts, namely values and identities, and connect them to an organizational mission. When followers perceive that the leader represents existing and desirable values and identities they hold, this is likely to increase attributions of charisma to the leader. In other words, followers may more easily identify with a leader and perceive a leader as more charismatic when the motives, values and beliefs of the leader reflect their own. The attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework predicts that individuals are likely to be attracted to, selected for and maintained within organizations that fit their values and identities (e.g., Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998; Turban & Keon, 1993). Thus, both leaders and followers may choose the context in which they work (in part) because it appeals to their values and identity and followers may be more likely to perceive a leader as charismatic when they share the leaders’ motives, values and beliefs. When the organizational orientation and core business are closely related to such shared values and beliefs, it is easier for the leader to formulate the mission in such a way that it reflects followers' dominant values. Therefore, the relevancy of leader motives to the orientation (mission) of the organization being lead may affect the perception of charismatic leadership

Leader Motives 13 (House, Delbecq, Taris, & & Sully de Luque, 2001). To investigate this proposition, we conducted our research in two groups: CEOs of small and medium-sized organizations in the profit and in the voluntary sector. Voluntary organizations are altruistically driven and focus on morally responsible action (for example, working for human rights, animal welfare, or environmental protection). In contrast, profit organizations are driven to influence the behavior and emotions of their stakeholders and need to outperform competitors. Although some profit organizations also engage in forms of morally responsible action, it is usually not the dominant focus or “core business” as it tends to be in voluntary organizations. The democratic ideology of voluntary organizations emphasizes the decentralization of power, whereas top leadership positions in profit organizations concentrate legitimate power over collective resources (Knoke & Prensky, 1984; Wilderom & Miner, 1991) We expect the interaction between a high power motive and a high responsibility disposition to be more strongly related to perceived charismatic leadership in voluntary organizations than in profit organizations, due to the stronger focus on morally responsible action characterizing voluntary organizations. When high power motivation is coupled with a high concern for responsibility, leaders are likely to engage in morally responsible action emphasizing ideological values. In voluntary organizations, such leaders are likely to behave in ways that are perceived to reinforce the values inherent in the mission of the organization, which seems likely to enhance the attribution of charisma to them. We expect the interaction between a high power motive and a low responsibility disposition to be more negatively related to perceived charismatic leadership in voluntary organizations than in profit organizations. The emergence and exercise of personal power are likely to be less acceptable in voluntary organizations. When leaders use their power for purely personal goals in voluntary organizations, they may be perceived to act against the

Leader Motives 14 altruistic values inherent in the organization’s mission and the high value voluntary organizations place on members’ control over collective affairs (Knoke & Prensky, 1984; Wilderom & Miner, 1991). Therefore, they may be perceived as less charismatic. The downward directed hierarchy in which authority is usually arranged in profit organizations provides a somewhat more conducive context for the use of personal power. In profit organizations, leaders may be able to articulate an attractive vision based on personal values and beliefs as long as they are to some extent in congruence with the values inherent in the mission of the organization. Thus, we expect the context to play a moderating role: Hypothesis 6: A high power motivation in combination with a high responsibility disposition will be more positively related, and a high power motivation in combination with a low responsibility disposition will be more negatively related to charismatic leadership for CEOs in the voluntary sector as compared to CEOs in the profit sector. Method Sample and Procedure The total sample consists of two sub-samples. The sub-sample of small and mediumsized organizations in the profit sector was collected as part of an ongoing international research project on culture and leadership (the GLOBE project). A sample of 300 small and medium-sized organizations was drawn in the Netherlands from the database of Elsevier’s Company Information. Firm size was restricted to a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 250 employees. The sub-sample of small and medium-sized organizations in the voluntary sector was obtained in cooperation with SvM, an organization specializing in consultancy for voluntary organizations and one of the two organizations in the Netherlands appointed by the government to support voluntary work in this manner. A random sample of 40 representative organizations was drawn from the database of SvM to be contacted and asked to participate. Given that we were interested in voluntary organizations with paid staff, the only restriction

