A large amount of empirical research on effective leadership has sought to identify the types of behaviors that enhance individual and collective performance. The most common research method has been a survey field study with a behavior description questionnaire.
In the past half-century, hundreds f survey studies have examined the correlation between leadership behavior and various indicators of leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1 990; Yuk, 2002). Other methods (e. G. , laboratory experiments, field experiments, critical incidents) have been used much less frequently to identify effective types of leadership behavior. Relevant and meaningful for leaders. It is very difficult to compare and integrate the results from studies that use different sets of behavioral There has been bewildering categories. Realization of taxonomies on leadership behavior Sometimes (see Bass, 1 990; Yuk, 2002). Efferent terms have been used to refer to the same type of behavior. At other times, the same term has been defined differently by various theorists. What is treated as a general behavior category by one theorist is viewed as two or three distinct categories by another theorist? What is a key concept in one taxonomy is absent from another. Different taxonomies have emerged from different research disciplines, and it is difficult to translate from one set of concepts to another.
Task And Relations Behavior The early leadership research emphasized two general, broadly-defined behavior categories that are best described as relations-oriented behavior and task-oriented behavior. Examples include consideration and initiating structure (Fleischman, 1953; Helping & Winner, 1957) in early research on leader behavior, and concern for people and concern for production in the managerial grid model (Blake & Mouton, 1982). For three decades, research on leader behavior was dominated by a focus on these two broadly defined categories of behavior.
Many studies were conducted to see how measures of 16 consideration and initiating structure were correlated with criteria of dervish effectiveness, such as subordinate satisfaction and performance. A meta-analysis of this survey research found that both behaviors have a positive but weak correlation with subordinate performance (Fisher & Edwards, 1988). Subsequent research on specific types of task and relations behavior found correlations with unit performance that were sometimes stronger but still not consistent across situations (Yuk, 2002).
Importance Of Leading Change In their preoccupation with task and relations behaviors, the early scholars mostly ignored change-oriented leadership. Only gently have researchers become interested in the way leaders initiate and implement change in organizations. It is important to clarify the distinction between task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and change-oriented behaviors, because all three types of behaviors may be relevant for understanding effective leadership in different situations.
The importance of leading change is suggested by some organizational theories (e. G. , Miller & Fries, 1984; Dustman & Romancers, 1985), but they do not describe the specific types of change behaviors that are required. Theories of transformational and charismatic leadership (e. . , Bass, 1985; Conger & Kananga, 1998; House, Arthur, 1993) include some change-oriented behaviors, and there is growing evidence that these behaviors are related to the effectiveness of leaders (e. G. , Lowe, Crock, & Submariner’s, 1996).
However, the high level of confounding among specific transformational 1977; Shaman, House, & behaviors makes it difficult to determine which ones are most important in a particular situation (Yuk, 1999). Evidence For The Three Interrogatories The prior theories of leadership do not make a clear distinction among task, relations, and change behavior. The first evidence that chickenhearted leadership is a distinct type of behavior comes from two studies conducted during the sass.
In the first study, Coeval and Earphone (1991) developed a behaves description with items from earlier questionnaire questionnaires such as the LBS. (Fleischman, 1953; Stodgily, Goode, & Day, 1962) and some aspects of change-oriented The 36-item questionnaire was administered to subordinates who described 346 Swedish managers, 229 Finnish managers, and 123 American managers. Most of the leaders described were middle-level managers in private companies. There was strong support for a, therefore, elution in each national sample, and the factors were labeled production-centered, employee-centered, and change centered.
The latter factor included promoting change and growth, providing creative solutions, encouraging creative thinking by others, experimenting with new ways of doing things, making risky decisions when necessary, and planning for the future. Scales were formed using the best items from the factor analysis. Change-oriented behavior correlated the strongest with subordinate ratings of the manager’s competence, whereas moneylender’s behavior correlated highest with subordinate distraction with the manager.
In the second study, Yuk (1998) administered leader behavior questionnaires to 318 direct reports of managers in charge of 48 organizational units (division, agency, district office, plant) of varying size from 15 private and public sector organizations. Most of the managers occupied middle or upper-level management positions. The leader behavior questionnaire included representative items from the Managerial Practices Survey (MSP), an instrument used for multi-source feedback workshops (Yuk, Wall, & Lifelines, 1990).