Leader Motives 15 placed in drawing the sample was that they had at least 10 employees on the payroll (irrespective of the number of active volunteers they had). Invitation letters were sent to all 340 CEOs representing the organizations and one week later they were approached by telephone. As an incentive, all CEOs were offered the opportunity for feedback on their leadership styles at the close of the study. In total, 73 CEOs (52 CEOs in the profit sector and 21 in the voluntary sector) agreed to participate (22% response rate). CEOs of both types of organizations were paid professionals. Most CEOs had been in their current jobs for 2 years or more (87%). Only 5 CEOs in the profit sector and 8 in the voluntary sector were female. Average firm size, interpreted as total number of employees on the payroll, was 102 for organizations in the profit sector and 52 for organizations in the voluntary sector. About half of the CEOs were owners in the profit sector of their company, the other half, were appointed managing directors. The CEOs in the profit sector represented a wide range of industries, including manufacturing (11), construction (6), transportation (5), retail trade (5), wholesale trade (1), information (7), professional, scientific and technical services (4), administrative and support services (1), public administration (1), health care (3), recreation industry (2), repair and maintenance (4), and rental and leasing services (2). The organizations of our sample were evenly distributed in terms of industry as compared to those in the database they were drawn from. We also checked how representative the profit sector sample of participating organizations was in terms of number of employees. No significant difference existed between the sample and the population of organizations in the database in terms of the average number of employees of firms (t = 0.837, p = 0.41). The CEOs in the voluntary sector represented a wide cross section of altruistically driven organizations, for example, organizations defending animal rights, supporting patients with asthma or kidney disease, campaigning for children’s rights, and so on. A minimum of

Leader Motives 16 40 and a maximum of 57000 volunteers were active in these organizations (with different levels of involvement); however, we only included voluntary organizations that were run by paid staff and focused only on the paid staff rather than the volunteers in our study. As stated, the mean number of paid employees in our sample of voluntary organizations was 52. The organizations in the sample as well as the population it is drawn from are very diverse in terms of the content of their activities and ideological goals. All CEOs were interviewed with regard to their role and functioning as a manager. These interviews were semi-structured, consisting of 13 starting questions to be elaborated on extensively in 45 to 60 minutes. The questions intended to elicit the executives' dominant concerns, beliefs, values, opinions, and their philosophy of management. Examples of questions are, “Would you briefly, taking about five to eight minutes, describe your career to date, beginning with your education and then when you first entered a management position,” “What are your major strengths with respect to your functioning as a CEO in your current position,” “What are your major weaknesses,” “Please describe your philosophy of management,” and “Please describe the most important organizational change that you plan to implement in the near future.” Parallel interview questions for owner versus appointed CEOs were used when appropriate. For example, appointed CEOs were asked: “When you assumed your present position was there a number of goals you expected or desired to achieve? CEO owners were asked: “When you started your business, what goals did you expect or desire to achieve?” All interviews were recorded with the CEO’s consent. The CEOs were not informed about the fact that the transcribed interviews would be coded for motive imagery. In addition, the CEOs were asked to distribute two different kinds of questionnaires to six key figures in the organization, all direct reports with whom they worked closely (all paid staff). Questionnaires were completed anonymously and returned directly to the researchers.

Leader Motives 17 Code numbers were included on surveys so that respondents could be correctly matched with their CEOs for subsequent data analyses. We received 262 subordinate surveys, a mean of almost 4 surveys per CEO (60% response rate). Per questionnaire we received a total number of 125 (at least one survey for 90% (profit) and 86% (voluntary) of the CEOs; a mean of 1.94 (profit) and 1.89 (voluntary) per CEO) and 137 valid surveys (at least one survey for 98% (profit) and 86% (voluntary) of the CEOs; a mean of 2 respectively 1.94 per CEO) respectively. Given the sensitivity of the questionnaires and the high hierarchical level of the participating managers, this response rate can be considered reasonable (see e.g., Finkelstein, 1992). Measures Motive and responsibility scores were obtained though coding the 73 CEO transcribed interviews using Winter’s (1991a; 1992b) coding methodology for motive imagery and the responsibility disposition. Following Winter’s instruction, only the meaning of the text was scored. The power motive is measured through images reflecting strong, forceful actions that impact others and reflecting control or regulation as well as images of attempting to influence or persuade and of giving help or support that is not explicitly solicited (Winter, 1991a). Thus, when in the interviews CEOs made statements such as: "I forced him to make a decision" or "I demand everybody to work hard; they do not get paid to do nothing" (quotes translated from the interviews), we coded this as power motivation. The responsibility disposition is indicated by images reflecting moral and legal standards of conduct, internal obligation, concern for others, concern about consequences and self-judgment (Winter, 1992b). Thus, when in the interviews a CEO stated for example: “One should always try and do the right thing, you know,” we coded this as responsibility disposition. The affiliation motive is measured via images such as expressing positive or friendly feeling towards others and expressing sadness about separation or disruption of a relationship.

Leader Motives 18 It is also indicated by images of engaging in warm, companionate activities or nurturing acts (Winter, 1991a). Hence, when a CEO stated for example: “I love to have a drink with my people after work,” we coded this as affiliation motivation. The achievement motive is indicated by images such as the positive evaluation of performance or goals, expression of a standard of excellence in outcomes, and unique accomplishments (Winter, 1991a). So, when the CEOs made statements such as: “My product is the best there is and I am going to make it even better,” we coded this as achievement motivation. Two trained coders demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (category agreement over .80) with expert scoring of practice materials (see Winter 1991a; 1992b). These coders then independently scored the interviews in arbitrary order for the power motive, responsibility disposition, affiliation motive and achievement motive. The motive and responsibility coding agreements initially ranged from .66 to .92. In a reconciliation meeting, the coders went over their coding decisions and reviewed Winter’s (1991a; 1992b) motive definitions, examples and expert coding text to agree upon the correct coding for the motive in question. To ensure that this procedure was correctly followed, samples of the reconciled coding data were reviewed by two of the authors. The reconciled data (final agreement = 1) on the motive and responsibility scores were used for subsequent data analysis. Because longer interviews provide the opportunity to contain more motive images, we corrected for the varying length of the interviews. In line with past motive studies (see e.g., Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; Schmitt and Winter, 1998) we divided the absolute motive and responsibility scores by the number of words of the interviews and multiplied it by a thousand. To construct the interaction term between the power motive and the responsibility disposition, we standardized both variables by subtracting their mean and then multiplied them.

Leader Motives 19 Survey data were collected to measure charismatic leadership and positive work attitude using two scales adapted from the Multi-Culture Leader Behavior Questionnaire (MCLQ; Hanges & Dickson, 2004; House et al., 2001). This questionnaire is designed to elicit respondents’ reports of behavior of leaders with whom they are familiar and reports of respondents’ own work attitude (House & Aditya, 1997). House and colleagues developed this questionnaire based on several other questionnaires in the field, most notably the MLQ (developed by Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990; see also Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). The charismatic leadership scale has items measuring leader self-confidence, strong ideological conviction, high expectations of followers, articulation of a vision and showing confidence in subordinates (cf. House, 1977). The specific items are: “Has a vision and imagination of the future,” “Emphasizes the importance of being committed to our values and beliefs,” “Foregoes self-interests and makes personal sacrifices in the interest of a goal or vision,” “Stimulates others to put forth efforts above and beyond the call of duty and make personal sacrifices,” “Displays conviction in his/her ideals, beliefs, and values,” “Shows a high degree of self-confidence,” “Sets high performance standards,” and “Has strong convictions about the correctness of his or her actions.” The items have a seven-point response scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The perceived charisma measure had an alpha coefficient of 0.79. In addition to perceived charismatic leadership, survey data were collected on subordinates’ positive work attitude, operationalized as their enthusiasm for and commitment to the organization and the work they do. We used nine items from the aforementioned MCLQ (Hanges & Dickson, 2004; House et al., 2001). Examples of work attitude items are, “I am optimistic about my future with this organization,” “I contribute to this organization 100% of my ability,” and “I am willing to make serious personal sacrifices to contribute to the

Leader Motives 20 success of this organization.” Responses were given on a seven-point response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The positive work attitude measure had an alpha coefficient of .81. As indicated, survey data were gathered using two questionnaires. Respondents who filled out questionnaire 1 responded to both the leadership and work attitude items. Respondents who filled out questionnaire 2 responded only to the positive work attitude items. These two sub-samples were created to be able to test for potential effects of common source variance (see e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Analyses To examine the justification for aggregating individual responses to characterize CEOs and their subordinates we calculated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC(2); Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). These coefficients are indices of inter-rater agreement and reflect the reliability of the average rating. ICC(2)’s for subordinate’s ratings of charismatic leadership and for positive work attitude were .40 and .62, respectively. These ICC(2) indices are significant and provide support for combining subordinates’ responses to provide averaged, aggregated scores for charismatic leadership and positive work attitude. Thus, averaged scores are used in further analyses. To examine the relationships between variables we used correlation analysis and we used regression analysis to investigate whether charismatic leadership explains variance in positive work attitude. To assess mediation, the three-step procedure as suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was employed. Moderated hierarchical regression analyses were used to investigate whether leader motives explained variance in charismatic leadership and to test the effects of the responsibility disposition and organizational type as moderator variables. Variables were centered around zero by subtracting their mean, in order to bring multicollinearity indexes within acceptable limits and aid interpretation (as suggested by