The questionnaire also included some items adapted from the MIL Bass & Viola, 1990). Some new items were written to describe aspects of change-oriented behavior not represented in these earlier questionnaires. Exploratory factor analysis produced a clear factor structure for task-oriented behavior, relationship-oriented behavior, and change-oriented behavior. The latter factor included identifying external threats and opportunities, envisioning new possibilities, proposing innovative strategies, and encouraging innovative thinking by followers. Were to Scales created to measure each meteorology.
The scale scores for task, relations, and change behavior were all correlated significantly with subordinate satisfaction with the leader and organizational commitment. These two studies made a good start at identifying a distinct category of change-oriented leadership and showing that it is relevant for new items leadership. 17 leadership effectiveness. One limitation of both studies was the failure to identify distinct component behaviors for each meteorology. A half-century of research on leadership behavior has taught us the dangers of relying exclusively on behavior constructs that are very broad and abstract (Yuk, 1998).
The specific behaviors provide a much better basis for developing contingency theories of dervish effectiveness (Yuk, 2002). A hierarchical taxonomy provides a way to reconcile the three-factor solution with the many specific behaviors already found relevant for effective leadership in several types of research. Research Objectives This paper describes a hierarchical taxonomy and research conducted to verify it. The purpose of the research was to evaluate whether the three interrogatories provide a basis for developing an integrative taxonomy of leadership behavior. Insulting with subordinates about ways to apply new technology to make major improvements in productivity. Several criteria were used in selecting the specific behavior components to include in the proposed hierarchical taxonomy. First, each behavior must be directly observable. It cannot be defamed only in terms of attributions or outcomes. Second, each behavior must be potentially applicable to all types of leaders in organizations. Third, each behavior must have primary relevance for one meteorology, even though it could have secondary relevance for the other interrogatories.
Fourth, each behavior must be grounded in prior theory and research on effective leadership. Prior measures of leadership behavior that provide evidence for the construct validity of the component behaviors include the following: such when THE HIERARCHICAL TAXONOMY The theoretical basis for the distinction among the three interrogatories is the primary objective of the behavior. The primary objectives of task behavior include high efficiency in the use of resources and personnel, and high reliability of operations, products, and services.
The primary objectives of relations behavior include strong commitment to the unit and its mission, and a high level of mutual trust and cooperation among The primary objectives of change embers. Behavior include major innovative improvements (in processes, products, or services), and C-K Scale: Conger-Kananga Leadership Scale (Conger & Kananga, 1998) LBS.-12: Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Stodgily, Goode, & Day, 1962) LOS: Leader Observation Scale (Lutheran & Lockwood, 1984) adaptation to external changes.
Because leaders behavior may have multiple objectives, it is more accurately described in terms of three independent dimensions than in terms of three mutually exclusive behavior categories. For example, providing recognition for significant contributions to the unit reflects primary concern for the person but also a secondary concern for the mission.
Sometimes a leadership behavior involves all three objectives, Leadership Practices Inventory (Souses 1995) MBPS: Managerial Behavior Survey (Yuk & Numerous, 1979) MSP: Managerial Practice Survey (Yuk, Wall, & Lifelines, 1990) MIL: Multiracial Leadership Inventory & Cherishes, 1998) (Castro MIL: Multiracial Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Viola, 1 990) SMS: Survey of Management Practices (Wilson, O’Hare & Shipper, 1990) TTL: Transformational Leadership Inventory (Foodstuff, MacKenzie, Norman, & Fetter, 1990) LIP: Poser, The proposed behaviors in each meteorology shown in Table 1 .
A description of each component’s behavior and the prior evidence for it are described next. Are 18 Table 1. Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leader Behavior. Table 2. Similar Task Behaviors in Earlier Measures. TASK BEHAVIORS Specific task behaviors include: (1) shortchanging, (2) clarifying responsibilities and performance objectives, (3) monitoring operations and performance. Similar leadership behaviors in term earlier measures indicated in Table 2. Is difficult to observe.
Nevertheless, there are some observable aspects such s writing plans, preparing written budgets, developing written schedules, and meeting with others to determine how to accomplish a task. Planning is most observable when a manager takes action to implement plans, a process that often involves clarifying responsibilities and objectives (Yuk, Short-Term Planning Planning means deciding what to do, how to 2002). A number of empirical studies have identified behavior similar to short-term planning (see Table 2).