Leader Motives 21 Aiken & West, 1991). For regression analyses at the individual level more cases are normally required (depending on the number of variables used). Otherwise, the regression coefficients are too much dependent on accidental variations in the sample. However, aggregated scores are more reliable (see ICC[2]s of these variables) reducing the chance of random variations. Therefore, Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv and Sanders (1990) hold that multivariate analysis on aggregated variables allows for a lower number of cases. Results Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for each of the variables used in the present study. As the table indicates, low inter-correlations were found among the motives and the responsibility disposition. CEOs in the voluntary sector as compared to CEOs in the profit sector scored higher on responsibility disposition and affiliation motivation, and lower on achievement motivation. Overall, the CEO sores were lowest for the affiliation motive (.83) and highest for the achievement (6.98) and the power motive (8.5). Since CEOs were interviewed with regard to their role and functioning as a manager, these findings are in line with the idea that in such an interview a concern for establishing, maintaining, or restoring positive affective relationships with others will be less expressed than a concern for competition or a concern to influence others. Other motive studies in a managerial context find similarly differences in these mean scores (e.g., Kirkpatrick et al., 2002). -------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here -------------------------------To test the hypotheses on the relationships between leader motives and charismatic leadership we conducted moderated multiple regression analyses. First, we regressed charismatic leadership on type of organization and the leader motives variables. In the second

Leader Motives 22 step, the interaction predictor was added to the regression (see Table 2). In line with hypothesis 1, we found that the power motive was significantly positively related to charismatic leadership, ß = .30, p < .05, and the affiliation motive was marginally negatively related to charismatic leadership, ß = -.22, p < .10. Contrary to hypothesis 2, the second step of regression analysis showed no interaction effect for the power motive and the responsibility disposition in explaining charismatic leadership, ß = .02, p = .86. Further, no significant relationship was found between the achievement motive and charismatic leadership, ß = -.13, p = .31. Thus, hypothesis 3 was not supported. -------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here -------------------------------To determine whether charismatic leadership is positively related to subordinates’ positive work attitude, we performed regression analysis in which we controlled for type of organization. We found, consistent with hypothesis 4, that charismatic leadership was significantly related to positive work attitude, ß = .42, p < .01. Both charismatic leadership and subordinates’ work attitudes are assessed through questionnaires. The use of common source data may inflate estimates of the relationship, therefore we tested whether a difference existed between the correlation based on common source data compared to the correlation based on multi-source data (one group of respondents rated their CEO’s charismatic leader behavior and their own positive work attitude, a second group of respondents only rated their own positive work attitude, see method). No such difference was found for the relationship between charismatic leadership and subordinates’ work attitude, t = 1.12, p = .13, one-tailed. Following the procedure described by Baron and Kenny (1986), we examined the mediating role of charismatic leadership in the relationship between leader motives and

Leader Motives 23 positive work attitude. This procedure entails, (1) examining the effect of the predictors (i.e., leader motives, controlling for type of organization) on the mediator (i.e., charismatic leadership), (2) examining the effect of the predictors on the outcome (i.e., positive work attitude), and (3) examining the effect of the predictors on the outcome in the presence of the mediator. The first stage of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure is identical to the first and second step of regression analysis reported in Table 2. We found the power motive significantly and the affiliation motive marginally related to charismatic leadership. Performing the second stage (see Table 3), we found that the responsibility disposition was marginally related to positive work attitude when the effects of the other variables were controlled for, ß = .29, p < .10, and the model did not reach significance, R² = .08, F = 1.10, p = .37. Finally, we performed the third stage by regressing work attitude on leader motives and charismatic leadership (also reported in Table 3). We found that the power motive became a marginal negative predictor of subordinate work attitude in a regression model containing charismatic leadership, ß = -.24, p < .10. Thus, results do not support a mediating role of charismatic leadership when following the suggestions of Baron and Kenny (1986). The marginal findings with regard to the power motive only point in the direction of suppression of a negative relationship between the power motive and subordinates positive work attitude by charismatic leadership. In other words, if charismatic leadership is held constant, the power motive may lead to a somewhat less positive work attitude. -------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here -------------------------------To examine type of organization as a moderator of the relationship between

Leader Motives 24 charismatic leadership and the power motive in combination with the responsibility disposition, we conducted moderated multiple regression analyses. First, we regressed charismatic leadership on type of organization and the leader motives variables. In the second and third step, two-way interactions were added to the regression. In the fourth and final step, the proposed three-way interaction was added to the regression. Our sample size required that we included a subset of possible lower-order interactions. Table 2 presents the results of this analysis. Consistent with hypothesis 6, we found a significant three-way interaction for the power motive, the responsibility disposition and type of organization in explaining charismatic leadership, ß = .34, p < .05. The observed power to detect this interaction effect was .53. The nature of this interaction per type of organization is depicted in Figure 1. Leaders high on both power motivation and responsibility were rated more charismatic in voluntary organizations than in profit organizations. The reverse was true for leaders high on power and low on responsibility. These leaders were rated less charismatic in voluntary organizations than in profit organizations. However, with regard to Figure 1, we should note that the combination of a low power motivation and a low responsibility disposition rarely occurred in our data set, particularly for CEOs of voluntary organizations. Thus, the regression line for this latter combination of characteristics is based on few data points and should be interpreted with caution. -------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here -------------------------------Discussion The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships between leader motives, charismatic leadership and subordinates’ positive work attitude in two types of organizations (profit and voluntary). As expected, we found a positive relationship between

Leader Motives 25 the power motive and charismatic leader behavior. Previous research, focusing on U.S. presidents, also found significantly positive relationships between the power motive and charismatic leader behavior (House et al., 1991). The need for social influence has been proposed to be one of the elements that differentiate charismatic leaders from non-charismatic leaders (House & Howell, 1992). Our results provide additional evidence for the proposed importance of the power motive in relation to charismatic leadership, and show this relationship also holds in the organizational context. As expected, we found that the affiliation motive was negatively related to charismatic leader behavior, though this relationship was marginal. Previous research also found a negative but non-significant relationship between the affiliation motive and charismatic leadership (House et al., 1991). Perhaps, the negative relationship between the affiliation motive and charismatic leadership in part depends on the context. For example, in a stable context a high affiliation motive may be far less negative for charismatic leaders than in a more turbulent context. As compared to turbulent context, in stable circumstances, charismatic leaders may be less pressed to take forceful, swift actions and make tough decisions with difficult consequences for others around them, requiring a low affiliation motivation. In such circumstances, high affiliation motivation may even help leaders as they are more prone to try to understand and attend to individual needs of followers. The findings of Thomas, Dickson and Bliese (2001) may, however, also be relevant here. They found the affiliation motive positively related to leadership success via the mediation of extraversion in an assessment center setting. They interpret their results by arguing that a high affiliation motive might be beneficial for initial leadership success. Over the long term, however, effective leaders may be those that make and implement decisions that require a low affiliation motivation. Future research, using longitudinal data, is therefore warranted to further study the relationship between the affiliation motive and charismatic

Leader Motives 26 leadership as well as search for possible moderators. Support was found for the suggestion that the relevance of a particular motive may depend on the orientation of the organization being lead (as proposed by House et al., 2001). Leaders high on power motivation and responsibility were rated somewhat more charismatic in voluntary organizations than in profit organizations. The reverse was true for leaders high on power and low on responsibility: they were rated less charismatic in voluntary and more charismatic in profit organizations. Ideology is central to voluntary organizations. Leaders who are high on power motivation and have a high concern for responsibility seem to fit this context well. Engaging in morally responsible action, emphasizing ideological values, and behaving in ways that reinforce the values inherent in the mission seem especially important for the attribution of charisma to leaders in this ideologically driven context. In contrast, using power for purely personal goals runs counter to the altruistic values inherent in the mission of voluntary organizations. As noted before, it also goes against the importance these organizations tend to place on membership control over collective affairs (Knoke & Prensky, 1984; Wilderom & Miner, 1991). Thus, we expected and found special relevance of the tendency to use power in a responsible way for charismatic leaders of voluntary organizations. Contrary to expectations and results of previous research on U.S. presidents (House et al., 1991), no relationship was found between the achievement motive and charisma. Our findings are, however, in line with previous research on the Big five construct of conscientiousness (of which achievement is a major facet) and charismatic leadership for managers in organizations (e.g., Judge & Bono, 2000). When taken together, it appears that a high achievement motivation may be as much a liability as an asset for managers in organizations. In line with expectations, we found that charismatic leadership was strongly positively

Leader Motives 27 related to subordinates’ positive work attitude. The magnitude of the relationship found between charismatic leadership and subordinates’ positive work attitude is in line with relationships found in previous studies (e.g., Fuller et al., 1996; Lowe et al., 1996). Thus, our results provide further evidence for the proposition that charismatic leadership is positively related to subordinate morale (House, 1996; Shamir et al., 1993). No direct relationships were found between leader motives and subordinates’ work attitudes. We did find some indication that when charismatic leadership was held constant, higher levels of power motivation were related to lower levels of subordinates’ positive work attitude, although the effect size was small. This may be in line with the idea that a high power motivation in itself does not differentiate between leaders using their power in a prosocial way and leaders using their power to the detriment of others (Winter, 1988). These latter leaders may cause dissatisfaction with their subordinates. A fruitful road for future research would be to further examine the link between leader motives and subordinates outcomes and, for example, collect data on participants’ justice perceptions as well as their feelings towards moral responsibility. The relationship between leader motives and participants’ feelings towards moral responsibility may be somewhat more direct than that between leader motives and subordinates’ positive work attitude. Mapping such variables may also result in an improved understanding of the influence processes through which charismatic leadership achieves its positive effects. For example, participants’ feelings towards moral responsibility may affect the relationship between tendency to use power in a morally responsible way and the perception of charismatic leadership. Study Limitations Besides strengths such as its multi-method nature, the current study also has several limitations. First, the rather low participation rate in the profit sub-sample of our study might limit the generalizability of the findings. Our check for selective participation did, however,