Evidence that planning is relevant for effective leadership is provided by research on a do it, who will do it, and when it will be done. Because planning is largely a cognitive activity that seldom occurs as a single discrete episode, it 19 managerial competencies (e. G. , Boats, 1982). Several survey studies have found a positive correlation between planning and an independent criterion of managerial effectiveness (e. G. , Carroll & Gillie, 1987; Kim & Yuk, 1995; Morse & Wagner, 1978; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yuk, Wall, & Lifelines, 1990).
Clarifying Responsibilities Clarifying is the communication of plans, policies, and role expectations. The purpose of clarifying behavior is to guide and coordinate ark activity and make sure people know what to do and how to do it. Clarifying includes setting specific task objectives, and these objectives direct effort toward the performance of important duties and responsibilities, encourage a search for efficient ways to do the work, and facilitate the evaluation of performance by providing a benchmark against which to compare it.
Clarifying is a core component of initiating structure. It is also the primary component of instrumental (directive) behavior in the path- goal theory of leadership (House & Mitchell, 1974). Although research on the uniqueness of using initiating structure was inconclusive (Fisher & Monitoring Operations and Performance Monitoring involves gathering information about the operations of the manager’s organizational unit, including the progress of the work, the performance of individual subordinates, the quality of products or services, and the success of projects or programs.
Monitoring can take many forms, including observation of work operations, reading written reports, watching computer screen displays of performance data, inspecting the quality of samples of the work, and holding progress review meetings with n individual or group. Evidence that monitoring is a distinct and meaningful behavior is provided by research using observation of managers (Lutheran & Lockwood, 1984; Mentoring, 1 973) and by studies involving factor analysis of behavior description questionnaires (e. G. , Bass & Viola, 1990; Yuk et al. , 1990).
Monitoring indirectly focuses attention on aspects of performance that are measured and it facilitates the effective Edwards, 1 988; Foodstuff, MacKenzie, Ahem, & Boomer, 1995; Woofed & Lisa, 1993), research on A positive clarifying has found stronger results. Relationship between clarifying and was f other behaviors such recognizing clarifying. Two observational studies found that leaders who did more monitoring were more effective (Kombi, 1986; Kombi, Deselect, & Bowman, 1989). In the survey studies, monitoring was related to leader effectiveness for some samples but not others (Kim & Yuk, 1995; Yuk, Wall, & Lifelines, use 1990).
RELATIONS BEHAVIORS managerial effectiveness studies, although not for There is found in several all situations (Bauer Green, 1998; Kim & Yuk, 1995; Yuk & Van Fleet, 1982; Yuk, Wall, & Lifelines, ample evidence from lab and field experiments as well as survey studies that eating specific, challenging goals results in higher performance as long as the goals are accepted (see Locke & Lethal, 1990). Specific relations behaviors include: (1) supporting, (2) developing, (3) recognizing, (4) Similar consulting, and (5) empowering. Behaviors in earlier measures are leadership indicated in Table 3. 20 J Table 3. Similar Relations Behaviors in Earlier Measures. Defined as showing and concern for the consideration, acceptance, needs and feelings of other people. Supporting is the core component of consideration (Fleischman, 1953; Stodgily, Goode, & Day, 1962) and Supporting Supporting supportive leadership (Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Mitchell, 1974). Supporting is also a component of individualized consideration, as defined by Bass and Viola (1990) and Foodstuff et al. (1990).
Studies involving factor analysis of behavior description questionnaires indicate that House & supporting is a distinct and meaningful aspect of leadership behavior (see Table 3). Supportive leadership helps to build and maintain effective interpersonal relationships. There is strong evidence that supporting is related to follower satisfaction with the leader (Bass, 1990; Yuk, 1998). However, only a weak, inconsistent relationship has been found between supporting and follower performance (e. G. , Asher Lifelines, 1990). Supporting is more likely to be effective when combined with other relevant leadership behaviors. & Edwards, 1988; Kim & yuk, 1995; yuk, wall, 21 Developing The core component of developing is include showing someone a better way to do a task, asking questions that help someone learn how to perform a task better, helping someone learn from a mistake, and explaining how to solve a complex problem rather than just providing the solution. Developing also includes providing opportunities to develop skills and confidence (e. G. , special assignments, challenging new responsibilities) and facilitating skill learning (making it easier for subordinates to attend courses or workshops).