Leader Motives 28 not reveal any significant differences between the sample and the database population it was drawn from in terms of number of employees and sector. Given the sensitivity of the topic and the high hierarchical level of the participating managers, low participation and response rates are not uncommon in samples like these (e.g., Finkelstein, 1992). Second, the CEOs themselves selected the subordinates who would act as respondents for the survey. Although this procedure is used often in this type of study, it has the potential drawback that such self-selection of raters may result in positive bias. The CEOs were, however, instructed to distribute questionnaires to direct reports with whom they work closely. The CEOs in this study led small and medium-sized organizations and many indicated that they had difficulty selecting six subordinates who met this criterion. In addition, subordinates were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and they were informed that individual responses would not be seen by anyone from their organization. Thus, we expect the possible positive bias to be limited. Third, one might suggest that we measured how leaders described they would use their power in responsible ways, rather than measuring leaders’ personal dispositions concerning how they use their power. However, CEOs were not aware of the fact that the transcribed interviews would be coded for motive imagery and we specifically did not ask any questions about self-attributed motives or direct questions such as “In which way do you use your power?” Rather, we asked them more general questions, for instance, to describe the history of the firm, their vision for the company, and so on. Following Winter’s (1991a; 1992b) coding methodology for motive imagery only the meaning of the text of the interviews was scored. Therefore, it seems reasonable to infer that the obtained motive scores reflect the CEO’s implicit motives. Fourth, although motives were assessed through coding interviews, charismatic leadership and positive work attitude were assessed through questionnaires. The use of

Leader Motives 29 common source data on charismatic leadership and subordinates’ positive work attitude may lead to inflated estimates of the relationship between these two variables (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2003). Indeed, previous research examining charismatic leadership and performance outcomes using common-source designs exhibited significantly higher correlations than research using multi-source designs (e.g., De Groot et al., 2000; Lowe et al., 1996). Inflationary bias in this study is, however, likely to be more limited than in some previous studies because the logical distance between perceived leader behavior and subordinates’ positive work attitude is somewhat larger than that between perceived leader behavior and the criterion measures used in many of the earlier studies, such as subordinates’ satisfaction with the leader or their perceptions of leader effectiveness. As the distance between charismatic leadership and perceptual outcome measures increases, common source bias decreases (De Hoogh et al., in press). In the current study, only about half the data regarding the relationship between charismatic leadership and subordinates’ work attitude is based on a common source design. The other half is based on a multi-source design and is therefore not susceptible to common source bias. No significant difference was found between the correlation based on common source data and the one based on multi-source data. This suggests that such bias did not play a major role. A final comment should be made about the sample sizes in this study. Although our total sample size (N = 73) is substantially larger than typical sample sizes of previous studies using the motive coding methodology (e.g., Cornelius & Lane, 1984, N = 39; Spangler & House, 1991, N = 39; Winter, 1987, N = 34) and our sub-sample sizes (n = 52 and n = 21) are as large or larger than a previous study done by Cornelius and Lane (1984) under two levels of management personnel (n = 21, n = 18), the available samples are still relatively small. These small sample sizes are due to the amount of work involved in gaining access, and conducting, transcribing and coding the interviews, which is considerable. Thus, the three-

Leader Motives 30 way interaction effect we found needs to be replicated in future research, with larger samples, to test its robustness. A power analysis indicated that, in our study, we had only a 53% probability of detecting the three-way interaction effect with our sample. Cohen (1962) recommended a power of .80 or greater as criterion for adequate sensitivity. Using data from a larger number of CEOs will permit more powerful hypothesis tests and control for other variables which may covary with organization type, such as organizational size. Nevertheless, a strong advantage of our study is that we investigated the explanatory power of leader motives for perceived leader behavior and subordinate attitudes using independent methods in two different contexts. Our findings regarding the relationship between motives and leader behavior and between motives and subordinate attitudes therefore do not suffer from common source or common method bias and due to the small sample sizes results are likely to be conservatively biased rather than attenuated. In Conclusion Leader motives seem interesting to study further, using different methodologies. Although this area of research is at an early stage, some potential practical implications may flow from the findings of this study. In line with previous studies, results suggest that leaders’ personal dispositions may be important predictors of how they are perceived and their subsequent effects on subordinates. However, taken together with the previous study by House et al. (1991), the results of this study suggest that it is important to also consider the match between leader characteristics and specific leader role demands. In our study, we found special relevance of the tendency to use power in a responsible way for charismatic leaders of voluntary organizations. Also, whereas we did not find a negative relationship between achievement motivation and perceptions of charismatic leadership in organizations (in line with research by Judge &

Leader Motives 31 Bono, 2000), House and colleagues did find this relationship in the context of political leadership. Above, we also discussed a possible contextual moderator of the relationship between affiliation motivation and charismatic leadership. Thus, the relevance of a particular motive for perceptions of charismatic leadership as well as leader success may in part depend on the context, which has implications for leader selection and development. Future research is needed on the contingent nature of leader motives as they relate to leader behavior and outcomes as well as how these relationships change over time in different stages of leaders’ careers, where possible also considering the use of larger sub-samples of leaders in different contexts to increase power of statistical analyses. Such research in time can provide more concrete advice for the integration of organizational demands of leader functions into personnel selection and leadership development programs. Potential future research also includes cross-cultural studies on leadership and motives. An interesting question is whether the relationships we find in the Netherlands also hold in other cultures. The Netherlands, in most respects, fits the Western European cultural profile well (House et al., 2004). This suggests that the findings for this Dutch sample will likely generalize beyond the Netherlands. However, cultural power distance is low in the Netherlands compared to many other regions in the world (Hofstede, 2001). Power distance may, for instance, affect the role and expression of the power motive. Thus, future research, for example, in the on-going GLOBE study is needed to shed more light on potential culture differences in the relationship between leader motives and behaviors. Our study also illustrates that the use of alternative research methods, such as coding of motives, can enrich the data gathered in more traditional survey studies. It can provide a means to triangulate the self-report data most often used in leadership research. The unobtrusiveness of the coding methodology makes it also difficult for the participant to know what is being measured. The method is therefore not subjective to the same social desirability

Leader Motives 32 effects as more direct measurement approaches (McClelland, 1985b). Moreover, coding motives, dispositions or behaviors also offers an interesting method to study the leadership of individuals who are not easily accessible or who are no longer alive, as long as appropriate documents exist.

Leader Motives 33 References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295. Atkinson, J. W. (Ed.). (1958). Motives in fantasy, action and society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478. Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145-153. Cornelius, E. T., & Lane, F. B. (1984). The power motive and managerial success in a professionally oriented service industry organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 32-39. Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The

Leader Motives 34 impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75. De Groot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356-371. De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., Van den Berg, P. T., Van der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (in press). Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. Kepir-Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (Vol. 2). London: Sage. Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 505-538. Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271-287. Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the Globe culture and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heyns, R. W., Veroff, J., & Atkinson, J. W. (1958). A scoring manual for the affiliation motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society (pp. 205-218). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational

Leader Motives 35 cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J. (1996). Path-Goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473. House, R. J., Delbecq, A., Taris, T., & Sully de Luque, M. (2001). Charismatic theory of leadership: An empirical test of CEO's. Manuscript in preparation. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-businessunit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902. Jacobsen, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 75-112. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of personality and transformational

Leader Motives 36 leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765. Kirkpatrick, S. A., Wofford, J. C., & Baum, J. R. (2002). Measuring motive imagery contained in the vision statement. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 139-150. Knoke, D., & Prensky, D. (1984). What relevance do organization theories have for volunatry organizations? Social Science Quarterly, 65, 3-20. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425. McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington. McClelland, D. C. (1985a). How do motives, skills and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825. McClelland, D. C. (1985b). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. McClelland, D. C., & Atkinson, J. W. (1976). The achievement motive. New York: Irvington. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1958). A scoring manual for the achievement motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society (pp.179-204). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 54, 100-110, 159-166. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 81, 117-123. McClelland, D. C., Davis, W. N., Kalin, R., & Wanner, E. (1972). The drinking man. New York: Free Press. McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and

Leader Motives 37 implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690-702. Miner, J. B. (2000). Testing a psychological typology of entrepreneurship using business founders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 36, 43-70. Murray, H. A. (Ed.). (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B., & Chan, K. (2001). Exploring relations between typical and maximum performance ratings and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Personnel Psychology, 54, 809-843. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. K., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 1078-1086. Schmitt, D. P., & Winter, D. G. (1998). Measuring the motives of Soviet leadership and Soviet society: Congruence reflected or congruence created? The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 293-308. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-454. Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462-470. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational aspects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept theory. Organizational Science, 4, 1-17.

Leader Motives 38 Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257-283. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428. Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140-154. Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 439-455. Thomas, J. L., Dickson, M. W., & Bliese, P. D. (2001). Values predicting leader performance in the U.S. army reserve officer training corps assessment center: Evidence for a personality-mediated model. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 181-196. Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184-193. Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leader attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143. Wilderom, C. P. M., & Miner, J. B. (1991). Defining voluntary groups and agencies within organizational science. Organization Science, 2, 366-377. Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press. Winter, D. G. (1978). Navy leadership and management competencies: Convergence among tests, interviews, and performance ratings. Boston: McBer and Company. Winter, D.G. (1980). An exploratory study of the motives of Southern African political leaders measured at a distance. Political Psychology, 2, 75-85. Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders

Leader Motives 39 and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 196-202. Winter, D. G. (1988). The power motive in women and men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 510-519. Winter, D. G. (1991a). Manual for scoring motive imagery in running text. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan USA. Winter, D. G. (1991b). A motivational model of leadership: Predicting long-term management success from TAT measures of power motivation and responsibility. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 67-80. Winter, D. G. (1992a). A revised scoring system for the power motive. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 311-324). Cambridge: University Press. Winter, D. G. (1992b). Scoring system for responsibility. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 506-511). Cambridge: University Press. Winter, D. G., & Barenbaum, B. B. (1985). Responsibility and the power motive in women and men. Journal of Personality, 53, 335-355.

Leader Motives 40 Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables Variables

1

2

3

4

M

SD

1. Power

8.50

1.81

2. Responsibility

4.46

1.60

.14

3. Affiliation

.83

.69

-.01

.20†

4. Achievement

6.98

1.75

.17

-.09

-.10

5. Power x Responsibility

.14

.95

-.12

-.18

-.04

-.20†

*

5

6

6. Charismatic leadership

5.23

.74

.28

.09

-.18

-.09

.02

7. Positive work attitude

5.17

.75

-.10

.13

-.10

.00

-.05

.42**

.29

-

-.02

.55**

.32**

-.28*

-.08

-.01

a

8. Organization

Note. Because of missing cases for some variables, the sample size for correlations ranges from 65 to 73. a

Type of organization: 1 = voluntary, 0 = profit.

† p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

7

-.08

Leader Motives 41 Table 2 Results of moderated regression analyses for motive variables explaining charismatic leadership Charismatic leadership Variable a

Organization

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

-.01

-.01

.05

-.03

*

*

*

Power

.30

.29

.29

.08

Affiliation

-.22†

-.22†

-.23†

-.33*

Responsibility

.08

.08

.10

.11

Achievement

-.13

-.12

-.13

-.16

.02

.02

-.06

Power x Organization

.00

-.20

Responsibility x Organization

-.12

-.03

Power x Responsibility

.34*

Power x Responsibility x Organization



.14†

.14

.15

.21

∆ R²

.14†

.00

.01

.06*

∆F

1.92†

.03

.34

4.32*

Note. n = 65. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. a

Type of organization: 1 = voluntary, -1 = profit.

† p < .10. * p < .05.

Leader Motives 42 Table 3 Results of mediation analysis explaining positive work attitude Positive work attitude Variable

Step 1

Step 2

Organization

-.23

-.23

Power Affiliation

-.15 0 -.09

-.15 0 -.09

Responsibility

.29†

.28†

Achievement

-.02

-.03

n = 70 a

Power x Responsibility

-.05



.08

.08

∆ R²

.08

.00

∆F

1.10

.15

-.21

-.21

**

.49

.50**

Power

-.24†

-.25*

Affiliation

-.02

-.03

Responsibility

.22

.19

Achievement

.06

.04

n = 65 a

Organization

Mediator: Charismatic leadership

Power x Responsibility

-.13



.27**

.29**

∆ R²

.27**

.01

∆F

3.65**

1.03

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. a

Type of organization: 1 = voluntary, -1 = profit.

† p < .10. * p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Leader Motives 43

Charismatic leadership

Profit organizations 1

0

-1 -1

0

1

Power High responsibility

Low responsibility

Voluntary organizations Charismatic leadership

1

0

-1 -1

0

1

Power High responsibility

Low responsibility

Figure 1. Charismatic leadership as a function of the power motive and the responsibility disposition (+1 and –1 standard deviations from the mean) for profit (n = 47) and voluntary (n = 18) organizations.

Suggest Documents